This PDF edition of “The

Only True God” is

released to the public
subject to the copypright
conditions outlined in this
book. The print edition of
this book may be
purchased from
Amazon.com.

The
Only
True
God
A Study of Biblical
Monotheism

Eric H.H. Chang

 PDF Edition of “The Only True God”

T
his book by Eric H.H. Chang, originally published as a print book
(Xlibris, 2009, ISBN 978-1-4363-8947-1), is now released as a free
PDF e-book. Although it is free, the e-book is still under copy-
right, and is not in the public domain. It may not be redistributed except
under the following conditions: (i) no fee is charged; (ii) the PDF file is
not modified in any way from its original form as issued by Christian
Disciples Church.
To download the latest official copy, please visit http://christiandc.org
or http://christiandiscipleschurch.org. (At this web site you will find
other Bible resources.) This book may not be translated without our writ-
ten consent; please contact us through our web site if you wish to inquire
about translating the book.
This PDF file contains the same text as the original print book, with
some minor changes: (i) new font and formatting; (ii) typing errors have
been corrected; (iii) PDF bookmarks have been added; (iv) page numbers
have been unified into a straightforward sequence from 1 to 675, with no
distinction between logical and physical pages.
To read the online testimony of the author, please visit our web site.
The print edition of this e-book is available from Amazon.com and its
international sites.
This book is released to the public with the same desire that Eric
Chang had always had, for the glory of God and the edification of His
people in Jesus Christ.

Christian Disciples Church

November 2013
 Announcement of New Book

DISCOVER AFRESH THE

BIBLICAL JESUS!

Jesus Christ embodies God’s

glory and fullness. More than
that, he is the only perfect
man who has ever lived. But
whereas his perfection is
often taken for granted and
regarded as a given, on the
contrary it is a most stupend-
ous achievement unparalleled
in salvation history, for it was
as a true man and not the
trinitarian “God-man” that
Jesus became perfect through
suffering, obedience, and
God’s indwelling. He was
consequently exalted to God’s
right hand as His supreme
plenipotentiary, and given all authority in heaven and on earth. Hence
the subtitle of the book, “The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ”
(2Cor.4:6). This book is exegetical yet also devotional and inspirational.

ALSO DISCUSSED: Yahweh the only true God  The historical roots of
trinitarianism  Jesus of the Bible versus Jesus of trinitarianism  The four
pillars of trinitarianism (John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Revelation 1)  Jesus
as the “form of God” in Philippians 2  The name above all names given to
Jesus  Jesus’ perfection as a model and inspiration to God’s people  God’s
glory manifested in Jesus Christ, the perfect image of God.

For more information on this book, please visit

http://christiandc.org or http://christiandiscipleschurch.org
The Only True
God

A Study of Biblical
Monotheism

Eric H.H. Chang

The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism
Eric H.H. Chang
Copyright © 2009, 2013
Eric H.H. Chang and Helen Chang

Edition 1.0 is the original 2009 print edition published by Xlibris

Edition 1.1 is the PDF e-book of November 2013

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008911119

ISBN: Hardcover 978-1-4363-8947-1
ISBN: Softcover 978-1-4363-8947-1
This book was printed in the United States of America
Cover design by Chris Chan

Copyright Notice for Edition 1.0

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Copyright Notice for Edition 1.1

All rights reserved. This PDF e-book may not be modified or altered in
any way from its original form as released by Christian Disciples Church.
The PDF file may not be redistributed except under the following
conditions: (i) no fee is charged; (ii) the PDF file is in its original form.
This e-book may not be translated without written permission from
Christian Disciples Church.

To download a proper official copy of this e-book, please visit

http://christiandc.org or http://christiandiscipleschurch.org.

Photograph next page: Lake Memphremagog, Quebec, Canada

 DEDICATION

To the eternal King, immortal, invisible,

the only God, be honor and glory
forever and ever. (1Timothy 1.17)
 Acknowledgements

I
wish to acknowledge with deep appreciation and gratitude the
abundance of encouragement I have received, directly or indirectly,
from the few hundred coworkers in our churches worldwide.
Though they were initially surprised and even astonished when I first
began to expound the Scriptures in the light of Biblical monotheism, they
remained open-minded and supportive as well as being firmly deter-
mined to get to the truth as revealed in the Scriptures. Such open-
mindedness and what might be described as “open-heartedness” is most
certainly not something to be taken for granted, especially in the case of
those who were nurtured from the beginning in trinitarianism (as I was).
What I mean by “open-heartedness” is that I saw in them not only open-
mindedness in the sense of being mentally or intellectually open but,
beyond that, a deeper spiritual openness to God’s word and, above all, to
the living God Himself. There seems to me to be no adequate explanation
for this exceptional attitude other than that the grace of the one true God
abounds towards them and fills them with a supernal love for Himself
and His truth.
My heartfelt thanks are due also to Pastor Bentley Chan. He is a
notable example of those to whom I refer above. He, moreover, already
gave himself unsparingly to all the labor involved in the publication of
my earlier book Becoming a New Person. Now, beyond all this, I once
again have the privilege of his skilled and competent participation in get-
ting this book to the publishers. He graciously accepted the arduous work
of, among other things, proofreading, formatting, making helpful
suggestions, and compiling the Scripture Index. Who can fully reward
him but the Lord Himself?
At my request, two of my coworkers, Agnes S.L. Lim and Lee Sen
Siou, graciously undertook the arduous task of examining every occur-
rence of “Memra” (“Word”) in the Aramaic Targums of the Pentateuch
(“the five books of Moses” as they are often called). Aramaic was the
language spoken in the Holy Land in the time of Jesus and the early
church. It is, therefore, important to know how the people at that time
understood “the Word,” so as better to understand “the Word” in John
1.1,14, verses so crucial to our present study. But because Agnes and Lee
Sen’s work is too large to include in its entirety in this book, only Genesis
and Exodus could be included; even then the original Aramaic texts had
to be left out. Their work appears in Appendix 12 of this book, and for
their labors I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation. Pastor Bentley
contributed the lucid and informative introduction to this Appendix.
It would also be remiss of me to fail to record my thanks and
appreciation for my wife’s steadfast prayer support day in and day out. I
suppose that only in eternity will it be possible to know how much I owe
to her unceasing intercession. Her support was, of course, also given
unstintingly on the level of daily household life, such as that of preparing
the meals. When called to the dining table, I often only managed to get
there when the food had gone cold because of trying to finish some work
on a section of the manuscript; yet on no occasion did she express any
annoyance at having to reheat the food. I give thanks for His grace
manifested in her life to His glory.
Finally, the whole process of writing this book has been, from begin-
ning to end, a remarkable experience of the living God. Day after day,
after having been granted a sound sleep, immediately upon awakening
(sometimes it began when I was not yet fully awake), I would be given
what I might describe as “a stream of thoughts” about what I was to write
about that day; I would then spend much of the rest of the day putting it
into writing. This did not happen every day, but I think it is true to say
that it happened 50% or more of the time during the approximately one
year of writing. Besides this, I was on several occasions led to discover, to
my great joy, material of importance for the work that I had not been
aware existed. Though I have been granted the privilege of experiencing
God in many ways and at many times in my life, the writing of this book,
though often mentally and physically exhausting (I also had to attend to
administrative responsibilities during this time), has been above all a
truly unique experience of the living God. To Him, the LORD my God, I
wish here to record my wholehearted praise and adoration.
 The English Standard Version (ESV, 2001) is the English
version used most in this work. When another version is used,
it will, in most cases, be acknowledged where that version
is quoted. The version used in Appendix 12 is
the New Jerusalem Bible.
 Contents
Acknowledgements 9
Preliminary Notes 14
Introduction 16

Chapter 1 The Explicit Monotheism of the Lord Jesus 56

Christ and his Apostles

Chapter 2 Only the Perfect Man can be the Savior of 148

the World

Chapter 3 The Need to Reevaluate the Christian 209

Understanding of Man

Chapter 4 The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 260

Chapter 5 Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 335

Chapter 6 Christianity has Lost its Jewish Roots—the 384

Serious Consequences

Chapter 7 The Old Testament roots of “the Word” in 405

John 1.1

Chapter 8 “The Word” is “the Memra” 447

Chapter 9 A Closer Look at John 1.1 504

Chapter 10 Yahweh “came down” and “dwelt among 548

us” in Christ
Appendix 1 The great importance of Psalm 2 for 579
understanding “the Son of God”

Appendix 2 On John 8.58 586

Appendix 3 Did Paul reject the Law and its 588

righteousness?

Appendix 4 Some observations about the Targums 591

Appendix 5 A note on the exegesis of John 12.41 593

Appendix 6 On “the Word of God” in Rev.19.13 598

Appendix 7 The instructive parallel of “the Word was 602

God” with 2Cor.3.17

Appendix 8 On Phil.2.6,7: More evidence from the 605

Hebrew Bible

Appendix 9 On Psalm 107.19,20 607

Appendix 10 Some thoughts on the Virgin Birth of Jesus 609

Appendix 11 Christological Conflict among Trinitarians 612

Appendix 12 The Memra in the Targums 614

Scripture Index 648

Old and New Page Number Conversion Table 672

 Preliminary Notes

T
his book is written for the general reader. For this reason, tech-
nical theological terms are avoided as far as possible. The aim of
this work is to study the monotheism of the Bible with specific
attention to those verses or texts which are used to underpin trinitarian
doctrine, to see what these texts actually say when ideas are not read into
them or doctrines forced upon them. To do this properly it is usually
necessary to study the Scriptures in the original languages in which they
were written and not merely in the various translations, because trans-
lations are rarely able to bring out fully the meaning and nuances of the
original text.
When discussing the original Hebrew and Greek, every effort will be
made to help the reader who is unacquainted with these languages to
understand the drift of the discussion. Hebrew and Greek words will be
transliterated (unless these words are in the text of reference works which
are quoted in the present work) so as to help the reader to have some idea
how these words are pronounced. But, as far as possible, exegesis of a
technical character will be avoided where these may be difficult for the
general reader to follow; however, these cannot always be avoided
because scholars, and others with fuller knowledge of the Scriptures, also
need the relevant material to enable them to see the validity of the
exegesis given. Some of this material may be too technical for the average
reader, who may wish simply to pass over these sections and go on to the
next point. Footnotes will be kept to a minimum.
For those who have some degree of familiarity with the landscape of
Biblical studies, it may be of some help if I mention that I can in general
identify with the work of Professor James D.G. Dunn of Durham,
England. His commitment to exegetical accuracy and refusal to allow
dogma to govern exegesis is something to which I, too, am committed. It
will not be surprising, therefore, that my conclusions are often similar to
his. While I have not read all of his prolific writings, what is relevant to
this present work is found mainly in his Christology in the Making and
The Theology of Paul the Apostle. This statement, however, has to do
solely with methodology; it is in no way meant to imply complete agree-
ment in substance. He has not seen this manuscript prior to its public-
ation.
Where the statistical frequency of certain key words is given, these
statistics are always based on the Hebrew or Greek of the original texts
and not on the English translations.
Finally, it will be noticed that capitals are used in the words “Biblical”
and “Scriptural,” contrary to general literary convention. This is done to
emphasize the fact that the present writer regards this study as a study of
the Bible as the Word of God, not merely as a study of the ideas and
opinions of ancient religious authors. The conviction is thereby
expressed that God speaks to mankind through people He has chosen to
faithfully deliver His message, His truth. This ultimately rests on the
conviction (rooted in personal experience) that God is real, and that He
is personally involved in His creation and powerfully active in it. God’s
personal involvement and activity came to its fullest and unique express-
ion in Jesus Christ, both in word and in deed.
 Introduction

B
efore embarking upon a fuller study of monotheism in the Bible,
let it be stated right from the outset that monotheism is some-
thing central to the heart and mind of Jesus—monotheism is what
Jesus taught, it is at the foundation of his teaching. In fact the word
“monotheism” is found in the Bible in Jesus’ own words, where in his
prayer to God, the Father, he says, “this is eternal life: that they know you
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17.3).
“Monotheism” is made up of two Greek words: “monos” (“only, alone”,
and as the BDAG Greek-English lexicon explains: “with focus on being
the only one”) and “theos” (“God”). It is precisely these two words which
are found in Jesus’ words which he addresses to the Father as “the only
(monos) true God (theos)”.
It is important also to notice carefully that Jesus’ words in John 17.3
have to do with eternal life, and that this involves two essential compo-
nents: (1) “that they know you the only true God” and (2) “Jesus Christ
whom you have sent”. Having eternal life is not merely a matter of
“believing in Jesus” as some preachers would have people think. Jesus
himself tells us that one must first come to know the one true God, and
then also to know him (Jesus) as the one sent by that one God. Notice,
too, Jesus does not say anything about “believe” (which many preachers
take the liberty to define in whatever way they choose); the word he uses
 Introduction 17

is “know”, which is much stronger than “believe” as it is usually under-

stood.
“Know” (ginōskō) is, statistically, a key word in John’s Gospel (occurs
58 times), where it occurs almost three times more frequently than in
Matthew (20 occurrences), almost 5 times more than in Mark (12 times),
and more than double than in Luke (28 times). A standard Greek-English
lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG) gives the following as the primary
definition of the word ginōskō: “to arrive at a knowledge of someone or
someth., know, know about, make acquaintance of.” To make someone’s
acquaintance means to establish a personal relationship with that person.
How many Christians can say that they have this kind of relationship
with the one true God, and with Jesus Christ? According to Jesus’ words,
eternal life depends precisely on this. “Believe” (another key word in
John’s Gospel) is, therefore, defined in terms of “knowing” God and Jesus
Christ. Also, those who suppose that Biblical monotheism is non-
essential for salvation do well to take a closer look at Jesus’ words in John
17.3 (not to mention his teaching elsewhere in the gospels and the
teaching of the Bible as a whole).
Jesus’ words are so clear that no complicated linguistic techniques are
needed to explain them. What Jesus states with crystal clarity is that there
is only one God, the One he calls “Father”, and he asks his disciples to
call upon Him in the same way (“Our Father in heaven”). Jesus speaks of
himself as the one sent by “the only true God”. It should, therefore, have
been perfectly obvious to anyone truly listening to what Jesus said that if
the Father is the one and only true God, then no one else can also be God
alongside Him. It should be absolutely clear from Jesus’ words that he
definitely excludes himself from any claim to deity by this absolute
“monos” or “only” referring to the Father. Only the fact that we have been
immersed in trinitarianism all our lives prevents us from hearing what
Jesus says in these words. Christians have come to that spiritual state in
which we address Jesus as “Lord, Lord” but do not hear or do what he
says (Lk.6.46; cf. Mt.7.21,22). We have become accustomed to imposing
our own doctrines upon his teaching, and when these doctrines are
incompatible with his words, we simply ignore what he actually said. But
whether we like it or not, monotheism is at the very root of Jesus’ life and
18 The Only True God

teaching. That is the plain truth, which we shall consider more fully in
what follows.
Jesus (in Mark 12.29) also explicitly endorsed the declaration which
was (and still is) central to the Biblical faith of Israel: “Listen, Israel:
Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh” (Deut.6.4, NJB). These
words express the uncompromising monotheism of Israel’s faith. This is
immediately followed by the command, “You must love Yahweh your
God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength”
(Deut.6.5). The threefold “all” encompasses man’s total devotion to God,
making Him the sole object of worship and love. Interestingly, in Jesus’
rendering of this command the “all” is fourfold: “And you shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all
your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12.30); “with all your
mind” is added in, thereby evidently heightening the intensity of devot-
ion to Yahweh God. Jesus described this command (Deut.6.4,5) as the
“first” or “most important” command (Mk.12.29,31). This command
makes Yahweh the sole object of total devotion, “the one and only one”;
indeed, it is not possible in practice to love more than one person with
the totality of one’s being.
Consistent with this, it should also be noted that nowhere in his teach-
ing does Jesus make himself the focus of this all-encompassing devotion, for
that would contradict his teaching that Yahweh alone is to be accorded
such single-minded dedication. Jesus’ own life as reported in the gospels
fully epitomized and exemplified this total devotion to Yahweh. His life
was always consistent with his teaching. How extremely disappointing
and saddening it must be to him that his disciples fail to live by his
example and teaching, and, contrary to his teaching, make him the center
of their religion and worship, and imagine that in so doing they honor
and please him.
Jesus’ monotheism also finds clear expression in John 5.44, “How can
you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not
seek the glory that is from the one and only (monos) God (theos)?”
(NASB).
The New Testament writers, as true disciples of Jesus, faithfully affirm
his monotheism. Thus the Apostle Paul in 1Timothy 1.17 (NIV), “Now
to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only (monos) God (theos), be
 Introduction 19

honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Romans 16.27: “to the only
(monos) wise God (theos) be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ!
Amen.” So, too, Jude: “to the only (monos) God (theos), our Savior,
through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and author-
ity, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” (Jude 1.25) It is
interesting and significant to observe how it is in these beautiful and
powerful doxologies, or public praises offered to God, that the early
church expressed its monotheistic faith.
These examples show that the Bible is unquestionably monotheistic in
character, and what is especially significant for the Christian is the fact
that Jesus himself lived and taught as a monotheist. Despite the vicious
attempts of his enemies to find a way to destroy him by slanderously
accusing him of blasphemy (which incurred the death penalty in Israel)
by charging him with claiming equality with God, the fact is that,
according to the gospel accounts, he never made any claim to equality
with God. In fact the gospel evidence shows that his enemies had the
greatest difficulty even getting Jesus to publicly admit that he was the
Messiah, the expected Messianic king, let alone that he was God! It is
precisely as stated in Philippians 2.6, “he did not grasp at equality with
God”. Yet, strangely enough, this is precisely what trinitarians do on
Jesus’ behalf! We insist on imposing on him that which he himself
rejected! But the fundamental problem created by elevating Jesus to the
level of deity is that a situation is created in which there are at least two
persons who are both equally God; this brings trinitarianism into conflict
with the monotheism of the Bible.
The case for Biblical monotheism is rock-solid and requires no
defense. It is trinitarianism that is on thin ice where the Scriptures are
concerned, so it is not surprising that book after book is published on the
subject of the Trinity in repeated attempts to find some Scriptural justi-
fication for it. To try to extract trinitarian doctrine out of the monotheis-
tic Bible requires resorting to every hermeneutical device imaginable (as
can be seen in those books), because it is an attempt to make the Bible say
what it does not say. I know—I did this very thing for most of my life
because of the trinitarianism which was instilled in me from the time of
my spiritual infancy, and which I accepted without question. In what
follows, the main trinitarian arguments will be examined in the light of
20 The Only True God

Scripture. Even more importantly, we will consider whether trinitarian

teaching has resulted in the loss of the true Biblical teaching about God
and about man’s salvation, for error is always maintained at the expense
of truth. Only when we let go of what is false can we begin to see what is
true.

About this book

A
large part of this study is taken up with the Gospel of John. This
is because this gospel is the one most relied upon by trinita-
rianism to support its arguments, and this is especially true of
what scholars regard as a hymn embedded in John’s Prologue (1.1-18),
and most of all its first verse (Jo.1.1). Another New Testament passage
also considered by some scholars to be a song about Christ, and of im-
portance to trinitarianism, is found in Philippians 2 (vv.6-11). Colossians
1 (especially vv. 13-20) and Hebrews 1 are other passages much used by
trinitarians. These and other passages will be considered more briefly
because their trinitarian interpretation depends implicitly or explicitly on
the interpretation of John 1.1. Once it becomes evident that John 1.1 does
not support a trinitarian interpretation, it will quickly become evident
that the other texts also do not support trinitarianism. But we will exam-
ine some of the key trinitarian proof texts, even before we study John 1.1
in considerable depth and detail, in order to reveal interpretative and
exegetical errors.
Regarding John 1.1, the trinitarian case rests on the assumption that
“the Word” in this verse is Jesus Christ (the Word = Jesus Christ) and,
therefore, the preexistence of the Word is the preexistence of Jesus.
Amazingly, not one shred of evidence is produced from John’s Gospel to
prove this equation or identification so fundamental to the trinitarian
argument. On closer examination, this serious failure to provide evidence
for the equation turns out to be not so amazing after all, because the fact
is that no such evidence exists, for there is simply no equation of the
Word with Jesus Christ in John. The equation is pure assumption. It is a
shock to realize that the dogma that we held to so firmly as trinitarians
rests fundamentally on an unfounded assumption.
The fact of the matter is that outside of John 1.1 and 14, “the Word” is
not referred to again in John’s Gospel, while “Jesus Christ” is not men-
 Introduction 21

tioned until 1.17 at the end of the Prologue (vv.1-18). The only connect-
ion between “the Word” and Jesus Christ is to be inferred from John
1.14, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. In the Bible “flesh”
was a way of describing human life. The Word entered into human life
(“became flesh”) and lived among us. But what the verse does not say is
that “Jesus Christ became flesh”; and this is precisely what is simply
assumed in trinitarian interpretation. Certainly, we know that “Jesus”
was the name given him at his birth (Mat.1.21), but what is the basis for
assuming that the “preexistent Christ became flesh”? The idea of a
“preexistent Christ” is based on the assumption that Jesus Christ and the
preexistent Word are one and the same; but the fact is that nowhere in
John’s Gospel is the Word equated with Jesus. In other words, Jesus and
the Word are not one and the same. What or who is the preexistent
Word? This is a question that we aim to study in depth in this work.
If John meant to identify the Word as Jesus, why did he not make this
(for trinitarianism) all important identification? One answer to this
question can be found in the stated purpose of John’s Gospel. It was not
the purpose of this Gospel (unlike trinitarianism) to get people to believe
that Jesus is the preexistent Word, but to believe that he is “the Christ”.
This can easily be established because John is the only Gospel in which
the purpose of writing the Gospel is explicitly stated: “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 20.31). “The Christ” is the
Greek equivalent of “the Messiah,” a title which was extremely significant
for the Jews but one which, unfortunately, means almost nothing to non-
Jews.

“The Son of God”

“The Son of God” is another messianic title derived from the messianic
Psalm 2 (esp.vv.7,12) where the promised Davidic king will be granted a
relationship with God like that of a Son with his Father. It is precisely this
intimate relationship of Jesus with God which, in John’s Gospel, provides
undeniable evidence of his being the Messiah; and to believe that Jesus is
the Christ/Messiah, God’s appointed “savior of the world” (Jo.4.42), is to
“have life in his name”. Thus, from John’s stated purpose, it is clear that
22 The Only True God

believing in Jesus as the preexistent Word was not the purpose of the
Gospel. So it remains for us to consider carefully what is meant by “the
Word,” and why John’s Gospel begins with reference to it.
Someone may ask, “If John’s Gospel was written for non-Jews, why
are terms like ‘Messiah (Christ)’ and ‘Son of God’ (which in the Bible
does not mean ‘God the Son’) used?” This question reveals another
assumption, namely, that this Gospel was written for Gentiles. Even
assuming a late date for John’s Gospel (after AD 90), it must be remem-
bered that the church, which started as a Jewish church (see the first part
of Acts), was still predominantly Jewish towards the end of the first
century, especially in its monotheistic way of thinking. At one time,
though considerably earlier than the end of the first century, the Apostle
Paul had to caution the Galatian Gentile believers against getting circum-
cised (Gal.5.2-4, etc)! Paul had to remind them that circumcision had to
do with God’s earlier covenant with the Jews and was, therefore, not
relevant to non-Jews and to the new covenant.
The first evangelists who preached the gospel to the Gentiles were,
like the Apostle Paul, Jews. So they would have explained to their
listeners the meaning of terms like “Messiah/Christ”. Like John, they
would have also explained it in terms of “the savior of the world” (John
4.42), the giver of the water of life (John 4.14) etc, which both Jews and
Gentiles could easily understand. But as time went on and the churches
expanded throughout the world, and the Christian church became almost
exclusively Gentile, the meaning of key concepts like “Messiah” began to
become vague, or was even forgotten. Many, or even most, non-Jewish
believers thought of “Christ” as just another personal name for Jesus.
Three centuries later, the Messianic title “son of God” was inverted into
the divine title “God the Son,” a term completely unknown to John or
Paul or any of the New Testament writers!
In only about a hundred years after the death and resurrection of
Christ, the rapid growth of the church in the world had one undesirable
result: the church did not retain its connection with its Jewish roots. A
consequence of this was that the meaning of terms and concepts once
familiar to the early Jewish believers was now vague or even unknown to
the average Christian. Apart from such a common term as “Christ,” the
meaning of which the average Christian today would have difficulty
 Introduction 23

defining with any degree of clarity, the origin and meaning of “the Word”
appears to have soon been lost.

“The Word”

T
his has resulted in almost endless speculations about “the Word”
(“Logos” in Greek) and whether John (or whoever wrote the
hymn John incorporated into the Gospel’s Prologue) derived it
from Greek philosophy or Jewish teaching. But trinitarian scholars have
found no help from any of these, because neither in Jewish nor Greek
sources can a “Word” or “Logos” be found who is a personal divine being
corresponding to “God the Son”. Finally, some scholars have gone so far as
to suggest that John had himself created the idea of a personal Logos; this
suggestion was dignified with the rather impressive term “the Johannine
synthesis,” but without being able to provide the least evidence for the
validity of this kind of suggestion. This can be seen in many comment-
aries on John’s Gospel.
This book aims to show that there is no need to resort to such desper-
ate measures as fabricating this kind of origin for the Johannine Word.
What we need to do, as a first step, is to gain some acquaintance with the
Aramaic-speaking mother church of Christianity from which John and
the other early apostles came. We need to learn basic facts, such as that
Aramaic was Jesus’ mother tongue, and that it was the common language
spoken in Palestine at the time of Christ, and was spoken for some
considerable time both before and after his time. That is why many
Aramaic words can still be seen in the gospels (Mark 5.41 is a well-known
example). It is fairly certain that Jesus, and rabbis generally, could read
the Hebrew Bible; but it is unknown whether he spoke Greek.
With some exceptions then, the average Jew in Palestine in the time of
Christ did not speak Hebrew. So the Hebrew Bible had to be translated
into Aramaic (a language related to Hebrew yet different from it) when it
was read to the people gathered in the synagogues every week. The
Aramaic word for “translation” is “targum”. What is of importance for us
is the fact that “the Word” was a term familiar to the people in Israel in
the time of Christ, because “Word” is “Memra” in Aramaic, and this word
appears frequently in the Aramaic translations (or targums) which they
24 The Only True God

regularly heard in their synagogues. We shall consider “Memra” in some

detail so as to see its importance for understanding the message of John’s
Gospel.
Most importantly, we shall see that there is in fact no other way to
correctly understand the meaning of “the Word” (Logos) where Biblical
exegesis is concerned (that is, if we do not wander off into Greek philo-
sophy or the Jewish version of Greek philosophy produced by Philo), but
to discover its meaning in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and its
important Aramaic Targums. If we look within the Scriptures we shall
see that “the Word” in John 1.1, “the Word” in the Old Testament such as
in Psalm 33.6, the hypostatized Wisdom in Proverbs (esp. 8.30), and the
Word (Memra) in the Targums, all have in essence the same meaning—as
might be expected from the consistent character of the Scriptures as the
Word of God. The Scriptures do not leave us confused because of
conflicting or incompatible meanings.

The Scriptures
Speaking of “the Scripture” or “the Scriptures,” it is important to under-
stand that this is the term used in the New Testament to refer to the
Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the “Old Testament”. Jewish people,
understandably, take exception to their Bible being referred to in this way
because “old” could imply something antiquated, and hence redundant
or obsolete. Certainly, “old” could also mean “of ancient origin” and as
such to be venerated, but this does not rule out the other and, apparently,
more obvious meaning of “old”. I use the term “old” here fully aware of
the inadequacy and, indeed, inappropriateness of the term, only because
it is the term universally understood by Christians, and also because of
the fact that there is at present no other term commonly accepted among
Christians to replace it. If the term the “Hebrew Bible” is used without
further explanation it could be taken to mean the Bible in the Hebrew
language. The term “the Scriptures” (both singular and plural) are today
understood to include both the “Old Testament” and the “New”. So, until
new terminology can be established, such as “the earlier Scriptures” and
“the later Scriptures” (which will be used occasionally in this book), I
shall for the time being be obliged to continue to use the terminology
 Introduction 25

generally accepted among Christians; but I request the indulgence of

Jewish readers. To use the term “the Jewish Scriptures” is of no real help
because both the “Old Testament” and most of the New (i.e. excepting
Luke and Acts) were written by Jews; this is something Christians too
easily forget.
So the inappropriateness of the use of the term “Old Testament” lies
not only in the fact that it is unacceptable to the Jews, but also in the fact
that this is not the way the New Testament writings refer to the Hebrew
Bible. In the “New Testament” the “Old” is always referred to as “the
Scripture” (e.g. Mk.12.10; Jo.2.22; Ro.4.3; 1Pt.2.6; or “the Scriptures”, e.g.
Mt.21.42; Ro.1.2); it occurs no less than 50 times. It needs to be borne in
mind that “the Scripture” was the only Bible the early church had. The
gospels and the epistles were first collected together into one volume and
used in the churches only some 150 years after the time of Jesus’ earthly
ministry. One of the earliest of these collections is listed in the Murator-
ian Canon (c. AD 170-180), which did not yet include all the writings of
the New Testament as we now have it.
Scholars (especially OT scholars) have long been aware of the
problem of the term “Old Testament,” so my adverting to it here is not
something original; yet it is important to the themes discussed in this
book as it is another indicator of the divergence of Christianity from its
Biblical and Jewish roots. One Christian scholar who puts the matter very
strongly is Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus at Northwestern
University, who writes in his recent book What Paul Meant, “For Paul
there was no such thing as ‘the Old Testament’. If he had known that his
writings would be incorporated into something called the New
Testament, he would have repudiated that if it was meant in any way to
repudiate, or subordinate, the only scripture he knew, the only word of
God he recognized, his Bible.” (What Paul Meant, Penguin Books, 2006,
p.127f)

The themes in this study

T
his book is about three main themes in the Bible of the greatest
importance for mankind:
26 The Only True God

(1) There is one, and only one, true God, who is the Creator of all that
exists, whose revelation of Himself is recorded for us first in the Hebrew
Bible (which Christians call “the Old Testament”) and then also in the
New Testament. The Christian church was born in Jerusalem, and its
birth is described in the book of Acts. It was a Jewish church and, as such,
was uncompromisingly monotheistic. But the Gentile (non-Jewish)
Christian church, which had no such commitment to monotheism, and
which from about the middle of the 2nd century became detached from its
Jewish mother, began to develop a doctrine in which there was more than
one person who is God. The Gentile church took a first major step away
from monotheism when it declared at Nicaea in AD 325 that this doc-
trine represents the faith of the church. This book aims to show that
there is absolutely no basis, neither in the Old Testament nor the New,
for this compromise with polytheism purporting to be some kind of
“monotheism”.
(2) “The only true God,” as Jesus called Him (John 17.3), is one who is
intensely concerned about His creation and especially about humanity
and its well-being. He created mankind with an eternal plan in mind.
Thus we see Him intimately involved with human beings right from the
beginning of man’s creation. His remarkable involvement in the rescuing
of a people entangled in the toils of slavery in Egypt, and His providing
for their every need over the 40 year period during which they wandered
through the frightening wilderness of the Sinai desert, is a story told over
and over again, not only in Israel but around the world. In that story we
also learn that God Himself stayed with the people of Israel, His Presence
dwelling among them in the tent better known as “the tabernacle” (cp.
John 1.14, “dwelt”, “tabernacled”). He was present with them also in a
pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night in which He led them
through the desert. By all this He showed that He is not a God who is
transcendent in the sense that He keeps Himself at a distance from man,
but instead involves Himself with man in the most “down to earth” ways.
Certainly, God is concerned not only for Israel but for all of mankind,
being the Creator of all of humanity. Accordingly, there are significant
hints, especially given through the Old Testament prophets, that God will
one day come in such a way that “all flesh shall see it (His glory)
together” (Isaiah 40.1-5) and, even more astonishingly, that He would
 Introduction 27

come into the world in the form of a human being. This appears to find
clear expression in a prophetic statement made famous by Christmas
cards (Isa.9.6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the
government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of
Peace.”).
But, strangely enough, the trinitarian Gentile church decided that He
who came into the world was not the One whom Jesus addressed as “the
only true God” (Jo.17.3), and whom he consistently called “Father,” but
that it was another person whom they called “God the Son”—a term
which cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. The purpose of this book
is to show that the small number of verses which trinitarians adduce
from the New Testament in support of their doctrine provides no proof
of the existence of “God the Son” or that Jesus Christ is God the Son.
There is no doubt whatever that the authors of the New Testament were
monotheists, so there is no justifiable way to extract trinitarian doctrine
from monotheistic writings—other than by unjustifiably imposing
interpretations upon the text which are not intrinsic to it.
(3) God’s plan to save man from the plight into which he has fallen
(because of his failure to acknowledge Him as God, Romans 1.21) was
certainly not a plan put together on the spur of the moment or as an
afterthought, but was something that He, in His foreknowledge, had inte-
grated into His overall eternal plan for His creation. This is to say that
His plan for man’s salvation was already in place “before the beginning of
time” (2Timothy 1.9).
In this plan the key figure is a man whom He had chosen and for
whom He selected the name “Jesus” (Mt.1.21; Lk.1.31). This name is
significant because it means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation”.
Christians talk as though Jesus alone is the savior, but he is savior be-
cause “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19).
This was also precisely what Jesus himself kept on repeating in different
ways in John’s Gospel, namely, that everything he said and did was
actually done by “the Father” in him (Jo.14.10, etc). This is because God
lived in Jesus in a way He had never done before in human history. This
is what made Jesus completely unique as compared to anyone else who
had ever lived on earth, and this is also why he enjoyed a uniquely
28 The Only True God

intimate spiritual relationship with God which was like that of a son with
his father. This is why he was called the “Son of God” which, in the Bible,
never means “God the Son”. Because of his unique relationship with the
Father, three times in John’s Gospel he is spoken of as the “only (or
unique) Son” of God (Jo.1.14; 3.16,18).
In this unprecedented relationship, of his own free choice Jesus lived
in total obedience to God as his Father, and chose to be “obedient unto
death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2.8). It was through this “one
man’s obedience that many will be made righteous” (Romans 5.19),
which means that he accomplished man’s salvation through his death on
the cross. It was in this way that God reconciled all things to Himself
through Christ. It was also because of his obedience to God that God
“highly exalted him and gave him the name above every name, that at the
name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess him as
‘Lord’—to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2.9-11). God con-
ferred on Jesus the highest possible honor, which is why we call him
“Lord”.

A serious shift of focus in the Gentile (non-Jewish) Church

The later Gentile church, however, failed (intentionally or unintent-
ionally) to distinguish the difference in significance between “Lord” as
applied to Jesus and “Lord” (or “LORD”) as applied to God (just as “lord”
in English, the Greek word kurios is used in both cases), even though in
Greek (as in English) the word kurios has several levels of meaning: it
could be a courtesy title meaning something like “sir”; it was the way a
slave addressed his master, or sometimes a wife her husband, or a
disciple his teacher (as in English “master” as in “schoolmaster”), while in
the Greek Old Testament (LXX), it was the usual way God was referred
to. Thus the later Gentile church found it easy to go from speaking of
Jesus as “Lord” to speaking of him as “God”. This was one of the main
reasons why the Gentile church in the fourth century had relatively little
difficulty in proclaiming that Jesus Christ was “God the Son,” a second
person in the “Godhead”. Thus “trinitarianism” as it is known today was
born.
 Introduction 29

The extremely serious consequence of all this from the Biblical point
of view is that God (the Father) was sidelined or marginalized by the
worship of Jesus as God which came to dominate the church. A look at
most modern-day Christian hymnbooks will immediately reveal who is
the central object of Christian prayer and worship. “The Father” is left
with a relatively marginal role. Jesus has replaced the Father in Christian
life because, for them, he is God. The Apostle Paul, who wrote repeatedly
in his letters about “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Ro.15.6; 2Cor.1.3, etc) would have shuddered at the thought that the
future Christian church would replace “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”
as the central object of worship by worshipping Jesus himself as God,
even quoting (or rather, misquoting) his writings (esp. Philippians 2.6ff)
in support of so doing!
If Jesus can be the object of worship, then why not also his mother
Mary, who is declared to be “the mother of God” by the Gentile church,
and who is actually worshipped in a large portion of the Christian
church? For if Jesus is God, then Mary can properly be called “mother of
God”. Even though Mary has not been declared to be God, this seems to
be made unnecessary by the fact that as “mother of God” she would
appear to have a position above God. She is usually portrayed in churches
as holding the baby Jesus in her arms; the image suggests that the mother
is somehow greater than her baby, even if that baby is God! Little wonder
that so many Christians pray to Mary as the one who exercises the enor-
mous influence of a mother over her son.
The purpose of this book is to sound the alarm that the Christian
church has strayed from the truth found in God’s word, the Bible. All
who love God and His truth will look carefully again at the Scriptures to
consider the truth for themselves, and thus return to “God our Savior,”
“who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything
we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was
given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2Tim.1.9). For this
reason we honor Jesus as “Lord”—but always in such a way that it is “to
the glory of God our Father” (Phil.2.11). Prof. Hans Küng says the same
thing in theological terms, “Paul’s christocentricity remains grounded
and comes to a climax again in a strict theocentricity” (Christianity,
p.93f, bold letters his).
30 The Only True God

Conclusion

I
n conclusion, the goal of this book is to grasp the meaning of the
Biblical teaching summarized in 1Timothy 3.16, namely, that “He
(God) was manifest in the flesh” in the person of “the man Christ
Jesus” (1Tim.2.5). That the reference here is to God manifesting Himself
in the flesh appears to be clear from the fact that to speak of a human
being “appearing” or “being revealed” (which are meanings of the word
‘manifest’) in the flesh would not make much sense. Moreover, Christ is
not mentioned in the two verses before this one, but God is mentioned
twice in the verse immediately before it. So who else could the “he” in
1Tim.3.16 refer to besides God? If indeed God appeared in the flesh, then
this could rightly be described as a “great mystery,” as is done in this
verse.
It is precisely this mystery that God “dwelt among us” (John 1.14) “in
Christ” (a very frequent term in Paul’s writings—73 times, not including
“in him”, etc, over 30 times), just as He had dwelt among the Israelites,
which we need to consider carefully. He did this so as “in Christ to
reconcile the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19). Trinitarianism, of course, also
believes that God “was manifest in the flesh” but that the God who was
manifested was “God the Son,” without any regard for the fact that no
such person is mentioned anywhere in the Bible. As a result they have
sidelined the one true God, whom Jesus called Father, as the One who
came into the world “in Christ” for the sake of our salvation. Or, using
Prof. Küng’s theological terms, trinitarianism has replaced biblical
“theocentricity” by means of their kind of “christocentricity”.
But is the understanding really correct that “God (Yahweh) was
manifest in the flesh”? This is a truly momentous statement of staggering
significance, and one which we will need to examine in careful detail in
the coming pages.

Are we really monotheists, as we suppose ourselves to be?

We are all monotheists: Christians consider themselves monotheists.
Christianity claims to be a monotheistic faith. But why? How can a
religion that does not place its faith solely and exclusively in one personal
 Introduction 31

God, but believes in three persons who are all equally God, still claim to
be monotheistic? “Monotheism” by definition means “belief in a single
God: the belief that there is only one God” (Encarta Dictionary); the
definition is identical in every dictionary. But a belief in three co-equal
divine persons is not belief in “a single God,” or in there being “only one
God”.
The word “monotheism” comes, as we have already noted, from the
Greek words “monos” (one) and “theos” (God). In the Hebrew Bible
(which Christians call the “Old Testament”) the God who has revealed
Himself through it has revealed Himself by the majestic Name “YHWH,”
which scholars generally agree is pronounced “Yahweh”. The precise
meaning of His Name has always been a matter of discussion, but it
means something like “I am that I am,” or “I will be who I will be” (see
Exodus 3.14), or according to the Greek OT (the LXX) it has the meaning
“the Existing One” (ho ōn), suggesting that He exists eternally and is the
source of all existence. The Old Testament recognizes only one personal
God, namely Yahweh, as the one true God. His Name is central to the
whole Hebrew Bible in which it occurs 6828 times. Yet most Christians
seem to be totally unaware of this basic fact.
Yahweh is absolutely the one and only (monos) God (theos) revealed
in the Bible. There may have been “many gods and many lords” that
people believed in (1Cor.8.5,6) but as far as the Biblical revelation is
concerned, Yahweh is, in Jesus’ words, “the only true God”. Jesus
certainly taught monotheism, but the question is: are we, his disciples,
really monotheists?
It needs to be clearly understood that monos is not a word that can be
stretched to mean a group consisting of several persons, a gathering of
several entities, or a class made up of a number of beings. Here is the
definition of monos as given by the authoritative BDAG Greek-English
Lexicon of the NT: “1. pert. to being the only entity in a class, only,
alone adj. a. with focus on being the only one. 2. a marker of limitation,
only, alone, the neut. μόνον [monon] being used as an adv.”
The word “God” and the term “only God” in the New Testament
unquestionably always refer to the God of the OT, Yahweh. But then why
does the Name “Yahweh” not appear in the NT in the way it does so very
32 The Only True God

frequently in the Hebrew Bible (but not in most English Bibles)? The
answer to this question rests on two important facts:
(1) The shattering impact of the Exile upon Israel as a nation resulted in
its finally learnt its lesson. The people of Israel had come to realize that
the reason for the fearsome exile and their destruction as a nation lay in
the fact that they had all along committed spiritual adultery by insisting
upon worshipping other gods besides Yahweh (Ba’al being one of the
best known among these), defying the repeated and persistent warning of
Yahweh’s prophets, who specifically stated that Yahweh would certainly
send them into exile for their rebelliousness against Him and for their
idolatry. Having experienced the fact that Yahweh was true to His word,
seeing for themselves that what He had said would happen did come to
pass just as He had warned them, and having tasted the power of His
chastisement, they returned to the ruined land of Israel after the exile a
chastened people who from now on would worship no other God but
Yahweh alone. They now revered Him to the extent that they even
refrained from taking His exalted Name upon their lips. Henceforth they
would speak of Him as “Lord” (adonai).
Moreover, the Jews would never again worship any other God besides
Adonai Yahweh, not even if that God is called Yahweh’s “Son” (who is
nowhere mentioned in the OT), nor even if that God is called Yahweh’s
“Spirit,” mentioned a number of times in the OT but was never regarded
as a separate person alongside Yahweh. That is why we can be certain
that the Jewish writers of the NT could never have been trinitarians; we
have already seen a number of examples from the NT (given above) of
their fervent monotheism.1
(2) During the long 70 year exile (the Babylonian Captivity, as it is called)
in a foreign country where Aramaic was the spoken language, the new

1
For this reason, too, the Jews down through the centuries and up to this day
could not consider trinitarians as true monotheists even when they try to be as
conciliatory as possible. (A fine example of their conciliatory attitude can be seen
in the book Christianity in Jewish Terms (edited by Tikva Frymer-Kensky and
others, Westview Press, 2000), which is a dialogue between Jewish and Christian
scholars. It is hard to imagine a similarly conciliatory dialogue between Muslim
and Christian scholars in the present religious climate.)
 Introduction 33

generation of Jews spoke the local Aramaic rather than Hebrew (just as
Jews today who live in the US or Europe speak the languages of their land
of residence and are generally unable to speak Hebrew). The scribes, the
Bible scholars, still read the Hebrew Bible (just as most rabbis around the
world still do today), and they taught the Bible in the synagogues, but
most of the common people no longer understood Hebrew, so the Bible
portions that were read in the synagogues had to be translated into
Aramaic. This is how Encarta explains it, “When, after the Babylonian
Captivity in the 6th century bc, Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the gener-
ally spoken language, it became necessary to explain the meaning of read-
ings from the Scriptures.” (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005. ©
1993-2004 Microsoft)
It is important for our present study to bear in mind the fact that in
the Aramaic targums (translations) of the Hebrew Bible, God’s holy
Name “Yahweh” was, out of reverence, replaced by the term “the
Memra,” which in Aramaic means “the Word”. Thus every Palestinian
Jew knew that “the Memra” was a metonymic reference to “Yahweh”.
Memra appears frequently in the Aramaic Targums, as can be seen in
Appendix 12 at the end of this book.

Monotheism in the Bible

The monotheism of the Bible is absolutely uncompromising. I know of
no Bible scholar who denies this fact. Therefore, when we teach Biblical
monotheism we have no need to justify ourselves for so doing, we have
no case to defend. It is those who use the Bible to teach something other
than monotheism who will need to answer for what they are doing.
Trinitarian Christians like to rank themselves among Jews and
Muslims as monotheists. The problem is that neither Judaism nor Islam
recognizes trinitarian Christianity as truly monotheistic, regardless of
Christian claims. Whatever Christian “monotheism” might be, neither
Jews nor Muslims consider it monotheism according to their Scriptures.
Are they being unreasonable?
34 The Only True God

How this book came to be written

T
his work is not the result of a preconceived plan to negate or
derail trinitarianism. It took shape as the result of an earnest
evangelistic concern to bring the gospel of salvation to all nations
and a desire for the Lord’s coming again. These two things are linked in
Jesus’ words in Matthew 24.14, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be
proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and
then the end will come.” The “second coming” and “the end of the age”
are inseparably linked together in Matthew 24.3, and both these events
are linked to the universal proclamation of the gospel.
The undeniable fact is that a huge proportion of the world remains
unreached by the gospel. The Muslim portion alone accounts for well
over 1,000,000,000 (one billion) people. Moreover, Islam is the fastest
growing religion in the world, so this figure will increase steadily over the
coming years. A BBC report in December 2007 stated that Islam had
tripled in number in Europe over the last 30 years. Not long ago I read an
article in a Church of England newspaper which expressed the view that
at the current rate of growth of Islam in England, it may not be long
before it will become a Muslim country. What does all this mean? Does it
not mean that Matthew 24.14 is not only not being fulfilled, but that the
hopes of its being fulfilled are becoming steadily more remote, and with
it the hopes of the Second Coming may be fading?
Does this not evidently mean that not only has the church failed to
fulfill the Great Commission but that, with the progress of events in the
world, the possibility of fulfilling it is steadily declining? Add to this the
historical fact that, in regard to Islam, Christianity has failed dismally to
make any evangelistic impact upon it during the past more than 1400
years since the inception of that religion. Beginning in the 7th and 8th
centuries, driven before the advancing forces of Islam, Christianity fell
back on all fronts, losing their important centers in all of North Africa,
the Middle East (including Jerusalem and the Holy Land), and what is
today the nation of Turkey (once an important center of Christianity), as
well as huge areas to the east of it.
In the face of these stark realities, how can the Great Commission
(Mt.28.18-20) be fulfilled? Add to this the endless internal squabbling of
Christians, both throughout church history and at the present time.
 Introduction 35

Some Christians seem to make it their business to label others who

disagree with their particular doctrinal views as belonging to a “cult” or
as “heretics,” even in such matters as “once saved, always saved” or
“eternal security,” often with very little clear understanding about the
subject or the related Scriptural teaching. One is reminded of the events
of the Roman siege of Jerusalem when, even as the Roman army was
tightening its iron grip on the city in AD 70, some of the Jewish defend-
ants within the city were still squabbling, fighting, and even killing each
other because of fierce disagreements on various matters, until the
Roman soldiers poured into the city and set it ablaze, and the temple in
which Jesus himself had taught went up in fire and smoke.
So the situation both in the world and in the church today leaves little
room for optimism about Jesus’ words in Matthew 24.14 being fulfilled if
things are left to continue as they are. It was precisely the attempt to
address this question of why the church has failed so dismally to reach
the Muslims with the gospel that it became necessary to ask what can be
done, and also whether there is something wrong in the way the gospel
has been understood and presented.

Personal History

I
am writing as one who had been a trinitarian from the time I
became a Christian at the age of 19—a time which spans over fifty
years. During the nearly four decades of serving as pastor, church
leader, and teacher of many who have entered the full-time ministry, I
taught trinitarian doctrine with great zeal, as those who know me can
testify. Trinitarianism was what I drank in with my spiritual milk when I
was a spiritual infant. Later, in my Biblical and theological studies, my
interest focused on Christology which I pursued with considerable inten-
sity. My life centered on Jesus Christ. I studied and sought to practice his
teaching with utmost devotion.
I was in a practical sense a monotheist, devoted to a monotheism in
which Jesus was my Lord and my God. Intense devotion to the Lord
Jesus inevitably left little room for either the Father or the Holy Spirit. So,
while in theory I believed in there being three persons, in practice there
was actually only one person that really mattered: Jesus. I did indeed
36 The Only True God

worship one God, and that one God was Jesus. The one God revealed in
the Old Testament, namely, Yahweh, was in practice replaced by the God
Jesus Christ, God the Son. A large proportion of Christians function as I
did, so they can easily understand what I am saying here.
About three years ago I was pondering the question: How can the
gospel be made known to the Muslims? I discovered that my Christianity
was accompanied by some kind of prejudice against the Muslims which
had to be overcome if I was to understand them and reach out to them.
But I also soon realized that the moment I said anything about the
Trinity, or said that Jesus is God, all communication with Muslims would
cease abruptly. The same, of course, is true for the Jews. So how could
they be reached?
We have already noted Jesus’ words, “this gospel of the kingdom must
first be preached to all nations and then shall come the end…”
(Matt.24.14). One need only look at the situation in the world to see that
it is extremely difficult to preach the gospel in Muslim countries, of
which there are many. The same is true for Israel. What that means in
terms of Jesus words’ in Matthew 24 is that the end cannot come, and he
cannot return, because the gospel cannot be preached to these nations.
Most Christians seem to be hardly aware of, or concerned about, these
things. Accordingly, there is hardly any concern about reaching the
Muslims. Most Christians know next to nothing about Islam and are, in
any case, not interested about them or their salvation. In general, there
seems to be little spiritual fire or zeal in the churches. Is there a deeper
spiritual problem within the church itself which is at the root of this?
If we consider the relationship of Islam to Christianity in history, we
recall that it was only three hundred years after the Nicene Creed was
established in the church (proclaiming God as consisting of three persons
rather than one) that the “scourge” of Islam appeared on the scene of
world history. Islam proclaimed once again the radical monotheism
which had been proclaimed in the Hebrew Bible. From then onwards,
Christianity, which had expanded rapidly throughout the world during
the first three centuries of the present era, now fell back before the
advancing forces of monotheistic Islam. Is there a spiritual message in
this for us? If so, can we discern it?
 Introduction 37

One thing that I could see was that I needed to re-evaluate whether or
not we Christians are really monotheists. Have we really been true to the
Biblical revelation? The large number of books produced by Christian
theologians trying to explain and to justify “Christian monotheism”
already indicates a problem: Why is so much effort needed to explain or
justify this kind of “monotheism”? As I was rethinking this question of
“Christian monotheism” I looked again at an academic monograph on
this subject which I had in my possession. It was a collection of essays by
trinitarian theologians both Protestant and Catholic. I soon noticed that
these writers had something in common: they were clearly uncomfort-
able with monotheism; some were openly critical of it.
When I examined my own thoughts, I too realized that my trinita-
rianism was at root incompatible with Biblical monotheism. It became
necessary for me to carefully re-examine this crucial matter. When one
believes in three distinct and coequal persons, each of whom is indivi-
dually God in his own right, who together constitute the “Godhead,” how
can one still speak of believing in “the radically monotheistic God”
(Yahweh) revealed in the Hebrew Bible—unless one is using the term
“monotheistic” in a sense fundamentally different from that in the Bible?
(The term “the radically monotheistic God” is here borrowed from the
article by Professor David Tracy of Chicago in the book Christianity in
Jewish Terms, 2000, Westview Press, pp.82,83; the book consists of essays
by Jewish and Christian scholars.)
Up until then I had confidently believed that I could readily defend
trinitarianism on the basis of the New Testament texts so familiar to me.
But now the more pressing question of evangelism was: How were these
texts to be explained to Muslims who sincerely want to know Isa (as they
call Jesus) and are even prepared to read the Gospels, which are endorsed
by the Qur’an. To my surprise, once I began to put aside my own preju-
dices and preconceptions, and re-evaluate each text to see what it is
actually saying, and not how we as trinitarians had interpreted it, the
message which emerged from the text proved to be different from what I
had supposed it to be. This was especially true of John 1.1. Because of my
deeply entrenched trinitarianism, this process resulted in a long struggle
(and a lot of hard work) to get to the truth of the Biblical message. Some
of the results of those efforts are what is put forward in this book. Let
38 The Only True God

each reader carefully evaluate it for him/herself, and may God grant you
His light without which we cannot see.
When I first faced the challenge of reevaluating my trinitarianism in
the light of the Bible, and then sharing that light with all who wish to see
it, I thought I was alone in taking this stand. But when preparing this
manuscript for publication I was surprised to come across the work of
the renowned theologian Hans Küng and to discover that he had already
declared that the doctrine of the Trinity is “unbiblical” in his large work
entitled Christianity: Essence, History, and Future, which was published
in 1994. Now I have discovered that he is not the only prominent
Catholic dogmatic theologian who has made this affirmation. The
systematic theologian K-J Kuschel, in an in-depth study entitled Born
Before All Time? The Dispute over Christ’s Origin published in 1992, had
made the same point. It is certainly most encouraging to find such unan-
ticipated support from unexpected quarters, especially from scholars
of such outstanding quality and courage. And although work on the
present manuscript was already approaching completion, I obtained their
books in time to be able to insert a number of quotations from them into
this work.
On the subject of the Trinity for example, in a section under the
heading “No doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament,” Professor
Küng states unequivocally, “Indeed throughout the New Testament while
there is belief in God the Father, in Jesus the Son and in God’s Holy
Spirit, there is no doctrine of one God in three persons (modes of being),
no doctrine of a ‘triune God’, a ‘Trinity’.” (Christianity, p.95)

The obstacles we face when considering Biblical

Monotheism
(1) The need to deal with multitudes of preconceptions due to our indoc-
trination: For example, we speak of the Spirit as “he,” because when we
read the New Testament we see the Spirit referred to in this way. Most
Christians, being unfamiliar with Greek, do not know that the word for
Spirit, pneuma, is neuter and should therefore be translated as “it”. Even
after having learned Greek we still speak of the Spirit as “he” because
according to trinitarian doctrine the Spirit is a distinct person who is
 Introduction 39

coequal with the other two persons in the Trinity, the Father and the Son.
This, of course, is the reason why all translations render the neuter word
pneuma as “he”. It has nothing to do with proper linguistics but every-
thing to do with Christian dogma.
The same is true of the idea of “Trinity”. In India there are a multi-
tude of gods, but there are three at the top of the Indian pantheon. These
three share in the same “substance” of deity; otherwise they would not be
considered gods at all. If those in India who worship these three supreme
gods are called polytheists by Christians, in what way is the Christian
trinitarian concept fundamentally different from the Indian? Is it simply
because the three persons in the Christian trinity are more closely related
to each other, i.e. as “Father” and “Son” (what about “Spirit”)? Indoc-
trination has the powerful effect of making us insist that trinitarianism
represents monotheism—something which true monotheists like the
Jews and the Muslims reject. If we still have a modicum of logical think-
ing left in us we would see that: if there is God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Spirit then, obviously, there are three Gods according to this
dogma. Yet we seem unable to face up squarely to the plain fact of the
matter! Here we see the power of indoctrination and its capacity to
overpower logical thought.
To those who have seen indoctrination at work, this is not something
new. This kind of thing has been at work even in relatively recent history:
The crazed idealism of Nazism and its dream of building a thousand-year
utopia, the fulfillment of which required (among other things) the exter-
mination of the Jews, considered by them to be the scum of humanity
infecting the human race, or at least the Aryan race. Only indoctrination
by means of intense propaganda could induce people to think such
insane thoughts.
There are also many people who have experienced the kind of brain-
washing made familiar by Stalinist communism. People were permitted
to think only in a predetermined way; any other way would bring severe
penalties, including incarceration and death.
When it comes to restricting free thought, the church itself has a long
record of this kind. Once it had established doctrines, such as the Nicene
and Chalcedonian Creeds in the 4th century, dissent was prohibited on
pain of excommunication which, in effect, meant condemning a person
40 The Only True God

to hell. Nothing could be more serious than that, not even physical death.
This kind of ecclesiastical oppression developed into crude physical
torture, often culminating in death, during the time of the notorious
Inquisition which the church inflicted upon those they had condemned
as heretics.
Even today there are not a few Christians who think that they have
some kind of divine right to label other Christians who do not share their
doctrinal views as “cultists,” “sectarians” or, as before, simply “heretics”.
Thus these self-appointed defenders of the (their) faith carry on the long
tradition of the Gentile church with its internecine doctrinal conflicts,
which can hardly be to the glory of God in the eyes of the world, not to
mention how God looks at it.
But quite apart from the strong external pressures to conform to a
particular dogma is the fact that we ourselves have been convinced that
this doctrine is true. All our Christian lives we have learned to read the
Bible in a particular way as being the only right way to understand it. So
now it only makes sense to us in that way and, conversely, everything we
read convinces us further that the way we were taught is the right way. It
thus becomes a self-reinforcing development of our faith in our parti-
cular doctrine, especially as we become teachers ourselves and teach
others this doctrine, trying to find even more convincing explanations
than we ourselves had been taught. Here I speak from my own exper-
ience as a teacher.
The practical result of all this was that when I read the New Testa-
ment, I inevitably saw every passage in the way I had learnt it, but which
was then further strengthened by new arguments which I had developed
myself. As any diligent teacher aims to do, I tried to make the trinitarian
case as convincing as possible. I had both learned and taught the Bible as
a trinitarian book; how could I now understand it in the light of mono-
theism?
Take, for example, the well-known text so constantly used by trinita-
rians to “prove” that Christ is God the Son, Philippians 2.6-11. Prof. M.
Dods summed it up (as trinitarians would do) like this: “Christ is
represented [in this passage] as leaving a glory he originally enjoyed and
returning to it when his work on earth was done and as a result of that
work” (The Gospel of St. John, The Expositor’s Greek NT, p.841). The
 Introduction 41

“glory” which Christ left was the “divine glory,” as Dods states in the next
sentence of his commentary.
That is how we all understood this text as trinitarians. It simply does
not occur to us that this interpretation is the result of reading a lot of
things into the text which are simply not there. The word “glory,” for
example, occurs nowhere in this text (or even in this chapter) in relation
to Christ, much less the term “divine glory”. By the term “divine glory” is
meant not the glory of God the Father (see Phil.2.11) but of “God the
Son,” a term which appears nowhere in the Scriptures. Again, Dods’s key
words “leaving” and “returning” also do not exist in this passage, but are
read into it. To say, as Philippians 2.6 does, that he “did not count equal-
ity with God a thing to be grasped” (ESV, etc) is not at all saying the same
thing as “leaving” his “divine glory”.
Moreover, the passage in Philippians 2.6-11 says absolutely nothing
whatever about Christ’s “returning” to the “glory he originally enjoyed”
(Dods). What it does say is something quite different, as one should be
able to see for oneself: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and
bestowed on him the name that is above every name” (Phil.2.9). There is
no suggestion that he was merely receiving again what he already had
before; to say this is to render meaningless his being “highly exalted” by
God.
Thus there is practically nothing in Dods’s summary of the Philippian
text that actually derives from the text itself! Trinitarianism is simply and
unabashedly read into it. Yet as trinitarians we took no notice of these
serious discrepancies between our interpretations and the Biblical texts
we were supposed to be interpreting. This was the result of not really
knowing how to read the text in any other way than that which we had
been taught. Here we shall not study Philippians 2 in detail (we shall
return to it later), but some points in this well-known passage will be
used to illustrate the fact that we habitually read the Bible through trinit-
arian glasses.
Apart from this difficult problem of practically having to re-learn how
to read the Bible in a new light, that of monotheism, there is also the
demotivating factor of reckoning with the external pressures of being
labeled a “heretic,” which is intimidating for most Christians. That some-
one who proclaims that the Bible is monotheistic because it is the word of
42 The Only True God

“the only true God” can be labeled a “heretic” by the Gentile church
shows just how far the church has strayed from the word of God.
Only the God-given courage to face up to the truth, indeed to love the
truth at all cost, will enable us to go forward to know Him who is “the
God of truth”. I shall, therefore, conclude this section with the words of
Isaiah 65:16, “So that he who blesses himself in the land shall bless
himself by the God of truth, and he who takes an oath in the land shall
swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten and
are hidden from my eyes.”
(2) Apart from the serious problems of indoctrination and peer pressure,
there is the equally serious problem that we no longer possess the ideas
and concepts which were familiar to those who first read the NT:
common concepts such as Logos, or Memra, Shekinah, and above all the
Name of God, Yahweh. These are now alien to most Christians. To
understand the Bible, these concepts need to be learned, and for many
people this in itself is a challenge.
Few Christians today know something as basic as the fact that God’s
Name in the Hebrew Bible is “Yahweh,” which the Jews out of reverence
read as “Adonai,” which means “Lord”. It is generally translated as
“LORD” in most English Bibles (the New Jerusalem Bible, which has
“Yahweh,” is a notable exception). Hardly any Christian knows how
frequently the Name “Yahweh” appears in the Hebrew Bible (which
Christians call “the Old Testament”). They are surprised to learn that it
occurs 6828 times. When the shortened form of the Name is counted (as
in Hallelujah, where ‘Jah’ stands for Yahweh and Hallelujah means
“Praise to Yahweh”), the number of occurrence rises to around 7000. No
other name is even remotely comparable to this frequency of occurrence
in the Bible. This makes it perfectly clear that Yahweh encompasses both
the center and circumference of the Bible; He is essentially its “all in all”
(1Co.15.28).
It also needs to be noted that “Yahweh” is also found in the NT, espe-
cially in the many places where the OT is quoted. “Adonai” (the Jewish
metonym of “Yahweh”) occurs 144 times in the Complete Jewish Bible.
In the Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew New Testament, “Yahweh” occurs 207
times.
 Introduction 43

But the matter goes far beyond the statistical frequency of Yahweh’s
Name in the Bible. The extraordinary beauty of Yahweh’s character as
revealed in the Bible is something that few Christians have perceived.
The beauty of His character as seen in His compassion, His wisdom, and
His power as used for man’s salvation, is revealed already in Genesis,
where we can also observe the astonishing level of intimacy of His
interactions with Adam and Eve, whom it seems He regularly visited in
the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3.8) in the Garden of Eden, which He had
“planted” (Gen.2.8) for them. After they had sinned, He even made gar-
ments with which to cover them instead of the flimsy fig leaf covering
they had made for themselves (Gen.3.7,21).
Yahweh’s compassion and saving power are seen on an enormous
scale when He rescued the people of Israel out of their slavery in Egypt.
He led some 2,000,000 Israelites through the fearsome desert to the land
of Canaan, providing for their every need for 40 years. We shall consider
these things more fully in Chapter 5; here we only mention that these
same qualities of Yahweh’s character are revealed again in the gospels in
the life and actions of Jesus Christ, in whom the whole fullness of
Yahweh dwelt (Col.1.19; 2.9).
(3) Even talking about “God” becomes a problem because to trinitarians
the word can refer to any one of three persons or all three together. God
is thus a triad, that is, a group of three entities or persons. We cannot
even speak about God as Father without the trinitarian assuming that we
are talking about that one third of the Trinity who is called “God the
Father,” or even about Jesus as “Father,” because many Christians also
apply this title to him. How then can we even speak of “the only true
God” without being misunderstood by trinitarians? It seems that the only
way available to us is to speak of the true God by the name He revealed
Himself: “Yahweh,” or even as “Yahweh God” (YHWH elohim), a term
which occurs 817 times in the OT.
44 The Only True God

Some important historical facts

I
t is a fact of history that the trinitarian Nicene Creed was established
in AD 325 (and the creed of Constantinople in AD 381), 300 years
after the time of Christ. That is to say that trinitarianism became the
official creed of the church three centuries after the time of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
It is likewise a plain historical fact that Jesus and his apostles were all
Jews, and that the church when it was first established in Jerusalem
(described in the book of Acts) was a Jewish church. What this means is
simply that the earliest church was composed entirely of monotheists.
Scholars frankly acknowledge “the strict monotheism of the N.T. (in
John, see in particular 17.3),” to use the words of H.A.W. Meyer (Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of John, p.68).
What this means is that when we understand the NT monotheis-
tically, or expound it in this way, we are doing so in complete accordance
with its true character. This is how the NT is properly understood or
expounded. Therefore, when we speak of John 1.1 or any other part of
the NT in monotheistic terms, we have absolutely nothing to justify, no
case that we need to defend.
The NT is not a polytheistic or trinitarian document which we are
now trying to explain monotheistically. If we were doing this, we would
have to justify our actions or defend our case. But it is precisely the
reverse that is true. In regard to the NT, it is trinitarianism that is on trial:
it will have to explain why it has taken the monotheistic Word of God
and interpreted it in polytheistic terms, thereby utterly distorting its
fundamental character.
But are trinitarians not monotheists? As trinitarians we argued that
we are monotheists, not polytheists, because our faith is in one God in
three persons. We closed our eyes (and ears) to the fact that should have
been perfectly obvious: If the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the
Spirit is God, and all three are coequal and coeternal, 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 the word “God” had to be changed—from “Person” to a
divine “Substance” (or “Nature”) in which the three persons share
equally.
 Introduction 45

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. Yet trinitarianism changed the Bibl-
ical concept of God by daringly introducing polytheism into the church
under the guise of “monotheism”. In so doing they changed the meaning
of the word “God”.

The Subtle Shift from Monotheism to Trinitarian

Tritheism
We have already noted the historical fact that there was an interval of 300
years from the time of Christ to the time of the Nicene Creed. During
those three centuries a fundamental change had slowly but surely taken
place in the church: it had moved from monotheism to polytheism. The
historical reason for this change is not difficult to understand. As the
early church, empowered by the Spirit of God, proclaimed the mono-
theist Gospel dynamically throughout the polytheist Greco-Roman world
and many people came to the Lord, many Gentile believers who came
into the church did not leave their polytheistic way of thinking entirely
behind them. With the growth of the church throughout the world,
Gentiles came to predominate in the churches, until finally the Jews con-
stituted only a minority in most churches outside Palestine. By the mid-
dle of the second century, when Christianity had parted from Judaism,
the break with Biblical monotheism became a reality in fact if not in
name.
By the early third century AD it was hard to find a single Jewish name
among the regional leaders (then called “bishops”) of the church. The
church was now firmly under Gentile leadership. These leaders had
grown up in a religious and cultural environment where there were “gods
many and lords many” (1Cor.8.5, KJV), and the “gods” and “lords” of the
Greek and Roman religions were basically deified human beings who
were honored by the multitudes as heroes. “So from humans into heroes
and from heroes into demi-gods the better souls undergo their transition;
and from demi-gods, a few, after a long period of purification, share
totally in divinity” (Plutarch [c. AD 46-120], quoted in Greek-English
46 The Only True God

Lexicon, BDAG, θεότης). Alexander the Great and some of the Roman
emperors were hailed as gods.2
Whatever other reasons there may have been for the church’s having
gradually but steadily moved away from its original monotheism (cf. Jews
and Christians: the parting of the ways AD 70 to 135, ed. James D.G.
Dunn), it is clear that with the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople
promulgated three centuries after Christ, Christ was now proclaimed to
be God, coequal and coeternal with two other persons in the Godhead.
God was now no longer one personal Being but a group of three coequal
persons. This meant that the very meaning of the word “God” had
changed from being one divine Person into three divine persons sharing
one divine “substance” (Latin, substantia; Greek: hupostasis; also, ousia3).
Thus the Biblical proclamation fundamental to the Biblical faith in both
the OT and the NT expressed clearly in the words: “Hear, O Israel, the
LORD (Yahweh) our God, the LORD (Yahweh) is One” (Deut.6.4; Mark
12.29) was changed in essence to: “Hear, O Church, the Lord your God is
THREE.”
With this change the very character of Biblical Monotheism, in which
one personal God is revealed, is changed to a “monotheism” in which
“God” is not one person but one “substance” shared by three persons.
Already as early as the beginning of the third century, Origen, the
prominent “father” of the Greek Church and teacher at the catechetical

2
In fact, as is well known, some Romans also had no problem to include
Jesus as a god among the many gods of the Roman pantheon. What angered
them was the refusal by the early Christians to acknowledge the emperor as a
god. This resulted in several episodes of persecutions of the Christians, because
their refusal to worship the emperor was considered as evidence of disloyalty to
Rome. But Christians, for their part, were surely not too unhappy that some
Romans were willing to honor Jesus as a god alongside their other gods. And if
even the pagans were prepared to acknowledge the greatness of Jesus by giving
him a place among their gods, why should (Gentile) Christians not be willing to
honor him in like manner, that is, as God? This helped to pave the way to
trinitarianism.
3
“Hupostasis and ousia were originally synonyms, the former Stoic and the
latter Platonic, meaning real existence or essence, that which a thing is.” J.N.D.
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p.129.
 Introduction 47

school at Alexandria, declared, “We are not afraid to speak in one sense
of two Gods, in another sense of one God” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian
Doctrines, p.129). “We are not afraid to speak…of two Gods”: How bold,
or should we say, how daring?! The floodgates of polytheism (under the
thinly disguised veil of “trinitarian monotheism”) were now boldly
thrown open. Within barely 200 years from the time of Christ, the
Gentile church daringly defies Biblical monotheism, and begins its long
tradition of double-talk: “in one sense…in another sense”. In which
senses? The Gentile Christian God, in terms (i.e. in the sense) of persons,
is (are) two (or three, officially since 381AD); in terms of substance: one.
But let it be clearly understood that as far as the Biblical revelation is
concerned, whether of the Old Testament or the New, there are no two
Gods (or three) in any sense whatsoever. Those who care about Biblical
truth will reject the trinitarian double-talk, recognizing it for the
falsehood that it is. There is only one true God, and His Name is Yahweh.
Anyone who preaches another God besides Him will surely answer for it
on that Day.
Though deliberately changing the way the word “God” is defined and
understood is an extremely serious matter, the seriousness of the matter
does not end there. What happens in the trinitarian declaration is a flat
contradiction of the divine revelation that “Yahweh (the LORD) is ONE,”
Deut.6.4. Yahweh is one Being, one Entity, one Person, as is clearly seen
in the Hebrew Bible; and it is no different in the New Testament, as we
shall see. Therefore, the meaning of the oneness of God in the Bible is not
something open to negotiation or compromise.
The meaning of Yahweh’s oneness is defined with absolute clarity,
and is not amenable to compromise of the kind that suggests that His
oneness is “a unity in diversity” with the idea that it might include
another one or two persons besides Yahweh. The Scripture declares
unequivocally that: “the LORD is God; there is no other besides him”
(Deuteronomy 4.35). Or, in Yahweh’s own words, “there is no other god
besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn
to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is
no other” (Isaiah 45.21,22). “No other” is reiterated three times in these
two verses alone. It is repeated many times more elsewhere in the
48 The Only True God

Scriptures; we shall have occasion to return to these passages later in this

study.
Most notably, the trinitarian declaration flatly contradicts Jesus’ own
affirmation of Deuteronomy 6.4 that Yahweh is one. On the occasion
when a scribe asked, “Which commandment is the most important of
all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord
our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all
your strength.’” (Mark 12.28-30) Who “the Lord your God” refers to is
absolutely clear; in the Old Testament it is a standard form of reference
to Yahweh where it occurs over 400 times.
Yet that group of church leaders at Nicaea, who presumably acknow-
ledged Jesus as “Lord,” were not afraid (as Origen had earlier declared) to
contradict their master and demanded that the church must believe that
God is more than one person. This reminds us of Jesus’ words, “Why do
you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46) When
the master teaches that God is one, what should his true disciples’
response be? And when we don’t do what he tells us, can we not expect to
hear him say, “I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me,
you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:23, NIV). Or do we imagine that he will be
pleased with us because we elevated him onto the same level with
Yahweh, much like the people who wanted to crown him king against his
will in John 6.15: “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take
him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by
himself”?
As trinitarians we exalted Jesus to Yahweh’s level even though he
himself never once claimed to be God, just as Philippians 2.6 says that he
“did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”. Interestingly,
the Greek word translated “grasp” in this verse is precisely the same word
translated “take by force” (harpazō) in John 6.15 quoted above, by which
a link between the two passages can be seen. Jesus never made an attempt
to seize forcibly, or grasp at, equality with God. We shall return to
Philippians 2 later in this work.
Trinitarianism also insists on making the Spirit of the Lord (Yahweh)
a distinct person from Yahweh. For anyone somewhat familiar with the
Old Testament, this is something strange. Jews must wonder whether
 Introduction 49

Christians really have any understanding of the Bible at all. To argue that
the Spirit of Yahweh, God’s Spirit, is a person distinct from Him is like
arguing that “the spirit of man” (1Cor.2.11; Prov.20.27; Eccl.3.21;
Zech.12.1), man’s spirit, is a distinct individual who lives in or with him
as another person! This might be perceived as true by someone who
suffers from schizophrenia, but to suggest that this is the case with God
borders on lunacy if not something worse, like blasphemy.
“God is Spirit” (Jo.4.24) as Jesus said, yet we do not hesitate to declare
that God’s Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, is actually a
different person from Him. The tragedy is that as trinitarians we have
become so accustomed to this sort of teaching that we are no longer
capable of seeing its absurdity. Surely, we assure ourselves, we are not
that stupid. The problem is not stupidity but spiritual blindness—and we
thought that it was only the Jews who were struck with blindness
(Eph.4.18; Rom.11.25 KJV, esp. with regard to Jesus as Messiah)!
Since the Bible is unquestionably monotheistic in the Biblical sense
(and therefore a monotheistic exposition of it requires no justification
whatever, as noted above), what follows is an attempt to learn how to
understand the Scriptures as it was meant to be understood: monotheis-
tically. This is no easy task for someone as steeped in trinitarianism as I
had been. But it is something that, by the grace of God, and for the sake
of grasping His truth, must be done. It is time for us to “examine our
ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD (Yahweh)”
(Lamentations 3.40; NIV).

Trinitarian “Monotheism”

T
he fact is that trinitarian “monotheism” can only qualify as
monotheism by changing the definition of the word “mono-
theism”. It is rather like saying that an angel is a human being by
changing the meaning of the term “human being” to include angels. This
is like changing the rules of the game by placing the goal posts farther
apart and scoring your points. This can hardly be considered acceptable
to those, like Jews (and Muslims), who know that this kind of argument-
ation is a denial of the radical, uncompromising monotheism of the
Word of God, the Scriptures.
50 The Only True God

So how can trinitarianism, which claims that God is not one person
but three coequal persons, still claim to be monotheistic? Well, to put it
simply, by changing the meaning of “monotheism” in such a way that the
one God is not understood as being one Person but one “substance,” the
substance of deity or “godhead”. Encarta Dictionary defines “godhead” as
the “state of being God or a god: the nature or essence of being divine;
also called ‘godhood’”. All gods in polytheism are gods because they
share in the “state of being god,” that is, in the “substance” of godhood.
How else could they be gods? Likewise, we are human beings because we
share in a common manhood; we share the “substance” of humanity.
How else would we be human beings?
Thus, what trinitarianism has done is that it has reduced the word
“God” from being a reference to the LORD God of the Bible to a group of
three beings sharing the divine “substance” of godhood, rather like three
men sharing the “substance” of manhood (“state of being a man”,
Encarta). “God” is reduced to mean a “state of being,” not a person. The
God revealed in the Bible is de-personalized into divine “substance” in
order to make way for two other divine persons to share in that “one
substance”. This one substance, or nature, is trinitarian “monotheism”.
Whether the trinitarian realizes it or not (and he almost certainly does
not), when he prays to his “God” he is not praying to a specific person
but to a “state of being” in which he believes there are three persons.
Little wonder that a few pray to the Father, and probably most pray to
Jesus (as I did), and many pray to the Holy Spirit (as the charismatics
do).
Where, then, does this distorted concept of monotheism come from?
Trinitarians, of course, claim that it comes from the New Testament.
John 1.1 is the single most important verse they use for their case. For
this reason we shall study this verse in great detail in this work. If this
verse cannot be shown to endorse trinitarianism, then the case for this
dogma collapses. Other verses in the NT which trinitarianism also relies
upon will be considered. These include a portion of Philippians 2, a part
of Colossians 1, some verses in Hebrews 1 and in the book of Revelation;
but the trinitarian interpretation of these passages depends heavily on its
interpretation of John 1.1, so once the meaning of this verse is clarified
the meaning of the other passages is relatively easier to grasp.
 Introduction 51

The purpose of this work has something much more important in

view than the refuting of trinitarian dogma. The refutation of trinitar-
ianism clears the way for the proclamation of a wonderful revelation that
has been obscured by trinitarian doctrine, namely, that the one true
God—who revealed Himself by the Name Yahweh (YHWH), the “I am
that I am” (Ex.3.14), who through the great prophet Isaiah proclaimed
that He would come to His people (Isaiah 40), and through the last OT
prophet Malachi declared that He would suddenly (unexpectedly) come
to His temple—He did indeed come in the person of Jesus Christ as
proclaimed in all the Gospels. It is this mind-boggling revelation which
trinitarianism has obscured. It is the first (and only) Person who came
into the world in Christ, not an alleged “second person”. We shall go into
this more fully after the trinitarian interpretation of Scripture has been
evaluated.

Why do Christians believe that there is a Trinity?

Clearly, if there were even just one verse in the Bible which plainly and
explicitly states that “Jesus Christ is God” the whole matter should
therewith immediately be settled, and no further discussion would be
necessary. But the fact is: there is no such statement in the Scriptures. That
being the case, why don’t we close the case on trinitarianism because of
insufficient evidence? Well, the matter is not quite that simple; a long and
complex church tradition lies behind it. Why do Roman Catholics believe
in the Trinity? They believe in it because it is the official doctrine of the
Catholic Church. For the Roman Catholic the church is God’s voice on
earth. If you hope to be saved, then you must unconditionally accept
what the church teaches.
That the leaders of the Catholic church are God’s representatives on
earth, and that they are authorized to execute what they consider to be
God’s will in regard to all matters of faith and practice in the church, is
something which goes back a long way in church tradition and history.
Accordingly, a group of church leaders (called “bishops”) gathered at
Nicaea in AD 325 under the sponsorship of the Roman emperor
Constantine (who claimed to have become a Christian but was not
baptized until just before his death). Constantine placed on them the
52 The Only True God

momentous task of deciding on the different and conflicting views about

Jesus Christ and how he was related to God, which were current in the
church at the time and which were threatening the peace and unity which
he hoped to establish in his empire.
The church leaders at Nicaea finally (there was considerable tension
among them) came up with what we know as the Nicene Creed in which
the deity of Jesus was declared to be what Christians must believe. On
what was this declaration based? This is the important question that
needs to be asked. Was it based on the Bible, or at least on the NT? No,
there is not a single reference to the Bible anywhere in this creed. So on
what authority was it based? It was based on the authority of these
church leaders, who considered themselves as acting in God’s Name on
behalf of His church.
This sole authority of the church in all matters of faith and practice
was first challenged only a few hundred years ago (in the 16th century) by
Martin Luther, who himself was a Roman Catholic and, indeed, an
Augustinian monk. How dare one lowly monk stand up against the
might of the vast Catholic establishment? Luther dared to do this on the
basis of the New Testament which he had devoted himself to studying.
While reading Paul’s letters he had noticed the phrase “justified by faith”.
He came to realize that this contradicted the teaching of the Catholic
church of his day which taught the acquiring of “merit” as a means of
obtaining forgiveness of sins. On this truth of justification by faith Luther
took his courageous stand against the whole might of the established
church; and out of this bold stand the Reformation was born.
Although the phrase “justified by faith” occurs only a few times in
Paul’s letters (Ro.3.28; 5.1; Gal.2.16; 3.24), the idea expressed by that
phrase has a wider basis in Paul’s teaching on salvation, as also in New
Testament teaching. The enormous significance of Luther’s courageous
stand meant that from then on the teachings of the church could be
called into question on the basis of the Scriptures, the word of God. The
church and its leaders could no longer continue to arrogate to themselves
the authority to pontificate on all matters of faith and practice without
needing to answer to the word of God. Unfortunately, this is still not the
case in the Catholic Church even today, for the authority of the church
(i.e. its leaders and its tradition) still takes precedence over the Scriptures.
 Introduction 53

Luther’s whole attention was taken up by the matter of “justification

by faith”. One can only wonder, given his commitment to the supreme
authority of the Scriptures for the church, what he would have thought of
the question we started with at the beginning of this section—“Why do
Christians believe in the Trinity”—when nowhere in Scripture can the
phrase “Jesus is God” be found?
In the absence of explicit statements about Jesus being God, all that
the church can use to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity are those
verses which seem to imply Jesus’ divinity. It is upon this weak found-
ation that this doctrine is built, and it is these verses which we need to
examine in what follows. Moreover, what the average Christian does not
usually know is that there is no unanimity among scholars about the
meaning of many of the key verses on which trinitarianism is built. These
scholarly discussions are often found in learned books and articles which
are generally inaccessible and/or largely unintelligible to the lay person.
Most Christians assume that the case for trinitarianism is “cut and
dried,” settled long ago beyond dispute. They would, therefore, be sur-
prised to read a statement such as the following in Thayer’s Greek-English
Lexicon: “Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John
1:1; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8f, etc.; the matter is
still in dispute among theologians.” (Greek-English Lexicon, θεός, sec.2).
But if the phrase “justified by faith” is explicit in Romans and
Galatians as Luther had seen, the declaration that “the LORD is one” is
certainly no less explicit, and it resonates throughout the Old and New
Testaments. Jesus spoke of it as the “first” or “most important” com-
mandment (Mark 12.29).

In conclusion: The fundamental difference between

trinitarianism and monotheism

A
s we proceed with the study of Scripture in this book, it is of the
greatest importance to grasp clearly that what we are engaged in
is not merely a study of different interpretations but a funda-
mental difference of ways of thinking on the spiritual level, a total differ-
ence of the point of view from which Scripture is looked at and, indeed,
everything else. We either look at everything monotheistically, that is
54 The Only True God

from the truth that everything comes from the one true God and returns
to Him such that He is the sum and circumference of everything that
exists—He is thus the focal point of our lives; or we look at everything
polytheistically, that is from the point of view that there is more than one
God or more than one person who is God. Then the question becomes:
which one of these is the focal point of our lives? Since we cannot
properly hold more than one focal point, then no matter which of these
focal points we choose, it will not be the only one which could have been
chosen, so it could never conform to Biblical monotheism.
Trinitarianism speaks of three persons who are all equally God, and
then goes on to claim a place in monotheism by changing the definition
of God into a “divine nature”, “substance”, or “Godhead” in which the
three persons all share; which means, of course, that this “Godhead” is
not at all identical to the one and only personal God of the Bible. Where
there is belief in more than one person who is God, that is polytheism by
definition. What we need to realize is that trinitarianism is in essence,
therefore, a different faith from Biblical monotheism. So we are not here
dealing with the relatively simpler matter of Biblical interpretation, but
with the far more profound matter of Biblical faith. In other words, what
is at stake is true or false faith, not just true or false interpretations of the
Bible. True or false faith, according to the Scriptures, is a matter of life or
death.
If the experience of the Israelites is taken as a point of reference, then
the transition from polytheism and idolatry to monotheism is not an easy
one. It clearly involves what the Apostle Paul calls “the renewing of the
mind” (Ro.12.1,2). This is not something we can accomplish simply by
changing our way of thinking on the rational or intellectual level. There
has to be a change on the spiritual level if it is to have any real depth, and
this can only be done by God’s own work in us.
We know from experience how difficult it is to change a habit. As
trinitarians we were trained to understand any given passage of the Bible
from the trinitarian perspective, which was often the only perspective we
knew. We habitually looked at every verse from the point of view of trini-
tarian interpretation. Even if we could finally see that a different inter-
pretation is the more correct one, that in itself does not resolve the
deeper question of the kind of faith which gave expression to that inter-
 Introduction 55

pretation. So, again, the question is not merely what is the correct inter-
pretation of the many texts but, ultimately, which one is the true faith.
In the following chapters the trinitarian interpretation of the texts will
be drawn from authoritative trinitarian reference works. It will become
evident time and again that the interpretation of the texts is inevitably
governed by the beliefs of the writers. In other words, it is not the
Scriptures which govern the belief or dogma, but the dogma which
governs the interpretation. This is usually done quite unconsciously (as I
know from experience) because of the belief that it has to be understood
in this way, that is, we believed that this was the only right way to
understand it. There was, of course, never any intention to deceive our-
selves or others; it was our faith that determined the way we understood
things. Hence, as we have seen, it is at root a matter of faith.
 Chapter 1

The Explicit
Monotheism of
the Lord Jesus Christ
and His Apostles

“The Shema” in Jesus’ teaching: Mark 12.29

Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The
Lord our God, the Lord is one.’”

H
ere Jesus quotes the Shema (from the Hebrew word shama, to
hear) of Deuteronomy 6.4, which the Jews recited every day.
But how exactly are the words “the Lord is one” to be under-
stood?
I shall quote the discussion in the Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament (TWOT) under ‫’( ֶאחַד‬ehad, one):
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 57

“Some scholars have felt that, though ‘one’ is singular (’ehad

has a plural form, ’ahadim, e.g. Ex.12.49; cf. Nu.15.16), the
usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity. While
it is true that this doctrine is foreshadowed in the OT, the verse
concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel
owes its exclusive loyalty to him (Deut 5:9; Deut 6:5). The NT
also is strictly monotheistic while at the same time teaching
diversity within the unity (Jas 2:19; 1Cor 8:5-6).

“The lexical and syntactical difficulties of Deut 6:4 can be seen

in the many translations offered for it in the NIV. The option
‘the LORD is our God, the LORD alone’ has in its favor both
the broad context of the book and the immediate context.
Deuteronomy 6:4 serves as an introduction to motivate Israel
to keep the command “to love (the Lord)” (v.5). The notion
that the Lord is Israel’s only God suits this command admirably
(cf. Song 6:8ff). Moreover, these two notions, the Lord’s unique
relation to Israel and Israel’s obligation to love him, are central
to the concern of Moses’ addresses in the book (cf. Deut 5:9f.;
Deut 7:9; Deut 10:14ff, 20f., Deut 13:6; Deut 30:20; Deut 32:12).
Finally Zechariah employs the text with this meaning and
applies it universally with reference to the eschaton: ‘The Lord
will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be (the
only) one, and His name (the only) one’ (Zec 14:9 NASB).”

In the first paragraph of TWOT quoted above, “some scholars” (not all,
or perhaps not even many) “have felt” (is scholarship a matter of
personal feeling?) that the singular “one” “allows for the doctrine of the
Trinity on the basis of diversity in unity (mentioned in the previous
paragraph in TWOT). The problem is that there is no mention in the OT
of any diversity in Yahweh. So, what exactly is the feeling of the “some
scholars” based on?
Then TWOT goes on to make the statement that “it is true that this
doctrine (i.e. of the Trinity) is foreshadowed in the OT,” but not a single
verse is given as evidence for this statement. The fact is that far from
trinitarianism being foreshadowed in the OT, one will be hard put to find
so much as a shadow of it! I have done my share of trying to find such
58 The Only True God

shadows! Trinitarians have tried to point to such terms as the Shekinah,

the memra, etc. which occur frequently in Jewish Biblical literature, but
ignore the fact that these are not hypostases or persons in that literature;
it is therefore all a matter of reading trinitarianism into those ideas and
names (another example of eisegesis).
Trinitarian eisegesis also has to be employed if one is to discover
“diversity within the unity” (i.e. multiplicity of persons within one God)
in James 2.19 and 1Corinthians 8.5-6 (which TWOT quotes in the first
paragraph) even while admitting that “the NT also is strictly monothe-
istic”. Exactly how the NT can be “strictly” monotheistic if it teaches a
multiplicity of persons in the Godhead, TWOT, not surprisingly, does
not attempt to explain. It knows that its readers are primarily trinitarians
who will not ask for any explanation anyway!
How exactly can James 2.19 (“you believe God is one” or, NIV “You
believe that there is one God,” εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός), which evidently points to
Dt.6.4 (κύριος εἷς ἐστιν), be used as evidence for “diversity within unity”
in a discussion on Dt.6.4 is somewhat hard to fathom. It is also quite
desperate to hope that “one” does not literally mean “one” but something
like a “unity” within which there could be a diversity or multiplicity of
persons. The word “unity” in itself implies multiplicity; if there were only
one state one could not speak of the “United States”. Moreover, the pro-
blem for trinitarianism is that we would be hard pressed to find even a
hint in the OT of any multiplicity of persons within Yahweh Himself, for
Dt.6.4 is about Yahweh (“LORD” in capitals in most English transla-
tions); and if there is no such multiplicity, it is pointless to speak of any
“unity”.
TWOT also quotes 1 Corinthians 8.6 (ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ, ‘yet
for us there is but one God, the Father’) which like James 2.19 echoes
Dt.6.4 and, therefore, cannot legitimately be cited as evidence in support
of allegedly “teaching diversity within the unity” (TWOT first
paragraph), or one would be arguing in a circle.
On the other hand, TWOT does not inform the reader that the
message of Dt.6.4 is echoed in other NT verses such as Gal.3.20 (ὁ δὲ
θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν, ‘but God is one’), Rom.3.30 (εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεὸς, ‘since there is
only one God’), and 1Tim. 2:5 (εἷς γὰρ θεός, ‘for there is one God’). But
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 59

these do confirm TWOT’s acknowledgement that the NT is “strictly

monotheistic”.
In fairness to TWOT, having said that the trinitarian doctrine is fore-
shadowed in the OT, it nonetheless puts the doctrine aside with the word
“while,” indicating that it has no relevance to the meaning of Dt.6.4, and
states instead that “the verse concentrates on the fact that there is one
God”. This is developed further in the next paragraph of TWOT where it
opts for the translation of Dt.6.4 which reads, “the LORD is our God, the
LORD alone”. That is, “the LORD is one” is understood to mean “the
LORD alone”.
“The LORD alone” is surely a correct translation because “the LORD
is one” certainly could not mean “one of many” nor, as we have noted, a
unity of a multiplicity of beings, since no such “diversity” is implied in
the OT. “The LORD alone” fits in properly with the context of this verse
where the point is that Yahweh, the LORD, is the only One to whom
“Israel owes its exclusive loyalty” (TWOT first paragraph above where
Dt.5.9 and 6.5 are also quoted in support). “The notion that the Lord is
Israel’s only God suits this command admirably (cf. Song 6:8ff)” (TWOT
second paragraph, italics added).
TWOT is to be commended for the fact that in this case, in spite of its
trinitarian leanings, it sought for an exegesis faithful to the context of
Dt.6.4.
But a fundamental error inherent in the whole discussion in TWOT,
and in the discussion of the Shema’ by trinitarians generally, is the failure
to look at what Dt.6.4 actually states: “the LORD our God, the LORD is
one”. The trinitarian concern is about whether God could be understood
as “one” in the sense of being a multi-person unity. But in the Shema’ the
word “one” qualifies the word “Yahweh” (LORD) not the word “God”.
Does trinitarianism want to argue that Yahweh is a tri-person Being? If
so, then Yahweh is not just the Father, but all three persons of the
Trinity! Thus all three persons would be manifestations of the one
Yahweh (which in theology is called “Modalism” or “Sabellianism”). Or
do trinitarians really want to maintain that Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible
is a multi-personal being, contrary to the Bible itself? If not, then what is
the point of all the lengthy discussion on “unity” and “diversity” in
regard to the “one” in Dt.6.4?
60 The Only True God

The fallacious argument that “One” means “unity” rather

than “singularity”

T
his is an argument often used in trinitarian circles, and one that I
had also used in the past, having accepted it without carefully
examining it. The argument sounds impressive to the average
Christian because it is based on the alleged meaning of the Hebrew word
for “one” (‫ ֶאחַד‬, ’ehad) which makes the argument sound scholarly and,
since he knows no Hebrew, it is in any case beyond his capacity to check
its validity. As we saw above, TWOT implies this notion of “one” by
saying that it “allows for” the idea of the trinitarian “diversity within
unity”; but TWOT does not supply any lexical evidence for this state-
ment.
Because of its importance for many trinitarians, I shall here delineate
the salient features of this argument. The essence of the argument is this:

In its Hebrew usage the word ’ehad implies unity not singular-
ity because the “one” contains more than one element within it,
for example, “there was evening and there was morning, one
day” (Gen.1.5, NASB; but the “one day” is better translated as
the “first day,” as in most other versions). Particularly import-
ant for this argument is Genesis 2.24 where Adam and Eve
together constitute “one flesh” (but cf. 1Cor.6.16,17 where it is
applied to the believer’s spiritual union with the Lord). The
tabernacle was made a unified structure by means of clasps
holding it together: Exodus 36.18, “And he made fifty clasps of
bronze to couple the tent together that it might be a single
whole” (lit. “become one”). Another example can be found in
Ezekiel’s prophecy of the uniting of the northern and southern
kingdoms of Israel into one (Ezek.37.15-22). So the conclusion
is drawn that to speak of God as “one” implies that He is a
unity of more than one person, and that Jesus Christ, “God the
Son,” is included in that unity, according to the trinitarian
interpretation of the NT.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 61

That, in essence, is the argument for the Trinity from the word ’ehad. It
seems impressive enough—until we examine the lexical details. This
Hebrew word for “one” is used 971 times in the Hebrew Bible, so there is
a lot of material with which to evaluate the trinitarian argument. When
we do this we will discover in a very short time that the argument is
entirely specious; it is another misguided case of special pleading—
collecting the evidence that favors one’s own argument and ignoring the
strong evidence that contradicts it. One need not look at each one of the
971 occurrences because it will quickly emerge, even after considering a
number of these, that the word ’ehad is definitely also used in the sense of
“singleness”. One quick way to see this fact for oneself is to look up the
word “single” in a translation such as ESV and then look at the Hebrew
word that is translated as “single”. It will be seen that in many cases it is
precisely the word ’ehad which is translated as “single,” without any idea
of unity implied. Here are a few examples (only the relevant portion of
each verse is quoted):

Exodus 10.19: “Not a single locust was left in all the country of
Egypt.” Or “not one locust was left in all the territory of Egypt”
(NASB).

Exodus 25.36: “the whole of it a single piece of hammered work

of pure gold”; or, “the whole made from a single piece of pure
gold” (NJB).

Deuteronomy 19.15: “A single witness shall not suffice” or

“One witness is not enough to convict a man” (NIV).

1Samuel 26.20: “the king of Israel has come out to seek a single
flea”; or, “the king of Israel has come out to search for a single
flea” (NASB).

In none of these examples does the idea of unity appear in the

word ’ehad; a simple singularity is what is expressed. There are many
other instances of ’ehad expressing singularity where the translations do
not use the word “single,” e.g. Gen.27.38; 40.5; Ex.14.28; Josh.23.10;
Judges 13.2; 1Chron.29.1; 1Ki.4.22 (5.2 in some versions); Isa.34.16, etc.
What emerges from this lexical study is that the word ’ehad can be used
62 The Only True God

with reference to both a composite structure (e.g. the tabernacle) and to a

simple singularity (e.g. a single witness). The idea of “oneness” is not
inherent in the word itself but is determined by the context. So an exam-
ination of its use in Hebrew shows that the word “’ehad” is not different
from its use in English (or most other languages). Thus, in English “one”
can be used in a collective sense as in “one family,” or as simple singular-
ity as in “one individual”. Neither in Hebrew nor in English is either
multiplicity or singularity inherent in the word “one”; this is determined
by the context or the way in which “one” is used.
Moreover, while “one” can be used in a collective sense as in “one
family” or “one company,” it does not of itself imply unity within that
family or that company. A family can suffer from disharmony, and a
company can even be torn apart by disunity; so even such collective
terms as “one family” or “one company” do not in themselves provide
evidence of unity. If even when used in a collective term ’ehad does not
prove unity, then it is all the more evident that the idea of unity is not
inherent in the word ’ehad itself when used alone (as in Deut.6.4) but
must be supplied either explicitly or implicitly by other words. For
example, in the sentence “they were united as one man,” unity is made
explicit by the word “united” not by the word “one,” which here
expresses singleness. The same idea of unity can be expressed implicitly
by saying “all the people arose as one man” (Judg.20.8), where the idea of
unity is expressed by the multiplicity of “all the people” joined together in
the single-mindedness of “one man”. In either case the word “one”
expresses singleness, while the idea of unity has to be supplied by the
sentence as a whole. It should now be evident that it is entirely illegit-
imate to argue that there is some special idea of unity inherent within the
Hebrew word ’ehad.
It is, therefore, completely erroneous to build a theology on the mis-
taken attribution of unity to the word ’ehad. To argue for the “Godhead”
as a unified entity (composed of more than one person) based on the
lexical character of ’ehad is a false argument. Unfortunately, trinitarian-
ism is built upon this kind of fallacious argumentation. In Deut.6.4
Yahweh is declared to be ’ehad, and both the immediate context and the
general context of the OT show beyond any doubt that Yahweh is “one”
in the singular sense of being the only one, the only God. In the OT one is
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 63

hard put to find so much as a shadow of another divine individual who is

said to exist in the “substance” (to use a trinitarian term) of the only
God—which, of course, would be a contradiction in terms: if there were
another person in His “substance,” He would not be the only God. Here
again we see the impossibility of trying to extract trinitarianism out of
true monotheism.

Deuteronomy 6.5 excludes anything other than

monotheism
That Yahweh alone is the one and only God is unequivocally asserted in
Deuteronomy 6.4, as we have seen. But what is generally overlooked,
especially by trinitarians, is that the command which follows immed-
iately upon that affirmation reinforces it in such a way as to exclude any
other option to the “radical” Biblical monotheism which it uncompro-
misingly affirms.

Deuteronomy 6:5 “You shall love the LORD your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”

The thrice repeated “all”, which comprehends the whole human being in
his entirety, leaves nothing whatever with which to love another deity.
What we have failed to notice is that this command makes trinitarianism
functionally impossible, because no matter how we try, we cannot
possibly love three distinct persons with our “all” simultaneously. We can
indeed love many people, but not in the way required here. That is why
most earnest trinitarians (as I also was) ended up loving Jesus in this
intense and concentrated way, making him the central object of our
devotion and prayer. It was simply not possible in practice to accord the
same level of devotion to the Father and the Spirit.
Thus, unwittingly, we lived in direct disobedience to this central
command of Scriptural teaching, for Messiah Jesus (no matter on which
Christian interpretation of the New Testament) is not “Yahweh your
God,” who alone is to be the sole and full object of our devotion. I know
of no church or scholar that does, or would, assert that Jesus is Yahweh.
Significantly, all three Synoptic gospels record that Jesus himself
taught Deuteronomy 6.5 as being the great and central command of “the
64 The Only True God

Law and the Prophets” (Mt.22.40): Matt. 22.37; Mark 12.30; Luke 10.27.
But instead of loving “Yahweh your God” as he taught his disciples to do,
we chose to love Jesus as the central object of our devotion, regardless of
his teaching. Should this not cause us to ponder again his words, “Why
do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk.6.46)
What might the consequences be of such disobedience? Jesus did not
leave his hearers in the dark about this: “On that day many will say to me,
‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in
your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I
declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of
lawlessness.’” (Mt.7.22,23). Are not those who disobey the great central
command of Deuteronomy 6.4,5 accurately described as “workers of
lawlessness,” i.e. those who disregard God’s command or law, especially
the one which Jesus described as the “most important” (Mk.12.29)?

The Shema

I
n the previous section we saw that Jesus fully endorsed the Shema. It
is particularly interesting how the scribe with whom Jesus was con-
versing understood what Jesus had said, responding with the words,
“You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no
other besides him.” (Mark.12.32) Notice carefully: “You (Jesus) have said
there is no other besides Him.” Notice, too, “He is one” is equated with
“there is no other besides Him”; the one statement explains the other.
Jesus did not disagree in any way with how the scribe had interpreted
what he had said. On the contrary, he commended the scribe with the
words, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (v.34). Why was the
scribe not yet in the kingdom? It was because he had not yet believed that
Jesus is the Messiah; without this faith he could not be saved (John
20.31).
The scribe’s words in Mark 12.32 echo Deuteronomy 4.35: “the
LORD (Yahweh) is God; there is no other besides him”. Compare:

Isaiah 45.5: “I am Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me

there is no God.”

Isaiah 45.14: “there is no other, no god besides him.”

 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 65

Isaiah 45.18: “I am Yahweh, and there is no other.”

Isaiah 45.21b,22: “Who told this long ago? Who declared it of

old? Was it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to
me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and
there is no other.”

Isaiah 46.9: “remember the former things of old; for I am God,

and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me”.

Isaiah 46.5: “To whom will you liken me and make me equal,
and compare me, that we may be alike?”

Isaiah 40.25: “ ‘To whom will you compare me? Or who is my

equal?’ says the Holy One.”

Exodus 8.10: “there is no one like Yahweh our God.”

Exodus 9.14: “that there is none like me in all the earth.”

1 Samuel 2.2: “There is none holy like Yahweh; there is none

besides you.”

Jeremiah 10.6: “There is none like you, Yahweh; you are great,
and your name is great in might.”

This long (though not exhaustive) list of references unequivocally affirms

two things: (1) Yahweh is the only true God; there is no other God
besides Him; (2) He is incomparable and without any equal. Compare
these two affirmations with the direct contradiction of them in the
trinitarian declaration that there are two other divine persons besides
Yahweh, and both are His equals. Daring, indeed, are the trinitarian
polytheists of the Gentile church.
Certainly, the strong affirmations in the Hebrew Bible were initially
directed against the idolatry which flourished in Israel, and which finally
led to their perishing as a nation at the Exile. Yet the Gentile church
evidently learned nothing from the disaster which befell Israel. But the
Gentile church is without excuse in view of the many monotheistic
66 The Only True God

statements in the NT, including Jesus’ own explicit teaching (e.g.

Mk.12.29f; Jo.5.44; 17.3).
Jesus’ dialogue with this scribe about “the first of all the command-
ments” (Mk.12.28ff) is typically a dialogue of a Jew with a Jew, and is one
of the many passages in the gospels which confirm Martin McNamara’s
statement that Jesus was “a Jew of the Jews. His language and mental
make-up were theirs.” (Targum and Testament, p.167), and no attempt
on our part at presenting him as a blond hair blue-eyed Christ, or
anything else, can change that fact.
As seen in this dialogue with the scribe, the Shema’ represents the
central element of the Jewish faith. In the opening sentence of the article
“Shema” in the Jewish Encyclopedia we read that the Shema’ is “recited as
the confession of the Jewish faith”—it is the confession of their faith. This
confession of faith is to be recited daily by every Jew both in the morning
and the evening. How central the Shema’ is to the Jewish faith is
described in the Jewish Encyclopedia in this way:

‘It was the battle-cry of the priest in calling Israel to arms

against an enemy (Deut. xx. 3; Sotah 42a). It is the last word of
the dying in his confession of faith. It was on the lips of those
who suffered and were tortured for the sake of the Law. R.
Akiba patiently endured while his flesh was being torn with
iron combs, and died reciting the “Shema’.” He pronounced the
last word of the sentence, “Ehad” (one) with his last breath
(Ber. 61b). During every persecution and massacre, from the
time of the Inquisition to the slaughter of Kishinef, “Shema’
Yisrael” have been the last words on the lips of the dying.
“Shema’ Yisrael” is the password by which one Jew recognizes
another in every part of the world.’

Once the Gentile church moved away from this central element of the
Biblical faith—the monotheism of the Hebrew Bible—officially installing
in the Nicene Creed of AD 325 a multi-personal God, whereby “God”
ceased to be a Person but was now a “substance” (ousios)—a description
of God wholly foreign to the Bible—it thereby denied the Shema’,
namely, “that He is one, and there is no other besides Him”. They thereby
also denied Jesus’ teaching. Are those who deny their master’s teaching
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 67

truly his disciples? It is, therefore, perhaps hardly surprising that few
Christians today would call themselves Jesus’ disciples.
The Shema’ (Deuteronomy 6.4) declares: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD
[Yahweh] our God, the LORD [Yahweh] is one.” (ESV, NIV, NKJ, etc)
On the other hand, trinitarianism declares: “Hear, O Church, The
Lord our God, the Lord is three.” (The basic meaning of “Trinity: 1.
three: a group of three. 2. threeness: the condition of existing as three
persons or things [13th century, Via Old French trinite, from Latin
trinitas, from trinus ‘threefold’]” Encarta Dictionary, so also The Concise
Oxford Dictionary, etc.)
These are two entirely different, fundamentally incompatible, and
mutually exclusive statements. What compatibility can there possibly be
between a creed that speaks of a unity of a group of three co-equal, co-
eternal persons in the Godhead, on the one hand, and a declaration, on
the other, that Yahweh is the one and only God who is without any
equal? One must surely have lost one’s capacity of perception and of
comprehension to insist on any compatibility between these totally
different creeds about God.
Why is the Shema’ so relevant to us? First, because it is the fundamen-
tal declaration of monotheism, and second, because the true church of
God embodies the “Israel of God” (Gal.6.16); “And if you are Christ’s,
then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians
3.29); “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circum-
cision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision
is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not
from man but from God.” (Romans 2.28,29)

The First Commandment

Exodus 20:3, “You shall have no other gods before {Or besides} me.”
(NIV). The “me” who is speaking is introduced in the first two verses:

Exodus 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying, 2 “I am the
LORD (Yahweh) your God”.

If, according to trinitarians, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and
both are persons just as the Father (Yahweh) is, then they acknowledge as
68 The Only True God

God two other persons besides Yahweh. This is in clear and direct viol-
ation of the First Commandment.
We have seen that Jesus firmly endorsed the Shema which embodies
all the commandments including, of course, the First Commandment.
But Jesus not only affirmed the monotheism of the Shema publicly, his
monotheism is expressed nowhere more strongly than in his personal
prayer to the Father in what is called his “high-priestly prayer” in John
17: “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (v.3).

D
oes Matthew 28.19 contradict Jesus’ monotheism? This text is
used as though it were a trinitarian formula. That is how as
trinitarians we were taught to think of it, and we hear it fre-
quently used in various important ceremonies, such as at weddings and
at funerals, but especially at baptisms, for the verse reads, “Go therefore
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The words which immed-
iately follow in the next verse, “teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you” (v.20), are not usually given much attention, least of all
Jesus’ commitment to monotheism as in the Shema. But does Jesus
contradict himself in Matthew 28.19? We shall see in the following sect-
ion that not even trinitarian scholars dare to say so.

Matthew 28.19 as a proof-text for trinitarianism

“ 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded
you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(Matthew 28.19-20)

H
.A.W. Meyer in Critical and Exegetical Handbook of the Gospel
of Matthew discussed this verse at some length. He claimed that
though the Name is singular, we are “of course” to read the rest
of the saying as “and in the name of the Son, and in the name
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 69

of the Holy Spirit”. Meyer’s argument here is, however, remarkably hol-
low. To simply state that “εἰς τό ὄνομα (eis to onoma, into the Name) is,
of course, to be understood both before του υἱοῦ (tou huiou, the Son) and
ἁγίου πνεύματος (hagiou pneumatos, the Holy Spirit)” (italics his;
transliteration and translation in parentheses added), is arbitrary. How
can an important statement be simply justified by an “of course”? What
does an “of course” prove? Nothing whatever. But there is a reason for
this “of course”—for it is “of course” where trinitarianism is concerned, so
this “of course” derives from the trinitarian dogma. Even an exegete like
Meyer (notice the word “Exegetical” in the title of his commentaries)
here allows dogma to determine his work, which I admit I also did in the
past, such is the grip that dogma has upon us.
In an attempt to provide a cross reference in support of his argument,
Meyer cites Revelation 14.1 (“his name and the name of his Father”), but
he apparently fails to see that this verse is evidence of exactly the opposite
of the point he wants to make, because “his name” and “the name of his
Father” are mentioned separately in Revelation 14.1, while only one name
is mentioned in Matthew 28.19. Likewise, if the Lord had intended all
three names to be spoken in his baptismal statement then he would have
said explicitly (as in Rev.14.1), “In the name of the Father, and in the
name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit” (which is done in
some churches), or else “In the names of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit”.
Meyer’s argument is rejected by The Expositor’s Greek Testament: “It
is not said into the names of, etc., nor into the name of the Father, and
the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost.—Hence might be
deduced the idea of a trinity constituting at the same time a Divine Unity.
But this would probably be reading more into the words than was
intended.” (Italics mine; this portion of the commentary was written by
A.B. Bruce, who at the time of writing was professor of apologetics, Free
Church College, Glasgow, Scotland). Bruce’s frank comment (which I
have italicized) is to be appreciated, since he is also a trinitarian, yet he
honestly doubts that this verse can be used as an argument for the idea of
the Trinity.
To be fair to Meyer, he did finally admit that this verse should not be
used in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote, “We must
70 The Only True God

beware of making any such dogmatic use of the singular as to employ it as

an argument either for (Basilides, Jerome, Theophylact) or against (the
Sabellians) the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.” He also rejects the
trinitarian view of the German scholar Gess:

We should be equally on our guard against the view of Gess,

who holds that Christ abstained from using the words “of God
the Father,” etc. [i.e. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit],
because he considers the designation God to belong to the Son
and the Holy Spirit as well.

Why does Meyer reject Gess’ interpretation which, after all, is the usual
one in trinitarian teaching? It is because as an exegete Meyer recognizes
that in Jesus’ teaching, “He was never known to claim the name θεός
(theos, God) either for Himself or for the Holy Spirit” (these quotations
are from footnote 1, p.302, all italics are his, bracketed transliteration and
translation mine).
This last observation of Meyer’s: “He (Jesus) was never known to
claim the name θεός either for Himself or for the Holy Spirit,” is an
extremely important one for correctly understanding Jesus and his
teaching. It was this fact that eventually prevented Meyer from using
Matthew 28.19 as an argument for the Trinity.
What then was Meyer’s own understanding of the Trinity with
reference to Matthew 28.19? His view is that “the Name” (singular) is
“intended to indicate the essential nature of the Persons or Beings to
whom the baptism has reference” (p.303, italics his); but he also says that
the “Persons or Beings” are not equal in their positions relative to each
other, because the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit is
subordinate to both the Father and the Son. So they share the same
“essential nature” (what was also called “substance” in the 3rd and 4th
centuries and later) but they are not equal. This view is expressed in
various parts of Meyer’s commentaries. In relation to Matthew 28.19 he
writes, “The New Testament, i.e. the Subordination, view of the Trinity as
constituting the summary of the Christian creed and confession lies at
the root of this whole phraseology” (p.302, footnote 1, his italics).
I have quoted Meyer’s work here mainly because, though he belonged
to an earlier generation of scholars, his command of New Testament
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 71

Greek and his scholarship in regard to the Greek New Testament in

general has rarely been equalled. His 20 volume exegetical commentaries
on the Greek New Testament (originally written in German and trans-
lated into English) are available in recent reprinted editions. Many other
reference works could be cited and discussed, but this would be beyond
the scope of this book. I shall leave that to those who wish to pursue the
study of this verse in the many commentaries which are available.
But if, as Prof. A.B. Bruce indicated, more is being read into Matthew
28.19 by trinitarians than was originally intended, what then was the
meaning that Jesus intended in teaching that new disciples are to be
baptized in the one Name of God? To this question Bruce’s commentary
provides no answer. But does the Lord leave us without any answer? Not
at all, an answer is available if we listen attentively to his words, because it
has to do with the fundamental character of his ministry.
Why then are we baptized into the one Name? The one Name in
Scripture, as we should now realize, can only refer to the Name of
Yahweh, who Jesus consistently addressed as “Father”. The reason why
Jesus mentions only one Name in Matthew 28.19 emerges clearly when
we begin to grasp the essence of his teaching. Consider the following
passages:

John 5:43: “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not

receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will
receive.” [NKJV] Here Jesus states categorically that he did not
come in his own name.

John 10.25: Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not
believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear
witness to me.” [NIV] Jesus did not do his works (including
miracles, etc) in his own name, but in the Father’s name.

John 12.13: So they took branches of palm trees and went out
to meet him, crying, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the
name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” (These words occur
in all four Gospels)

John 12.28: “Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came

from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”
72 The Only True God

Jesus’ whole life and ministry had the glorifying of the Father’s
name as its objective.

John 17.6: “I have manifested your name to the men whom

you gave me out of the world; they were yours, and you gave
them to me, and they have kept your word.” [NASB] Jesus’ life
and work was to make Yahweh God known (“manifested your
name”) to his disciples.

John 17.11: “I will remain in the world no longer, but they are
still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect
them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so
that they may be one as we are one.” 4

This NIV translation of 17.11 brings out sharply the striking truth ex-
pressed in this verse: that the Father has given His Name, or authority, to
Jesus; he acts in the Father’s Name, not his own. The NASB also brings
out the meaning, but some of the other translations do not express it
clearly enough, with the result that one might suppose that what is given
to Jesus are the disciples rather than the Father’s Name. The NIV
translation is, however, absolutely correct.5 “Name” refers here to the
Father’s authority rather than to a title. It is by the power of that author-
ity that the disciples are to be protected.

4
Jesus’ being “one” with the Father is here linked to receiving “the name you
gave me”. The same is true for his disciples; for how else could they be
“protected by the power of your name” unless they were under His Name or
bore His name (somewhat like a wife who bears her husband’s name)? To
receive His Name is to receive His “glory” [for the equivalence of “name” and
“glory”, cf. e.g. Ps.102.15; Isa.42.8; 43.7; 48.11; 59.19; Jer.13.11; etc.]; Jesus
received the Father’s glory (Name) and also gave it to his disciples: “The glory
that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are
one” (John 17:22). This is important for our understanding of Matthew 28.19,
because to be baptized in, or into, the Name of the Father is to come under His
Name as His possession (e.g.1Pet.2.9), to be united with Him, and thus to be
under the protection of “the power of your (His) Name”.
5
Because αὐτοὺς (autous) “they” is acc.masc.pl., while ὁ ὄνομα “the name” is
dat. neut. sing. corresponding to the dat. neut. sing. of ᾧ “which” (i.e. “the name
(which—implied but not translated in NIV) you gave me.”
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 73

17.12 “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them
safe by that name you gave me.” [NIV] These words reem-
phasize what has been said in the previous verse.

17.26 “I made known to them your name, and I will continue

to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me
may be in them, and I in them.” Jesus preached, not himself as
the center of his message, but faithfully proclaimed the Father
to them. He declares that this is what he will continue to do (i.e.
after his death and resurrection) so that the Father’s love for
Jesus will be poured out into the hearts of his disciples (cf.
Ro.5.5).

These many verses demonstrate the fact that Jesus’ entire ministry cen-
tered upon doing everything in his Father’s name, not in his own name.
He never exalted himself, but always the Father. It is for this very reason
(“I always do the things which please Him (i.e. the Father)”, Jo.8.29) that
the Father glorified Jesus, making him the object of faith for salvation,
and has given no other name through which we can be saved (Acts 4.12);
and the Father is pleased to answer prayers made in Jesus’ name
(Jo.15.16; 16.23-26).
Since Jesus came in the Father’s Name as one who was sent by the
Father, and since he always functioned in the Father’s Name, not his
own, then it must be expected that Jesus commanded that baptism be
done in the Father’s Name. Because the Son (and the Spirit, cf. Jo.14.26,
etc) did his work in the Father’s Name, that, in the light of Jesus’ teach-
ing, is evidently why only one Name is mentioned in Mt.28.19. That Jesus
came in the name of the Lord (i.e. Yahweh) is mentioned twice in
Matthew (21.9; 23.39), and once in each of the other three gospels. It is
also in Matthew that Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Father in heaven,
Your Name be hallowed” (Mt.6.9).
If it is the case that baptism is first and foremost into the Name of the
Father, while the Son and the Spirit are subsumed under that one Name,
are we not also baptized into the Son and the Spirit seeing that both are
mentioned in this verse? But nowhere else in the NT is it again men-
tioned that we are “baptized into the Holy Spirit” (βαπτίσειν ἐις πνεύματι
ἁγίῳ).
74 The Only True God

The ἐν (en, in) in ἐν πνεύματι (en pneumati) in 1Co.12.13 is certainly

instrumental in meaning and is best translated as “by the Spirit” or “by
means of the Spirit”; this is most likely its meaning also in Mat.3.11 and
its several quotations in the NT. It is, however, certainly affirmed that we
are “baptized into Christ”: Rom.6.3; Gal.3.27; and that thereby we are
united with him in his death and his life.
In the book of Acts there are a few references to baptism “in the name
of Jesus Christ” (Ac.2.38; 8.16; 10.48; 19.5). This certainly does not mean
that people were baptized into the name of Jesus alone, blatantly disre-
garding Jesus’ instruction to baptize in the triadic baptismal declaration
as given in Matthew 28.19. Even to this day I know of no church that
baptizes people in Jesus’ name alone. In Acts, the formula “in the name”
(e.g. Ac.3.6; 9.27,28; 16.18) means acting in or under someone’s author-
ity, in this case, acting in Jesus’ authority to conduct baptism as he
commanded his disciples to do. “In the name” is a key term in Acts; and
just as Jesus always lived and worked in the Father’s Name, so his
disciples always function in Jesus’ name, by which is understood that
they are thereby living under the Father’s name: “And whatever you do,
in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving
thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3.17); “always giving
thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” (Ephesians 5.20, NIV).

Further thoughts on Matthew 28.19

O
nce released from the “bewitchment” (Gal.3.1, “who has
bewitched you?”) of trinitarianism, one wonders how one could
have thought that this verse, Matt.28.19, provides support for
the Son as “coequal with the Father”. One need only ask: What precedes
the statement in this verse (and on which this statement depends as seen
in the word “therefore” which links it to the previous verse)? Verse 18
reads, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore
go…” “All authority” given to the Son by whom? By the Father, of course.
How then can he who functions by the authority conferred upon him by
another be declared to be equal to the one who conferred that authority?
If he were equal, he could exercise his own authority and would not
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 75

depend on conferred authority to function. All this should have been

obvious enough. But is it not in the nature of the state of being
“bewitched” that one cannot see the obvious?
Since the authority comes from the Father, it is equally obvious that
he who functions in that authority functions in the name of that
authority by which he is authorized to function, in this case the Father’s
name. Not surprisingly, therefore, only one name is mentioned, which in
view of the preceding verse must be the Name of the Father. This means
that the Son and the Spirit function under the Name of the Father,
because one name means one person, not three. Jesus made it clear that
he did not come in his own name (Jo.5.43; 10.25), and that the Spirit
comes forth from the Father (Jo.15.26); hence they function under one
Name, that of the Father (Yahweh).
In regard to Mt.28.19, the foregoing point should be conclusive in
itself. But we can consider a further point to demonstrate the willful
carelessness of trinitarian argumentation. In this connection, consider
this quotation from the Mishnah: “Rabbi Judah said, ‘Be heedful in study,
for an unwitting error in study is accounted wanton transgression’”
(Aboth 4.13). H. Danby, the editor of the Mishnah says (in the footnote
to this reference) of Rabbi Judah that he is “the most frequently men-
tioned teacher (some 650 times) in the Mishnah,” indicating that his
words were considered wise and weighty, and therefore to be heeded.
Trinitarians should have understood that if Matthew 28.19 was to be
used in any valid way as evidence for the Trinity, it would first be
absolutely necessary to demonstrate that “the Son” in Matthew is a divine
name. If not, then even if two of the Persons are divine but it cannot be
shown that the third is also divine, obviously no case can be made for a
Trinity. Moreover, only the concise term “the Son” appears in this verse;
can it simply be assumed that “Son of God” is meant, not “Son of Man”?
This question is important firstly because Jesus never spoke of himself as
the Son of God; for though the term “Son of God” occurs 10 times in
Matthew, with 9 of these referring to Jesus, yet in no instance is it used by
Jesus with reference to himself. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose
that he used it of himself in Mt.28.19.
76 The Only True God

The term the “Son of Man,” which occurs 28 times in Matthew, is the
title of choice for Jesus when referring to himself. Is it, therefore, not to
be expected that this was what he meant by “the Son” in Matthew 28.19?
But even if we assume that what Jesus meant was the Son of God,
contrary to his consistent usage in Matthew, it still remains to prove that
“Son of God” is a divine title. Examining the evidence in Matthew, the
most that can perhaps be shown is that it is a title of spiritual honor and
exaltation, but it simply cannot be shown to be divine in the sense that it
refers to God or to a being equal to Him. In the Beatitudes Jesus declared,
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”
(Mt.5.9). It is instructive that of the nine instances where the title “son of
God” is applied to Jesus, the first two are Satan’s well-known “if you are
the Son of God” spoken during the Temptation (4.3,6); the next one is
spoken by the two demon-possessed men in 8.29; in three other instances
it is used in a derisory way on the lips of his enemies (26.63; 27.40,43).
Only twice does it appear on the lips of his disciples (14.33; 16.16); and,
finally, on the lips of the centurion at Jesus’ crucifixion (27.54).
Jesus never used this title of himself in this gospel; and out of a total of
ten occurrences only two are applied to Jesus by his disciples, which
would seem to indicate that this was not the title of preference. In
Matthew 14.33 the disciples declare that he is son of God after the stilling
of the storm; Peter confesses him as “the Messiah, the son of the living
God” (16.16) where “son of God” has reference to “the Messiah of God,”
as is also the case in the parallel passage in Luke 9.20; the high priest
adjured Jesus to declare under oath whether he is “the Messiah, the Son
of God” (26.63), but Jesus still refused to give a direct answer, referring to
himself as usual as “the Son of Man” (v.64); twice Jesus is taunted as “the
Son of God” while he hung on the cross (27.40,43).
The final instance comes from the mouth of the Roman centurion
and some of his soldiers when they experienced the earthquake at the
time of Jesus’ death and acknowledged him to be the (or, a) Son of God
(27.54). What would the Roman soldiers have understood by that term?
The parallel passage in Luke provides an answer: “The centurion, seeing
what had happened, praised God and said, ‘Surely this was a righteous
man’” (Luke 23:47, NIV).
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 77

Thus the conclusion of this survey of the use of “Son of God” in

Matthew provides no evidence that it refers to a divine being who stands
on the same level with God. Careful consideration of the evidence shows
that there is no basis in Matthew 28.19 for claiming it as supporting the
doctrine of a divine Trinity.
What the triadic baptismal formula does clearly show is that the
Father is the source of our salvation, that the Son is the one through
whom salvation was made available to mankind and, thirdly, that the
Spirit of Yahweh God is involved in the entire process of our salvation.
This analysis is based upon the fundamental principle lucidly stated in
1Corinthians 8.6, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are
all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things and through whom we exist.” It is always from the
Father, through the Son, by God’s Spirit. This is the principle seen
throughout the NT.

2Corinthians 13.14
The same is true in 2Corinthians 13.14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with
you all”. In Pauline usage, “the Lord Jesus Christ” is not a title that places
him as equal with God, but is distinct from the “one God” as is seen in
1Corinthians 8.6, where he declares that for us there is only “one God,
the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ” or, in the words of 1Timothy 2.5,
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus”.
2Corinthians 13.14 is of no value for trinitarianism since there is no
mention of either “Father” or “Son”. The fact that Jesus is mentioned
before God shows that both “the grace” and “the love” here have to do
with salvation, because no one comes to the Father except through Christ
(John 14.6); for God has determined in His eternal wisdom that “there is
no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be
saved” (Acts 4.12). In our experience of salvation, we come to Christ first,
and through him we experience the love of God, and only then do we
experience His Spirit working in our lives.
78 The Only True God

Moreover for Paul there is definitely no question of trinitarianism; his

affirmation of the “one God” (Ro.16.27; Ro.3.30; 1Cor.8.6; 8.4; Eph.1.3;
3.14; 4.6; 1Tim.1.17; 2.5, etc) confirms that his faith is firmly rooted in
the uncompromising monotheism of the OT.
Isaiah 45 is one of the chapters where this uncompromising mono-
theism finds expression and where, confronting the idolatry of Israel,
Yahweh declares three times in two verses (vv.21,22) that He is the only
God there is:
20
“Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, you
survivors of the nations! They have no knowledge who carry
about their wooden idols, and keep on praying to a god that
cannot save.
21
Declare and present your case; let them take counsel
together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was
it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a
righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
22
Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am
God, and there is no other.”

The Apostle Paul’s familiarity with this chapter is reflected in his letters:
Col.2.3 – Isa.45.3; Ro.9.20 – Isa.45.9; 1Cor.14.25 – Isa.45.14; Ro.11.33 –
Isa.45.15; and Ro.14.11; Phil.2.10-11 – Isa.45.23.

The title “the Lord Jesus Christ”

T
his title is quite certainly from the earliest church teaching. It
appears in the very first message preached by Peter after
Pentecost in Acts 2.36, “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this:
God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Notice the three words which I have italicized and which together form
the title “the Lord Jesus Christ”.
So this title was not Paul’s invention but was among the things which
he “received” (1Co.15.3). From Acts 2.36 we see that it was God who
made Jesus “Lord”; hence there is no question of any innate or intrinsic
equality with God. This being the case, 2 Corinthians 13.14 cannot
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 79

provide support for the doctrine of the Trinity. What is consistently

affirmed in Paul’s letters is that God works for our redemption in and
through Christ, and for our sanctification in and through the Spirit.

Jesus never claimed the name “God” for himself

E
arlier we noted Dr. H.A.W. Meyer’s statement: “He (Jesus) was
never known to claim the name θεός (theos, God) either for
Himself or for the Holy Spirit”. No scholar questions the correct-
ness of this assertion, because it accurately reflects the Biblical truth of
the matter. This truth is extremely important for correctly understanding
Jesus and his teaching.
But if Jesus himself never made any claim to be God, Christians
nonetheless insist on calling him “God” even when this is contrary to
Jesus’ own attitude and teaching, and specifically contrary to Jesus’ own
monotheism. Like the people in John 6 who wanted to make Jesus king
by force, Christians make him God by force. This is not what John or the
“Johannine community” did.
Discussing the message of Jesus in John’s Gospel, the German system-
atic theologian Karl-Josef Kuschel asks, “Did Jesus give himself out to be
God? Did the disciples of Jesus deify their hero?” To these questions he
replies:

First, there can be no question that the text indicates that Jesus
deified himself here. Jesus did not proclaim himself “God,” but
rather was understood by the community after Easter, in “the
Spirit,” as the word of God in person… Secondly, the disciples
of Jesus did not claim that Jesus was God either; they, too, did
not deify their hero. Nowhere does the Johannine Christ appear
as a second God alongside God. In the Gospel of John, too, it is
taken for granted that God (ho theos) is the Father, and the Son
is the one whom he has sent, his revealer: “the Father is greater
than I” (14.28). The famous confession of Thomas, “My Lord
and my God” (John 20.28), must also be understood in this
sense; reflecting the language of prayer (!), it clearly refers to
the risen Christ and presupposes the sending of the Spirit
80 The Only True God

(20.22). In content it does not represent any change from prev-

ious christological statements (in the direction, say, of a deifi-
cation of Christ or a replacement of God with Christ), but is a
confirmation of what is introduced in the prologue and will
also be expressed at the end of 1John (5.20), that “God has
really become visible in the form of Jesus” (H. Strathmann),
that “Jesus is transparent to the Father as his revealer” (Rahner
and Thuesing, A New Christology, 180. On John 1.1, Thuesing
(ibid.) convincingly declares that ‘“Logos” here is not the
second mode of subsistence of the Trinity, but God’s word of
revelation’.) (K-J Kuschel, Born Before All Time? p.387f.)

But not only did Jesus not claim to be God, he was reluctant to even
speak of himself as Messiah in public. This fact is clearly evident in the
gospels. The German scholar William Wrede called this “the Messianic
secret,” and this “secret” is the subject of an abundance of scholarly dis-
cussion in books and articles. All that we need to notice here is that if
Jesus refused to even acknowledge his messiahship publicly, how much
less would he have made any claim to be God.
But Christians, while admitting that Jesus never applied the word
“God” to himself, argue that some of his sayings constitute implicit
claims to deity. One such statement they cite is: “I and my Father are
one”. If we are to be true to Jesus’ attitude of refusal to claim divine
status, then clearly any interpretation of Jesus’ words will rule out any
implicit or subtle claim to being God. If we could for once drop the habit
of reading our own trinitarian interpretation into whatever we read in
the gospels, we would see that the “oneness” with God of which Jesus
speaks is not exclusively a oneness between him and the Father, but is a
oneness which is to include all believers; and it is precisely this inclusive
oneness of all believers with himself and with God for which Jesus
fervently prays in John 17.11,22: “that they may be one, even as we are
one.” If oneness with God has to do with being God, then all believers
would become God through this union!
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 81

The antichrist: the only person mentioned in the New

Testament who claims to be God
Jesus never claimed to be God; there is only one person mentioned in the
New Testament who will make this claim: the antichrist, “The man of
Lawlessness”.
Why is it that trinitarians insist on saying that Jesus claimed to be
God (allegedly by means of the “I am” statements, which we will consider
below), when he did not make any such claim? In 2Thessalonians 2.3,4 it
is said of “the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition (or, destruction)”
(v.3), that he will “proclaim himself to be God”—a man who proclaims
himself to be God is the main sign by which those who have been taught
will be able to identify him (v.4). Do we really wish to claim that this is in
fact what Christ himself did, and that “the son of perdition” will imitate
him?
If Christ never did make such a claim, then the falsity of the claim of
“the man of lawlessness” will easily be exposed for what it is. But if the
multitudes have already accepted the trinitarian claim that Jesus claimed
to be God (or even if he did not actually make such a claim, that he was
in fact God nonetheless), then it would not be surprising that many will
assume that this antichrist, who at the end of the age claims to be God,
may actually be the Christ who has come again (as he said he would), and
thus be deceived by the antichrist. It should be remembered that the
antichrist will obviously not proclaim himself as “the man of lawlessness”
or “son of perdition” (these are the Biblical descriptions of him) but
rather as the true Christ, the savior of the world, the one who brings
“peace and security” (1Thess.5.3) to the world.
Now let us look again at 2 Thessalonians 2:4; here is the whole verse:
“who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of
worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming
himself to be God.” Notice that the antichrist opposes every other god,
thus exalting himself as the only true object of worship—again something
which Jesus not only never did, but on the contrary, already at his
temptation declared (Mat.4.10), “Away from me, Satan! For it is written:
‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only’ (Deut.6:13, NIV)”.
How utterly different from the antichrist!
82 The Only True God

Notice too that “he takes his seat in the temple of God” (v.4) which, of
course, follows from his claiming to be God; for if he is God then where
else would his seat be but in the temple of God? From all this we can
easily see that if Christ claimed to be God, and the antichrist was doing
the same thing as he did, then the chief identifying mark of the antichrist
is lost. How, then, is the antichrist to be identified when he comes,
especially when his coming will be accompanied by dazzling “signs and
wonders”? 2 Thessalonians 2.9: “The coming of the lawless one will be in
accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit
miracles, signs and wonders”.

The enemies of Jesus accuse him of claiming equality

with God
There are two main passages in the gospels, both in John, which record
that Jesus’ enemies charged him with indirectly claiming to be equal with
God. For the convenience of the reader both texts are here quoted in full.
Both are “conflict passages” in which the hostility of Jesus’ enemies find
expression in making that serious allegation that Jesus implied having
equality with God. That was, of course, a charge amounting to his having
committed blasphemy, which under Jewish Law was punishable by death.
Such was their hostility against him for not observing the Law to their
satisfaction, notably the important Sabbath law, that they were looking
for a way to put him to death.
This is the context of the accusation of blasphemy brought against
him. We have already noted repeatedly that Jesus never claimed equality
with God. On the contrary, he strongly emphasized his total dependence
upon God and submission to Him. No gospel brings out his teaching on
this matter more strongly than John’s Gospel. So it should be obvious to
any unprejudiced reader of John’s Gospel that the charge of making
himself equal with God and, therefore, of blasphemy was a patently false
charge designed to secure his death as John 5 (quoted below) states
plainly, and that his enemies “were seeking all the more to kill him”
(v.18). Yet the strangest thing of all, from the point of view of Biblical
exegesis, is that trinitarians regard this false charge as true! After all, this
is what the trinitarian dogma requires. It does not overly concern them
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 83

whether Jesus himself accepts the accusation as true. His answer to the
accusation is plain enough for all to see.

John 5
15
The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who
had healed him.
16
And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because
he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
17
But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now,
and I am working.”
18
This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him,
because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even
calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19
So (oun, ‘therefore’) Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to
you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what
he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the
Son does likewise.”

What then is Jesus’ response to the charge brought against him that he
was “making himself equal with God” (v.18)? Only blindness prevents us
from seeing that his reply is a flat rejection of the charge of equality for,
on the contrary, “the Son can do nothing of his own accord”; he follows
the Father absolutely, for he does “only” “whatever the Father does”. How
could a stronger rejection of the charge of equality have been made than
this?
Relating to God as Father was indeed a central element in Jesus’ life
and teaching. Early in his ministry he taught his disciples to speak to God
as “Father,” teaching them to pray, “Our Father in heaven”. Nor was this
something entirely unique to Jesus as though it was an unknown form of
address to God; it occurs in the OT: Isaiah 64.8, “But now, O LORD
(Yahweh), you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we
are all the work of your hand,” and “I am a father to Israel”, Jer.31.9; cf.
Mal.1.6. And Israel is repeatedly referred to as God’s “son” (Ex.4.22,23;
Dt.14.1 “sons” in both Heb. and Gk. texts; so also Isa.1.2).
If God is “our Father” collectively, then He is also “my Father”
individually; for how could He be “our Father” if He is not “my Father”?
84 The Only True God

So Jesus’ speaking of God as “his Father” should not have been any real
issue for the Jews, other than that they may have considered him as over-
emphasizing this form of addressing God in a way that they felt was
overly intimate and therefore irreverent. But none of this holds up as an
accusation of claiming equality with God and, therefore, of blasphemy.
All this makes it very obvious that the whole episode is one in which the
leaders of the nation were trying by all conceivable means to trump up
some false charge against Jesus so that they could have him killed, and
thus rid themselves of one they regarded as a great troublemaker, a thorn
in their side.

John 10
27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow
me.
28
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no
one will snatch them out of my hand.
29
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and
no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
30
I and the Father are one.”
31
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works
from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
33
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we
are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a
man, make yourself God.”
34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said,
you are gods’? [Ps.82.6]
35
If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and
Scripture cannot be broken—
36
do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent
into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the
Son of God’?
37
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe
me;
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 85

38
but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe
the works, that you may know and understand that the Father
is in me and I am in the Father.”

This second attempt to pin the charge of blasphemy on Jesus arises from
their failure to understand Jesus’ words “I and the Father are one” (v.30).
Like the trinitarians, they somehow managed to read a claim to equality
with God in these words, even though Jesus had said immediately before
these words that “My Father is greater than all” (v.29). Do we imagine
that “all” excludes Jesus himself? Is the meaning not plain enough:
Absolutely no one is greater than my Father? Or in Paul’s words, the
Father is “God over all, blessed forever” (Rom.9.5). By saying that “the
Father,” not the Son, “is greater than all” Jesus had already precluded any
claim to equality. He put this matter beyond dispute when he declared,
“the Father is greater than I” (Jn.14.28).
Notice that the whole issue in this section of John 10 revolves around
blasphemy: “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but
for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (v.33); and
again, “You are blaspheming” (v.36), all with the publicly stated intention
of stoning him to death. Jesus rejected their charge of blasphemy pre-
cisely because, contrary to their allegations, he had not made any claim to
equality with God.
Jesus explains what he means by “I and the Father are one” by the
words, “that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I
am in the Father” (v.38). But this explanation probably did not illuminate
them much, at least not until they had heard his teaching in John 15.1ff
which has to do with a union of life with the Father which includes the
disciples.
Jesus also explains that by the words “I am the Son of God” he is
referring to himself as one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into
the world” (v.36) and this, as he points out, cannot constitute a charge of
blasphemy. For in the history of Israel there have been others who have
also been consecrated and sent by God to His people, most notably
Moses. But the Law even speaks of lesser leaders than Moses as “gods” in
that they acted as God’s representatives under the authority of His word.
86 The Only True God

Jesus thereby shows clearly and pointedly that their accusation is without
any basis whatever.

“Son of God”

T
he term “son of God” is nothing new to the Jews. It is found in
the OT, where Israel is called God’s “son” (Ex.4.22,23; Isa.1.2;
Jer.31.9; Hos.11.1, cf. Mat.2.15). So what is this trumped up
charge all about? Quite simply this: Jesus was accused of not using the
term “son of God” in the conventional OT sense, but as a claim to
equality with God—a claim which is blasphemous and punishable by
death according to the Law (Jo.19.7). Remarkably, trinitarianism agrees
with Jesus’ enemies that he did make this claim! It was on this false
charge that Jesus was condemned to death by crucifixion (Jo.19.6, also
vv.15ff; Mk.14.64; Mt.26.65,66). But according to trinitarianism the
charge against Jesus of claiming equality with God was true; if so, then he
was rightly crucified according to Jewish Law, because Jesus’ claim would
have left the Sanhedrin (the highest legal body in Israel) without any
other option but to sentence Jesus to death.
Yet the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial make it very clear that Jesus was
condemned and executed on the basis of false accusations made by false
witnesses. The gospels nowhere affirm that the Sanhedrin did the right
thing according to the Law. Matthew states the matter with perfect clar-
ity:
59
“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for
false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.
60
But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came
forward.” (Mat.26.59,60, NIV)
It should surely be obvious to any perceptive person that if Jesus had
indeed claimed equality with God, then what need would there have been
to look for false evidence and false witnesses? But even the false witnesses
failed to concoct a convincing case as Matthew 26.60 pointedly describes.
Finally, as the account shows, frustrated at being unable to find a valid
charge against Jesus, they charged him with blasphemy for claiming to be
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 87

the Messiah—which is not a charge punishable by death under the Law!

Here is the scene as described in Matthew’s gospel (ch.26):
62
And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer
to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”
63
But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I
adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the
Son of God.”
64
Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now
on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of
Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered
blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now
heard his blasphemy.
66
What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves
death.”
Notice that Jesus was asked to declare under oath whether or not he is
“the Christ” i.e. the Messiah, the Son of God (this was another title of the
Messiah, as will be discussed more fully below). Why did the high priest
not simply ask him whether he claimed to be equal with God, which was
what he had been publicly accused of? The answer is simply, as we have
seen, that they could not pin this charge on Jesus even by means of false
witnesses; so it was clear that he had never made such a claim, and would
have again denied it if questioned.
Remarkably, even in regard to the question of whether he is the
Messiah, Jesus declined to give a direct answer, replying only with “You
have said so,” i.e. those are your words, not mine. And, turning away
from the title “the Son of God” he refers instead to himself by his
preferred title “the Son of Man” (v.64) by which he points to the messian-
ic prophecy in Daniel 7.13: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with
the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man”. How exactly this
could constitute blasphemy under Jewish Law is not clear at all, and there
are volumes of scholarly discussion on the whole subject of the trial of
Jesus for those who wish to pursue this matter. But what is clear is that
the Sanhedrin was determined to have Jesus executed with or without the
required evidence.
88 The Only True God

All that matters for our purpose is to show from the gospel accounts
that the charges brought against Jesus of having claimed to be equal with
God could not be sustained even in a court which was fiercely hostile to
him, namely, the Sanhedrin. It becomes incomprehensible, in the light of
the gospel accounts, how trinitarians can disregard the evidence of the
gospels and insist that Jesus did claim to be equal with God.
Certainly Jesus did claim a special intimacy with God as Father
because God’s Logos was incarnate in him (Jo.1.14); but it was his aim,
both through his life and his death, to draw his disciples into a similar
intimacy (or oneness) with the Father, so that they too would know Him
as Father and live in a Father-son relationship with Him; this is a central
element of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of John.
Jesus’ ministry was intended to bring the disciples (“those whom the
Father has given me”) into a similar relationship: “the glory which you
gave me [what other glory than that of sonship?] I have given them, that
they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they
may become perfectly one,” Jo.17.22,23; cf.14.20). The description of this
spiritually profound relationship in terms of being one with God (which
he also brings his disciples into) was used to frame the charge that he was
making himself equal with God.

The meaning of “Son of God” as applied to Jesus in the

New Testament

W
e have seen that Jesus never claimed to be God in any of the
gospels, and that the word “God” is not used with reference
to him elsewhere in the NT (except in some modern English
translations where, in two or three verses, a translation is given in which
“God” is made to refer to Jesus; we shall examine these translations later
on). We have also noted that the trinitarian term “God the Son” is no-
where to be found in the Bible, so where does this term come from? The
short answer is that it is, of course, a trinitarian invention. The term gains
some currency by the fact that it looks deceptively like the title “the son
of God” which does appear in the NT; in the minds of those who are not
exceptionally alert, the two terms could easily be confused with one
another. “God the son” inverts “the son of God” while deleting the “of”.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 89

These significant changes may appear to be minor, especially in lang-

uages (such as Chinese) where the syntax requires the inversion of the
word order in the process of translation. This is possible also in English if
“the son of God” is translated as “God’s son” which would be similar, for
example, to how it would be translated into Chinese. But similar though
“God’s son” is to “God the son” their meanings are totally different where
the Scriptures are concerned. It is precisely this distinction that is easily
(especially in the case of the average Christian) overlooked, resulting in
serious error.
What is the meaning of “Son of God” in the NT? A look at the Biblical
evidence shows that this was a title of the Messiah, the hoped for King of
Israel, who would also be “the savior of the world” (Jo.4.42; 1Jo.4.14). It
has nothing whatever to do with the trinitarian idea of a divine being
called “God the Son”. The Biblical title derives from the important
Messianic psalm, Psalm 2, where (in verse 7) Yahweh addresses the
Davidic king with the words, “You are my son, today (the day of anoint-
ing and coronation) I have begotten you” (i.e. I have entered with you
into a relationship like that of Father and son; and from then on King
Messiah will reign on earth in Yahweh’s Name to subdue the enemies of
righteousness, cf. Ps.2.9; 110.1; 1Cor.15.25-28). The Messianic phrase
“today I have begotten you” indicates the origin of the phrase “the only
begotten son” (Jo.1.18; 3.16 KJV, but not all English translations) which
trinitarians often quote without any regard for its origin, imposing their
own dogmatic meaning on it. The fact is that Ps.2.7 is repeatedly applied
to Jesus in the New Testament:

Acts 13:33 “this he (God) has fulfilled to us their children by

raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are
my Son, today I have begotten you.’”

What is interesting and significant about this verse is that God’s raising
Jesus from the dead is seen as the point at which Ps.2.7 is fulfilled, the
point at which he is “begotten” as “son,” when he is anointed and
crowned as king.
Interestingly, the same verse is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 5.5 in
connection with his being appointed as high priest so that, like
Melchizedek (Heb.7.1), he is both king and priest:
90 The Only True God

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a

high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You
are my Son, today I have begotten you”.

From all this it is clear that “the Son of God” is a title of the Messiah in
the Bible, and not to be confused with the trinitarian “God the Son”. A
few more references should suffice to establish this fact:

John 1:34 “I have seen and have borne witness that this is the
Son of God.”

What did John the Baptizer mean by ‘the Son of God’? From verse 41
(“‘we have found the Messiah’, which means Christ”) it is perfectly clear
who his disciples understood him to be speaking about.

John 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of
God! You are the King of Israel!”

These words show that for Nathanael (and for Jews generally) ‘the Son of
God’ meant ‘the King of Israel,’ another title of the Messiah.
The connection between the promised and expected Davidic King of
Israel, the Messiah, and the title “Son of God” is also clearly seen in the
following passage in Matthew 27:
41
So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked
him, saying,
42
“He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of
Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will
believe in him.
43
He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him.
For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
It must be remembered that this is a passage in Matthew, not in John, so
‘the Son of God’ has none of the connotations that it is supposed to have
in John, and there is certainly no stated claim to equality with God in
Matthew. We must therefore ask what the chief priests and scholars of
the Law (‘scribes’) understood by the term (or thought Jesus meant by it),
and why did they deliberately link it with ‘the King of Israel,’ even though
in mockery? The answer is again: both ‘Son of God’ and ‘King of Israel’
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 91

are messianic titles. But they rejected Jesus as the Messiah of Israel; they
saw him as a false Messiah and, as such, they considered him extremely
dangerous politically, as his tumultuous welcome by the multitudes at his
‘Triumphal Entry’ demonstrated. The Romans, too, were always in fear
of political uprisings, so the Jewish leaders played on these Roman fears,
urging them to have Jesus crucified.

Mark 15:32 “‘Let the Christ (the Messiah), the King of Israel,
come down now from the cross that we may see and believe.’
Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.”

Son of God, the Messianic king of Israel

T
hat the title “the son of God” was a well-known title of the
Messiah is seen from the following verses which show that the
two titles “Christ” (or “Messiah”) and “son of God” were
frequently used together: Matt.16:16; 26:63; Mark 1:1 (“son of God” not
found in two important ancient Greek texts, uncials); Luke 4:41; John
11:27; 20:31; Rom.1:4; 1Cor.1:9; 2Cor.1:19; Gal.2:20; Eph.4:13; 1 John
5:20; 2 John 1:3,9—a total of 14 instances (or 13 if Mk.1.1 is omitted).
From these verses, and especially those in the gospels where “Christ”
and “son of God” are spoken together as two parts of the one title, it
should now be absolutely clear that the Messiah was called “son of God”,
based upon the words “you are my son” in Psalm 2.7 addressed to the
Davidic king. On this verse Robert Alter, Professor of Hebrew and
Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote
recently, “it was a commonplace in the ancient Near East, readily adopted
by the Israelites, to imagine the king as God’s son” (The Book of Psalms,
A Translation with Commentary, Norton, 2007; on Ps.2 in relation to the
title “the son of God” see the fuller discussion in Appendix 1).
In order to consider the meaning of the title “son of God” even more
fully, I quote from James Stalker’s article in the International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE):

In Scripture the title is bestowed on a variety of persons for a

variety of reasons. First, it is applied to angels, as when in Job
92 The Only True God

2:1 it is said that “the sons of God came to present themselves

before Yahweh”; they may be so called because they are the
creatures of God’s hands or because, as spiritual beings, they
resemble God, who is a spirit. Secondly, in Lk 3:38 it is applied
to the first man; and from the parable of the Prodigal Son it
may be argued that it is applicable to all men. Thirdly, it is
applied to the Hebrew nation, as when, in Ex 4:22, Yahweh says
to Pharaoh, “Israel is my son, my first-born,” the reason being
that Israel was the object of Yahweh’s special love and gracious
choice. Fourthly, it is applied to the kings of Israel, as repre-
sentatives of the chosen nation. Thus, in 2 Sam 7:14, Yahweh
says of Solomon, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”;
and, in Ps 2:7, the coronation of a king is announced in an
oracle from heaven, which says, “Thou art my son; this day
have I begotten thee.” Finally, in the New Testament, the title is
applied to all saints, as in Jn 1:12, “But as many as received him,
to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to
them that believe on his name.” When the title has such a range
of application, it is obvious that the Divinity of Christ cannot be
inferred from the mere fact that it is applied to Him. (Bold
lettering added for clarity; italics mine)

As a trinitarian, however, Stalker would hardly be willing to settle for

what is stated in the last sentence of this passage. Indeed, as might be
expected, he would not conclude his article until he could find some way
to turn “son of God” into “God the Son”. To accomplish this, a lot of
specious argumentation follows.
In the next paragraph following the one quoted above, Stalker writes,
apparently with some measure of disagreement, “it is natural to assume
that its use in application to Jesus is derived from one or other of its
[four] Old Testament uses; and the one almost universally fixed upon by
modern scholarship is that from which it was derived is the fourth men-
tioned above—that to the Jewish kings.” But is Stalker prepared to take
the (for him impossible) position that the title “son of God” as applied to
Jesus is not rooted in the OT? In his haste to get on with arguing for the
deity of Christ he does not tell us!
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 93

As an example of specious argumentation I shall only cite the

following:

“When, at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus evoked from the Twelve

their great confession, this is given by two of the synoptists in
the simple form, ‘Thou art the Christ’ (Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20); but
Mt adds, ‘the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16:16). It is frequently
said that Hebrew parallelism compels us to regard these words
as a mere equivalent for ‘Messiah.’ But this is not the nature of
parallelism, which generally includes in the second of the
parallel terms something in excess of what is expressed in the
first; it would be quite in accordance with the nature of parallel-
ism if the second term supplied the reason for the first. That is
to say, Jesus was the Messiah because He was the Son of God.”

Stalker’s argumentation takes two steps. First he makes the statement, “It
is frequently said that Hebrew parallelism compels us to regard these
words as a mere equivalent for ‘Messiah.’” He accepts this parallelism,
but it does not take him far enough. He wants to say that “Son of God”
means more than “Messiah,” indeed, very much more. How much more?
Clearly, he wants to say that it means “God the Son”; and though he does
not actually use this trinitarian term, he does repeatedly speak of the
“deity” of Christ. So how to make “Son of God” mean that much more
than “Messiah (Christ)? That is his next step.
Stalker’s second step is to claim quite dogmatically that Hebrew par-
allelism “generally includes in the second of the parallel terms something
in excess of what is expressed in the first” but fails to furnish the reader
with even one Biblical reference to substantiate this statement. This after
all is an “encyclopedia,” so it should not be too much to expect a support-
ing reference.
One is obliged to question the soundness of Stalker’s understanding
of “the nature of (Hebrew) parallelism”. First of all, two titles spoken one
after the other (as in Matthew 16.16) does not of itself constitute “par-
allelism,” Hebrew or otherwise. Parallelism is a feature of Hebrew poetry,
and it takes more than the placing of two titles in sequence to form poetic
parallelism. Stalker evidently never consulted a standard work on the
subject, such as that by E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech used in the Bible
94 The Only True God

(pp.349-362), which could have saved him from misconceptions about

Biblical parallelisms. But even without having to go through extensive
examples of OT parallelism, had Stalker only checked the NT evidence of
Jesus’ titles when used in sequence, he would have seen that there is no
“second term” which is “in excess” of the “first term” to talk about: In the
Pauline letters, for example, the title “son of God” is mentioned before
the title “Messiah (Christ)”. See for example, 2Corinthians 1:19 (cf.
1Co.1.9; Eph.4.13), “the Son of God, Jesus Christ (Messiah)”; here “Jesus
the Messiah” is the “second term” which, according to Stalker, would
express “something in excess of what is expressed in the first,” and which
would therefore (according to his argument) be the opposite of Mt.16.16!
That is to say, on the basis of Stalker’s argument, Jesus the Messiah
means something more than his being “the Son of God”!
Perhaps we may be pardoned for admitting to becoming quite tired of
this kind of ludicrously baseless argumentation which, unfortunately, is
quite typical of trinitarianism. I have included it here as an example of
how trinitarians all too often argue their case.
What Stalker could not deny, however, is that there is a definite equi-
valence in Scripture between the titles “Son of God” and “the Messiah
(Christ)”. But he sought by all means to make “son of God” mean
something more than “Messiah,” perhaps in part because of a somewhat
inadequate understanding of what is involved in the title “Messiah” in
Scripture, but even more because he wanted to try somehow (in this case,
by incorrect use of parallelism) to make “son of God” mean “God the
son” in accordance with trinitarian dogma. He should have seen,
however, that even if it were true that the second term in a parallelism
expresses “more” (than what is in the first term) that “more” could never
turn “the son of God” into “God the son”. But, sadly, exegesis is made
subservient to dogma and pressed into speaking the language of
trinitarianism. The end is thus made to justify the means.
Another scholar, James Crichton, in his article on “Messiah” in the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia wrote,

“It cannot be doubted that the ‘Son of God’ was used as a

Messianic title by the Jews in the time of our Lord. The high
priest in presence of the Sanhedrin recognized it as such (Mt
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 95

26:63). It was applied also in its official sense to Jesus by His

disciples: John the Baptist (Jn 1:34), Nathaniel (Jn 1:49), Mary
(Jn 11:27), Peter (Mt 16:16, though not in parallel). This
Messianic use was based on Ps 2:7; compare 2 Sam 7:14.”

Crichton, like Stalker, was a trinitarian (otherwise his article would

not have been printed in ISBE) and, as might be expected, maintains that
Jesus is “coequal with the Father,” but he sees that the NT evidence
compels the acknowledgement that “the son of God” is a Messianic title.
To conclude and summarize this section, I quote the German system-
atic theologian Dr. Karl-Joseph Kuschel’s conclusion of his discussion
concerning the relationship between the title “son of God” and the idea
of a pre-existent or divine Christ. Kuschel writes:

“Now what does all this mean for the question of the relation-
ship between being Son of God and the pre-existence of Christ?
Here, too, we can establish a consensus beyond the confessional
[denominational] frontiers.

“1. In keeping with its Jewish origin (the royal ideology) the
title “Son of God” was never associated with the heavenly exist-
ence before time or with divinity.

“2. Jesus did not speak of himself as Son of God, nor did he say
anything about a pre-existent sonship. Granted, the earliest
Aramaic-speaking post-Easter community confessed Jesus as
Son of God, but in line with the Old Testament it did not
include any statements about pre-existence in this confession.

“3. The basic foundation of post-Easter talk of Jesus as Son of

God does not lie in Jesus’ ‘divine nature,’ in a pre-existent
divine Sonship, but in the praxis and preaching of the earthly
Jesus himself: in his unique relationship to God, whom in an
unprecedentedly familiar way he was accustomed to address as
‘Abba’.
96 The Only True God

“Last, but not least, as we heard, in Israel the title son of God
referred for the most part to the unique dignity and power of
the supreme political ruler.” Born Before All Time?, p.238.

Finally, it is worth noting that while the Qur’an does speak of Jesus (Isa)
as Messiah (Masih), it absolutely rejects the NT Messianic title “son of
God”. The reason for this is easy to see from these ISBE articles in which
every attempt is made to turn “son of God” into “God the Son”. The sad
result of this is that Muslims reject the NT as a whole, and in so doing
reject its message of salvation in the Messiah (Christ). If they can be
assured that “the son of God” in the NT is a title of Messiah (Masih) and
does not mean “God the Son,” they would have no reason to reject it.
Also, we should again be reminded that nowhere in the NT is belief in the
deity of Christ required for salvation; this was something imposed by
Christian dogma, not by the word of God. By insisting on Jesus being
“God the Son,” Christians have closed the door for the salvation of
Muslims through faith in Christ, as the Messiah or “son of God” in its
proper Messianic sense (Jo.20.31). Will Christians be able to say to the
Muslims on that Day, “I am innocent of the blood of all of you” (Acts
20.26)?

The Synoptic Gospels

T
he observant reader of the NT will inevitably notice that there is
virtually nothing in the first three gospels (called the “Synoptic
Gospels” because they appear to share the same point of view of
the person and work of Jesus) which is useful to trinitarianism. It should
be of serious concern to trinitarians that three of the four gospels cannot
be drawn upon to support the argument for the deity of Christ central to
their dogma. Many of us noticed this fact as trinitarians, and though
somewhat puzzled by it, and though unable to come up with any satis-
factory answer to the question as to why something so important (to us)
as Christ’s deity is simply ignored by the Synoptics, we could do little else
but shrug off the matter. So John’s Gospel became the beloved gospel for
trinitarians, because in it we thought we could quarry for proof texts to
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 97

our hearts’ content. It is for this reason that we shall concentrate a large
part of our study on John’s Gospel.
We shall see that while it is true that John’s perspective is different
from that of the Synoptics, there is in essence no difference in regard to
the person of Jesus and his work. Regarding the matter of perspective,
Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptics centers on “the Kingdom (or Kingship)
of Heaven” (Matthew) or “the Kingdom (Kingship) of God” (Luke);
evidently Matthew’s Gospel had a Jewish audience in mind, so “heaven”
was used as a reverential circumlocution for “God,” namely, Yahweh. In
John, Jesus’ teaching reveals his own “unique relationship to God” (to use
Dr. Kuschel’s words) and how through him we, too, enter into a life-
receiving relationship with God. But this truth appears also in one place
in Matthew: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and
no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father
except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”
(Mat.11.27; 28.18; cf. Jo.3.35; 5.21-27; 13.3; 17.2; also Jo.10.15; 14.9).
Matthew 11.27 has been described as “a bolt out of the Johannine
blue”. Here we have Jesus’ usual way of referring to God as “my Father”
so familiar to us from John’s Gospel. Here, too, is the profound intimacy
of mutual knowing which speaking of God as “Father” (or Abba) indi-
cates. For unless there is mutual knowing, there is no intimacy to speak
of. When Jesus reveals the Father to us, we are thereby drawn into that
mutual knowing that allows us to call God “our Father” (as Jesus taught
his disciples to do, Mat.6.9) not merely in a ceremonial sense, but in the
intimacy of a Father-child relationship.
In any case, this verse in Matthew serves to confirm that there is no
essential difference between the Synoptics and John in regard to the
matter of who Jesus is.

The “I am” sayings—Did Jesus claim to be God?

A
s trinitarians we used the “I am” sayings in John’s Gospel as a
trump card to “prove” the deity of Christ, namely, that Jesus is
God. We failed pathetically to see that this is one of the most
muddleheaded arguments that could be advanced. Why? Because there
are only two possible ways to understand these “I am” saying of Jesus:
98 The Only True God

(1) Either Jesus is using the term in the ordinary way in which it is used
in daily speech (e.g. “I am a student”, “I am from Scotland”, etc) and is
thus making some statement about himself as the Messiah, the Savior, or
(2) Jesus is using the “I am” in the special sense of referring to Exodus
3.14 where it appears as a title of Yahweh; and if this is the case, then
either Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh, or Yahweh is speaking through
him.
Whether “I am” is understood as (1) or (2), neither of these alternatives
provides any proof of Jesus being God (i.e. God the Son) because, as used
in (1), the ordinary way, he speaks as “the man Christ Jesus,” and as used
in (2), the special reference is to Yahweh, God the Father. Therefore,
Jesus’ “I am” sayings provide absolutely no evidence whatever of Jesus’
deity as God the Son in the trinitarian scheme of things.
We shall now consider both (1) and (2) more closely in the light of the
gospel evidence. But we shall also have to bear in mind the possibility
that Jesus used “I am” on some occasions in its ordinary or regular sense
and at other times in its special sense.

How to correctly understand Jesus’ use of “I am”?

(1) The “I am” as used in its normal or ordinary meaning in daily speech,
in which Jesus speaks as a true human being, but specifically as “the
Christ,” which means “the Messiah.”
To put the matter into its proper context we must take into account
the many verses where Jesus as “Son” expresses his total dependence
upon, and total submission to, the Father (John 3.35; 5.22,27,36; 6.39;
12.49; 13.3; 17.2,7,8, etc). In all these verses the word didōmi (‘give’) is
used to express the fact that everything that the Son has, he received from
the Father who gave him these things.
“I am” (egō eimi, present tense) occurs 24 times in John, of which 23
times are in Jesus’ words and once in the words of the blind man whom
Jesus healed (Jo.9.9). So it is not actually a matter of 7 “I am”s (which
most Christians know about) but 23 that have reference to Jesus. Statisti-
cally, the frequency of “I am” shows that it belongs to John’s Gospel’s
special vocabulary, as becomes evident from a comparison with the rest
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 99

of the NT: Matthew has 5 occurrences; Mark: 3; Luke: 4; Acts: 7; Revelat-

ion: 5: added together = 24, the same number as in John. In other words,
half of all the occurrences of egō eimi in the New Testament are in John.
What then is the purpose of these many “I am”s in John? The answer
is surely in the stated purpose of the Gospel, “these are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing
you may have life in his name” (Jo.20.31). Is not the third person form of
“I am” “he is”? So the whole purpose is to proclaim that “he is,” that is, he
(Jesus) is the Christ, the Son of God. But when Jesus speaks, the “he is”
obviously has to be in the form “I am”.
The word “Christ” (Greek for “Messiah”) occurs 18 times in John, but
only once does it come forth from Jesus’ own lips, and that was in his
prayer to the Father in John 17.3. When asked in John 10.24 to state
plainly whether he is the Christ, he replied, “I did tell you, but you do not
believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me” (v.25, NIV).
He did tell them, but not by using the title “Christ”; he let the miracles
“speak for me”. Moreover, instead of the title “Christ” he described the
ministry of the Christ, the Messiah, in metaphorical terms such as “the
shepherd of the sheep”, “light of the world”, etc, each beginning with “I
am”. But what is clear is that he did acknowledge that he is the Christ,
though he generally declined to do so explicitly.
“If you do not believe that I am he (egō eimi), you will die in your
sins” (Jo.8.24). The reason it is necessary to believe that he is the pro-
mised Messiah/Christ is that “by believing you may have life in his name”
(Jo.20.31)—it is essential for salvation. But believing that Jesus is God is
nowhere in the New Testament a requirement for salvation. Trinitarian-
ism has imposed upon the church a requirement for salvation which is
without any warrant in the Word of God, and this is a very serious mat-
ter.
In the following passage in John 8 we can see the characteristic way in
which Jesus uses “I am” (egō eimi), usually translated as “I am he” as
required by English linguistic convention:
24
“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you
believe that I am he (egō eimi), you will die in your sins.”
25
So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just
what I have been telling you from the beginning.
100 The Only True God
26
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.”
27
They did not understand that he had been speaking to them
about the Father.
28
So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of
Man, then you will know that I am he (egō eimi), and that I do
nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father
taught me.”
Notice carefully that Jesus tells the people that they must believe that “I
am (he)” if they do not want to die in their sins. So, as we would expect,
they immediately ask him, “Who are you?” (v.25) but, again, to this
question he refuses to given an explicit or direct answer, that is, he
refuses to say “I am the Messiah” or “I am the Son of God”. He merely
states “I declare to the world what I have heard from Him (the Father,
v.27)” (v.26). Here, as elsewhere in John, Jesus stresses his total subordin-
ation to the Father, to the extent that he says nothing but what the Father
gives him to say (v.28).
Yet in verse 28 Jesus again refers to himself as “I am (he),” but this
time speaking of himself as “the Son of Man”. There are no capitals in the
Greek; these are supplied by the translators, obviously with the intention
that the term be understood as a messianic title. “Son of man” is by far
Jesus’ preferred title for himself in all the four gospels (altogether 74
times: Mt: 27 times; Mk:14; Lk:22; Jo:11). Both in Aramaic and in
Hebrew (also modern Hebrew) “son of man” is the ordinary term for
“man”, any man (cf. Eph.3.5). This is something unknown to most
Christians, so they assume that it is necessarily a special title of some
kind, in this case, a messianic title. In fact, it would be quite correct
linguistically to translate the relevant words in Jo.8.28 as “When you have
lifted up the Man (or, man), then you will know that I am (he) (egō
eimi)”. Whether or not “the son of man” is a messianic title is discussed
in an enormous number of books and articles, but it is not directly
relevant to this study. All we need to take note of here is that Jesus clearly
wanted his hearers (most of whom, like himself, spoke Aramaic as their
mother tongue, as we shall see later) to notice his speaking of himself as
“the man” or “the Man”.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 101

The point that I am making on the basis of this passage in John 8, as

also in regard to the other uses of “I am” in Jesus’ sayings, is that the “I
am” in John’s Gospel is in itself a messianic statement precisely because it
echoes the “he is” of John 20.31: “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”—He is the Christ. Thus “I am” = “he is”. So in
John 8.28, for example, Jesus is the Christ/Messiah regardless of whether
or not “the son of man” is understood as a messianic title. Hence, here in
John 8, as in some other passages, “I am” is an implicit messianic affirm-
ation, not a claim to Yahweh’s title.
It would, of course, be a mistake to immediately assume that every
occurrence of the 23 “I am”s in John is to be understood messianically.
The basic principle governing all exegesis is that the context is a deter-
mining factor in establishing the meaning of the passage under consid-
eration.

“I am” in John 14.6

Christ’s total submission to the Father stands out with perfect clarity
throughout John’s Gospel. In retrospect I now realize how strange it is
that Jo.14.6 (“I am the way, and the truth, and the life”), for example, is
quoted by trinitarians as evidence of Christ’s deity and equality with God
the Father. One does not need to be a profound thinker or to be extra-
ordinarily perceptive to see that a “way” or a road is the means to a
destination, not the destination itself; it is the means to an end, not the
end itself. When we travel, do we become so enamored of the road that
we lose sight of where the road is meant to take us? And where is Christ,
the Way, meant to bring us? The same verse (14.6) provides the answer:
To bring us to the Father, because “no one comes to the Father except
through me.” Christ is the Way—‘through me”—the destination is “the
Father”: “for Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the un-
righteous, to bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18, NIV).
“The way and the truth and the life” (Jo.14.6): in John these three
elements—way, truth, and life—are aspects of the one reality. The Word
came in Christ (Jo.1.14) to bring us to God; hence he is the way through
whom we come to God. The Word accomplishes this mission because it is
102 The Only True God

the truth, as Jesus said, “Your word (logos) is truth” (Jo.17.17). It is

through this “word (logos) of truth” (Eph.1.13) proclaimed in the gospel
that we are saved. Or, put in terms of regeneration, “He (God) chose to
give us birth through the word (logos) of truth” (James 1:18, NIV; this
translation is supported by BDAG). Christ, in whom the logos is incar-
nate (Jo.1.14), embodies “the word of truth” which God has provided for
our salvation.
The same is true of “the life” as is, likewise, made perfectly clear in
1Jo.1.1, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our
hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word (logos) of
life.” The logos of life has become visible and tangible in the person of
Christ; the Word came into the world to be the Way to the Father, indeed
the only way, for “no one comes to the Father except through me” (14.6),
hence he is “the way”.
The truth and the life, like the way, are not destinations or ends in
themselves; they are the means by which God brings us to Himself. This
can be expressed through Paul’s words, “in Christ (the way, the truth and
the life) God was reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5:19). It is
through the Word that God, in His loving kindness, made available to us
the truth and the life of “eternal salvation” (Heb.5.9) in Christ. It is pre-
cisely for this reason that God is the central object of praise and worship
in the Bible.
But why is it that every time we see or hear a statement of Jesus in the
form “I am the way…” we assume that he is asserting, or claiming,
divinity? Is it not because we have been saturated with trinitarian teach-
ing so that we cannot understand those words in any other way? If Jesus
wanted simply to say that he is the way to God, was there any other way
for him to say it other than “I am (egō eimi) the way”? If I say “I am
Chinese” does the “I am” in these words imply that I am making a claim
to divinity? In John 9.9, when the people debated whether the blind man
was indeed the one whom Jesus healed, he himself confirmed that fact
with the words “I am (egō eimi),” which is to say emphatically, “it is I and
not someone else.” It would be ludicrous to suggest that by saying “I am”
the once blind man was making an implicit claim to being God.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 103

It is true that the Greek “I am” in John is emphatic, emphasizing that

Jesus is the only way; just as “I am the door” (Jo.10.7,9) means “it is I, and
none other, who is the door.” But the door, like the way, is the means by
which one enters and exits the house or enclosure. The door is not the
house; if there were no house or enclosure, there would be no need for a
door. Likewise, where there is no destination, there would be no need for
a way, path, or road.
In view of the foregoing discussion, there can be no doubt that the “I
am” in “I am the way” of John 14.6 is messianic in character, just as we
saw was the case in John 8.24 and 28; but it certainly does not constitute a
claim to divinity.

“I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11.25)

Trinitarians would not hesitate to quote these words as “proof” that Jesus
is God. But, as usual, they do not bother to look at the context. These
words were spoken to Martha, and when Jesus asked her whether she
believed this statement of his as well as the other striking statements
which immediately follow it, he said: “Whoever believes in me, though he
die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall
never die. Do you believe this?” To this question Martha’s reply was not,
“Yes, I believe you are God” but “she said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; I believe
that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.’”
(Jo.11.25-27). In other words, she did not see this as a claim to divinity
but as a messianic statement to which she replied in the affirmative. As a
Jew she knew, as most gentiles apparently do not, that “the Son of God”
is not a divine title in the Bible but a title of the Messiah based on Psalm
2.7 (we shall study this more fully later in this study).
But was it not on the occasion of raising Lazarus that Jesus said this?
Certainly. But if this question implies that his raising a dead man is proof
of his being God, then this shows remarkable ignorance of the Bible. This
was not the only time that someone was raised from the dead in the Bible
accounts. In fact this was not the first time that Jesus raised a dead
person. Long before Jesus’ time, Elijah also raised a dead child and no
Jew has ever thought that that could be used as proof that Elijah was a
divine being! The account of what Elijah did is recorded in 1Kings
104 The Only True God

17.17ff, and it bears remarkable similarity to Jesus’ raising the widow’s

son in the town of Nain as described in Luke 7.11-17. The main points of
similarity are: (1) in both instances it has to do with the bereavement of a
widow; (2) the death of an only child; (3) the words at the end of the
account in Luke after the dead person had been brought back to life,
“Jesus gave him to his mother” (Lk.7.15), echo what Elijah did after the
child was restored to life: he brought him down from the upper chamber
where he had taken the child and prayed to Yahweh for him, and gave
him back to his mother. It is possible that the words in Luke mean no
more than the mere fact that Jesus returned to the mother the son she
had lost because of his death, but it is still possible that Luke did also
intend to imply a reference to that great prophet Elijah. This is the more
likely as we read the account, for immediately after that statement in
Luke 7.15 we read, “They were all filled with awe and praised God. ‘A
great prophet has appeared among us,’ they said. ‘God has come to help
his people’” (NIV).
The point of all this that matters for us here is that the raising of the
young man from the dead did not cause the Jews to suppose that this was
proof of Jesus’ divinity but rather that it was evidence that “a great
prophet (like Elijah) has appeared” and that “God has come to help his
people” just as He had rescued Israel from idolatry (and the death that it
brings) through Elijah, especially through the astonishing and well-
known events on Mount Carmel. As we shall have occasion to see repeat-
edly in this study, trinitarians persistently read their claims for Jesus’
divinity into his sayings and actions where he intended nothing of the
kind and where those who were present at the time saw nothing to that
effect.
What is important, however, is that the people who witnessed Jesus’
raising the dead did recognize that in Jesus “God has come to help his
people”. The word translated as “help” (NIV) and as “visit” in many
other translations is the word episkeptomai which can mean visiting the
sick (e.g. Mat.25.36,43), obviously not just as a courtesy call but with the
intention of helping in any way possible; significantly, it is also used in
the sense “look after, make an appearance to help” (BDAG) in Exodus
3.16 (immediately after Yahweh’s self-revelation to Moses as “I am that I
am” in 3.14) where Moses is instructed to deliver this message: “Go,
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 105

gather the elders of Israel together and tell them, ‘Yahweh, the God of
your ancestors, has appeared to me—the God of Abraham, of Isaac and
of Jacob—and has indeed visited (episkeptomai) you and seen what is
being done to you in Egypt, and has said: I shall bring you out of the
misery of Egypt’” (NJB, see also Ex.4.31). The Exodus is an event of great
importance for understanding the message of John’s Gospel, as we shall
see.
It is also wrong to suggest that Jesus was claiming divinity by the
words “I am the resurrection and the life” because such a claim would be
in flat contradiction to Jesus’ own explicit and unequivocal teaching on
monotheism (Mk.12.29; John 5.44) and the fact that for him the Father is
“the only true God” (Jo.17.3). Moreover, he made it as plain as possible
that “I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in
me does his works” (Jo.14.10). Applied to John 11.25, what else can this
mean but that it is the Father who dwells in Christ, and that the Father is
the source and the power of “the resurrection and the life” that comes
through Christ?

Is “I am” used in a special sense (i.e. in reference to

Yahweh) in some of Jesus’ sayings?
Jesus repeatedly affirmed that the Father was the source of everything he
did. He did and said “nothing of his own accord”. What else can that
mean but that his actions and his words were what the Father, who dwelt
in him, expressed through him? This is stated in John 5.19: ‘Jesus said to
them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord,
but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does,
that the Son does likewise.”’ Also John 5.30, “I can do nothing on my
own.” John 8.28, “I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father
has taught me.” These sayings clearly mean that the Father God, Yahweh,
acts and speaks through Jesus. Is there evidence of this in Jesus’ words?
Perhaps the following statement is an example:

John 8.58: ‘Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was, I am.”’
106 The Only True God

To understand this verse, there are two options: (1) To take “I am” in this
verse as a reference to Exodus 3.14 or to Isaiah 43.10,11; we must realize
that this amounts to saying that Jesus is thereby claiming to be Yahweh—
which is a claim that trinitarians would not want to make because, if
Yahweh has any place at all in the Trinity, it would be as “God the
Father” not “the Son”. (2) To take this to mean that Yahweh is incarnate
in “the man Christ Jesus” and is here plainly speaking in and through
him. The latter is certainly exegetically possible; but it would be equally
contrary to trinitarianism.
Why do we say that the alternative is possible, namely, that Yahweh is
the One who is speaking through Jesus in the words, “Before Abraham
was, I am”? It is possible for two related reasons:
(1) The Father “dwells”, “lives”, or “abides” in Christ depending on
which English translation you read. All these words have basically the
same meaning, and all translate the word menō in John 14.10 and else-
where in John. “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the
Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is
the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” (Jo.14:10, NIV)
(2) Jesus reaffirmed in various ways that “the word that you hear is not
mine but the Father’s who sent me” (Jo.14.24); “For I did not speak of my
own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and
how to say it.” (John 12:49, NIV)
Adding these two points together, it is certainly possible that John 8.58 is
an instance where the Father, Yahweh, is speaking through Jesus using
the words “I am”. And He was certainly before Abraham in any sense of
the word “before”.6
Another instance where we may justifiably hear the voice of Yahweh
speaking through Jesus is John 10.11,14 “I am the good shepherd” which
clearly reflects the well-known words of the 23rd Psalm, “The LORD
(Yahweh) is my shepherd”. It is hard to escape the conclusion that a
deliberate identification is intended, an identification further strength-
ened by another well-known and beautiful verse: “He tends his flock like

6
On John 8.58 see also Appendix 2.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 107

a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to
his heart; he gently leads those that have young.” (Isaiah 40.11, NIV)
John 2.19 appears to provide yet another instance of the Father speak-
ing through Jesus. Here it is not the present “I am” but the future form “I
will”. The verse reads, ‘Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up.”’ This is explained two verses later as mean-
ing that “He was speaking of the temple of his body” (Jo.2.21). Now the
significant fact is that the Scriptures declare unanimously that it was the
Father, God, who raised Jesus from the dead. This is stated frequently in
Acts (Ac.2.24,32; 3.15,26; 4.10; 5.30; 10.40; 13.30,37 etc); and in Romans
10.9: faith in God’s having raised Jesus from the dead is required for
salvation (see further 1Cor.6.14; Gal.1.1; Col.2.12; 1Pet.1.21, etc).
There are many references to Jesus’ resurrection in the NT, but not
one of them speaks of Jesus raising himself from the dead; it is always
God’s act. This matter is decisively settled by the fact that within this
passage itself—in the very next verse—it is affirmed that the Father is the
One who raised Jesus: John 2:22 “When therefore he was raised from the
dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed
the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” The words “he was
raised” translates ēgerthē which is aorist passive of egeirō, confirming that
it was God who raised him from the dead. All this leads to the unavoid-
able conclusion that the “I” in the words “I will raise it up” is an import-
ant example of the Father, Yahweh, speaking in and through Jesus.

The error of the trinitarian use of “I am” as proof of Jesus’

deity
It must be borne in mind that to say that Yahweh, the Father, spoke
through Jesus in whom He dwelt, is something very different from the
trinitarian use of “I am” to argue for Jesus’ deity. What trinitarians need
to understand is that
If by “I am” Jesus claimed to be God, then he specifically claimed to be
Yahweh!
The trinitarian assertion that the “I am”s in John are to be understood as
Jesus’ claims to be God, runs into many problems. Do they wish to say
108 The Only True God

that Jesus, rather than the Father, is Yahweh? Or do they wish to say that
there are three (or two?) persons who are Yahweh? This violates the OT’s
monotheist revelation. But, not only so, it would make nonsense of Jesus’
own words in John as, for example, “The Father is greater than I”
(Jo.14.28), if “I” is to be understood as the divine “I am”. In the context of
John 14 we are to believe in God and also in Jesus (14.1, cf.10,11); and
Jesus would have us understand that, as the object of our faith and trust,
the Father is greater than he. What else could he mean?
Regarding John 14.28, Dr. Kuschel quotes from the work of the
German theologian W. Thuesing:

“W. Thuesing, ‘Die Erhoehung der Verherrlichung’ [‘The Exalt-

ation of Glorification’], 206-14, esp. 210, [where he] has already
said all that needs to be said: ‘What is the meaning of the
reason “for the Father is greater than I?” It must be interpreted
in the terms in which the relationship between Father and Son
is described elsewhere in the Gospel; compared with the Son
the Father is always the one who gives, the one who has the
initiative, who gives the command. The Son always hears and
receives from the Father; he fulfills the will of the Father, he
carries out what the Father has begun—but not vice versa.
“Being greater” also appears elsewhere in the New Testament,
but not as a metaphysical or qualitative difference rather, it
expresses a relationship of superordination and subordination.”
(K-J Kuschel, Born Before All Time? Part Two, B, VII, footnote
74, p.637, words in square brackets added).

Is it not the case that trinitarianism, with its dogmatic insistence on the
equality of the divine ‘persons,’ has made it very difficult for us to accept
the very plain and explicit teaching in John of the Son’s subordination to
the Father? We are made to feel that we disgrace or humiliate the Son by
acknowledging that he is subordinate to the Father—even though the Son
himself insists upon his subordination (cp. Paul who gloried in the title
“slave (doulos) of Jesus Christ” Ro.1.1; Gal.1.10); in taking it upon
ourselves to subordinate him, it is not we who are daring.
Finally, trinitarians seem to be unable to make up their minds
whether Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh (although he did not even
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 109

openly proclaim himself as the Messiah) or the son of Yahweh (“son of

God”). Many trinitarians are so confused on this issue that in their
equivocality they appear to want to assume some kind of fusion of both!
Unscriptural as this is, trinitarian dogma actually routinely indulges in
this kind of double-talk, now stating that Jesus is God and then also that
he is the Son of God—this is, of course, something we are familiar with
because we ourselves engaged in it as trinitarians.

Who exactly is “the Father” of whom Jesus speaks so

frequently in John’s Gospel?

he Father”, as referring specifically to God, belongs to John’s

“T special vocabulary; it is a key word in Jesus’ teaching. The

statistics show this clearly: “The Father” occurs in Matthew:
23 times (in 21 verses); Mark: 3 times (including “Abba” in 14.36); Luke:
12 times (in 9 verses); and John: 114 times (in 97 verses). 7
From these figures it can immediately be seen that the occurrences in
John are about 5 times those in Matthew, and Matthew is a longer book
than John. Clearly, “Father,” as referring to Yahweh God, is constantly on
Jesus’ lips, as also in his heart and mind. Obviously, we cannot here
examine all 114 references to “the Father” in John, but we will summarize
a few main points.
Who “the Father” is in Jesus’ teaching comes to light in the following
passages:
(1) He is the God of Israel, Yahweh, worshipped in the Temple in
Jerusalem, but who will be worshipped universally “in spirit and truth”.
John 4:
21
Jesus said to her (the Samaritan woman), “Woman, believe
me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in
Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

7
The statistics given here are based on the references given in Modern
Concordance to the New Testament, Michael Darton, ed., Doubleday, 1976,
which here appear to be basically reliable.
110 The Only True God
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.

All these verses are about worship; the Father alone is the object of
worship both for the Jews and the Samaritans; He is worshipped in
Jerusalem, that is, at the temple there. So the reference is unmistakably to
the God of Israel, Yahweh. Jesus also spoke of Him as “God the Father”
(John 6.27).
A few more key observations concerning “the Father”:
(2) He is the “self-existent One,” the Creator, who has conferred on Jesus
the power to carry out His will in both the resurrection and the judg-
ment:

John 5.26: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has

granted the Son also to have life in himself.”

“The Father” is the source of life, for He is the One who alone “has life
within Himself”. Significantly, this is what the description of Yahweh’s
Name in Exodus 3.14 as “I am that I am” is thought to mean (particularly
as reflected in the LXX, ho ōn). He does not derive life from anyone else,
but everything that lives receives its life from Him; for He is the Creator,
the Absolute in relation to whom all else exists. He has chosen in His
sovereign will to grant the Son to have life in himself and to communi-
cate life to all who hear his voice (Jo.5.25). It is important to notice that
Jesus makes it clear that the life which he has is the life that has been
given (didōmi) him by the Father; it is not something he has in his own
right. This, of course, contradicts trinitarian Christology.
This important point, namely, that all that Jesus has he has received
from the Father, is reiterated in the next verse:

John 5.27: “And he has given him authority to execute judg-

ment, because he is the Son of Man.”
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 111

Here “given” (didōmi) is used again, now with reference to the authority
or power (exousia) conferred upon him by the Father to carry out
judgment. These two words “given” and “authority” are exactly the same
two words in the Greek text which appear in Matthew 28.18: “Jesus came
up and spoke to them. He said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me.’” (NJB)
The context of the verses in John 5 (vv.24-29) are about the coming
resurrection (hence v.29) and the judgment (hence v.27). These verses
can also serve as the context of Matthew 28.18.
Jesus’ statements clearly affirm the fact that all these things that he has
were generously given him by the Father. The all-encompassing state-
ment in John 5.30 flows spiritually and logically from these affirmations:
“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just,
because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
It is truly incomprehensible how anyone who listens to what Jesus
says in all these passages can assert that Jesus claimed equality with the
Father.
(3) The Father has sent Jesus to be “the savior of the world” (Jo.4.42) so
that mankind may not be condemned at the judgment but receive eternal
life. Jesus accomplishes this by (1) revealing the Father to all who seek
Him (Jo.14.9), and (2) by his being “the lamb of God,” the lamb which
the Father Himself provided as a sacrifice for sin, to “take away the sins
of the world” (Jo.1.29).
As can be seen in John 5.30, “I seek not my own will but the will of
him who sent me,” Jesus speaks of the Father having sent him to
accomplish the work entrusted to him to do. That it was the Father who
sent him is something which Jesus repeats many times in John’s Gospel.
Jesus lived with a strong sense of the mission which the Father had given
him to complete.
(4) The foregoing points are combined in Jesus’ prayer in John 17.3:
“And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom you have sent.”
Foundational to Jesus’ whole teaching in the gospels is the affirmation
that the Father is “the only true God”.
112 The Only True God

But “God the Father” (Jo.6.27, namely, Yahweh) of whom Jesus

speaks must not be confused with the trinitarian “God the Father,” who
is not “the only true God” but is only one of three persons, and therefore
constitutes one third of the trinitarian “Godhead”. Trinitarianism uses
the same terms as those used in the Bible but often with a totally different
meaning. This blurring of the meaning of important terms can result in
muddled thinking. It is, therefore, necessary to vigilantly check the pre-
cise meaning of terms that are being used when discussing trinitarianism.

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

“The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” is an important form of
reference to God found in Rom.15:6; 2Cor.1:3; 11.31; Eph.1:3; 1Pet.1:3.
These five references indicate that this was a well-known description of
God in the NT church and that the God they worshiped was indeed “the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
For those of us brought up in trinitarianism, “the Father” is imme-
diately associated with “God the Son,” whereas in the NT “the Father” is
a term that is understood in relation to “the son of God,” the title of the
Messiah or Christ. This title is in turn incorporated in the title “Lord
Jesus Christ,” which to a Hebrew speaker is “Lord Jesus the Messiah” (see
e.g. the Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew NT). To non-Hebrew speakers the
title “Christ” has become a kind of surname with the result that its
original significance has been lost.
“God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36) and it is not
least for this very reason that He is both “The God and Father of our Lord
Jesus”. This makes it clear that the early church did not see “Lord” as a
divine title in the trinitarian sense. How different things are today in that
Christians cannot think of Jesus as “Lord” except in the sense that he is
God. This goes to show how trinitarian thinking makes it almost imposs-
ible for us to read the NT except in terms of trinitarian language and
categories. Christians are bound to read through trinitarian glasses.
Unless we are, by the grace of God, freed from this bondage, we will not
be able to understand the word of God correctly, but only in seriously
distorted terms. How much of the present spiritual condition of the
church today can be attributed to this sad and dangerous condition,
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 113

when the church can no longer hear the word of God as it was meant to
be heard? They worship three persons instead of one, and mostly one
person—Jesus. In sharp contrast to this, in the NT the church wor-
shipped “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Or as the Apostle
put it, “I kneel before the Father” (Eph.3.14, NIV).
But how can we reconcile, on the one hand, the trinitarian notion of
Jesus as equal with Yahweh and, on the other hand, the fact that Yahweh
is Jesus’ God? Will it again be by way of the usual double-talk: the latter
applies to him as man, but not as God (otherwise Yahweh would be the
God of God!)? In other words, trinitarianism involves the necessity of
cutting Jesus into two when it comes to the exegesis of verses in
Scripture: In one place something is said to apply to Jesus as man, and in
another it is said to apply to him as God. It is by this kind of hopping
back and forth that the dogma is maintained. Yet the separation of God
and man in the trinitarian Christ is actually not permitted by the trini-
tarian creed itself, for this kind of separation of God and man in Christ is
what is condemned as heretical under the name “Nestorianism,” bringing
with it excommunication. “Eutychianism and Nestorianism were finally
condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451), which taught one Christ
in two natures united in one person or hypostasis, yet remaining ‘without
confusion, without conversion, without division, without separation.’”
(Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, W.A. Elwell, Baker, article on
Christology, p.225; italics added).
Thus the self-contradictory character of trinitarianism is exposed by
trinitarian double-talk. For if God and man in Christ can be separated by
saying that this verse applies to Jesus as man but that verse speaks about
Jesus as God, then he is not one person but two, and this is contrary to
the trinitarian dogma that Jesus is both “true God, true man” in one
person. But theory is one thing, practice is another. Confronted by insur-
mountable problems in the light of the Bible which is uncompromisingly
monotheistic, trinitarians are obliged to resort to interpretative juggling
to try to support their dogma.
Let us take one fundamentally important point as example. One thing
which is stated with great frequency about Jesus is the fact of his atoning
death. But if Jesus is God he cannot die; if he can die, he is not God; for
one fundamental truth about God in the Bible is that He is eternal,
114 The Only True God

everlasting, and immortal (Dt.33.27; Ps.90.2, etc); there is absolutely no

question about this where the Bible is concerned. Paul speaks of God as
the One “who alone has immortality” (1Tim.6.16). Everything else will
pass away, but God abides forever, His “years have no end” (Ps.102.25-
27).
So trinitarianism is faced with the question: how can Jesus die and yet
be God? To this there is no other answer than to say: Jesus died as man,
but not as God. This is the inevitable double-talk. What then about the
trinitarian creed as stated at Chalcedon: “One Christ in two natures
(notice how God is spoken of in terms of a “nature”) united in one
person…without division, without separation”? Obviously, this dogma is
simply impossible to sustain in the light of the Biblical revelation of God.
Moreover, if Jesus is God, then the term “God of our Lord Jesus
Christ” must mean, inescapably, that God is the God of God! Alas,
trinitarianism! For this inevitably raises the question: What kind of
“God” is the Jesus of trinitarianism? For God is indeed known as “the
God of gods” (Deut.10.17; Ps.136.2; Dan.2.47; 11.36), but who these
“gods” are must be left to the trinitarians to discover.

God as Jesus’ God and Father—and ours; John 20.17

The term “God and Father” occurs 12 times in the NT; of these 6 relate to
Christ, and another 6 relate to believers. All 12 references are here given
in full for convenience of reference:
God as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, or “his God”:

Romans 15.6, “that together you may with one voice glorify the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Corinthians 1.3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort”.

2 Corinthians 11.31, “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus,

he who is blessed forever [cp.Ro.9.5], knows that I am not
lying.”
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 115

Ephesians 1.3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places”.

1 Peter 1.3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be
born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead”.

Revelation 1.6, “and made us a kingdom, priests to his God

and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever.
Amen.”

God as our God and Father:

Galatians 1.4, “who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from
the present evil age, according to the will of our God and
Father”.

Ephesians 4.6, “one God and Father of all, who is over all and
through all and in all.”

Philippians 4.20, “To our God and Father be glory forever and
ever. Amen.”

1 Thessalonians 1.3, “remembering before our God and Father

your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope
in our Lord Jesus Christ”.

1 Thessalonians 3.11, “Now may our God and Father himself,

and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you”.

1 Thessalonians 3.13, “so that he may establish your hearts

blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming
of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.”

Muslim scholars have accused Paul of being the one who deified the man
Jesus by making him God the Son, and that Paul thereby became the true
founder of Christianity as it is today. But apart from the fact that the
term “God the Son” was never used by Paul, what we see from the above
116 The Only True God

given list of verses concerning “God and Father” it will immediately be

apparent that most of the references to God as “the God of Jesus Christ”
are found in Paul’s letters (4 out of 6 refs.), and that he writes in precisely
the same way about God being our God (all 6 refs.).
Jesus spoke of God as “my God” (Jo.20.17; Mt.27.46 = Mk.15.34);
these words echo Ps.22.1, but they do not thereby lose their significance.
In John 20.17 Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, “Do not cling to me, for I
have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to
them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and
your God.’” This is powerfully reflected in Revelation 3.12 where the
risen Christ speaks of “my God” four times in this one verse:

“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple
of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him
the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the
new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven,
and my own new name.”

The meaning of this verse would not have been essentially affected if
instead of “my God” it simply read “God”. So what is brought out power-
fully is the affirmation of the risen Christ that God is his God in the most
personal way this can be stated. This is most significant for the under-
standing of the Christology of the book of Revelation (cf. also 3.2).
As trinitarians we argued that the words “my Father and your Father,”
“my God and your God,” distinguished Jesus from us more than it unites
him with us because he did not say “our Father,” “our God”. But we
ignored the fact that in the same sentence he also said “go to my
brothers”; was he also thereby distinguishing himself from them? If so,
how? Did he not also say that all who do God’s will are his brothers
(Mt.12.49,50; Mk.3.34,35; Lk.8.21), meaning that all who do God’s will
have God as Father? That Jesus fulfilled God’s will more fully than his
brothers is not disputed, but does that make God his Father in a different
way?
But here, as everywhere else, we read our trinitarianism into the text,
and our dogma required that a distinction between our humanity and
Christ’s be made because Christ is not a human being in the way that we
are: he is the God-man, God and man in one person. This means that he
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 117

is not really a human being as we are. This means, further, that in the
trinitarian mentality Jesus is more God than man; his humanity is
overshadowed by his deity. This raises the question whether the trinita-
rian Jesus is anything more than a human body in which the one driving
personality is his divine nature. The trinitarian Christ is God, but can it
honestly be said that he is “truly man”? A God-man, in the nature of the
case, is not a man such as we are. So trinitarianism has to alter both the
Biblical definition of “God” and of “man” to accommodate their deified
Jesus! If we consider ourselves at liberty to re-define Biblical terms in
whatever way is required by our dogma, then we have chosen to do with
the Bible whatever we wish. But what else can be expected when the
foundation rock of Biblical monotheism, in which Yahweh is the one and
only God, has been rejected in favor of three persons sharing in one
divine substance or nature?
Consequently, it is alleged by the trinitarian “exegesis” of John 20.17
that “Father” is also to be understood in different senses; so when Jesus
says “my Father,” he is allegedly deliberately distinguishing his relation-
ship to the Father from that of his disciples by the term “your Father”.
What logic! But the plain reading of the text (without trinitarian glasses)
indicates that exactly the reverse is true: what he is saying is that from
now on, by the power of the resurrection, and by the Holy Spirit that he
was about to channel to them (as mentioned a few verses later, Jo.20.22),
the disciples will know that “my Father” is “your Father”. This reminds
us of the beautiful words in the book of Ruth, where Ruth says to Naomi,
“Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I
will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and
your God my God.” (Ruth 1:16, NIV)
This brings us to the heart of Jesus’ ministry, the purpose of which the
Apostle Peter described as “to bring us to God” (1Pet.3.18). To accom-
plish this, Jesus does two things that call for a response: first, Jesus calls
the hearer to “come to me” (Mt.11.28; Jo.1.39; 5.40; 6.44,65) and, second,
he calls us with the words, “follow me” (Mt.10.38; Mk.8.34; Jo.10.27, etc);
or simply, “come, follow me” (Mt.19.21; Lk.18.22). Often “follow me”
already implies “come to me”; and “follow me” occurs frequently in all
four gospels (Mat: 6 times; Mk: 4; Lk: 4; Jo: 6 = 20 times in the gospels).
These two steps define the nature of discipleship in the New Testament.
118 The Only True God

Ruth’s words to Naomi are rightly seen as expressing the essence and
character of discipleship.
The result of being brought to God through Jesus is that we come to
know God as our Father in the same way he knew God as Father. Every
Christian has learned to pray the “Our Father” (Mat.6.9-13) since
childhood. It is often recited in church services. But how many Christians
know God as Father? What does it mean for Jesus to “bring us to God”
unless it means bringing us to know God, so that we call Him “Abba,
Father” from our hearts (Gal.4.6; Ro.8.15), exactly as Jesus also called
Him “Abba, Father” (Mk.14.36)? He came to save us, and this is what
being “saved” means. “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (Jo.17.3, NIV)
“Know” (ginōskō) is a key Johannine word; it appears in both the
Gospel and in 1John far more frequently than in any other NT book
(John: 57 times; Mt: 20; Mk: 12; Lk: 28; Ac: 16; Ro: 9; 1Jo: 25). Thayer’s
Greek Lexicon has a long and instructive section on ginōskō (know) as
used in relation to God which begins, “In particular γινώσκω [ginōskō] to
become acquainted with, to know, is employed in the N.T. of the know-
ledge of God and Christ, and of the things relating to them or proceeding
from them; a. τόν Θεόν [ton theon], the one, true God, in contrast with
the polytheism of the Gentiles: Rom.1:21; Gal.4:9; also John 17.3”. In
discussing the different Greek words for “know” (in the final section of
ginōskō, on synonyms), Thayer makes an important observation about
the meaning of ginōskō: “a knowledge grounded in personal experience”
(italics added).

The thorny trinitarian problem of “the two natures” in

Christ, the “God-man”

I
n Christian theology, a subject of special importance is “Christo-
logy,” which is primarily concerned with the thorny problem of how
Jesus Christ is to be understood as having the two “natures” of God
and man in his one person. This problem does not derive from the New
Testament but from the time that Jesus was deified as God by the Gentile
church; only then did this problem become acute for Christianity. The
deification of Christ had, inevitably, the serious consequence of calling
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 119

monotheism into question by creating a situation in which there was now

more than one person who is God. The Gentile church was fully aware of
the fact that the Bible is monotheistic, so how could it preserve some
form of monotheism while still maintaining the deity of Christ as God
the Son? Some church leaders had a greater concern for monotheism;
others were determined to insist on Christ being God. As a result, the
history of Christology is marked, as might be expected, by conflicts,
schisms, and excommunications (even bishops excommunicating each
other!). In the end the view that Jesus was God triumphed in the Gentile
church. This is something which could never have happened in the early
Jewish church.
What then about monotheism? Well, God was reduced from being
one Person to being one “substance”. This emerged already early in the
Gentile church, very soon after it had lost its connection to its Jewish
mother church. The prominent early Latin “father” Tertullian (AD 155-
220) put the matter like this, “God is the name of the substance, that is,
divinity” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p.114). The influence of
Tertullian can be seen in Kelly’s observation that, “the pope [Dionysius]
may well have inferred, on sound etymological grounds, that hypostasis
was the Greek equivalent of substantia, which he had learned from
Tertullian signified the indivisible concrete reality of the Godhead” (Kelly,
Doctrines, p.136; italics in the last sentence added). Without going
further into the complexities, the twists and turns of the history of
Christology (since this book is not meant to be a theological discourse on
christology), it will suffice to know that the doctrinal position of the
church today remains essentially the same as that of Tertullian, that is,
“the three persons of the Godhead share a common substance” (W.A.
Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, “Substance”; interestingly, in
this fairly long article, Tertullian is mentioned only once, which shows
that he is considered only one among many representatives of this view.)
Why do trinitarians speak of Jesus as “God-man”? It is because they
claim that he possesses two “natures,” one divine and one human. How
do these two natures relate to each other in him? The answer given at the
Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) stated that the two natures coexist
“without confusion, without change, without division, without separa-
tion” in the one person. This would seem to indicate a fusion (not
120 The Only True God

confusion) of two totally distinct and different natures in the person of

Jesus. How such a “person,” who is essentially two persons, can function
at all is not explained and is, no doubt, inexplicable. So it belongs to the
realm of theological “mysteries”—something which discourages any fur-
ther inquiry. Presumably the person of Jesus must simply be accepted as
an enigma. The person at the center of the trinitarian faith must remain
unintelligible, at least in regard to how he could possibly function as one
who is said to be simultaneously God and man. The Chalcedonian state-
ment is unintelligible if it was supposed to have any meaningful reference
to a real person. As it stands, it is little more than a dogmatic assertion
made by a church council at Chalcedon in the 5th century. This assertion
cannot be demonstrated as having any solid basis in the Scriptures, yet it
is declared by the trinitarian church to be the touchstone of Christian
orthodoxy. But the question that can and must be asked is whether this is
the Biblical teaching or the product of human confusion resulting from a
failure to understand the Biblical revelation?
Down through the centuries, many thoughtful trinitarians found it
unsatisfactory to be content with faith in a Christ who was essentially
unintelligible, an enigma. Many preferred the idea of Jesus as God incar-
nate in a human body. At least this idea appeared to make sense. In their
view of Christ, God (the Son, not the Father) took over the place in man’s
constitution which is normally occupied by the “spirit of man”. This idea
found some support in what is known in theology as “Alexandrian
Christology”.8 According to this idea, Jesus had a true body of flesh just
as we do, but the person functioning within him was God the Son
(otherwise there would be two persons functioning in the one person—
which would be something akin to schizophrenia!); in Christ “God the
Son” has taken over (whatever that might mean, or, on another view,
replaced) the human spirit. Thus, he is like us on the level of the flesh,
but it is “God the Son” who lives in that flesh. In this way he could be
considered “true God and true man”. Here we will not consider the
question of “true God,” but can someone constituted in this way really be
“true man” even if he has a real human body?

8
For fuller discussion of the trinitarian conflict between the Alexandrians
and the Antiochenes, see Appendix 11.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 121

It is not difficult, surely, for anyone to see (unless we are determined

to be willfully blind) that no man who is also God can truly be a human
being without redefining the term “human” into something different
from what it actually means. We may not know very much, but we are
human beings, so even if we don’t know anything else, at least we do
know what a human being is. For this reason we know that, whatever a
God-man might be, he is not a human being as we are, he is simply not
one of us.
To speak of God and of man in terms of “natures” is hardly a good
way to proceed with the christological inquiry. But it is not difficult to see
why trinitarians are compelled to use this term. It is only proper to speak
of God and man in terms of “persons,” which they are. To speak of man
in terms of “natures” is to speak of his characteristics and qualities, not
about his being a “person” as such. But, obviously, given the trinitarian
idea of Christ as “God-man,” it is not possible to speak of God and man
in terms of “persons” because, otherwise, Christ would be two persons:
God and man!
But to speak of God as being a “substance” or “nature” is really
nothing less than an insult to the God of the Bible, and those who do so
may unwittingly be playing with the “consuming fire” (Dt.4.24; 9.3;
Isa.33.14; Heb.12.29). In the Bible, God is certainly not merely a “nature”
or “substance”. Moreover, to possess the “divine nature” is not thereby to
be God, or else on the basis of 2Peter 1.4 we would also be divine. Nor is
being man to be thought of merely as having a human “nature” or
“essence”; rather, it is because we are human beings (or persons) that we
possess a human nature.
What exactly is meant by “nature”? Presumably it refers to things like
intrinsic character, temperament, or essential quality. Such “qualities” in
man derive from his humanity, but his being a human being does not
derive from them. Therefore, to put a “nature” before a person is “to put
the cart before the horse”. An animal may demonstrate human charact-
eristics or behavior (“almost human”), but that does not make it human.
In 2Peter 1.4 what is meant by “the divine nature” is perfectly clear from
its context, which explains that the moral and spiritual qualities of God
are made available to us (cf. “the fruit of the Spirit”, Gal.5.22) as a result
of our having become new persons in Christ (2Cor.5.17).
122 The Only True God

To say, therefore, that Jesus had a divine nature is not the same as
saying that he is God. Evidently what the trinitarians want to refer to by
the term “nature” is something more like “essence”. But, again, God is
not an essence, and neither is man. A person is much more than his
“essence,” whatever that may be. It could be said that a person is more
than the sum of his essences or natures or characteristics.
It is little wonder that with such opaque terminologies like “nature”
and “essence,” the two-nature doctrine of Christ became a thorny issue in
the church from the Nicene period onwards, resulting in confusion,
discord, conflicts and schisms. Is there any solution to the problem which
the church itself created?
Scripture speaks of the “Spirit of God” and also of the “spirit of man”
(Prov.20.27; Ecc.3.21; Zech.12.1, etc). Can we speak of “spirit” in terms of
“nature”? If so, then the “spirit of man” would be equivalent to the
“nature” of man, in so far as it is a fundamental constitutive element in
man. But, as everyone knows, in the constitution of every human being
there is also “flesh,” and this “flesh” is likewise an essential constitutive
element in man. It so defines what man is, and is so fundamental to his
character and nature, that the Bible speaks of human existence simply as
“flesh” (e.g. Isa.40.6; Jo.1.14). But if “flesh” defines human life, and if man
also has a “spirit” which is also integral to his “nature” as a human being,
then man has two “natures”: flesh and spirit. Then, if this is indeed the
case, for Jesus to be the God-man would mean that he would have three
“natures”: man’s flesh and spirit (i.e. the “spirit of man”) are added to
him as God the Son! This can hardly be considered a true human being
without changing the definition of what it is to be a “human being”.
One solution was to suggest that God the Son has, as Spirit, replaced
the human spirit in Jesus. But this does not really solve the problem, for
now the human being is minus a human “spirit” and is, therefore, still
not truly a human being, not “true man”. From all this it becomes
evident that trinitarianism, by its deification of Christ, created a problem
for which there is simply no solution. God and man simply cannot be
conjoined or fused together in the way that trinitarianism imagined it in
the idea of the “God-man”. Had they not created the problem, there
would not be the need for a solution. This is not a New Testament
problem, as we shall see, but one created by the Gentile church.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 123

If Jesus is God, what happens to man’s salvation?

T
he problem is even more complex than that: If Jesus was God then
he could not possibly sin, because God cannot even be tempted to
sin (James 1.13), let alone sin. How could he who could not sin
identify with sinners and be their representative? Only he who could sin
(like Adam) but did not—who was sinless not in the sense that he could
not sin but did not sin, who succeeded where Adam failed—only such a
person could die for sinners. It was “through one man’s obedience the
many were made righteous” (Romans 5.19), but if he was obedient
because he could not, in any case, be tempted, disobey or sin, then it is
meaningless to speak about his “obedience”.
If there is any wonder at all about Jesus being our Savior, it surely
consists in this: that he could have sinned, but he did not; he could have
disobeyed the Father, but he remained absolutely obedient under all
circumstances. If that is not a supreme wonder, what is? Anyone who has
ever seriously faced the challenges of living a life pleasing to God must
surely be amazed at the wonder of Jesus’ perfect life. Even someone of
Paul’s spiritual stature confessed, “Not that I have already obtained this
or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own” (Philippians
3.12).
Is there an answer to this problem in Scripture? The first clue to the
answer may be found in John 1.18 “in the bosom of the Father” which
speaks of a profound intimacy of Christ’s relationship with Yahweh; in
comparison to such intimacy, John’s being “in the bosom” of Jesus (John
13.23, usually thought to refer to John) was but a dim reflection. There
was a depth of union with Yahweh expressed in the words: “I in you, you
in me” which Jesus desired should also eventually become a reality in his
disciples. Some believers have had a tiny taste of the reality expressed in
the words, “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him”
(1Cor.6.17), for this is not just a status but an experiential reality (just as
becoming “one flesh” through marriage is not merely a status but a
reality which is experienced). But we have only a shallow idea of what
such a union in its perfection would be like. Yet in the case of Jesus this
spiritual union with Yahweh resulted in the constant dynamic in which
124 The Only True God

he lived his life and which is evidenced by the perfect sinlessness of his
life.
Had the Gentile church understood that the reality in Christ was not a
matter of some kind of metaphysical union through the joining of two
“essences” or “natures” in Christ (“hypostatic union” in trinitarian term-
inology), if they could have been freed from thinking in their polytheistic
(“three Persons”) and Greco-philosophical categories, and grasped some-
thing of the depth and power of spiritual union (“one spirit”, 1Cor.6.17),
they would have grasped the Scriptural truth of the person of Christ and
his union with the Father.
The wonderful words of Deuteronomy 33.12 apply to Jesus at a depth
which could not apply to anyone else, “The beloved of Yahweh … dwells
between His shoulders.” That is indeed to be “in the bosom of the
Father”! To live “in Him” in the way Jesus taught.

Trinitarian Christology: an even more serious problem to

think about

B
ut there is a yet more serious problem that trinitarian christology
poses: the union of God and man in such a way that God actually
becomes incarnate in a human body permanently and thereby
becomes a human being, such that God can be said to be man—a
particular man named Jesus Christ. Trinitarianism is represented by the
way in which Anselm could speak of God having become man (in his
well-known book Cur Deus Homo?). This is to go far beyond anthropo-
morphism. It is one thing to say that God appeared in human form in the
Old Testament, but it is something entirely different to say that God
became a man, a human being, in the way trinitarianism conceives of it.
We do well to reflect upon the question of whether we have gone
much too far with our Christian dogma, to the extent that we have trans-
gressed against the transcendent character of God; whether His imma-
nence has been dragged down to the level where theologians do not
hesitate to speak of the immortal God having been crucified and dying
on the cross (cf. J. Moltmann, The Crucified God). Trinitarianism, unfor-
tunately, has made this way of speaking about God possible. The line
between being God and being man has not only been blurred but
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 125

demolished. There are some things which no amount of reverence on our

part can justify. Anyone who has truly absorbed the spirit of the Old
Testament revelation of God would surely shudder at speaking about
God’s having been crucified and having died like mortal man. But
trinitarianism has so desensitized us that we dare speak even of God in
such a way as should be considered blasphemous according to the Script-
ures. We dare to tread where no angel would dare venture (cf. Jude).
Since this work is exegetical and expository in character, and is not
intended as a theological treatise, I shall leave this question as a matter
for sober reflection.

Spiritual union—the highest form of union

B
eing unspiritual, we are slow to realize that spiritual union is the
highest form of union; there is none higher. Instead, from the 5th
century (the Council of Chalcedon, AD 451) onwards, the Gentile
church officially demanded faith in a creed that declared “the union of
the two natures (dyo physes) of deity and humanity in the one hypostasis
or person of Jesus Christ” (“Hypostatic Union,” Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology, W.A. Elwell, Ed.). Notice that what is thereby explicitly
affirmed is the union of God and man through the union of “the natures
of deity and humanity”.
If the intention Is to state the union of God (even if it be “the Second
Person”) and man in Christ, why not state this plainly? Why speak of
“two natures”? For it should be obvious that the “nature” of a person is
not the whole person. And if the whole person is meant, why speak only
of his “nature”? In 2Peter 1.4 we, too, are declared to be “partakers of the
divine nature (physis, the same word as “nature” in the creed)”. Does our
possession of “the divine nature” make us God or equal to God or cause
us to be included in the “Godhead”? Certainly not. Then why would
possession of the divine “nature” constitute Christ as God, or show that
he is a member of the “Godhead”?
And since “nature” is not equivalent to the whole person, then would
not the union of “two natures” in one person result in a person who is
neither wholly God nor wholly man? Yet trinitarianism wants thereby to
affirm that he is “truly God and truly man”!
126 The Only True God

How could the church have landed in such a befuddled, confused

state of affairs? It was the failure to perceive the Scriptural truth that
spiritual union (“one spirit,” 1Cor.6.17) is the highest and profoundest
form of union, that led to the seeking of some form of metaphysical union
of “essences” or “natures” in Christ, for which they invented the term
“hypostatic union,” evidently assuming this to be some higher form of
union. But, as we have seen, a union of “two natures,” that of God and of
man, cannot really mean much more than a possession of the attributes
represented by, or contained in, those “natures”.
Yet what the Chalcedonian creed wants to affirm by this doctrine of
“hypostatic union” is that God and man are truly united in Christ such
that “a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine
nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remain-
ing distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that
the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man” (“Hypostatic
Union”, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, W.A. Elwell, Ed.). How can
one have the “whole” nature without the whole person?
What the trinitarians failed to see is that only in the case of spiritual
union is it possible for God and man to be united in such a way as to
remain “distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion”
in the one person: 1 Corinthians 6:17 “But he who is joined to the Lord
becomes one spirit with him.”
Moreover, the idea of some kind of metaphysical “union of natures”
(whatever that actually means) inevitably compromises the understand-
ing of the true humanity of Christ, and this has the most serious soterio-
logical consequences.
Yet the Church insisted on her dogma, and ignored the fact that the
Biblical doctrine of salvation was thereby compromised, but the average
Christian is not aware of this. It is essential that we realize that a Christ
who is not truly human cannot save those who are truly human. It is
precisely because Christ Jesus, in the New Testament, was truly human
that he could truly save us. No one who is “truly God” can be “truly man”
in the Biblical sense of being “man”. For this reason, too, any discussion
about the meaning of the Logos in John 1 must bear this salvific truth in
mind, and not allow itself to be carried away by metaphysical ideas and
opinions.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 127

The idea of a God-man was familiar to the Greeks, whose mythology

is full of such gods who once were men or women. Little wonder that the
Greek, or Greek educated, Gentile church leaders could come up with
this notion of the union of a divine and a human nature in the one
person of Jesus Christ. They were simply formulating Biblical teaching in
terms of Greek cultural ideas in which they were habituated to think and
to express themselves. It seems that most of them were not yet sufficient-
ly steeped in Biblical teaching to breathe in its spirit and think in its
terms, in contrast to the early Jewish believers.
But as the church became more and more filled with Gentiles as a
result of the effective expansion of the Gospel into the world, the world
also expanded into the church, and by the time of the Council of Nicaea
in AD 325 the world (notably in the form of the emperor Constantine)
began to take effective control of the church. It was Constantine who first
made Christianity the predominant religion of the Roman Empire, and it
was he who convened the Council of Nicaea.

The “Mystery of Christ”

W
hat are we saying when we speak of Jesus as “true God and
true man”? What are we really talking about? We surely do
not mean that he is part God and part man. Yet, what else
can it mean? That he is all God and all man, wholly God and wholly man,
100% God and 100% man (thus adding up to 200%!)? But this is not an
ontological (nor even a logical) possibility. What, then, does “true God
and true man” mean? Here, as might be expected, the convenient (and
only) recourse is to retreat into “mystery”. This, however, was certainly
not what Paul meant when he spoke of the “mystery of Christ” (Eph.3.4;
Col.4.3), for by this term he did not refer to some logical or ontological
puzzle, but to God’s wonderful plan of salvation hidden in ages past but
now revealed in Christ and brought to fruition through his death and
resurrection.
But the problem lies not only in the elevation of Jesus to the level of
being “God,” but in the consequence of worshiping him as God, thereby
relegating “God our Father” to a secondary place in the hearts and minds
of most Christians, if indeed He has any meaningful place at all. “The
128 The Only True God

first person” of the “Godhead” has for all practical purposes become “the
second person,” even though He is still left with the honorary title of “the
First Person”—made more presentable by writing the words with cap-
itals. The Son has replaced the Father as the center of Christian devotion.
Paul, as also all the other NT writers, would have been horrified at this
state of affairs. I am now coming to realize that Christ himself finds this
abhorrent. His teaching has been twisted into something that he did not
teach. Even the elect have been deceived (cf. Mt.24.24). Now we can
understand why judgment will commence at the house of God
(1Pet.4.17).
Thus, once the church had taken the dogmatic position that Christ is
God and therefore equal in all respects with the Father, then it followed
that to worship Christ is equal to, the same as, worshipping God, our
Father. From worshipping him with the Father, we slip imperceptibly in-
to worshipping him instead of the Father. Moreover, even when “Father”
is used in prayer it often turns out that it is actually Christ who is being
referred to by that term. The justification for this is claimed from Isaiah
(9.6, “Everlasting Father”), whereas Jesus’ own instruction to call no man
“Father” except God Himself (Mt.23.9: “for you have one Father, who is
in heaven”) is, as usual, ignored.

The “Mystery of Christ”, A Blessing or a Curse—

depending on one’s attitude
There are undoubtedly different aspects to the mystery of Christ; it is a
complex rather than a simple reality. One aspect involves the principle
that the same reality can be either a blessing or a curse depending on
one’s attitude towards that reality. Thus, 2Cor.2.15,16, “we are to God the
aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are
perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fra-
grance of life”—the same aroma of Christ brings life to one and death to
another. In Lk.20.17 the cornerstone of the divine structure for God’s
people becomes (in v.18) the cause of destruction for those who reject it
and those who fall under judgment. In the same way the “mystery of
Christ” includes the remarkable fact that it can mean salvation for some
and destruction for others. The consequences of misinterpreting that
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 129

“mystery” is, therefore, serious in the extreme; it is a matter of life or

death.
The general principle that a blessing can become a curse is also seen in
the principle, “To whom much is given, much is required” (Lk.12.48). To
be given much is a blessing, but to misuse that blessing is to come under
judgment. And the greater the blessing, the greater the judgment if the
blessing is misappropriated. The greatest blessing ever given to man is
God’s “unspeakable gift” (2Cor.9.15, KJV)—Christ. The misappropriat-
ion of this gift will also have unspeakable consequences.
The Scriptural revelation makes it clear that Jesus is the way to God,
not the destination, which is God Himself. He is the means, not the End.
If now we make him the end rather than the means, we have distorted
God’s purpose, and the blessing of Christ will become a curse. To make
Christ equal to the Father in the trinitarian sense, to make him a
“partner” with God, is to subscribe to ditheism or tritheism, and there-
fore to idolatry, which results in falling under God’s curse. The LORD
has given the warning, “You shall have no other gods before {Or besides}
me” (Ex.20:3; Deut.5.7); we disregard it to our own eternal cost.
Jesus himself taught his disciples to be wholly devoted to “the one and
only God” (Jo.5.44; Mk.12.29,30), yet we (Christians) chose to worship
Jesus as God! Anyone who studies his teaching with care will realize that
such a thing would have horrified him. If we hold to Biblical monotheism
and worship God alone we will be in line with Jesus’ teaching, and we will
certainly not be on the wrong road and head in the wrong direction,
going towards spiritual disaster.
All this means is that, in the wisdom and purpose of God, Christ is the
means whom God uses to separate between the sheep and the goats, the
true and the false believers. In fact, in the Parable of the Sheep and the
Goats, Christ is both the standard used to separate between the sheep and
the goats as well as the one who separates them based on that standard
(Mt.25.31-46). The parable speaks in terms of practical acts, but the point
is that true “faith works by love” (Gal.5.6) and is never a merely intellect-
ual or abstract belief.
130 The Only True God

Something extremely disturbing

W
hat I find exceedingly disturbing is that what we have done
in trinitarianism is that we have taken what is in itself very
good, namely the person and work of Jesus Christ, and by it
displaced the absolute good, namely, the Lord God Yahweh Himself as
the center of our faith and worship. This was, no doubt, done as the
result of our having been deceived by Evil, and not by any willful intent-
ion to do evil; but it is the acme of evil, nonetheless, to use good against
the supreme Good by replacing the latter with the former. It is devilish in
its subtlety in serving as the most effective method of deception that is
calculated to appeal to those who desire the good, namely, the “saints”.
It seems that Jesus himself foresaw this prophetically when he said,
“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone”
(Mk.10.18; Lk.18.19). He was surely not denying that he was good, but he
did not intend to be used as the ‘good’ to replace Him who alone is the
absolute Good, nor did he ever claim to be that absolute Good himself.
Jesus strikingly declares that “good” is a quality that belongs to Yahweh
God alone and to no one else (oudeis, “no one, nobody,” BDAG). All that
is truly good derives from Him.
In the present dismal circumstance of the church, it is surely time to
issue the rallying call which Moses did when the Israelites had turned
from Yahweh to set up their own god: ‘then Moses stood in the gate of
the camp and said, “Who is on the LORD’s (Yahweh’s) side? Come to
me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him’ (Exodus 32:26). We
do not live in the era in which Moses lived, so the command (in the next
verse) to “Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro
from gate to gate throughout the camp…” would, of course, not mean
the use of any literal sword, but it would today mean the sword of the
Spirit, the Word of God (Eph.6.17; Heb.4.12).

The serious danger of idolatry

The First Letter of John (1John) ends surprisingly and abruptly with the
warning: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1Jo.5.21). This
abrupt and terse ending seems designed to lodge this serious warning
firmly in our hearts and minds. But surely, we think, “true” Christians
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 131

are not likely to fall into the “sin that leads to death” (1Jo.5.16,17),
namely, that of idolatry, and if it is unlikely, then the warning is redun-
dant. But God certainly knows us better than we know ourselves, and
therefore issues this trenchant warning through His servant. To fail to
heed it is to perish.
It was precisely because of idolatry that Israel perished as a nation
when it was sent into Exile. How Israel allowed itself to be seduced into
idolatry forms a large portion of the Old Testament. It was “bewitched”
(Gal.3.1) by other gods and their worshippers to such a degree that they
not only turned a deaf ear to Yahweh’s urgent appeals and warnings
through His prophets but went so far as to silence their voices through
killing them (cf. Mt.23.34,35; etc).
The character of idolatry is, first, that it is man-made, and contrary to
what God has revealed. One can, however, take something revealed, such
as the Bible, and turn it into an object of worship in itself. This is called
“bibliolatry”. But this is relatively rare, because usually a second vital
ingredient in idolatry is its anthropoid character, that is, a god made by
man generally bears some human features, which makes it easier for man
to identify with it.
In the case of Jesus, something very subtle and dangerous can happen
(and has happened). If he is both God and man, then it follows that, not
only is he said to be man, but he is more than God, because God is “only”
God, while Jesus is both God and man. Clearly, it is harder to identify
with a God who is wholly transcendent, invisible, and therefore prac-
tically unreachable; but if Jesus is God who has a real human body such
as we have, identification with him is much easier. Little wonder that he
can easily supplant the Father in our prayers and our worship.
We hardly notice in all this that we have done something extremely
serious, namely, we now see God as “only” God, but Jesus is God plus
man. God’s perfection is, for us, imperfect because it lacks manhood. But
this is found in the perfection of Christ, who is both God and man in one
person. Trinitarianism (unwittingly no doubt) has produced a super-idol,
greater even than God himself, for this doctrine implies, almost imper-
ceptibly, that God is “perfected” (from the human point of view) by the
addition of manhood! This is the inevitable result of a doctrine that
insists on Christ being 100% God (“true God”) and 100% man (“true
132 The Only True God

man”) (200% (!) in contrast to God as 100%, “only” God—how close is all
this to blasphemy? Is there still the “fear of God” in man’s heart?). The
effect is that God the Father, who is actually the heart and center of all
things, is marginalized in trinitarian Christianity.
In asserting that Jesus is true God and true man, trinitarianism seems
to have given no thought as to whether it is actually possible to make any
kind of sense of such a statement when one comes to think about it
carefully. Is it the case that Christians will really be satisfied to treat it as a
“mystery” beyond the reach of human reason? It is a sad day for truth if
something which does not make sense is simply classified as “mystery”.
This is most certainly not the definition of the word “mystery” as it is
used in the New Testament.
But for someone who does stop to think about it, the logical (not to
mention spiritual) absurdity of the claim that a person could be “100%”
man and also “100%” God, would become evident by the fact that such a
“person” would be 200% and is, therefore, two persons not one! 100% (as
a mathematical equivalent of “true”) is not meant in purely quantitative
terms, but as a means of including whatever is required by the descript-
ion “true”. For if a person is not 100% man, how can he be true man? A
chimpanzee is said to have about 98% of human DNA, but does that
qualify it to be a human being? Beyond the lacking 2% of human DNA, it
surely also lacks “the spirit of man” without which one cannot be a
human being as far as Scripture is concerned, and this is far more
important than the DNA.
Ultimately, the trinitarian dogma represents a failure to understand
both God and man. God is absolutely perfect in Himself and nothing can
be added to His perfection—if we had any idea of the reality of God as to
who He is in Himself. And as for talking about Jesus as the God-man,
“true God and true man,” if one talks by way of mathematical metaphors
in terms of percentages, and recognizing the fact that when speaking of
what it means to be one “person”—not his performance—no one can be
more than 100%, then does it not follow that if Jesus is “God-man” he
could only be 50% God and 50% man? And that would be to say that he
would not be either really God or man, when God and man are under-
stood in Biblical terms. But, as we have seen, the God-man idea was
commonplace in Greek thought which dominated the culture of the
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 133

Gentile world. The Greek and Roman gods were, for the most part, glori-
fied and deified human beings; they had become mythological entities,
and the requirements of truth and logic do not apply to mythology. No
one can read Greek classical literature without coming across the names
of their “many gods,” exactly as Paul described them (1Cor.8.5). Those
brought up in this kind of culture would find nothing difficult about
believing in Jesus as the God-man.

Misled by Greek religious and philosophical ideas

We did not realize that we were being led into error by Greek theological
“wisdom” or sophistry and, consequently, away from the wisdom of
Biblical revelation (these different and opposing wisdoms are discussed
in 1Co.1.17-2.13). In the Bible, for example, God (Yahweh) is not a
“substance”. Has anyone ever produced so much as one scrap of Biblical
evidence to substantiate (pardon the pun) this idea that one can speak of
God in terms of “substance”? Yet this is a term which the Greek leaders
of the church did not appear to have had qualms about using. Every
theologian is (or should be) aware that this definition of God as a
“substance,” in which three persons coexist, is the product of Greek
theological sophistry—a sophistry legitimized by using a collection of
Scripture verses, and which has successfully misled us all. Greek philoso-
phical speculations have carried us away from the word of God.
But there is something even more serious to consider: Has it ever
crossed our minds that to speak of God as “substance” could possibly be
blasphemous? Can it be that our minds and spirits have become so de-
sensitized through cultural “acclimatization” that we have become accus-
tomed to that term to such an extent that we take no such possibility into
account? Is it not somewhat like the person who swears habitually and
who is not aware of the offensiveness of his speech? Will God hold us to
account for describing Him as “substance,” or the “essence” (Latin
‘substantia’; Gk. hupostasis or ousia) of three divine persons?
As for Greek ideas, Garry Wills (Professor of History Emeritus at
Northwestern University) puts the matter succinctly, “Paul never pre-
sents Jesus as the God of the Greeks, as the Wisdom of Plato, as the
134 The Only True God

Unmoved Mover of Aristotle” (What Paul Meant, Penguin Books, 2006,

p.127).

The trinitarian search for proof-texts

What is the psychology behind our determination to prove that “the Lord
Jesus Christ” is absolutely equal in all respects to “God our Father”? In
our eager pursuit of this objective we did not stop to consider the fact
that not one book in the NT has that objective in view, so we find our-
selves out of line with the NT. In fact, it cannot be demonstrated that the
word “God” (in the trinitarian sense of a being who is coequal with the
Father) is ever applied to Christ in the NT. So the attempted proofs of
Christ’s deity have to rely chiefly on the kind of titles we have looked at
above, such as “the son of God”.
For my part, I do confess again that, at least in the matter of
Christology, I have in the past allowed my trinitarianism to govern my
exposition. I searched the Scriptures to find proof-texts for Christ’s deity.
I still have the old Bible which is marked in every place where such texts
could be found, often accompanied by copious notes. Nowadays I am a
little amused or even bemused when I hear people quoting those same
texts to me in support of their trinitarianism.

The practical consequences of Trinitarianism

What are the consequences of trinitarian Christology? With the deifica-
tion of Christ to equality with God, “Christ” and “God” have essentially
the same meaning. The result is that praying and worshipping Jesus is
praying and worshipping God. God the Father is reduced to being just
one of three, and not even the central one at that. Once the Father is
marginalized, the door is open to making other persons the chief object
of prayer and devotion. As a result, Jesus is central in “mainline” Protest-
antism; in Pentecostalism the Spirit is central; while in a considerable
part of Roman Catholicism the Virgin Mary supplants the divine
‘persons,’ she having been elevated to a similar status.
If any of them were asked to stop praying to, and worshipping, the
figures they have deified, they would become so disorientated that they
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 135

would hardly know what to do. It seems clear that, misled by their trini-
tarianism, they would scarcely have any idea how to pray and to worship
if they were to stop worshipping the deity of their choice. They have been
so misled that they may have some difficulty praying to the Father, for it
would be like praying to a stranger.
New Testament teaching is entirely different. In it, it is clearly taught
that God the Father (not in a trinitarian sense) is always the central object
of our prayers and worship. This was precisely how Jesus himself prayed,
and he taught his disciples to do likewise. He always taught us to pray to
the Father, which should have been obvious from the “Lord’s Prayer”.
The central aim of his ministry was in fact to bring us into a direct
relationship with the Father whom he knew and loved. He wanted us to
pray to “Abba, Father” in the way he did. This is seen from his teaching,
from his death (to open the way to reconciliation with Him), and the
sending of the Spirit to inspire and strengthen us to pray to Abba.
The risen Christ must doubtless be horrified that his teaching has
been abandoned by a doctrine that marginalizes the Father in his name.
Instead of following his teaching and example, his disciples have placed
him at the center, and thereby displaced the Father from the position that
He certainly has in the NT as a whole—and all this, moreover, in utter
disregard for Jesus’ own teaching. “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’, and
do not do what I say?” (Lk.6.46; cf.Mt.7.21-23)
So does it really matter if we continue to hold on to the doctrine of the
Trinity? Will it really affect our salvation? No—if it doesn’t matter whe-
ther we listen to and obey the Lord Jesus’ own teaching or not. Perhaps
we never really thought that the Lord’s words in Mt.7.21-23 might apply
to us. But we would do well to take to heart Paul’s exhortation to “work
out your salvation with fear and trembling”, something that the
Evangelical church assures us is unnecessary; indeed, “fear and trem-
bling” (2Cor.7.15; Phil.2.12) is said to express a lack of faith which, they
declare, walks in holy boldness! Paul could get a lesson on faith from
these bold preachers!
Can it be that we, too, “listen but do not understand”? Are our hearts
also hardened in some way because we have come under the power of
deception? Can we look at the Lord’s teaching in all the four gospels and
miss the point? The “Kingdom of God,” as we ought to know by now, is a
136 The Only True God

central element in Jesus’ teaching. It is first and foremost God’s, the God
whom Jesus called “Father”. But we are deceived by trinitarianism which
tells us that it is Jesus’ kingdom, because he is God.
Now, it is true that in an important sense it is Jesus’ kingdom. In what
sense? In the sense that God has appointed him king in His kingdom, in
the same sense in which David, his father (“son of David” was one of the
titles by which Jesus was addressed in the gospels), was anointed king of
Israel which, as a theocracy, was God’s kingdom. It is this kind of admix-
ture of truth and falsity that gives trinitarianism its grip on people. But
surely everyone who reads the gospels without prejudice would know
that when Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom, he was proclaiming God’s
kingdom, not his own.
Another central element in Jesus’ ministry was, in view of the near-
ness of the Kingdom (emphasized in the Synoptic Gospels), to bring
people into a life-saving relationship with God which must commence
with repentance. Once there was repentance, Jesus called them into the
next step: A trusting and intimate relationship with the Father as “Abba”.
In John, Jesus teaches the disciples that this intimacy is based on mutual
indwelling, which one could borrow the theological term “coinherence”
to describe (“I in them and you in me,” Jo.17.23, etc). In all this it should
be perfectly evident, especially in Jesus’ teaching in John’s Gospel, that
the Father is central in Jesus’ ministry.
This point about the Father’s centrality in John (and indeed also in
Paul and the rest of the NT) causes us to pause and reflect on the general
doctrine of God (“theology proper”) in Christian theology as it is today,
and ever since the 4th century. God is taught as first and foremost a
transcendent Being, where transcendence means “existence above and
apart from the material world” (Encarta). God the Father, in trinitarian
doctrine, is indubitably transcendent; while the Son of God is presumably
immanent, at least in regard to his earthly ministry. In this doctrine
Father and Son really function in different spheres.
What needs to be understood is that this doctrine of divine transcend-
ence derives from Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and not from
the Hebrew Bible. This Greek notion of divine transcendence is strikingly
shattered in Jesus’ teaching in John, where he makes it absolutely clear
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 137

that the Father is intimately involved in every aspect of his (Jesus’) life
and work, and in the whole work of the salvation of mankind.
This emerges also in the three Synoptic gospels, where the Kingdom
of God is not something solely in heaven or only in the future, but which
is already operating in the world now, and will ultimately triumph over
every opposing power on earth. This is also what Paul teaches; and his
perspective is very close to John’s. The Revelation puts it like this, “The
kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his
Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev.11.15). But the Greek
idea of the supreme God, the Father, as wholly transcendent and uncon-
cerned with the affairs of the world is, therefore, incompatible with the
Scriptures, and effectively alienates Him from us as Someone remote and
rather inaccessible.
Not surprisingly, we don’t really identify with 1John 1.3, “Our fellow-
ship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ”. Given the Father’s
(supposed) remoteness implied in the Christian teaching we have
received, how can we fellowship with the Father? Consequently, almost
all Evangelical Christians today fellowship with the Son while occasion-
ally paying some lip service to the Father as an act of courtesy to Him. All
this is born out of our failure to perceive the Scriptural teaching of the
Father’s immanence and deep involvement in our salvation. As a result,
our spiritual lives become unbalanced and even distorted when seen in
the light of God’s word. If one day we are, by grace, granted the privilege
of being admitted to heaven, we would probably go straight to Jesus, and
worship him in thanksgiving and praise, and will not (like all the heaven-
ly multitudes described repeatedly in the Revelation) worship the Father
seated upon the throne first and foremost. How out of tune we will be
with all those multitudes in heaven—including our Lord Jesus Christ!
And what was the purpose of the cross, that is, of Jesus’ death? Was it
Jesus’ primary purpose to reconcile the world to himself? Was the reason
for the sacrifice of the “Lamb of God” that mankind was to be reconciled
to the Lamb rather than to God? To ask such questions is already to
answer them, at least for anyone who has some understanding of the
Scriptures. What then has so blinded us that what should have been
obvious is no longer obvious? May the Lord grant mercy.
138 The Only True God

Jesus as Lord

T
he situation with trinitarianism is not a simple matter of our
either taking it or leaving it, that is, if you want to stick to it fine
and if you want to leave it that’s also fine. It should now be
plainly evident that this dogma is a transgression of the word of God, that
is, it literally “goes beyond” (“transgresses”) His word. Nowhere in the
apostolic preaching in Acts, and in the teaching of the NT, is belief in the
deity of Jesus required for salvation. This is how the apostle sums up the
faith needed for salvation, “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” (Ro.10.9). Peter explained the meaning of “Lord” already
in his first message (the first message of the Gospel proclaimed after
Pentecost) in Acts 2:
34
“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself
says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
35
until I make your enemies your footstool.’ [Ps.110.1]
36
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God
has made (poieō) him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom
you crucified.”
The exaltation of Jesus as “Lord and Christ” is directly related to his
having been “raised up” at his resurrection by God (Acts 2.31-32).
The meaning of “Lord” is clearly expounded in these passages. It is
not to be read as “the second person of the Godhead”. To do so is to
perversely disregard, and thereby to transgress, God’s word. Peter makes
it clear that “Lord and Christ” is to be understood in terms of Ps.110.1
which refers to the promised Davidic Messianic king who had now come
in Christ. Yet trinitarianism asserts that if you don’t believe that Jesus is
God according to their definition then you are a heretic, and heretics will
not be saved.
Yet strangely enough, evangelists calling people to repentance and
salvation in Christ do not usually mention that you must believe in him
as God before you can be saved. Some only say that he must be accepted
as Savior, and some demand that he is to be accepted also as Lord. Do
they assume that non-Christians (e.g. in Asia) are already supposed to
know that they are expected to believe that Jesus is God? Why then is the
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 139

deity of Christ not always stated explicitly in evangelism? Is the intention

to get people to first make a “decision for Christ” and only afterwards tell
them that they must believe that Jesus is God the Son? Is this being
honest? Or are evangelists not entirely sure that this doctrine is necessary
for salvation?
A restoration to Biblical monotheism will be accomplished when the
Father is adored as the undisputed center of the life of the Church in ac-
cordance with the teaching of Jesus, whom Christians profess as “Lord”.
That is, when all who profess to be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ take
their Lord’s example as the one to follow in praying to the Father and
doing His will. Christ strengthens his disciples through God’s Spirit to do
what by nature they are unable to do. If discipleship means to follow
Jesus, then that following must refer both to his teaching and the example
of his life in its absolute devotion to Yahweh God, the Father, whom he
endearingly addressed as “Abba”. This is surely what Jesus is doing even
now, according to Scripture, interceding on behalf of all who trust and
follow him; for is it not written that, “he is able to save to the uttermost
those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them” (Heb.7.25)? This shows how vital for our salvation
is his present ministry of intercession for us before the Father, Yahweh
God.
But will he intercede for those who call him “Lord, Lord” but do not
obey him? On the contrary, Jesus warns such people to expect to hear this
from him “on that day” (i.e. the day of Judgment, Mt.7.22): “Then I will
tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers!’”
(Mt.7.23, see vv.21-23) Interesting, the last statement echoes Psalm
119.115 where the psalmist expresses his absolute commitment to obey
God and His word: “Depart from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the
commandments of my God.” Jesus repeatedly spoke about his keeping
God’s commands: John 10.18; 12.49; 15.10; also 14.31. Notice, too, that
Jesus uses the term “my God” also after his resurrection (Jo.20.17; cf.
Mat.27.46); but what is seldom noticed is that the glorified Christ in the
Revelation still speaks of Yahweh God as “my God” (Rev.3.2,12). The
intercession of such a high priest (Heb.7.24,25; and note that in Rev.1.12,
Jesus appears in the heavenly temple as indicated by “the seven golden
lampstands”) will undoubtedly be heard.
140 The Only True God

The Bible is God-centered

T
o understand anything in Scripture correctly, we must begin by
understanding that it is God-centered, which finds clear express-
ion in Ephesians 4.6, “one God and Father of all, who is over all
and through all and in all”; notice the four “all”s. “Father of all” in the
present context speaks of God as the Father of all believers. “Over all”
(epi pantōn) is exactly the same as in Ro.9.5 (which is why Ro.9.5 applies
to “the one God and Father,” not to Jesus as the trinitarians want to have
it) and speaks of His supremacy and lordship over all; “through all”
“expressing (His) pervading, animating, controlling presence” (The
Expositor’s Greek Testament); “in all” His indwelling presence by His
Spirit. J.A. Robinson puts it like this, “Supreme over all, He moves
through all, and rests in all” (Commentary on Ephesians, Exposition of
the Greek Text). In short, He is all or everything in every conceivable
respect—He is absolutely all.
This all-ness is put in another way in Ro.11.36, “For from him and
through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever!
Amen.” The New Jerusalem Bible translates this thus, “Everything there
is comes from him and is caused by him and exists for him. To him be
glory for ever! Amen.” “From”, “through”, and “to”—that encompasses
everything.
What all this means is that there is absolutely nothing and no one who
stands outside the all-ness of God. Whatever exists, exists for Him (“for
whom and through whom all things exist,” Heb.2.10), because of Him,
and in dependence upon His sustaining presence. That is to say, every-
thing and every being great or small, exists in relation to Him, relative to
Him who alone is absolute. There are no two (even less, three) absolutes.
All this means that, as far as the Scriptural revelation is concerned, Christ
must be understood in relation to “the one God and Father of all”
(Eph.4.6), even if his relation to Him is on a far higher level as compared
to anyone else’s. To speak of Scripture as “Christ-centered” is erroneous
if this means (as it does mean in trinitarianism) that Christ is an absolute
in himself, i.e. God. There cannot be two absolutes, or else neither is
absolute. For the same reason, absoluteness cannot be shared between
two or more beings. In Scripture, there is no demonstrable instance
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 141

where there is a “God” (whether he be called “Son” or “Spirit”) who exists

independently of “the one God and Father” and on equal terms with
Him. All beings exist always and only in relation to Him, and have
absolutely no existence or function apart from Him.
In view of these facts, the discussion about who Jesus is in himself is
futile since an answer can only be found relative to “the one God and
Father of all” (Eph.4.6). That is to say, Christology is impossible apart
from theology proper, and is meaningless apart from it. This is evident
from the titles used of Christ in the NT. The paramount titles of Jesus,
‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’, were both conferred on him by God, as is made clear
in the first message preached after Pentecost and the outpouring of the
Spirit (Acts 2.36). No other title is an exception. This is a reality which
Jesus himself not only recognized but gladly and joyfully embraced. He
always affirmed his total dependence on, subjection to, and commitment
to the Father (as is clearly seen in John’s Gospel), while constantly teach-
ing his disciples to follow him in doing so.
The stating of these Biblical truths is in no way to denigrate Jesus, but
to correct the perspectives which have been distorted by trinitarianism.
God has chosen to exalt Jesus high over all others, glorifying him because
of his total self-abnegation on the cross (esp. Phil.2.6-11), and we may
not (nor would we desire to) diminish that God-given glory by one iota.
On the other hand, we may not give to Christ the glory that belongs to
the one God and Father alone.
How great is the glory God was pleased to confer upon Jesus comes to
magnificent expression in Eph.1.19-23:
19
“what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who
believe, according to the working of his great might
20
which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from
the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly
places,
21
far above all rule and authority and power and dominion,
and above every name that is named, not only in this age but
also in that which is to come;
22
and he has put all things under his feet and has made him
the head over all things for the church,
142 The Only True God
23
which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all
(cf.4.10).”
The eternal purpose of this is revealed in 1Cor.15,

“For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says
that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this
does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made
subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may
be all in all.” (1Cor.15.27, 28)

The firm Monotheism of Jesus is rooted in the

uncompromising Monotheism of the Old Testament

T
he monotheism of the OT is stated so clearly and unequivocally
that it leaves absolutely no room to argue or quibble about it. The
Biblical texts speak for themselves with complete clarity:

“No other god”

Deuteronomy 4.35 To you it was shown, that you might know

that the LORD (Yahweh) is God; there is no other besides him.

Deuteronomy 4.39 know therefore today, and lay it to your

heart, that the LORD (Yahweh) is God in heaven above and on
the earth beneath; there is no other.

Exodus 34.14 you shall worship no other god, for the LORD
(Yahweh), whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

1 Kings 8.60 so that all the peoples of the earth may come to
know that Yahweh is God indeed and that there is no other.
(NJB)

Isaiah 45.5 I am the LORD (Yahweh), and there is no other,

besides me there is no God
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 143

Isaiah 45.18 For thus says Yahweh, the Creator of the hea-
vens—he is God, who shaped the earth and made it, who set it
firm; he did not create it to be chaos, he formed it to be lived in:
I am Yahweh, and there is no other. (NJB)

Isaiah 45.21,22 Was it not I, Yahweh? There is no other god

except me, no saving God, no Saviour except me! Turn to me
and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there
is no other.

Let us notice carefully that in all these verses what is stated is not only
that there is one God, but that this one God is Yahweh, and that there is
“no other besides Him”. This makes it impossible to talk about God as a
“substance” in which three persons share. No one in his right mind will
argue that Yahweh is a substance, or that there are three persons called
Yahweh. The consequence of offering worship and sacrifice to any god
besides Yahweh is stated with absolute clarity:

Exodus 22.20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the

LORD (Yahweh) alone, shall be devoted to destruction.”

Again, there is no room to argue about the meaning of “alone” (Heb: bd;
Gk: monos). Where there are two or three persons, no individual in this
number can be said to be alone. The same word “alone” as used in
Exodus 22.20 is used frequently of God:

Deuteronomy 32.12 the LORD (Yahweh) alone guided him,

no foreign god was with him.

2 Kings 19.15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD

(Yahweh) and said: “O LORD (Yahweh) the God of Israel, who
is enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone,
of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and
earth” (also Isa.37.16).

2 Kings 19.19 So now, O LORD (Yahweh) our God, save us,

please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may
know that you, O LORD, are God alone." (also Isa.37.20)
144 The Only True God

Nehemiah 9:6 You are the LORD (Yahweh), you alone. You
have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host,
the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them;
and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships
you.

Psalm 4.8 In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you
alone, O LORD (Yahweh), make me dwell in safety.

Psalm 72.18 Blessed be the LORD (Yahweh), the God of Israel,

who alone does wondrous things.

Psalm 83.18 that they may know that you alone, whose name is
the LORD (Yahweh), are the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 148.13 Let them praise the name of the LORD

(Yahweh), for his name alone is exalted; his majesty is above
earth and heaven.

Isaiah 2.11 The haughty looks of man shall be brought low,

and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the LORD
(Yahweh) alone will be exalted in that day (also 2.17).

Isaiah 44.24 Thus says the LORD (Yahweh), your Redeemer,

who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD (Yahweh),
who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who
spread out the earth by myself”.

That Jesus fully endorsed this strongly stated and clearly defined mono-
theism can be seen right from the beginning of his ministry:

Matthew 4.10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it
is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only
(monos).’” {Deut.6:13} (NIV) (also Lk.4.8)

What is striking about Jesus’ quoting from Deuteronomy 6.13 becomes

evident when we compare it with that verse:

Deuteronomy 6.13 It is the LORD your God you shall fear.

Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear.
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 145

The word “only” appears neither in the Hebrew text nor in the Greek text
of this verse though, but in view of the foregoing OT verses and the OT
context as a whole, it is certainly implied. What Jesus does is to state
explicitly and authoritatively what is implied by inserting the crucial
word “only” (monos) into this verse. Jesus’ monotheism is thereby made
very clear.
The same is true also in Luke 4.8, so that it cannot be argued that the
“only” (monos) was added in by Matthew because his gospel was more
“Jewish” in character as compared with the other gospels.

Luke 4.8 And Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “You shall
worship the Lord your God, and him only (monos) shall you
serve.”’

It should also be noticed that “the Lord your God” in both Matthew and
Luke is “the LORD (Yahweh) your God” in Deuteronomy. Jesus chose a
verse which does not just speak of serving God only, but specifically one
which speaks of serving Yahweh only. This fact, taken together with
Jesus’ strong monotheistic affirmation in John 5.44 where he speaks of
God as “the only God” and his addressing the Father as “the only true
God” in John 17.3, means without doubt that Jesus did not merely adhere
to some generalized idea of monotheism which could think of God mere-
ly as “substance” but that he was firmly committed to the monotheism of
Yahweh, a monotheism in which Yahweh alone is God “and him only
shall you serve” (Lk.4.8). This, in fact, is true Biblical monotheism;
Biblical monotheism is the monotheism of Yahweh.
Another point of importance that calls for attention is that these
monotheistic statements of Jesus are all “situational,” by which is meant
that they were not uttered as part of his public teaching but were spoken
in a particular situation, addressing a specific incident. The Jews were
ardent monotheists; Jesus did not need to preach monotheism to them.
So these situational statements of Jesus tell us about his own mono-
theism, rather than that of the Jews generally. It is for this reason that
these statements are particularly significant. The first of these, where he
quoted Deuteronomy 6.13, was when he was confronted by temptation,
and we have noticed that Jesus chose to add in the word “only” (monos),
146 The Only True God

which occurs frequently in other OT texts with reference to Yahweh, but

not in this particular text.
John 5.44 stands in the context of a dialogue with an unreceptive
audience: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one
another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” Two
verses earlier he said, “I know that you do not have the love of God
within you” (Jo.5.42), the evidence of this charge is that they seek praise
(“glory”) from men, not that which comes from God. In other words,
man not God is central to their lives; they are man orientated, not God
orientated. This tells us something of great importance about Jesus’
monotheism. For him, monotheism is not just a religious dogma that one
espouses but involves a form of life totally orientated towards God, not
man. It involves the commitment to do His will, to seek always to live in
a manner pleasing to Him. To profess the monotheism of Yahweh and
yet live a self-centered life is, for Jesus, unthinkable and intolerable; it is
utter hypocrisy. His stern denunciations in Matthew 23 were directed at
the religious elite whose professed monotheism was not in question, but
whose life and conduct were worse than questionable. True monotheism
must find expression in a life that honors Yahweh, driven by love for
Him.
This comes out strongly in another situation, mentioned in all three
Synoptic gospels, where Jesus was asked a question about which of the
many commandments was the most important.

Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The

Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all
your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You
shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other
commandment greater than these” (Mark 12.29-31).

Jesus underlines the fact that the monotheistic confession (“the Lord is
one”) is inseparably tied to a love that is totally committed to God, that
is, a love that involves one’s whole being, and which also involves love for
one’s neighbor. This is to say that monotheism is not just a confession
that one makes with one’s mouth, but one which is made with the heart
 Chapter 1 — The Explicit Monotheism of Jesus 147

and governs one’s whole person and lifestyle. This was perfectly exem-
plified in Jesus’ own life.
 Chapter 2

Only the Perfect Man

can be the Savior of
the World

The Biblical teaching on One True God and One Perfect

Man

S
ome years ago, motivated by a concern for the evangelizing of
India, my wife and I, while traveling in that great country, were
struck by the huge multitude of images of gods; only a few of these
appeared to stand out as more prominent objects of worship. Larger and
smaller temples were everywhere to be seen, often thronged by worship-
ful devotees. One question inevitably comes to mind: What need is there
for such a multiplicity of gods? If there is one all-sufficient God who
meets the needs of all, would that not render all other gods redundant? Is
it not because they have not found one such all-sufficient God that man
must resort to a variety of gods to meet a variety of needs?
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 149

Indeed, if there is one such all-encompassing personal God, a second

or a third divine person would be unnecessary. But evidently this one
God is unknown to men, hence the need to look for others. This reminds
us of Paul’s words in Athens regarding “the unknown God” (Acts 17.23).
For someone like Paul who knows the wonderful God of Israel, Yahweh,
the need for other gods was incomprehensible. What would he think of
trinitarianism that goes so far as to attribute to him (Paul) the teaching of
a second and even a third divine person besides Yahweh? The more one
understands the OT with its 6,828 references to Yahweh without any
reference to any other divine person associated with Him, and the better
one understands Paul’s teaching on salvation, the better we will realize
that any suggestion that he taught Christ as being a second coequal
divine person besides Yahweh would have ignited in him a towering
wrath. Worse than that, it will ignite Yahweh’s own burning wrath
(Ex.32.10f). But what the trinitarian may least expect is that, because their
teaching is fundamentally contrary to Jesus’ own teaching, they will
discover on the great and final Day not the “gentle Jesus meek and mild,”
described so soothingly in a well-known Christian song, but the awesome
“wrath of the Lamb” (Rev.6.16; cf.14.10).
Gentile Christianity today no longer knows that “Jewish Christianity
always insisted on the historical fact that the Messiah and the Lord Jesus
of Nazareth was not a divine being, a second God, but a human being
among human beings” (Hans Küng, Christianity, p.97).

No need for another God, but a desperate need for a

perfect man

W
hat was the essence of the NT teaching on salvation in
general, and of Paul’s teaching in particular, which is so vital
for mankind’s eternal well-being? The whole New Testament
teaching on salvation is tied to the essential concept of the perfect man,
without whom there can be no salvation. What is the perfect man? He is
a man who, unlike Adam, was flawless and blameless (“a lamb without
blemish or spot,” 1Pet.1.19), and who for that very reason can be the
savior of the world. Man does not need another God (Yahweh is more
150 The Only True God

than sufficient), so man does not need Jesus as God, but what man des-
perately needs is a perfect man if he is to have any hope of being saved.
Being God does not make Jesus a perfect man; on the contrary, being
God would not make him a real human being at all apart from having a
human body. Is this not something which should be perfectly obvious?
Or has our trinitarianism blurred our minds to the extent that we are
unable to perceive even the obvious? What is at stake is this: If Jesus was
not a human being as Adam was—and as we are—then all hope of our
salvation vanishes into thin air. The reason we do not understand this is
that we have not understood the fundamental principle of our salvation
according to the Biblical revelation. Put in a nutshell, what this means is
that if we are to be saved, God had to provide mankind with a perfect
man who could undo the deadly effects of Adam’s (and man’s) sin. How
does God save us through this perfect man? Paul puts it neatly like this:

“For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made

sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made
righteous.” (Romans 5.19)

This one verse lucidly and concisely sums up the New Testament doc-
trine of salvation. To understand it thoroughly is to understand the way
of salvation fully. But a huge amount of spiritual material is packed into,
and condensed, in this verse.
This “one man’s obedience” by which “the many will be made right-
eous” was something established “through suffering”:

Hebrews 2.10: For it was fitting that he [the Father God], for
whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to
glory, should make the founder of their salvation [Christ, the
Son] perfect through suffering.

Hebrew 5.8: Although he was a son, he learned obedience

through what he suffered. 9And being made perfect, he became
the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.

Hebrews 7.28: a Son who has been made perfect forever.

 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 151

These important verses are a real problem for trinitarianism because

trinitarians have been indoctrinated to read “God the Son” into every
reference to “Son”. The notion, therefore, that the Son was in some sense
imperfect and that the Father had to perfect him—and perfect him speci-
fically through suffering—is theologically indigestible to the trinitarian.
Any argument to the effect that this refers to the Son as man runs into
the serious Christological problem of splitting up the “two natures” to
make them function independently of each other, thereby bringing into
question the unity of the two natures. And if the two natures cannot be
separated to the extent needed to escape the sharp edge of these state-
ments in Hebrews, it raises a trenchant question regarding the divine
Son: What kind of a son is it that had not yet learned obedience to his
father? That a human son, even a good one, needs to learn obedience to
his father is perfectly understandable; and his being good consists pre-
cisely in his obedience. But how is one to explain the case of the preexist-
ent, eternal Son who has not yet learned obedience to the Father, and
only finally learns it when he comes to earth?!
What is also necessary to observe about these verses in Hebrews is
that it is consistently stated that it is the Father God, Yahweh, who
perfected the Son; it was not the Son perfecting himself, so reference to
the alleged “two natures” is irrelevant. Thus in Hebrews 2.10 “make
perfect” in the Greek is the one word “perfected” in the active form,
because it is Yahweh God who was active in perfecting the Son. In the
other two verses “being made perfect” is passive because the Son, not the
Father, is the subject. The perfecting of Christ was the Father’s will, and
initiated by Him for the sake of mankind’s salvation.
In Hebrews, as in the New Testament as a whole, the “Son” refers to
the messianic titles “the Son of God” or “the Son of Man” but never to the
trinitarian term “God the Son” for the simple reason that the title “God
the Son” does not exist in either the New Testament or the Old.
The importance of the three passages in Hebrews, cited above, is
found in the fact that all three passages illuminate the truth that God
made the Son, the Messiah Jesus, perfect through the process of suffering
so that he could be “the founder of their salvation” (2.10). What this
means is that the perfecting of “the man Christ (which, let us remember,
means “Messiah,” the Savior, Lk.2.11, etc) Jesus” was absolutely essential
152 The Only True God

for man’s salvation. Only the Messiah as perfect man could be “the savior
of the world” (Jo.4.42; 1Jo.4.14).
Put in sacrificial terms, only if the animal being offered up on the altar
was “without blemish,” that is, perfect, could the sacrifice be acceptable
to God. No imperfect animal, having even the slightest blemish, could be
offered as a sacrifice. This point is repeatedly stressed in the Law of the
Old Testament. Even someone who knows no Hebrew can see for
him/herself that “without blemish” occurs in 17 verses in Leviticus and
also 17 in Numbers in the ESV (English Standard Version) in regard to
animals offered as a sacrifice. In some verses the phrase occurs more than
once: e.g. Numbers 6:14, “and he shall bring his gift to the LORD
(Yahweh), one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering,
and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one
ram without blemish as a peace offering”.
Accordingly, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Perfect Man, was able to offer
himself up for the salvation of the world. In the words of Hebrews 9.14,
“how much more (than the animal sacrifices, v.13) will the blood of
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to
God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God,”
and 1Pt.1.18,19, “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways
inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver
or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without
blemish or spot.”

The Uniqueness of the Perfect Man Jesus Christ

The perfect man is a man perfect in his obedience to God. Such a man
never existed in the history of the world. This is what Apostle Paul
highlights in Romans 3.10, “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous,
not even one’” (NIV), a verse often misused to argue for man’s “total
depravity,” disregarding the fact that Paul does recognize that there are
righteous and good people in the world, as can be seen from the follow-
ing statement, “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though
for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.” (Romans 5.7)
Although there may be “good men” in the world, there has never been
a perfect man as measured by Yahweh God’s standards. Yet nothing less
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 153

than such a man was needed for man’s salvation. Only if Jesus is such a
man can he save us. Had trinitarian theologians better understood
Biblical soteriology (doctrine of salvation) they would have avoided the
error of constantly harping on the theme of Jesus being God. Nowhere in
the New Testament is faith in Jesus as God required for salvation. But it is
essential to believe that “the man Christ Jesus” is the one mediator whom
God appointed for our salvation (1Ti.2.5,6); he is the one and only perfect
man who has ever appeared on the face of this earth; this is a new thing
which God has done in order to accomplish the salvation of mankind.
The perfection of Jesus consisted precisely in his utter voluntary sub-
mission and total functional obedience to the Father God, Yahweh. It is
for this very reason that his full voluntary subordination to the Father’s
will is so constantly, almost repetitiously, emphasized by Jesus himself as
described extensively in John’s Gospel, which we shall study later in this
work.
But this leads us to consider the question: What is implied by the term
“perfect man”? What needs to be perceived in this connection is that
perfection in its absolute sense is an attribute of Yahweh God, not of man
(“your heavenly Father is perfect” Mat.5.48). Thus, to be made perfect is
to become like Him; it is to acquire His character. But can suffering,
though necessary in the process of perfection, of itself make anyone
perfect? Suffering, after all, is something which a large portion of man-
kind has had a great deal of experience of, and many have endured it with
dignity and even outstanding heroism, but would that make them perfect
persons in the sense in which Hebrews is speaking about? Some people
who have suffered could perhaps have reached a high level of moral
excellence; but reaching Christ’s perfection is not within the realm of
human attainment.
Christ’s perfection rests on the fact of the unique divine involvement
in his person as the one in whom the Word (Memra) was incarnate or
“became flesh” (Jo.1.14); “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased
to dwell” (Col.1.19); “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”
(Col.2.9). This means that Christ’s perfection was attained through the
unique indwelling presence and power of God in him. Yahweh God
established a union with Christ at the deepest level of his being (“I and
my Father are one,” Jo.10.30); in this union Christ was empowered to
154 The Only True God

attain what no man could of himself attain. It was for this reason that he
was called “the only son,” or “only begotten son” (Jo.1.14; 3.16,18;
1Jo.4.9); this is what distinguished him from Adam, the man “from the
earth,” as “the man from heaven (i.e. from God)” (1Cor.15.47). Without
Yahweh God’s unique indwelling in Christ, the necessary perfection
could not have been achieved. The perfect man was the man in whom
Yahweh’s fullness lived bodily here on earth among men to accomplish
man’s salvation.
But it needs to be emphasized that Christ’s perfection as man was not
something in which Christ was only a passive participant. For Hebrews
5.8 says, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he
suffered.” “Learned” is in the active form in Greek. This was no mere
passive submissiveness, but wholehearted obedience to the Father; Jesus
expresses it like this, “I always do the things that are pleasing to him”
(Jo.8.29). He could fully echo the sentiments of the Psalmist, “My delight
is to do your will; your law, my God, is deep in my heart” (Psalm 40.8,
NJB); he could speak of God’s will as his food (Jo.4.34), from which it can
be seen that he certainly knew what it meant to “delight yourself in the
LORD (Yahweh)” (Ps.37.4; Isa.58.14).

Perfect man as perfect teacher

We often speak of “the teaching of Jesus” without taking due note of the
fact that his teaching originates from the Father, it is not his own. What
Jesus taught was the Father’s teaching of which he was the channel, as he
himself affirmed unequivocally in John 7:16, “My teaching is not mine,
but his who sent me.” It is the Father speaking to us in all of Jesus’
teaching. Jesus repeats this point many times. In addition to John 7.16,
there are the following:

3.34: For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he
gives the Spirit without measure.

12.49: 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.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 155

14.10: The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own

authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

14.24: 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.

17.8: For I have given them the words that you gave me.

Jesus was the perfect man also for this reason, namely, he always “utters
the words of God” (3.34) and was, therefore, perfect in speech. As it is
written in James 3.2, “For we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone
does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle
his whole body.”
Without Jesus we would not have the Father’s teaching; we therefore
thank the Father from the depth of our hearts for Jesus. But we must not
forget that his message is the Word of God, the God whom Jesus
repeatedly referred to as “Father”.
The Word which Jesus declared and embodied is truth and life
precisely because it is the Word of God, the Father. The Word of God is
God’s self-revelation, which is the means by which all men are drawn to
Him. The Father draws through His word. This is consistent with what
we saw earlier, namely, that Jesus as the embodiment of God’s word is
the Way to the Father. Put in another way, he is the Bread sent down by
the Father that men may have life through the process of “eating” it. All
the other metaphors similarly portray the picture of Jesus as the instru-
ment of the Father’s revelatory and saving work. This comes out particu-
larly strongly in John’s Gospel, in which the truth that Jesus is the one
sent by the Father and functioned in total subordination to, and depend-
ence on, the Father, is more strongly emphasized than anywhere else in
the NT. We shall now consider the evidence for this statement.
156 The Only True God

Jesus’ emphasis on his having been sent by the Father

and therefore acting under His authority in all that he
does

O
n the Father sending Jesus, a look at the statistics will immed-
iately reveal its importance in John. Two Greek words are tran-
slated as “send”:

apostellō
Matthew: 3 times (if 21.37, in a parable, is counted)
Mark: 2 times (if 12.6, in a parable, is included)
Luke: 4 times
John: 17 times

pempō
Synoptic Gospels: 0
John: 24 times
Apostellō and pempō, in reference to the Father sending the Son, together
add up to a total of 41 times in John.
This emphasis is striking. What is also striking is not only that they
appear in John’s Gospel, but that the references are all in Jesus’ own
teaching in that Gospel. And as though to ensure that we do not miss the
point, Jesus says in 13.16, “Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant (doulos,
slave, as applied to Jesus see Phil.2.7) is not greater than his master, nor is
a messenger greater than the one who sent him”; hence, “the Father is
greater than I” (14.28).
This huge number of 41 references in the Lord’s sayings in John’s
Gospel shows that it constitutes the heart and essence of his teaching. A
study of each of these sayings would give the details of Jesus’ teaching in
John. But that would be beyond the scope of this book.9

9
For those who would like to study these references, you might like to know
that if you have the Modern Concordance of the New Testament (M. Darton,
Ed.), all 41 references are conveniently listed under “Send,” section 1 of both
apostellō (17 refs.) and pempō (24 refs).
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 157

I shall not here attempt to analyze the semantic differences (if any)
between apostellō and pempō, except to provide a quotation from A Trea-
sury of New Testament Synonyms (Stewart Custer, Bob Jones University
Press, Inc., 1975) where he gives the summary of his discussion of the
two words as follows, “The word ἀποστέλλω (apostellō) denotes ‘I send
with a commission’ or ‘I send officially.’ Πέμπω (pempō) is a general term
for ‘I send.’ In some contexts it certainly means ‘I send officially,’ but by
no means always; the context must decide.”
But Custer’s study is more strongly based on classical Greek than on
NT Greek where the distinction between the two words appears to be less
marked, though some such distinction as given by Custer can still be
admitted, though to a lesser extent. For example, both apostellō and
pempō appear in John 20.21 where the difference does not seem at first to
be very obvious; it disappears altogether in the various translations. But
are the two different words used merely for literary variation? Or could it
be that the Lord (in Jo.20.21) did not want to put his sending out the
disciples on the same level as the Father’s sending him into the world,
and thus again honoring the Father as greater than he?

Jesus’ total dependence on the Father as seen in his

teaching

H
e who sends is obviously greater than he who is sent by him.
Hence, to be sent in itself expresses the subordination of the
one who is sent to the one who sends him (Jo.13.16). But Jesus
affirms even more than that: he expresses himself as being totally
dependent upon the Father. John 6.57 “Just as the living Father sent me
and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live
because of me.” Our relationship to Jesus, our dependence on Jesus for
life, mirrors his dependence upon the Father for life.
According to Jesus’ own teaching in John 6.57, just as we cannot live
without Jesus, so also Jesus cannot live without the Father. C.K. Barrett
(The Gospel According to St. John, Commentary and Notes on the Greek
Text, SPCK) puts it like this, “The life of the Son is entirely dependent
upon the Father (διὰ τὸν πατέρα) [dia ton patera], he has no independ-
ent life or authority, and it is because he abides in the Father that men
158 The Only True God

may live abiding in him” (p.248, on Jo.6.57; italics mine). M. Dods, “The
Father is the absolute source of life; the Son is the bearer of that life to the
world; cf. 5.26, where the same dependence of the Son on the Father for
life is expressed” (Expositor’s Greek Testament, on Jo.6.57; italics mine).
John 5.26: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the
Son to have life in himself.” The Son has life in himself, but only because
the Father has granted (ἔδωκεν, edōken aor. of didōmi) it to him. And
because the Father has given the Son this life, the Son can also give it to
others: “just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the
Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it” (5.21). The Son has been
granted full authority to pass on the life which the Father had given him.

Didōmi in John
Didōmi (give) is another statistically significant word in John’s Gospel; it
occurs more frequently in John than in any other book in the NT (Jo: 75
times; Mt: 56; Mk: 39; Lk: 60); it is frequent also in the Apocalypse of
John, the Revelation (58 times).
For most Christians, probably the best known instance of “give” in
John is found in 3.16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave (didōmi)
his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have
eternal life.” This is what Paul described as “God’s unspeakable (inex-
pressible, indescribable) gift” (2Co.9.15) to us. It was God who gave Jesus
to us for no other reason than that He loved us. For basically unloving,
self-centered people such as we are, it is hard enough to understand that
anyone should love us so deeply and genuinely, but it is well-nigh incom-
prehensible (unless, of course, we are extremely conceited, which is
possible) that God should have any reason to love us. But the point being
made in this verse is not only that God loved us, but that He loved us to
the extent of actually giving His Son. What gratitude do we have for the
Father in return? We love the Son (rightly), but we marginalize the
Father as though He was less involved in our salvation.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 159

Jesus emphasized his obedience to the Father

esus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me,

“J for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord,
but he sent me’” (Jo.8.42, ESV). As we have seen, Jesus emphas-
ized not only his subordination to the Father as the one sent by Him, but
also his complete dependence on the Father for life. In this verse (8.42)
he underlines his obedience to the Father: his coming into the world was
not primarily a matter of his own choice or initiative, but it was in
obedience to the Father’s will. On this verse C.K. Barrett (The Gospel
According to St. John) comments, “Once more the mission of Jesus is
emptied of every suggestion of self-will or self-seeking. This is a very
common and essential Johannine emphasis; see especially 5.19-30. Jesus
did not come into the world of his own accord; he came because he was
sent. His ministry has significance not in any wisdom or virtue of his
own, but in the fact that he is the delegate of God himself.”
It is clear that with the words “I came not of my own accord, but he
sent me” (8.42), Jesus established firmly that his coming was an act of
obedience to the Father, not an act of his own will. Presumably, he could
have disobeyed, and in that act of disobedience (like Adam) clutched at
equality with God. Yet, do we not read Phil.2.6f as though his coming
was of his own initiative, an act of his own volition? This, as it turns out,
is wrong, and distorts our understanding of that important passage.
Romans 5.19, “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many
were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many
will be made righteous” (NASB). Obedience, if it is to be meaningful,
must involve choice. Jesus repeatedly maintained that he had made that
choice to obey the Father: John 4.34 (NIV), “My food,” said Jesus, “is to
do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work”; the Father’s will
is like food to him, he lives on it. John 5.30, “I seek not my own will but
the will of him who sent me.” John 6.39 “And this is the will of him who
sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them
up at the last day.”
160 The Only True God

His subordination and dependence

John 14.10, “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my
own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his
works.”

John 5.19, “So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the
Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the
Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does
likewise.’”

John 12.49, “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but

the Father who sent me has himself given (didōmi) me a com-
mandment (entolē)—what to say and what to speak.”

In this last verse Jesus makes it clear that he always lives by the com-
mands (entolē) the Father has given (didōmi) him. As we might now
come to expect, the word “command” (entolē) appears more often in
John as compared to the synoptic gospels (Jo: 10 times; Mt: 6; Mk: 6; Lk:
4). Jesus refers to the Father’s commands repeatedly:

John 10.18, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my
own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to
take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

John 15.10, “If you obey my commands, you will remain in my

love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in
his love.”

Compare this with the following verse (the NIV translation is given
because it helps to bring out the meaning more clearly):

John 14.31, “but the world must learn that I love the Father
and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded
(entellomai) me.”
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 161

Jesus always does the Father’s will

God’s will (thelēma) is another key word in John, again occurring more
frequently than in the other gospels (Jo: 11 times; Mt: 6; Mk: 1; Lk: 4).
Here we cite only those verses directly relevant to what is being discussed
in this section. Apart from 4.34, quoted earlier, there are the following:

John 5.30, “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and

my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will
of him who sent me.”

John 6.38, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my

own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 7.17, “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know

whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on
my own authority.” Only those who live according to God’s will
are granted to know Jesus—the one who teaches and lives
according to God’s will. The Word of God and the will of God
cannot be separated.

We note that Jesus did not simply say in a dogmatic way: If you want
to be saved, you have to believe me and accept whatever I say or teach
(this is the way we are used to hearing the Christian church speak). How
does anyone know whether he (or the Church) is really speaking God’s
word, God’s truth? That is surely a fair question. Jesus’ answer is: If you
are truly willing to live totally and uncompromisingly according to God’s
will, God will surely grant you to know whether I—and my teaching—am
true or not.
Knowing the truth is not a matter of theory or dogma, it is a matter of
life (or death)—and life is no mere theory or dogma. If our lives are lived
in the light (i.e. not in darkness) through doing God’s will faithfully, He
will certainly grant us to see His light, just as it is written in Psalm 36.9,
“For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.”
John’s Gospel is written in a clear and uncomplicated style. If in spite
of this fact we still cannot understand the message it contains, then we
must examine our spiritual condition (“Let a person examine himself,”
1Co.11.28). Those who search in it for proof-texts, which they take out of
162 The Only True God

context to support their unscriptural ideas and doctrines, do well to

consider the consequence: “And this is the judgment: the light has come
into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light
because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). “Their deeds were evil” does
not necessarily mean that these people are robbers or fornicators, but
that they live according to their own (or men’s) will, rather than live
wholly in glad obedience to God’s will. Doing or not doing the will of the
Father God is what, in Jesus’ teaching, defines good or evil; how each
person lives in relation to the will of God is what determines whether it
will be evaluated as good or bad, whether it will lead to life or to death.

Christ’s true and full humanity is essential for man’s

salvation

T
here is another important observation that we need to take note
of in view of the foregoing points: If the humanity of Christ is in
any way called into question or compromised, we would likewise
compromise our salvation, for as we have noted, if Christ is not truly
man he cannot be our savior. But trinitarianism has done precisely that;
it compromises Christ’s humanity by dogmatically asserting that Christ is
both “truly man and truly God”. If we have not been blinded by the
twisted logic of trinitarianism, it should not have taken us more than a
moment to see that this is logical nonsense. The plain fact is that no one
can be truly man who is truly God. No one can be 100% man and also be
100% God, for that adds up to 200%—two persons.
Is there anything impossible with God? The answer is ‘Yes’ if what is
involved is logical contradiction or nonsense. It is like asking: can God
make something both 100% black and 100% white all over at the same
time? Can 100% salt also be 100% sugar? The point is that self-contra-
dictory nonsense can never be attributed to God; He is the God of truth,
not irrationality and falsehood.
Yet this is precisely the kind of self-contradictory Christology which
results in Christians saying “Jesus is God”; these Christians generally
have a weak concept of his humanity. The fact is that we cannot hold two
contradictory ideas about Christ in balanced tension without the one
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 163

dominating over the other, and since God must be the One who domin-
ates, therefore the humanity of Christ is eclipsed by that dominance.
Also, this dogmatic God-man notion about Jesus results in Christians
having to engage in the art of double-speak: one moment we may speak
of him as God and then at another moment we talk about him as man,
without even noticing the contradictions involved. We are hardly con-
scious of this swinging to and fro, having become immune to self-
contradiction in a thought world in which truth and falsehood, reason
and irrationality, are forced into coexistence.
This mental “achievement” has come at a terrible price: we need only
look around in the world and see that, far from the church being “the
light of the world” (Mat.5.14) as it is meant to be, it has become irrele-
vant, because it has itself fallen into the darkness of error. How can the
church function as light unless it is delivered from the bondage of error?
In view of the evil of error, the relevance of the words which Jesus taught
his disciples to pray, “deliver us from evil,” begins to become strikingly
clear.
Let us take one example: the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 and
Luke 4. How is trinitarianism to explain these passages in the light of the
principle stated in James 1.13, “God cannot be tempted by evil”? This
means that if Jesus cannot really be tempted, then he is not man; and if he
can be tempted, he is not God. To argue in the usual double-talk way, as
trinitarians unashamedly do, that he can be tempted as man, but not as
God, is to reduce sense to nonsense, and truth to falsehood, for when it
comes to temptation, he is not God—but if he were God, then he could
not be tempted and the temptation of Christ would be an exercise in
meaninglessness. What happened to the claim that he was both 100%
God (true God) and 100% man at one and the same time? How can one
properly and responsibly interpret the Scriptures with this kind of teach-
ing?
Trinitarianism wants to have it both ways: Jesus, the God-man, is one
person yet functionally he is really two persons simultaneously, i.e. God
and man. So when there is the question of facing temptation, Jesus who is
God, is instantly switched to being man. This constant switching back
and forth as the situation requires is the inevitable way in which the
trinitarian Christ functions, but which immediately reveals the fact that
164 The Only True God

he cannot be both God and man simultaneously. For the truth of the
matter is that no one can both be tempted yet not tempted simultan-
eously, as this is both logically and factually impossible, and to maintain
that it is possible is simply to insist on speaking nonsense. Is it really that
difficult to see that any statement to the effect that Jesus can be tempted
but at the same time and in the same sense cannot be tempted is non-
sensical? Yet it is this kind of double talk that trinitarians are obliged to
engage in to argue for the God-man doctrine. Their “yes” is “no,” and
their “no” is “yes” (cf. Mt.5.37; 2Cor.1.17,19; Jas.5.12)—whatever suits
their purpose to sustain a dogma which in the end proves sustainable
neither by Scripture nor by logic.

The origins of Trinitarianism

I
n the light of Scripture, the origin and development of the trinitarian
error can be analyzed in three steps:
(1) The misinterpretation of “the Word” to refer to “God the Son,”
who exists nowhere in the Scriptures (or anywhere else) yet who is
created by trinitarianism as a result of the mistaken interpretation, in
particular of John 1.1. Because of the importance of this matter and its
serious consequences for the church, careful attention will be given to
examining it in the following chapters.
(2) “Incarnation” is interpreted to mean that two different and distinct
persons, one who is said to be “God”—namely, “God the Son”—and the
man named Jesus, are quite literally compressed or condensed into
becoming one person, one individual. Two persons are made to become
one person! This is not meant as a metaphorical union such as that of
husband and wife becoming “one flesh” (Gen.2.24; Mat.19.5, etc), but
actually becoming one person! By this doctrine two persons are conflated
into one—without any concern whether this is logically or factually
possible. But this raises the problem that such a “person” ends up being
neither truly human nor divine, being some kind of combination of both.
But, worst of all, there is absolutely no basis for any of this in Scripture. It
is nothing more or less than a misguided trinitarian fabrication. Yet this
is the sort of doctrine that Christians are expected to believe in!
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 165

(3) The Western church failed to see that it was Yahweh God who was
“in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19) in spite of the
fact that, as Jesus himself had clearly stated, the Father, Yahweh, is “the
only true God” (Jo.17.3), being “the only God” (Jo.5.44); who else but He
who was “in Christ reconciling the world”? Yet Western theology closed
out this option because, under the influence of the Hellenistic (Greek)
philosophy which maintained that God was transcendent, they thereby
made unthinkable the possibility that Yahweh could come into the world
in Christ. Apparently, “the Word” was actually thought of as being less
than transcendent, perhaps as some kind of intermediate being (as in
Philo); otherwise, how could the Word avoid the man-made ban on
God’s coming into the world because of His “transcendence”? It did not
seem to occur to trinitarians that the Word’s exemption from this ban in
itself calls into question their claim about the full deity of the Word, since
it would be an admission that he was not transcendent to begin with.

Jesus’ own teaching

T
hat “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”
(2Cor.5.19) was not Paul’s invention (Paul is often wrongfully
accused of being the originator of later Christian doctrines); it
was undoubtedly Jesus’ own teaching. As we shall see when studying his
teaching in John’s Gospel, Jesus consistently maintained that it was the
Father, Yahweh, who was the dynamic power at work in him, enabling
him to fulfill the mission of accomplishing the salvation of mankind.
This can be clearly seen summed up in the words “the Father who dwells
in me does His works” (Jo.14.10).
There does not exist in Jesus’ teaching any notion that Yahweh’s
transcendence prevents Him from coming into the world in Jesus; Jesus
can even speak metaphorically of earth as Yahweh’s “footstool”
(Mat.5.35)—His feet are firmly planted on this earth which He created!
No philosophy, Greek or otherwise, will be permitted to ban Him from
His world, over which He reigns. “The Kingdom of God” is one of the
central elements of Jesus’ teaching.
It can, therefore, easily be seen in the light of Jesus’ teaching that the
three points on which the trinitarian dogma is based find no support in
166 The Only True God

his teaching. In regard to the first point, “the Word” as a metonym for
“Yahweh” was something familiar to Jesus and the Jews of his day
because it was rooted in the OT and in the Aramaic Bible (Targums)
which were commonly used in the synagogues in Israel. This will be
discussed in greater detail in the following chapters.
Regarding the second point, that in Jesus, God and man were
“condensed” into one (how else does one describe two persons being
reduced to one person?!), such an idea is totally foreign to Jesus’ teach-
ing, and incompatible with it. Once we begin to understand something
about the fundamentals of Jesus’ teaching, we begin to feel an uncom-
fortable queasiness about the trinitarian idea of reducing God and man
into one person; it seems to border on the blasphemous. But how else can
we deal with this falsehood without mentioning it? What is strange is
that, as trinitarians, we had no qualms about this dogma of the merging
of God and man into one person. This is probably, in part at least,
because few of us had any real idea what such a merging really meant or
entailed; the concept was extremely vague to us, and hence its real impli-
cations did not strike us. But the other reason is that most people have an
extremely shallow concept of God; the lofty awe-inspiring majesty of the
living God is very remote from most people’s thoughts about Him. So it
simply did not occur to us that we may be saying something which is
deeply displeasing to Him. Moreover, if people believe anything about
God at all, it is often the idea that anything is possible with him, and this
makes it possible to speak even of absurdities as though these might also
be possible for God.
Jesus warned us about how we make reference to God. This, for
example, is what lies behind his warning not to swear:

“But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is

God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by
Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear
by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or
black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; any-
thing beyond this comes from the evil one” (Mat.5.34-37; NIV).

What is striking about what Jesus says here is his warning that even
though direct reference to God is avoided when swearing “by heaven”, or
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 167

“by earth”, etc, your oath (usually made to support what you want to
affirm) still unavoidably has reference to God, so you will answer for it
before Him, and you could be “subject to judgment” or even to “the hell
of fire” (Mat.5.22) because it “comes from the evil one” (Mat.5.37). This
is a level of reverence for God in daily life and speech that is far beyond the
concept of the average Christian, and is almost inconceivable to him. It is
hard to imagine, therefore, what Jesus must think about the merging of
God and man into one person as dogmatically defined in trinitarianism!
This trinitarian reduction of two persons into one in no way repre-
sents what Jesus meant by being “one” with the Father and our becoming
“one” with both him and the Father through a similar union. This union
is always spoken of in terms of “abiding” or “living” in one another, not
some kind of quasi-physical absorption into one another. The identity of
each person is fully ensured in this union, and indeed enriched and
enhanced by it.
Jesus never engaged in ‘double talk,’ that is, sometimes speaking as
man and at other times as God. Anyone who does this could rightly be
considered schizophrenic, if not something worse. But throughout John’s
Gospel, as we shall see, he speaks consistently as “the son” who lives in
total love and obedience to his Father. But trinitarianism, in its determin-
ation to maintain the Scripturally (and logically) untenable idea of Jesus
as being both ‘true God and true man,’ finds that it cannot do this with-
out resorting to alleging that Jesus would in one place speak as God yet in
another place as man (e.g. “I thirst,” Jo.19.28). They thus admit that he
functioned schizophrenically, but unavoidably so, because of his dual
natures. There is absolutely no basis for this kind of notion in the gospels.
It must be clearly borne in mind that, from the point of view of the
salvation of mankind, the deity of Christ does not matter, but the reality
of Christ’s humanity is of the greatest importance. If we do not wish to be
misled, we must keep this in our minds: Nowhere in the NT is faith in the
deity of Christ required for salvation. These facts will become clearer to
the reader as we proceed through the present study.
168 The Only True God

Perfect Man as Mediator

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1Timothy 2.5)

M
oses served effectively as a mediator between Israel and
Yahweh. On several occasions, rebellious Israel was saved
from God’s wrath through Moses’ intercessions. But who
stands between mankind and God? “All have sinned” (Ro.3.23), all have
disobeyed God, all are in the clutches of death and condemnation; who is
there to speak on mankind’s behalf in the way that Moses did for Israel?
This is where the necessity of Christ’s ministry as the “one mediator”
becomes evident. Not surprisingly, therefore, Christ is compared with
Moses as mediator (Gal.3.19-22). Even in John’s Prologue there is refer-
ence to Moses (John 1.17), for through him the Word (logos) of God
came to Israel in the form of the Law.
The Letter to the Hebrews discusses in detail Jesus’ mediatorial role in
terms of being the great high priest. The function of the high priest is
explained in Hebrews 5.1, “For every high priest chosen from among
men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God [i.e. act as
mediator], to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.” “And no one takes this
honor for himself, but only when called by God” (v.4). “So also Christ did
not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who
said to him, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’ [Ps.2.7]” (v.5).
“For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are
copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God on our behalf (huper hēmōn)” (9:24). “On our behalf”
crystallizes the character of the mediator’s role, and especially that of the
high priest as mediator. But “on our behalf” is just one translation of
huper hēmōn, which is literally: “for us”. These words appear many times
with reference to Christ’s work as high priest and savior; there are too
many references to study here, but the following are the occurrences in
Romans:

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for
the ungodly.” (5.6)
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 169

“But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sin-
ners, Christ died for us.” (5.8)

“He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all,
how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?”
(8.32)

“Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more

than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God,
who indeed is interceding for us.” (8.34)

It is important to notice from the foregoing references that it was Yahweh

God who provided the mediator by appointing Jesus as high priest
(Heb.5.5), and that He also provided the sacrifice for sin by giving up His
own Son (Ro.8.32), so “Christ died for us” (Ro.5.8). These are the reasons
why Yahweh is called “God our Savior” (1Tim.1.1; 2.3; etc). These pro-
visions for man’s salvation remind us of what happened at the sacrificing
of Isaac by Abraham. When Isaac asked his father where the animal for
the sacrifice was, Abraham, “the father of all who believe” (Ro.4.11),
replied, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my
son.” (Gen.22.8). This foreshadowed a faith that could and would believe
in Yahweh’s provision of “the Lamb of God” (Jo.1.29,36; and, in Rev.,
“the Lamb”); the phrase means: a Lamb that God Himself provided—to
make possible the salvation of mankind.
What is also important for us to know is that “for us” (huper hēmōn,
and therefore, “for you,” huper sou) has its roots in the language of
redemption in the OT. The following is an example from Isaiah 43:
3
For I am the LORD (Yahweh), your God, the Holy One of
Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and
Seba in your stead [LXX, huper sou, “for you”]. 4 Since you are
precious and honored in my sight, and because I love you, I will
give men in exchange for you [LXX, huper sou], and people in
exchange for your life.” (NIV)

This passage illustrates several significant points:

(1) Yahweh is the Redeemer of His people. This is an important theme in
the Hebrew Bible, but is given special emphasis in Isaiah. “Of thirty-three
170 The Only True God

passages in the Old Testament in which gō’ēl [redeemer] is applied to

God, nineteen occur in Isaiah… In spiritualizing the term gō’ēl, Isaiah
(49.26; comp. Psa.19.14) places it on a par with ‘savior’”. (Unger’s Bible
Dictionary, “Redeemer”)
(2) Redemption involves the paying of a “ransom”. In this case, since
Egypt also belongs to God, He chose to give it as a ransom to liberate His
people from the bondage they were subjected to there. The ransom is the
“price” (timē) paid to redeem a slave. Hence Paul writes to the
Corinthian church, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a
price (timē). So glorify God in your body.” (1Cor.6.19,20; also 7.23)
(3) A ransom is something given in exchange for the prisoner or slave for
whom the ransom is paid. Thus, when we read in Romans 5.6 that
“Christ died for the ungodly,” we understand that he gave his life as a
ransom for us in order to secure our life through his death. He gave
himself in exchange for us. Jesus himself put it like this, “the Son of Man
did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
many.” (Matthew 20.28, NIV) Jesus was the ransom who freely gave
himself for us (Gal.2.20). But, unlike Paul, we usually overlook the fact
that it was Yahweh God who gave His Son as that ransom; it was “He who
did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” (Ro.8.32). In other
words, Yahweh God is the Redeemer-Savior, and Jesus is the ransom that
He paid for us. The beauty of the mediator is that he is the willing
ransom-sacrifice. The beauty of Yahweh is that He was willing to “give
up” His “beloved son” for our salvation-liberation from sin and death.
From the fact of Jesus’ willing self-giving we can appreciate why he is
Yahweh’s “beloved son”.
The Apostle Peter put it like this, “knowing that you were ransomed
[by God] from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with
perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of
Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” (1Pet.1.18,19) Why
does he speak of Christ’s blood as “precious”? Is it not because it is the
blood of God’s “beloved Son” (2Pet.1.17; Mat.3.17; 17.5, etc)? Notice, too,
as a matter of relevance to this section, that “blood” speaks of Jesus as
man, and “without blemish or spot” describes him as perfect; hence it
speaks of him as the perfect man.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 171

(4) Those who have been ransomed become the possession of the one
who redeemed (or ransomed) them. This is stated with exquisite inten-
sity in Isaiah 43.1, “And now, thus says Yahweh, he who created you,
Jacob, who formed you, Israel: Do not be afraid, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by your name, you are mine.” (NJB) This sentiment was
expressed already much earlier in Deuteronomy 14.1,2: “You are the sons
of the LORD (Yahweh) your God… For you are a people holy to the
LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his
treasured possession.” So also Deuteronomy 26.18, “And the LORD has
declared today that you are a people for his treasured possession.” These
same sentiments are applied to the church in the New Testament, as in
1Peter 2.9,10:
9
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a
people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the
excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his
marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are
God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you
have received mercy.

It is for this reason, too, that the church is called “the church of God” (7
times in the NT). In our “Christ-centered” trinitarianism we always
spoke of “the church of Jesus Christ”. How great was my surprise to
discover that the term “the church of Christ” cannot be found in the New
Testament! This reminds me of Matthew 22.29: “Jesus replied, ‘You are
in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God’”—
and I had assumed that I knew both reasonably well!—a stinging but
much needed lesson in humility!
In God’s loving kindness and tender mercy He redeemed us through
Christ and made us His own. But what we have forgotten (or have chosen
to disregard?) as trinitarians is that it is not only we ourselves who belong
to Him, but that Christ Jesus our Lord is also Yahweh’s own possession,
just as the Apostle states so clearly yet so concisely in the words, “you are
Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1Cor.3.23). I finally understood something
which, because of my trinitarian Christology, I had never understood
before: Christ was not an independent mediator standing between God
and man; he is and always was God’s. That is to say, he is not a third party
172 The Only True God

who came to act as an arbiter or negotiator between God and man. He

was indeed a mediator, but only in the sense of someone sent by God and
appointed by Him to be both high priest and sacrifice; for it was God
Himself who “was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”
(2Cor.5.19). “He spared not His own Son but gave him up for us all”
(Ro.8.32) in order to secure our redemption. The whole initiative was
Yahweh God’s from the beginning; it was He alone who provided the
mediator.
Finally I began to understand what the Apostle was saying in
Galatians 3.20. Understandably, all the translations try to make sense of
this highly condensed sentence, but they seem hardly successful in their
attempts. A literal word for word translation would read, “Now a
mediator is not of one; but God is one.” What does this mean? As we
have seen, the entire initiative for the salvation of mankind came from
God alone; man had no part in it, he made no contribution to it whatever;
it came only from the one God—there was no other party involved in the
planning and implementing of man’s salvation, it was of God’s grace
alone. So in Galatians 3.20, while Paul agrees that usually a mediator is
not put forth or provided by one side only, yet in the case of man’s
salvation, Christ the mediator was indeed provided by only one side: the
one God, the one who alone is God. “God is one” echoes Deuteronomy
6.4 and Mark 12.29; it is here applied to the specific matter of salvation.

Jesus’ God-given name “Yeshua”

A
s is (or should be) generally known, Jesus’ Hebrew name is
Yeshua. This is rendered in English as “Jesus,” following the
Greek form, not the Hebrew. “Yeshua” means “Yahweh saves”
or “Yahweh is Savior”. It would be extremely strange if the one whose
very name proclaims Yahweh as Savior should substitute Him as savior!
Indeed, it would not only be strange but false, and even evil.
The meaning of the name “Yeshua” was, clearly, that Yahweh would
save in and through the person who was given that name. At various
times in Israel’s history Yahweh saved His people through deliverers or
saviors whom He raised up. For example:
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 173

Nehemiah 9.27: “Therefore you gave them into the hand of

their enemies, who made them suffer. And in the time of their
suffering they cried out to you and you heard them from
heaven, and according to your great mercies you gave them
saviors who saved them from the hand of their enemies” (ESV).

Obadiah 1:21: “Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion to rule

Mount Esau, and the kingdom shall be Yahweh’s.”

Jesus, too, was a Savior sent from God, as it is written in 1John 4:14,
“And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the
Savior of the world.” Moreover, as we recall, Jesus constantly affirmed
that it was the Father who did the work through him: “the Father who
dwells in me does his works” (Jo.14.10; cf.5.19); “His works” here are,
above all, what is needed to be done for the salvation of mankind.
“God my Savior” (or “God my Salvation” in other translations) is
frequent in the OT. The words “God” (elohim) and “save” (Yasha, the
Hebrew root from which the name “Yeshua” is formed) occur together
no less than 70 times in the OT; and “Yahweh” occurs together with
“save” 131 times. Ultimately, there is no other savior apart from Yahweh:
“And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me” (Isa.45.21).

The glory of Christ—as man

T
he glory of Christ consists not in his allegedly being “God,” but in
his being the “last Adam” (1Cor.15.45), the climax of God’s
creation: the new man. The new man Jesus is “the first fruits”
(1Cor.15.23) as also its final fruit, its apex, the “perfect man” (Eph.4.13;
KJV, NKJ), to whose “stature” we are to attain. This is why he is “the first
and the last” (Rev.1.17; 2.8), the beginning and the climax of the new
creation.
The reference to Ephesians 4.13 requires fuller explication. This is
how this verse reads in the New King James Bible: “till we all come to the
unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect
man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”. A look at
other translations will show that most of them translate “perfect man” as
174 The Only True God

“mature man” or “mature manhood”. What the Greek text has are the
two words “anēr” and “teleios”. The basic meaning of anēr is “an adult
human male, man, husband” (BDAG); so the word is not anthrōpos, the
word for man as a human being. Why is the specific word for an adult
male used here in Ephesians and not the word for man in a general
sense? The answer should be obvious: the “perfect man” here has specific
reference to Christ, which is confirmed by what immediately follows: “the
stature of the fullness of Christ”. As for “teleios” its primary meaning is
“1. pertaining to meeting the highest standard, perfect,” but it can also
mean “2. pertaining to being mature, full-grown, mature, adult” (both
quotes are from BDAG). The point in Ephesians 4.13 is surely not that
we are to grow up spiritually into maturity in a general sense, but specifi-
cally to grow up into the full stature of Christ as the “perfect man”. The
New Jerusalem Bible combines both points by translating the Greek word
ēlikia as “maturity” instead of “stature” (which is possible): “until we all
reach unity in faith and knowledge of the Son of God and form the
perfect Man, fully mature with the fullness of Christ himself” (italics
added).
Another striking point to observe about this verse in Ephesians is how
“the Son of God” is understood. “The Son of God” is none other than the
“perfect man”! The two phrases are clearly linked to each other in the
text, and cannot be correctly understood separately.
The perfect man was no mere human puppet, but one who in total
obedience and devotion to Yahweh carried out His saving purposes in
joyful submission (“who for the joy that was set before him endured the
cross,” Heb.12.2). We can exclaim from the heart, “What a savior!” All
the more so when we understand that it was possible for him to be
tempted and fall in the way Adam did (which would not have been
possible if he were God), but he “triumphed over them” (Col.2.15; cf.
Rev.5.5) in his steadfast obedience to the Father (Yahweh) dwelling in
Him, who sustained him, constantly empowering him in everything he
said and did, thus ensuring his triumphal success.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 175

Christianity’s negative view of man

T
he Augustinian and Calvinistic degradation of man as being
nothing more than a wretched, “depraved” sinner, made it seem
unworthy for Christ to be “mere” man. (He could not have been
an angel or archangel, or it would have to be said that man was saved by
an angel!) And if Christ—so the logic goes—had to be more than man
and more than an angel, how could he be less than God? Paul’s teaching
of man as “the image and glory of God” (1Cor.11.7) was swept aside by
this Christian Gentile dogmatism which selectively quoted verses such as
those found in Romans 3.10-18, which is a collection of OT verses des-
cribing the level of vileness to which men who choose to be evil can, and
do, descend. But to suggest that the dregs of humanity are representative
of all mankind is not true to fact (such as the numerous instances of
people such as fire fighters, who even if they are non-Christians, risk life
and limb, and even die, to save others in times of natural and other
disasters), nor is it true to Paul’s statement about man being (present
tense) “the glory of God” (1Cor.11.7)—a rather strong statement, is it
not? Why then is speaking of Christ as man something that degrades
him?

“Glory” in John: Jesus does not accept glory from men—

declined to be made king by force
A person whose life has God’s will as its one and only overarching con-
cern is, consequently, utterly unconcerned about receiving glory from
men. Jesus began his teaching ministry with the Beatitudes (Matthew 5);
these delineate the principal ways in which a person who lives according
to the will of God functions in daily life. It is this kind of person who is
the object of God’s blessings. In the last section of the Beatitudes Jesus
says:
“10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you
and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
176 The Only True God
12
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so
they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Those who seek the reward or glory that comes from God alone, because
their only desire is to live for God and to please Him, are unconcerned
about the hostility of men. To be reviled and persecuted is cause to
“rejoice and be glad”. By the end of the gospel the reader knows that it
was not only the prophets who were persecuted but above all Jesus him-
self; and so will all those who do the Father’s will and seek only His glory.
“Glory” (doxa, δόξα) is a statistically significant key word in John’s
Gospel where it occurs 19 times compared to 13 times in Luke (which is
more than 20% longer than John), Matthew 7 times, and Mark only 3
times. The only book in the NT where doxa occurs almost as frequently
as in John is the Johannine book of Revelation, where it appears 17 times.
A look at the place of doxa in Jesus’ teaching reveals something of
great importance about the mind of Christ which few have noticed:

John 5.41: I do not receive glory from people.

John 5.44: How can you believe, when you receive glory from
one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only
God? (Notice monotheism as the motivating factor: from “the
only God”, monos theos)

John 7.18: The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his
own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent
him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

John 8.50: Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who
seeks it, and he is the judge.

John 8.54: Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is

nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He
is our God.’”

John 12.43: For they loved the glory that comes from man
more than the glory that comes from God.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 177

All this is summed up by Jesus’ action in John 6:15, “Perceiving then that
they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus
withdrew again to the mountain by himself.”
We may have read the Gospel of John many times but have we ever
really understood its message and, in particular, the significance of these
words and actions of Jesus? Do we think that we please Jesus by forcibly
crowning him as our king, just as the people in John 6 sought to do
because they recognized him to be “the Prophet who is to come into the
world” (6.14), the great Messiah they had been expecting? They may have
wanted to crown him because they saw that he could meet their physical
needs; but are we better than they because we don’t have such urgent
material needs (‘bread’ or food) as they had but desire for ourselves the
bread that gives us eternal life? Are spiritual desires necessarily less
selfish than material ones? Is the desire for happiness, for example,
necessarily less selfish than the desire for food?
But the whole point here is that Jesus refuses to be crowned as king by
anyone—except by God alone. We sing such hymns as “Crown Him,
Crown Him” with great enthusiasm as though this is something which
glorifies him and pleases him. But is it possible that he would no more
accept it from us than from those in John 6.15? It never crossed our
minds because we have never understood his mind—“the mind of
Christ” (1Cor.2.16). It was always his desire first and foremost that the
Father God be glorified, and never that he should be glorified apart from
the Father. This is also something which finds clear expression in the
Revelation. Jesus accepts the glory of kingship only from the Father, and
from absolutely no one else. How little we understand him.

The Christian error is even more serious than that

I
n John 6.15 the people wanted to make Jesus king “by force”. Can the
king of Israel ever be appointed by popular acclaim, or is he
appointed by God alone? Can God’s people ever arrogate to them-
selves the authority to choose their own king in God’s kingdom? The
Israelites had done this before in their history when they chose Saul to be
their king—with disastrous consequences. Do we dare to do the same
thing as they did? Do we suppose the Kingdom of God to be a democracy
178 The Only True God

rather than a theocracy? If so, then we have not even begun to grasp the
nature of salvation which is inseparable from God’s kingship. Nor have
we really grasped the fact that Jesus proclaimed God’s Kingdom, i.e. His
kingship, as the central message in his teaching, as can be seen in the
Synoptic Gospels. According to God’s eternal plan, Jesus was appointed
by God as king in His kingdom and thus, as all the kings of Israel were
meant to be, he would be (and now is) God’s regent.
It is worth noting that in Revelation the greatest of spiritual beings
cast their own crowns before the Lord’s feet. Unlike us, they are never so
presumptuous as to imagine that they have the right (by reason of their
spiritual status) to crown anyone, least of all the Lord Jesus Christ. If
Jesus is king, or even king of kings, that is only because Yahweh elevated
him to that position, not because he seized that position for himself,
much less because we accorded him that dignity.
But trinitarian Christianity has gone very much further than the Jews
in John 6 ever did. We have deified Jesus to the level of equality with God
the Father, Yahweh Himself—and Jesus’ own affirmation of the Father
being “the only true God” is ignored. We have consequently made Jesus
the object of our worship and our prayers. As a result, the Father has
been consigned to a relatively marginal place in both worship and prayer.
Indeed, for many Christians even the word “Father” is a form of
addressing Jesus (Isaiah 9.6 being used as a justification for so doing).
If Israel’s arrogating to themselves the right to choose their own king,
as the neighboring nations did, was regarded as an act of rejecting
Yahweh (“they have rejected me from being king over them”, 1Samuel
8.7), what words are left to describe what the Gentile Christian church
has done to Yahweh?!

Jesus as both “Lord” and “servant”

Jesus’ principle was never to seek or even accept glory from men. He
never taught his disciples to honor him other than to accept him as their
teacher because he was to teach them the words of eternal life and to be a
living example to them, a living embodiment, of all that he taught. This is
hardly surprising when we realize that he came not to be served but to
serve (Mk.10.45); he took “the form of a slave/servant” (Phil.2.7) and
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 179

demonstrated this by washing his disciples’ feet (Jo.13.1ff). It would have

been obviously inconsistent for one who came to be a servant to demand
honor for himself. He also taught, as we recall, that the greatest in God’s
kingdom is to be the servant of all (Mk.10.42-44; Mt.20.25ff; Lk.22.25ff).
All this expressed the central principle of his life and his mind.

Were the principles of God’s Kingdom changed after

Jesus’ exaltation?
Was this principle of not seeking glory from men discarded after Christ’s
resurrection? Have the principles of the Kingdom been changed since
then or, specifically, after he was given the Name above every name? If
they have been discarded or changed then it is evident that the nature of
the Kingdom of God itself has changed and, if so, into what? But there is
nothing whatever to indicate that anything has changed in regard to the
nature of God’s Kingdom, whether on earth or in heaven. If it has
changed at all, then it is we (the church) that have changed it, behaving in
the same way as those in John 6.15. How then will the Lord deal with us?
Will he not reject us in the same way as he rejected those in 6.15? If we
really seek to glorify God in Christ we must do so in God’s way—or face
His rejection and exclusion from His Kingdom.
If then the spiritual principles of the Kingdom have not been abro-
gated or changed, then does it not follow that it remains true that the
greatest will serve as the least? Does it not therefore follow that the King
of kings is also the Servant of servants? This is beyond the comprehen-
sion of the world, but that is precisely the point of the Lord’s teaching,
that the Kingdom is radically different in character from the world, and
those of the world cannot understand or accept it. If then we wish to
honor the Servant-King in God’s Kingdom, how do we go about it? The
consistent answer to this question in all of the Scriptures is to obey him.
“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do the things I say?”
(Lk.6.46). We call him Lord but we act, even in relation to Christ, like
those in the world. We honor him in much the same way as those of the
world honor their worldly sovereigns and potentates, and we are worldly
to the extent that we imagine that by so doing we are pleasing him. His
180 The Only True God

desire is that we follow him in giving glory to God alone, and honor him
by faithfully obeying his teaching.
We may also ask, in connection to the question of whether or not the
principles and character of the Kingdom were changed after Jesus’ exalta-
tion, and his having been given the name above all other names, whether
in consequence of that exaltation he ceased to be in “the form of man”
and, if not, did he cease to be in “the form of a servant (slave)”? In view of
what was stated a little earlier, it should be evident that he retains both
his “form” of being man as also that of being servant/sacrifice (cf. Jesus as
“Lamb,” his foremost title in the Revelation). In Jesus’ teaching, servant
and sacrifice are inseparably linked together as in Mark 10.45: “For even
the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a
ransom for many” (so also Mat.20.28) and in the important spiritual
symbolism of washing his disciples’ feet just before going to the cross.
Yet Christians generally seem to have assumed that with his exaltation
Jesus ceased being a servant, because in our carnal view the two appear to
be incompatible; but this is not so in the Kingdom of God: in the
Kingdom, the moment one ceases to be a servant, one also ceases to be a
king (or leader) in God’s eyes. Unless we understand and apply this in
our lives, we cannot function in God’s kingdom or in His church in the
way He requires; Jesus warned of the danger of ending up as “goats,” not
“sheep” (Mat.25.31-46).

“King of kings” as a proof-text for Christ’s deity

O
ne of our favorite “proof texts” as trinitarians is the title “king of
kings, and lord of lords” (since kings were generally higher in
status than lords, or else ‘lords’ was just another way to describe
kings; the use of both titles was intentionally repetitive and thereby a
means of giving emphasis and resonance in the offering of praise). In
Rev.17.14 it is applied to the Lamb, and in 19.16 to the Word of God; but
in 1Tim.6.15 the title is used with reference to God. So the conclusion is
readily drawn that the Lamb is God in the sense that he is God’s equal,
something which (as we shall see) is not substantiated in the book of
Revelation.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 181

When I checked my old Bible I found that 1Tim.6.15 was indeed the
cross-reference that I had written in the margin of Rev.17.14. But char-
acteristic of the trinitarian use of Scripture, I neglected to include other
references to the title “king of kings” in the Bible as a whole. The fact is
that in Scripture this title is also used of human sovereigns. In Ezra 7.12 it
is used of Artaxerxes; and in Ezekiel 26.7 God Himself speaks of
Nebuchadnezzar as “king of kings”; so also in Dan.2.37. So the argument
for the deity of Christ is here accomplished by a selective use of texts,
ignoring texts that are contrary to our case. Does this not indicate a lack
of spiritual and intellectual honesty, a lack of openness to the truth?
In Mat.28.18 the risen Christ announces to the disciples that “All
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. This being the
case, he is rightly spoken of as “King of kings and Lord of lords”. But
what needs to be noted is that this cannot be turned into an argument for
Christ’s equality with God our Father because it is a sovereignty given to
him by the God who alone has the right to confer it, for it is His by right
as God. But for some reason we were not content with the fact that God
has thus “crowned (Jesus) with glory and honor” (Heb.2.9), we must
settle for nothing less than his innate (as distinct from conferred) divine
glory or deity, namely, that he is eternally equal with God our Father in
every sense, even though there is no Biblical justification whatever for
doing so. The one time Paul used the title “King of kings” is in 1Tim.6.15,
and by that title he undoubtedly referred to God our Father, as is made
perfectly clear in the verse itself.
1Timothy 6.15 may well carry an echo of Deuteronomy 10:17, “For
Yahweh your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the
mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.”
This is also echoed in Psalm 135.1-3, “Give thanks to Yahweh, for he is
good, for his steadfast love endures forever. Give thanks to the God of
gods, for his steadfast love endures forever. Give thanks to the Lord of
lords, for his steadfast love endures forever”. (Psalm 135.1-3 in LXX is
136.1-3 in English Bibles.)
These passages are reflected in 1Corinthians 8.5,6, “For although
there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are
many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
182 The Only True God

Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live”. Both
passages (in Deuteronomy and the Psalms) speak of the LORD i.e.
Yahweh, who Jesus certainly referred to as “the Father,” and by Paul as
“God our Father”.

“The First and the Last”

C
oncerning the proof texts used in trinitarianism, let us consider
another related example of the methodology used to “establish”
an argument. Returning again to the Johannine Apocalypse (or
book of Revelation), consider the title “the first and the last” (Rev.1.17;
2.8) which is expanded to “the alpha and the omega; the first and the last;
the beginning and the end” (22.13) where all three titles are synonymous,
that is, they mean basically the same thing. Since these are here titles of
Christ, they are used to argue for his deity.
Unlike the case of “king of kings” where the OT evidence was simply
ignored, this time everything depends on using two texts in the OT to
establish our case. The two texts are Isa.44.6 and 48.12 where God is “the
first and the last”. There we have our “proof” of Christ’s deity. Thus the
case can seemingly be established with surprising ease. Of course, we
have not stopped to consider one small problem: Since God is “from
eternity to eternity” and therefore without beginning or end (see too
Rev.4.9,10), how can He be “the beginning and the end”, “the first and
the last”? This is possible only in one sense as the context of Scripture
makes clear: He is the beginning and the end specifically in relation to
His creation (which includes mankind), and in relation to His people in
particular.
Creation began with Him (came into existence through Him) and will
reach its final consummation in Him (at His appointed time when His
purpose has been accomplished). In regard to His people, they owe their
redemption to Him. He is our beginning because He called us to Himself
and thus constituted us as His people through the covenant He esta-
blished with us. He is our end in that our final fulfillment will be found in
Him and only in Him.
What was true under the old covenant is equally true under the new,
but with the new reality that God now makes us a new creation in Christ.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 183

Christ is “the mediator” of the new covenant (Heb.9.15; 12.24; 1Ti.2.5);

under this covenant God has chosen to do everything “through Christ”
(or, more frequently in the Biblical text, “through him”) and “in Christ”
because “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”
(2Cor.5.19). For this reason God is still “the first and the last” in and
through Christ; and since this is effected “in Christ,” Christ can also be
described as the “first and the last” in relation to God’s people. Thus, in
Heb.12.2 Christ is described as “author and completer” of our faith. The
word translated “completer” (teleiōtēs) is semantically related to the word
“end” (telos) in the words “the beginning and the end” in Rev.22.13.
In relation to mankind as a whole, Scripture speaks of Christ as “the
first fruits” of those who have died (i.e. the first man who was raised from
death permanently, 1Cor.15.20); the final resurrection has begun with
Christ’s resurrection—he is the beginning of the final resurrection and its
guarantor. Notice that “first fruits” is ap-archē (hyphen added), while
“beginning” in Rev.22.13 is archē. He is also “the last Adam (‘Adam’ is
Hebrew for ‘man’)” in 1Cor.15.45, where “last” (eschatos) is exactly the
same word as in Rev.22.13. So it is true that “the man Christ Jesus” is “the
first and the last” in relation to mankind and his salvation.
But there is another not so small problem for the trinitarian attempt
to use “the first and the last” to prove the deity of Christ, and that is the
fact that this title is not a general title for God, but it is specifically a title
of Yahweh: Isaiah 44:6, “Thus says the LORD (YHWH), the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the LORD (YHWH) of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am
the last; besides me there is no god.’” Do trinitarians really want to prove
that Christ and Yahweh are one and the same person?

Christ as the all-sufficient sacrifice provided for us by God

(Yahweh)—used as an argument for Christ’s deity

I
have in the past argued for the deity of Christ on the grounds that
one man could only die for one other person; if Christ were only
human, how could his death avail for all mankind? This argument
sounded convincing because of its apparent self-evidence: how can the
death of one human individual atone for the sins of all men? But the
wisdom of God is not established by human wisdom or reasoning. The
184 The Only True God

error of this kind of reasoning became evident to me when I perceived

the truth in John 3.14,15, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder-
ness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him
may have eternal life.”
This refers to the incident recorded in Numbers 21.6-9 in which the
people were dying from the bites of the poisonous snakes. Moses was
instructed by God to make a serpent of brass and set it on a pole for all to
see; those who believed as they looked were saved from the poison of the
snakes. Jesus compares this incident to faith in him: “And as Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (Jo.3.14,15). The
point here should be extremely clear: the saving of the thousands who
looked to the brass serpent had nothing whatever to do with anything
inherent in that serpent—they were saved by God through faith in His
promise that whoever looked would be saved: “Yahweh said to Moses,
‘Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten,
when he sees it, shall live.’” (Num.21.8) The next verse confirms that
those who had the faith to look lived. The same is true for all those who
are looking to Jesus for salvation through faith (Heb.12.1,2); it is God’s
saving power in Christ which saves them from sin and death. It is, there-
fore, not something inherent in the constitution of Christ that saves, but
it is God our Father (Yahweh) who saves us in and through Christ. For
salvation is entirely God’s work; it is by faith and through His grace
alone.
Ro.3.21-26 is acknowledged to be the heart of the teaching on salva-
tion in Romans (cf. also Dunn, Christology I, p.219). These six verses,
which together constitute one sentence (!) is summarized in v.26: God is
“the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” This is precisely the point
made in the previous paragraph. We fail to properly present Biblical
soteriology (doctrine of salvation) if we fail to make it clear that God our
Father is the ultimate or fundamental author of our salvation while Jesus
is the mediating, or instrumental, agent for our salvation. This point
emerges not only from Ro.3.26 but from the passage as a whole:

“21 But now the righteousness of GOD has been manifested

apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness
to it—
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 185

22
the righteousness of GOD through faith in Jesus Christ for
all who believe. For there is no distinction;
23
since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24
they are justified by HIS grace as a gift, through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
25
whom GOD put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be
received by faith. This was to show GOD’s righteousness,
because in HIS divine forbearance HE had passed over former
sins;
26
it was to prove at the present time that HE himself is
righteous and that HE justifies him who has faith in Jesus.”
“God” is mentioned 10 times (including pronouns) in these 6 verses
concerning our salvation, making it perfectly clear that He is the subject
in the grammatical sense. “Jesus” (including “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus
Christ”) is mentioned 4 times (including the pronoun in v.25). God’s
righteousness is referred to 4 times, and “justify” (a word related to
righteousness in Greek) twice; while “faith” appears 3 times. The statistics
of this passage gives us a good summary of the soteriology (doctrine of
salvation) of Romans as a whole.10
Romans is the only writing in the NT that provides a full and
relatively systematic teaching about salvation. In it, God is by far the
central figure. The references to Christ are about half of the number of
references to God, reflecting the similar statistic in Ro.3.21-26. It is

10
Statistics for Romans (Greek text):

 “God”: 153 times (not counting pronouns) in 135 verses.

 “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”: 31 times; “Jesus” (alone): 5; “Christ”
(alone): 34 = total: 70 times (the most occurrences in the NT, even
without counting pronouns);
 “Righteousness”: 29 times (by far the most frequent in NT; Mt is next
with 7 times)
 “Righteous” (verb): 14 times (the next most frequent is Gal: 6)
 “Faith” 35 times (next most frequent: Heb: 31).

These figures show that all these are key words in Romans.
186 The Only True God

always God (the Father) who justifies (saves) “through faith in Jesus
Christ” (Ro.3.22).

All Jesus’ miracles were done by God (Yahweh) through

him

A
ll sorts of attempts have been made to explain, or explain away,
Jesus’ miracles, even by some Christian scholars unable or un-
willing to accept the supernatural. But short of denying the vera-
city of the gospel accounts, there are many miracles that simply cannot
be explained in terms of psychosomatic healing, coincidence, etc. I
recently heard an ophthalmologist acknowledge that even with the latest
(2007) knowledge and equipment (lasers, etc), he could not restore the
sight of a man born blind and had already grown up, as in the case of the
man who Jesus healed in John 9. Jesus certainly did not perform miracles
as a spectacle to impress the multitudes; the miracles carried a spiritual
message for those who had ears to hear and eyes to see (Mt.13.15,16).
The healing of the blind man, for example, would remind a perceptive
observer of a passage such as that in Isaiah 29:
18
In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out
of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see.
19
The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the LORD (Yahweh), and
the poor among mankind shall exult in the Holy One of Israel.
I also heard a discussion with a meteorological expert, who had studied
the Lake of Galilee for 25 years, to find out whether some scientific
explanation could be found for Jesus’ stilling of the storm on that Lake
(Mat.8.24-27); the expert acknowledged that there is no known explan-
ation. But this miracle on “the Sea of Galilee,” as it is often called, is an
enactment of a portion of Psalm 107:
23
Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the
great waters;
24
they saw the deeds of the LORD (Yahweh), his wondrous
works in the deep.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 187

25
For he commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted
up the waves of the sea.
26
They mounted up to heaven; they went down to the depths;
their courage melted away in their evil plight;
27
they reeled and staggered like drunken men and were at their
wits’ end.
28
Then they cried to the LORD (Yahweh) in their trouble, and
he delivered them from their distress.
29
He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were
hushed.
30
Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he
brought them to their desired haven.
31
Let them thank the LORD (Yahweh) for his steadfast love,
for his wondrous works to the children of men!
A comparison of the account in Matthew 8 with this passage in Psalm
107 immediately shows the striking correspondence between the two,
which is certainly no coincidence but is designed to show who actually
was stilling the storm in Galilee. Notice that Yahweh is mentioned three
times in this portion of the Psalm.
These and other miracles are constantly used by trinitarians to argue
for Christ’s deity. But like the “I am” sayings (which, as we have seen,
point to Yahweh), the miracles do the same. They do not “prove” that
Jesus is God, but if they prove anything, they would prove either that
Jesus is Yahweh, or that Yahweh indwells Jesus bodily (Jo.1.14) and does
His works through him. Which one is the correct alternative is made
perfectly clear by Jesus himself and in the NT. That it was the God of
Israel, Yahweh, who did His works in Christ is stated plainly in Acts 2:22,
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you
by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through
him in your midst, as you yourselves know.”
Jesus affirmed this himself: “The words that I say to you I do not
speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his
works.” (John 14.10) “Work” (ergon) can include specific reference to
miracles, i.e. supernatural works. The Greek English Lexicon (BDAG) on
ergon (work) has, “of the deeds of God and Jesus, specifically, miracles”.
“He (John) frequently uses the term ‘works,’ not indeed exclusively with
188 The Only True God

reference to the miracles of Christ, and yet often with particular reference
to them; as if miraculous works were only the natural and appropriate
works of one who was himself miraculous” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary,
“Miracles”). Here, appropriately, the Bible Dictionary quotes John 5.36,
“For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works
that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me”; John
10.25, “The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me
[i.e. that I am the Messiah, v.24]”; John 10:32, “Jesus answered them, ‘I
have shown you many good works from the Father’”. To this can be
added John 5:19, “Jesus gave them this answer: ‘I tell you the truth, the
Son can do nothing by himself’” (NIV). The “mighty works and wonders
and signs” (Acts 2.22) were all a part of God’s work of saving mankind,
for “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19).
This means that it is completely erroneous to use the miracles as
evidence of Christ’s deity. For whether it was the feeding of the thou-
sands, walking on water, raising the dead, these were all because, as Jesus
said, “the Father who dwells in me does His works” (Jo.14.10). Why don’t
we listen to him when he said, “I can do nothing on my own” (Jo.5.30,
and his many other sayings on this matter) instead of fabricating our own
doctrines?

The significance of Psalm 8 for understanding the person

and work of the Messiah (Christ)
Psalm 8 (ESV):
1
O LORD (Yahweh), our Lord, how majestic is your name in
all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.
2
Out of the mouth of babes and infants, you have established
strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the
avenger.
3
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the
moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4
what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man
that you care for him?
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 189

5
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
6
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,
7
all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
8
the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever
passes along the paths of the seas.
9
O LORD (Yahweh), our Lord, how majestic is your name in
all the earth!

T
he whole Psalm is quoted to make it more convenient to view its
structure and substance. Notice, first, that the Psalm begins and
ends with exactly the same words of praise to Yahweh (“LORD”).
In verse 1 it says, “You have set your glory above the heavens.” That is to
say, Yahweh’s glory is higher than the heavens; Yahweh’s supernal majes-
ty and glory are exultingly extolled.
But the 2nd verse, in striking contrast to the 1st, suddenly descends to
the level of “babes and infants,” from whose mouths Yahweh “established
strength” in the face of His enemies. What is this contrast intended to
signify? Does it not remind us of the words that His “power is made
perfect in weakness” (2Cor.12.9)? And this prepares us effectively for the
next pair of contrasts: v.3 “When I look at your heavens…” versus v.4,
“what is man…” Yet it is precisely in the relative weakness of man that
Yahweh, as in the case of babes and infants, has chosen to manifest his
power and glory: “You have… crowned him with glory and honor” (v.5).
Notice that in the structure of this Psalm, v.5 is at the center of the
Psalm, being its middle verse. Notice, too, how its substance also corres-
ponds to the first and the last verses of the Psalm, namely, Yahweh’s
glory and majesty, which in v.5, is conferred upon man! Notice, too, that
“man” and “the son of man” are synonymous in v.4. It is evident that the
Psalmist knows nothing of the degradation of man such as that taught in
the Christian doctrine of man’s “total depravity”. Nor does the Apostle
Paul teach any such doctrine, seeing that he speaks of man as “the glory
of God” (1Cor.11.7), by which he proclaims the same truth as in this
Psalm.
190 The Only True God

Let us consider verses 5 and 6 of Psalm 8 more closely. Several

important things are stated in these verses:
(1) “Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings.” The
ESV translation “heavenly beings” is a compromise between other
English translations which vary from “angels” to “God”. The word in the
Hebrew text is elohim which generally means “God” or “god” (over 2600
times in the OT), but it can sometimes mean “angels” or heavenly beings
generally. Since the word is in most instances in the OT applied to
Yahweh, why is “God” not used in all translations of Ps.8.5? The answer
is to be found in the influence of the Septuagint, where the translator has
chosen to translate elohim as “aggelous” (plural of aggelos) from which,
obviously, comes the word “angels”.
What, then, should the correct translation be? The word “angel” or
“angels” appears a number of times in the Psalms but in each instance the
usual Hebrew word for “angel,” malach, is used. I have not found any
instance in the Psalms where elohim definitely means “angels”. There
does not, therefore, seem to be any good reason why Ps.8.5 should not be
translated as “a little lower than God”, as in some English translations
(RSV, NRSV). This would not mean that man is necessarily higher than
the angels (although see 1Co.6.3, “Do you not know that we will judge
angels?”), nor that he is lower. But is not the whole point of the verse that
God has conferred “glory and honor” on man so that His divine glory
and majesty will be revealed through him in the entire universe? In the
Scriptures, therefore, man as “the glory of God” is only “a little lower
than God”.
(2) Verse 6a, “You have given him dominion over the works of your
hands”. The reference here to Genesis 1.26,28 and 9.2 is unmistakable.
This statement is re-emphasized and strengthened in the following sen-
tence:
Verse 6b, “You have put all things under his feet”; this important
affirmation appears repeatedly in the NT with reference to Christ, while
it also has a significant link to the Messianic words in Ps.110.1, ‘The
LORD (Yahweh) says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make
your enemies your footstool”’. Obviously, to “make your enemies your
footstool” is equivalent to putting them “under (your, i.e.) his feet”
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 191

(Ps.8.6). Jesus saw Psalm 110.1 as fulfilled in his ministry (Mk.12.36;

14.62; and pars).
That God has “put all things under his feet” (Ps.8.6) is a statement
applied to Christ as the representative man, “the last Adam”
(1Cor.15.45). In 1Co.15.27 it serves as the key to understanding the
section from 15.24-27. Being “seated at God’s right hand,” in Eph.1.20,
means that “he (God) put all things under his (Christ’s) feet and gave
him as head over all things to the church” (1.22).
Christ’s God-given authority is extended to, and implemented
through, the church, as in Romans 16:20, “The God of peace will soon
crush Satan under your feet” (cf. Rev.3.9); this reflects the promise to the
righteous in Ps.91.13, “You will tread on the lion and the adder; the
young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot” (cf. Gen.3.15).
As in the Messianic Psalms generally, Psalm 8, too, is prophetic in
character, as can clearly be seen in the references to it in Hebrews 2:
8
“Now in putting everything in subjection to him (Christ), he
(God) left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet
see everything in subjection to him.
9
“But we see him who for a little while was made lower than
the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor be-
cause of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he
might taste death for everyone.” (The references to Ps.8 are
clearly evident.)
(3) In view of the foregoing points, there can be no doubt that Ps.8 is one
of the foundational passages in the OT for understanding Jesus’ consist-
ent use of the title “son of man” (Ps.8.4). This finds confirmation in his
teaching such as that in Mt.11.27 (par. Lk.10.22) and Mt.28.18; also
Jo.3.35; 13.3.
(4) From Psalm 8 and related passages it can be seen that the Scriptures
have an exalted view of man in God’s eternal plans. All this finds full and
perfect fulfillment in the person of Christ. In Christ, man as “the image
and glory of God” (1Cor.11.7) reaches the acme of resplendent express-
ion: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his
nature” (Heb.1.3). But Christ reveals God’s glory and power as man, for
it would hardly be saying anything significant to say that God reveals
192 The Only True God

God’s glory, nor would it make much sense to say that God is “the exact
imprint of his nature”.
Yet, contrary to Scripture, Christianity has a low view of man, who is
seen essentially as a depraved sinner, “rotten to the core”. In this view it
is simply unimaginable that man could ever be “the radiance of the glory
of God” (Heb.1.3); so it is little wonder that passages such as this one in
Hebrews are used to prove Christ’s deity, rather than the wonderful
fulfillment in Christ of God’s eternal plan for man. Once we grasp more
fully the Biblical teaching of man as “image and glory of God”—a glory
now fully realized in the person of Jesus the Messiah (Christ)—we will
see that many of the passages used by trinitarians to “prove” the deity of
Christ actually proclaim something different, namely, that the divine
glory was fully manifested in and through the “one man Jesus Christ”
(Ro.5.15,17; 1Ti.2.5).

Daniel 7 in Jesus’ use of “Son of Man,” and “the man from

heaven” (1Cor.15.47)
Daniel 7.13, “I was gazing into the visions of the night, when I
saw, coming on the clouds of heaven, as it were a son of man.
He came to the One most venerable and was led into his
presence.” (NJB)

Matthew 24.30, “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will
appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn.
They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky,
with power and great glory.” (NIV)

I
t can immediately be seen that Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 make
reference to Daniel 7: In particular, the term “son of man” (without
the word “like”), and the phrase “on the clouds of heaven” is exactly
the same in the Greek text as in the Greek OT (LXX). “Coming” is the
same Greek word though in a different tense.
The connection of Daniel 7 with Psalms 8 is seen in the references to
“the Son of man” in both places. But, more importantly, “dominion” is
given to “the Son of man” in both passages; for Daniel 7.14 reads, “And
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 193

to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples,
nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting
dominion.” Here the connection with Psalm 110.1 is also evident, thus
linking all three passages. These passages provide the background for
understanding what Jesus says in Matthew 24.30.
Daniel 7 is prophetic in character, that is, it concerns the future, not
the past. That is to say, it speaks of “the Son of man” in the future; it is
not about a pre-existent person by that name. Similarly, Psalm 110.1 also
concerns the future; it is God’s promise to the royal Davidic messiah. In
the same way, Jesus’ words about the coming “Son of man” has to do
with a future event which Christians often call the “Second Coming” of
Christ. The same is true of Jesus’ words in the following verse:

Matthew 26.64, “Jesus answered him, ‘It is you who say it. But,
I tell you that from this time onward you will see the Son of
man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the
clouds of heaven.’” (NJB)

The link of these words to Daniel 7.13 is again seen in the phrases “the
Son of man” and “coming on the clouds of heaven,” while the connection
with Psalm 110.1 appears in the words “seated at the right hand of the
Power (i.e. God)”.
Jesus’ reference to Daniel 7.14 stands out sharply in Mark 13.26, “At
that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power
and glory.” (NIV) Here “great power” is equivalent to “dominion” in
Dan.7.14, so “power and glory” are the equivalents of “dominion and
glory” in Dan.7.
All this helps us to better understand why Jesus used “the Son of man”
as the title of preference in the gospels. It emphasized not only his true
manhood, but especially his messianic ministry in fulfillment of import-
ant prophecies in which God’s promise to His people of future deliver-
ance will also be fulfilled.
Furthermore, without knowing this OT background we cannot
correctly understand what the Apostle Paul says about the “second man”
who comes “from heaven,” and may end up in philosophical speculations
about some Urmensch (German for ‘Primal Man’) or supposed preexist-
ent prototype man—an idea which some theologians have toyed with.
194 The Only True God

But this has absolutely nothing to do with what Paul writes in 1Cor.15.47,
“The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from
heaven.” (NIV). Anyone familiar with Daniel 7.13,14 would immediately
recognize “the man from heaven” in Paul’s words. Nor is this the only
connection between the two passages. For example 1Corinthians 15.25,
“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” is cer-
tainly linked to Daniel 7.14, “And to him was given dominion and glory
and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve
him.”
But the connection between the two passages goes even further than
this. “The man from heaven” in 1Cor.15.47 is in a context of a discussion
about the resurrection which covers the section from verses 35 to 57. Now
if we look at Daniel 7.13 (quoted at the beginning of this section) we are
told of a heavenly vision of the Son of man coming into the Presence of
God. When we compare this with Jesus’ words in Matthew 26.64, “I tell
you that from this time onward you will see the Son of man seated at the
right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven,” the picture
becomes clearer: First, the Son of man comes to God (Dan.7.13) and is
granted to sit down at His right hand (Ps.110.1); from the Scriptures we
know that this is what happened after Jesus’ resurrection. Then, second, in
the future the Son of man will be “coming on the clouds of heaven” with
“great power and glory” (Mk.13.26). Paul discusses this second stage in
1Cor.15.24-28, while he writes about “the man from heaven” in the long
section about resurrection (1Cor.15.35-57).
What this means is that Jesus is “the man from heaven,” the
“spiritual” (v.46) man, because of the resurrection. It has nothing what-
ever to do with non-Scriptural metaphysical speculations about some
preexistent eternal man. G.G. Findlay, in The Expositor’s Greek New
Testament, discerned this correctly, “From his resurrection onwards,
Christ became to human faith the anthrōpos epouranios [man of
heaven]”.
Finally, it is God’s plan for us that through Christ we “also are those
who are of heaven” (1Cor.15.48); and through him “we shall also bear the
image of the man of heaven” (v.49). What does this mean but that we
shall, like Christ, also be people “of heaven” as a result of the resurrect-
ion?
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 195

God was in Christ

T
hat Jesus is man, or “the Son of man,” is abundantly clear in the
Bible. His supreme significance for us lies in the fact that “God
(Yahweh) was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”
(2Cor.5.19). But as far as trinitarianism is concerned, this could just as
well read that God was Christ (or, Christ was God). Does the change real-
ly matter? What have they changed? What is changed is that whereas in
2Cor.5.19 it is GOD who was the One reconciling, it is now CHRIST as
God who does the reconciling. Yahweh is sidelined by Christ proclaimed
as God. The monotheism of Yahweh has been thereby subverted—an
exceedingly serious matter indeed, where the word of God is concerned.
It should be very obvious that “God was in Christ” and “God was
Christ/Christ was God” are two fundamentally different propositions.
“God was in Christ” also means that although both God and Christ can
properly be called “our savior,” their roles in our salvation are funda-
mentally different: Christ is the indispensable agent in and through
whom God worked out His saving purposes for us; but it was God
Himself who was the Prime Mover of the process of salvation (reconcil-
iation). Where would our salvation be if God had not sent Christ into the
world? And where would it be if He had not raised Jesus from the dead?
Not to mention the Father’s constant empowering of Christ throughout
his ministry: both his teaching and the signs and wonders worked
through him ensure the triumphant completion of his saving work.
On the other hand, Christ’s role was certainly not a merely passive
one, but one of determined, faithful, and glad obedience to the Father
throughout his ministry. He is the unique, new, “last Adam,” who in
God’s purposes was essential for the redemption of mankind. But it must
be clearly understood that, in the NT message, Christ’s role in the salva-
tion of mankind was always and absolutely as man, and that it was GOD
who was in the MAN Christ Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. Any
deviation from this is deviation from the word of God as proclaimed in
the NT, and results in the serious consequence that God the Father,
Yahweh, is sidelined as the absolute Center of the Gospel message. This,
in turn, must inevitably have fearful consequences.
196 The Only True God

“Savior” applied to Yahweh God and to Christ in Timothy

and Titus
The word “savior” (sōtēr) occurs 24 times in the NT (the verb “to save,”
sōzō, 106 times) and is applied to God and to Christ. But the title “God
our Savior” is unique to the Pastoral Letters (Timothy and Titus) and
Jude (v.25), where it appears 6 times. The title “Christ our savior” is also
unique to the Pastorals, appearing once in that form (Tit.3.6), and 3
times in variations on that form (“Christ Jesus our savior”, Tit.1.4; “our
savior Christ Jesus”, 2Tim.1.10; and Titus 2.13 “our savior Jesus Christ”),
making a total of 4 times. Thus, God is described as our “savior” more
frequently than Jesus. But the newer English translations boldly try to
“even the score”.

Making Jesus God by way of translation; the alleged “one

article rule”

T
rinitarianism has daringly given itself a boost by their newer
translations of a few verses in the pastoral letters, notably Titus
2.13. The KJV translated it as, “Looking for that blessed hope, and
the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.
But the New King James changes this to, “looking for the blessed hope
and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” and
the same is true of all the newer major English translations. In this way
“our great God” and “Savior” are both applied to Jesus.
Before we examine this matter more closely, it is worth noting that the
ancient Syriac translation called the Peshitta has this translation, “looking
for the blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great God,
and our Life-giver, Jesus the Messiah” (James Murdock’s translation). As
one would expect in a Semitic translation, “the great God” is distin-
guished from “Jesus the Messiah” by the word “and,” though also united
to him by it. Interestingly, “savior” is rendered as “life-giver”. The
Peshitta is the ancient Syriac Bible which, according to Encyclopedia
Britannica, was “the accepted Bible of Syrian Christian churches from the
end of the 3rd century AD,” that is the century before the Nicene and
Constantinople creeds were formulated as the basis for trinitarianism.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 197

The important point to notice is that it does not reflect the character or
wording of the modern trinitarian translations of Titus 2.13.
What is the basis for the translation of “our God and Savior Jesus
Christ” in the Pastorals? It was the “discovery” of a grammatical “rule”
(which appears to have first gained prominence in the 20th century) that
says because only one definite article governs the words “God” and
“Savior” in Titus 2.13 it must refer to the same person, namely, Jesus
Christ. What seems surpassingly strange is that the early Greek speaking
Fathers, and other Greek speakers in the early church, appear to have
been unaware of any such “rule” in their language! The Greek speaking
bishops and scholars who supported the trinitarian position in the 4th
century seem never to have thought of using such an obvious “rule” to
their advantage—if such a rule existed! This “rule” had to wait until some
European scholars, whose native language was not Greek, elevated it to
the level of a “discovery”. Needless to say, all of us who were trinitarians
were delighted by this “discovery”; I still recall my joy at hearing about it
in my student days and marking Titus 2.13 in bold letters in my Bible.
Poor 17th century King James Version was, of course, too early to benefit
from it!
One can only wonder what the Greek Fathers would have thought if
they had been told that they had failed to understand a basic rule in their
own language! We may suppose that their response would have been
very much like the kind of response Chinese scholars would have if they
were told by some Western scholar that they had failed to understand a
rule of the Chinese language! But in this case the Greek Fathers are not
available for comment.
It is true that after trinitarianism had established itself as the dogma of
the Western Christian church, the translation “our God and Savior Jesus
Christ” did begin to emerge, as has been found in some papyri; but apart
from the fact of their obvious trinitarian origin and their late date (not-
hing earlier than the 7th century), Greek had long before that ceased to be
the universal language in the Roman empire (Augustine, 354-430 AD,
though a top leader of the church, hardly knew any Greek), so the level of
competence in the language was not likely to be comparable to that of
earlier times, even assuming that the language itself had not already
undergone substantial changes (as, for example, in the case of NT Greek
198 The Only True God

as compared to classical Greek, and Modern Greek as compared to NT

Greek).
In regard to the question of the correct translation of Titus 2.13, it is
significant to note that N.J.D. White, who as a trinitarian accepts the
deity of Christ, indicates in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (where he
discusses the matter at some length) that the grammatical evidence for
the translation “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” is simply inadequate
and rejects it unequivocally. In regard to the alleged “rule” mentioned
above, Dr. White writes,

“The grammatical argument—‘the identity of reference of two

substantives when under the vinculum of a common article’—
is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take
into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in
these epistles but the omission of it before σωτήρ [savior] in
1Tim.1.1; 4.10.”

Regarding the magnificent phrase “the appearing of the glory of our great
God” (Tit.2.13), White makes the following comment,

“The Second Coming of Christ will be, as we are assured by

Himself, ‘in the glory of His Father’ (Matt.16.27; Mark 8.38).
‘We rejoice in the hope of the glory of God’ (Rom.5.2). The
Second Coming of Christ may, therefore, be regarded as an
‘appearing of the glory of God’ [the words between single
quotes are in Greek in White’s text].”

Further on, White writes, “St. Paul is nowhere more emphatic in his lofty
language about God the Father than in these epistles [i.e. the Pastoral
epistles]; see 1Tim.1.17; 6.15,16.” He also mentions that “This is the only
place in the N.T. in which μέγας [great] is applied to the true God,
although it is a constant predicate of heathen gods and goddesses, e.g.,
Acts 19.28.”
Very similarly, J.E. Huther, in Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical
Commentary of the New Testament, provides an extended discussion of
Titus 2.13. Dr. Huther (and perhaps it hardly needs to be mentioned that
he is also traditionally a trinitarian) points out that the meaning of this
verse “cannot be decided on purely grammatical grounds”. He then lists
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 199

three decisive points why, on exegetical grounds, the words “our great
God” in this verse does not apply to Christ. But to avoid excessively
lengthening the discussion of this verse, and also because, in the nature of
a commentary on the Greek text of the NT, a lot of Greek is interspersed
throughout Huther’s discussion, I shall leave its details to those who wish
to study this matter for themselves.
However, in regard to the alleged “rule” on which many English Bible
versions base their translation of Titus 2.13, Huther’s comment is directly
relevant, “There are instances enough of two distinct subjects standing
under one article only, and we cannot see why these instances should not
be quoted here” (note 1, p.360, italics his).
We can let A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Moulton-Howard-
Turner, a standard reference work, have the final word on this subject:
“One must look critically at the common view that in Ti.2.13 we have two
clauses in apposition [i.e. referring to the same person]. The same is true
of 2Pt.1.1... The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure
that the items be considered separately” (Vol.3, p.181, re. Tit.2.13, Greek
texts omitted; italics added). In other words, there is no basis for the
alleged “rule”; one article can refer to two distinct subjects, not necess-
arily to one only. The “bottom line” is really simply this: the trinitarian
translations are ultimately not determined by either grammatical or
exegetical considerations but by the dogmatic predilections or commit-
ments of the translators.
Moreover, in trying to use this verse in the Pastoral letters to elevate
Jesus to being God, they deliberately ignore the fact that it is precisely in
these letters that monotheism and the humanity of Christ are both stated
with absolute clarity: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1Tim.2.5). One must
surely be willfully blind not to see the explicitly and characteristically
Pauline monotheistic declaration at the beginning of this sentence, “For
there is one God,” namely, the God referred to as “God our Savior” two
verses earlier (v.3). The sentence ends with the equally explicit statement,
“the man Christ Jesus”. Is there any way to make these statements any
plainer such that “even if they are fools, they shall not go astray”
(Isa.35.8)?
200 The Only True God

In this respect it must, sadly, be admitted that the Muslim accusation

that Christians have distorted the meaning of Biblical texts does carry
considerable weight. Also, how can one give, with a good conscience,
such distorted translations to Jews or to Muslims who wish to get
acquainted with the NT?

2Peter 1.1
As might be expected, the major newer English translations of 2Peter 1.1
apply the same “one article rule” to their translation of this verse, “the
righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (the words in italics
translate τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Yet exactly the
same grammatical structure in 2Thessalonians 1.12 (τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ
κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is translated by these same versions as “the grace
of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ”; why is the “one article rule”
discarded here? Is it because these words have become part of a tradition-
al pronouncement of a blessing used in church services that they don’t
wish to change or infringe upon? Is it tradition that again determines the
translation here?

Jude 4
But consider how the ESV (English Standard Version, 2001), like many
other modern versions, translates the last phrase in Jude 4 as “our only
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν: literally, the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ).
The Greek text (like the verse in Titus discussed in the previous para-
graphs) has only one definite article, which is not translated in ESV, but
is replaced by “our” for both “Master” and “Lord”. But what is the reason
or excuse for so doing? Is it again because of the alleged “one article
rule”? But the translators should surely know that this is unjustifiable
because “our,” which in the Greek text stands immediately before “Jesus
Christ,” can stand in place of the definite article—which they admit by
replacing the “the” at the beginning of the Greek phrase by “our”. Once
again they do not hesitate to misapply the supposed “one article rule” in
order to achieve their trinitarian translation.
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 201

There can be no doubt whatever that here the King James translation
gives the correct sentence structure: “the only Lord God, and our Lord
Jesus Christ.” This is followed by the New King James version. So, too,
the ancient Peshitta: “him who is the only Lord God and our Lord, Jesus
the Messiah” (Murdoch). Tyndale, who evidently had not heard of any
“one article rule”, translates it as, “God the only Lorde and oure Lorde
Iesus Christ.” (Tyndale’s New Testament, 1534)
Now this verse may not seem relevant to our present discussion since
Jesus is not referred to as God in it. But the matter is not quite so simple
because of the phrase “our only (monos) Master” which NIV translates as
“our only Sovereign”. If Jesus Christ is our only Sovereign and Lord, then
that clearly leaves no room for God the Father! This displacing of God
the Father is precisely the kind of thing that Western Christianity has
been doing all along, even using the NT to justify its doing so.
Here consider again the ancient Peshitta, “Him who is the only Lord
God and our Lord, Jesus the Messiah”; the distinction between “the only
Lord God” and “our Lord Jesus” stands out clearly. But is this reading
justified? Let us consider the following facts:
(1) The second part of this verse (Jude 4) reads, “ungodly people, who
pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master…”
What is being perverted? It is “the grace of our God”. Who then is being
denied by this act of perversion? Is it not the God whose grace is
perverted? Does it not therefore follow very evidently that the God whose
grace is perverted, and who is thereby openly denied, is the One spoken
of as “the only Master”? Of course, in denying God, the only Sovereign,
His Christ is also thereby denied; but the verse itself makes it clear that
the primary reference is to God, the Father.

(2) The word translated as “Master” (despotēs) was used as a title for God
both in the OT and the NT. All other instances of this word when used as
a divine title in the NT demonstrably refer to Yahweh God: Lk.2.29;
Ac.4.24; 2Pet.2.1 (“bought” cf. Ac.20.28); Rev.6.10 (“Sovereign Lord” cf.
Ac.4.24), not to Jesus, so there is no reason to suppose that Jude 4 is an
exception, and especially not when the qualifier “only” (monos) is used.
In the Greek OT (LXX) despotēs (Master) appears many times as a form
of addressing Yahweh God, especially in Daniel where it occurs 7 times.
202 The Only True God

In view of the foregoing evidence, the extent to which some trinitarians

are willing to go to mistranslate and mishandle even the Scriptures,
which they claim to believe to be the word of God, is truly astonishing—
and saddening. Is there no commitment to truth?

What is the psychology that operates in trinitarian

thinking?

I
s Jesus only precious to us if he is God? Is he of less value to us as
man? Would we, therefore, love him less if he is “only” man? Does
his preciousness to us lie in his “divine nature,” such that only if he is
God is he to be treasured? Or is he precious because “he loved me and
gave himself for me” (Galatians 2.20) regardless of what his “essential
nature” might be? Does status determine the value of love? Is the love of a
king worth more to me than the love of my mother only because he is a
king? If it were possible that the love of the king was of a purer (e.g. less
self-interested) kind than my mother’s, that would be a different matter,
but it would have nothing to do with his status.
Jesus, because of his sinlessness, can (and did) love with a purity and
power that exceeds all human love we have ever known, hence his love is
of a quality that no human being, not even a mother, can match. Is the
love of the one who “gave himself for me” (that is, for my salvation and
eternal life) worth less because it was the love of “the man Christ Jesus”
rather than “the God Christ Jesus”?
And, speaking of sinlessness, was Jesus sinless because he was God? If
this were so, then he was sinless by nature (because God cannot sin) and
not because of victory over sin and the flesh. The Scriptural teaching
would thereby be declared false, for it would be contrary to the fact
encapsulated in the statement in Romans 5.19, “as by the one man’s
disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s [Jesus’]
obedience the many will be made righteous.” This is the fundamental
principle of NT soteriology, the fundamental basis of our salvation: the
obedience of the “one man”.
Everything hinges upon Christ’s obedience as man. It was not a
question of God’s obedience to God that mattered for the salvation of
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 203

man. It was a matter of man’s obedience to God which Christ fulfilled by

being “obedient unto death, death on a cross” (Phil.2.8). So it must be
clearly grasped that the love of “him who loved me and gave himself for
me” was the love of the man Christ Jesus. Again we ask: Is this love worth
less because it was the love of this man Christ Jesus? Well, it is certainly
not worth less to me; he is not less precious to me if he is “only” man. His
love for us is absolutely vital for our salvation.
Certainly Jesus remained sinless not solely by his own unaided effort
but by the fullness of Yahweh who dwelt or “tabernacled (tented, John
1.14)” in him bodily (Col.2.9). In much the same way we, too, can
triumph over sin through God’s indwelling presence in us as His temple
(1Cor.3.16; 6.19). In 1John 3:9 we read, “No one who is born of God
practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God.” If this verse has application to us, how much more to
Christ, the “only begotten”?
Trinitarianism has blinded us to what we might describe as the
“marvelous phenomenon of Christ,” namely, that a true man succeeded
in being sinless even though he was “one who has been tempted in every
way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (Heb.4.15, NIV). The astonish-
ing reality of this amazing triumph over sin is lost in trinitarianism
because, as God, Christ could not possibly sin—for if he could sin, he
wouldn’t be God. If he could not sin because of being God, then Hebrews
4.15 would be meaningless—and so would be his being tempted in the
wilderness (Mt.4; Lk.4). Inherent sinlessness (because of being God)
would have disqualified Jesus from being the atoning Sacrifice for sin
(which required the obedience of “the one man,” Romans 5.19); it would
also have made him incapable of being tempted “just as we are,” so he
could, therefore, not act on our behalf as a compassionate High Priest
(again contradicting Heb.4.15).
But let us return to the question of the psychology of trinitarian think-
ing which implies that Christ’s worth consists primarily in his deity, and
that he is devalued by the suggestion that he is “merely” man. The quest-
ion “What is man?”, taken as a rhetorical question, expects the answer,
“Not much more than dust”. This may apply on the physical level, but it
is not true of him on the spiritual level (see earlier discussion on Ps.8). If
our thinking is dominated by an unscriptural concept of man, it is little
204 The Only True God

wonder that any suggestion that Jesus is man, not God, will be resisted
with the utmost determination as a devaluation of his person.
But let us ask again: does his value for us consist in his deity? Or does
it not rather consist in what he accomplished for us as our Savior and
Lord? In order to get a clearer grasp of the heart of this matter, we could
put the question like this: In Scriptural teaching, what exactly does our
salvation depend on? Does it depend on his “essence” (whether he was
God or man) or on his “works” (his function). Jesus pointed to his
“works” as evidence of his authenticity (John 10.25,37,38).
To put the question less abstractly, we could ask by way of an
illustration: In what does the importance of a key consist? Does it consist
in what it is made of (its “essence”), that is, whether it is made of some
precious metal such as gold or platinum, rather than iron or steel? Or
does it consist in its function, namely, that of opening the door to the
house? Does it matter what it is made of so long as it enables us to gain
access into the house? Does not its value lie in what it accomplishes for
us, rather than in what kind of metal it is made of?
It is both interesting and significant that Jesus spoke of “a pearl of
great price” (Mat.13.46). Whether the pearl is a picture of the Kingdom
(or reign) of God, or of Christ himself as the one appointed by God to
reign, does not matter for our present purpose. What is significant is his
choice of a pearl as the symbol. In what exactly does the value of a pearl
consist? Does it consist in what it is made of (its “essence”)? If a pearl
were ground down to powder, would it still have much value? If the
powder were made into a cosmetic paste, it would be worth a little, but
not very much compared to this valuable pearl. So, whatever the reason a
pearl has value, the value evidently does not lie in its “essence” or its
chemical constituents.
Is not the matter quite different with gold? Would one ounce of gold
powder be worth less than one ounce of a gold bar? The value would, of
course, be the same. But the matter would be different if an artist of great
skill created something very beautiful with that gold, for now what he
creates has a totally different value; now it has become (or, we may say, it
“functions”) as a work of art. A great painter can even use materials
which are not necessarily of much value in themselves (canvas, oil or
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 205

water paints) and with these create a masterpiece worth millions of

dollars.
The materials are not the important issue in this case, it is what was
done (or accomplished or achieved) with them that is all important.
Likewise, Scripture is not primarily concerned with the “essential nature”
of Christ, as though he must be something more that “mere man”; its
central theme is about what Yahweh God in His loving-kindness accom-
plished in and through Christ Jesus for our salvation.
Is the salvation which God has made available for us worth less if
Christ cannot be shown from Scripture to be a being eternally coequal
with Yahweh God in every respect? Is the saving work of Christ by the
empowerment of God worth less if his deity cannot be demonstrated
from Scripture? Surely not. For, as we have seen, what matters for us is
what was accomplished for us by God in Christ; as for other matters we (I)
shall “know even as I am known” (1Cor.13.12) on that Day.
From all this it should be clear that the trinitarian mentality does not
correspond to the NT revelation. Yet, regardless, they persistently insist
that Jesus is God, even going so far as to “translate” Scripture according
to their own interpretation, thus providing themselves with verses they
use to support their doctrine! May God have mercy upon them—and on
us who did the same thing.

The crucial issue: What really is the Biblical revelation

about the person and work of Jesus Christ?

T
o even begin to answer this question, we have been obliged to first
clear a path through the trinitarian arguments for Christ’s deity,
the claim that he is “God the Son,” a title which (it must be
emphasized) does not exist in the Bible. Where the Bible is concerned,
Jesus Christ is firmly in the realm of humanity, a genuine human being.
It was impossible, both in the light of Scripture and of reason, for him to
be a real human being such as we are if he was also “truly God”. It is cer-
tain that we become fools and talk spiritual nonsense when we depart
from the Scriptures.
We can be sure that we are on firm Scriptural ground when we affirm
that Jesus is truly and certainly man. Is this to say that he is “just” a man
206 The Only True God

like the rest of us? Not at all. No? But did we not say just now that he is
truly human? Certainly, but which of us can be described as a “perfect
man” or a “sinless man”? None of us. So it is clear that in this most
important sense he is unlike us. Since only he alone is a perfect man, does
it not follow that only he is perfectly human? Does it not likewise follow
that in the light of Jesus’ unique perfection, all mankind must admit to
being not perfectly human? Thus, human beings are not truly human in
the way they were meant to be until they too are finally “made perfect”
(cf. Heb.5.9; 7.28; 11.40; 12.23). The great Apostle obviously did not con-
sider this a possibility in this life when he said, “Not that I have already
obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, be-
cause Christ Jesus has made me his own” (Philippians 3.12). This means
that Jesus is the only true man who has ever existed on the earth because
he is the only perfect, sinless person who has ever lived.
Where Scripture is concerned, there is therefore no question about
Jesus being human and, indeed, the only truly human person. Herein is
his absolute uniqueness; he is incomparable. This is precisely why he
alone could be the savior of the world. For the problem with humanity is
that because of its self-centeredness and sin it has often behaved as less
than human, less than what God intends man to be. This is, sadly, some-
thing many people experience all too painfully on the personal and social
levels, as also on the international level—something we are reminded of
daily by simply turning on the world news reports and hearing about the
interminable conflicts and wars going on in the world. But there is hope
in Christ, because in him Yahweh God will reconcile all things to Himself
(Col.1.20).
The Biblical revelation brings us to the realization that there is only
one true God and there is also only one true man. Moreover, between
them, as might be expected, there exists a unique relationship of oneness,
which Jesus repeatedly spoke about. This oneness or union he described
in terms of a mutual “abiding” or indwelling: “I am in the Father and the
Father is in me” (Jo.14.11). Because Jesus alone was sinless, he alone was
the “place” (Jo.2.19) where the holy God could dwell in His fullness. This
divine fullness is represented by God’s Word (Jo.1.1) which, as words do,
might be described as having welled up from the innermost depth of His
 Chapter 2 — Only the Perfect Man can be Savior 207

being and having come forth to dwell in the one true man, and in Christ
to dwell among us (Jo.1.14).
In the early church there was a description of this oneness of God in
Christ in terms of the picture of a piece of iron placed in the fire until it
glows in the fire; thus the iron is in the fire, and the fire is in the iron, yet
the fire is still fire and the iron is still iron, the one does not change into
the other, but it beautifully and effectively illustrates Jesus’ words, “I am
in the Father and the Father is in me” (Jo.14.11). The union is such that
Yahweh could freely speak and work through Christ to accomplish His
eternal purposes in the world, and Christ could speak and act for Yahweh
as His fully empowered plenipotentiary. That is why there are some
places in Scripture where it is not always clear whether the reference has
to do with Yahweh or with Christ. Yet it must be remembered that the
union of iron with fire does not mean that the iron becomes fire, or that
the fire becomes iron; they are united but remain distinct. Likewise, the
union of Yahweh with Christ does not mean that Christ is Yahweh or
that Yahweh is Christ.
So the Biblical revelation reveals not only that Jesus is the only true
man, which in itself would be marvelous enough, but just as amazingly,
that Yahweh God came into the world in Christ to reconcile the world to
Himself, that is, to save it. Thus it was not some unknown divine being
called “God the Son” that came into the world to save us; it was none
other than Yahweh Himself that came into the world for our salvation. It
is this fundamental and wonderful truth of Biblical revelation that trin-
itarianism has distorted and lost by substituting “God the Son” for
Yahweh as the one who came into the world. How great is that loss!
Jesus, therefore, is uniquely Yahweh’s “temple” (Jo.2.19) in the world
where atonement for sin was made through his truly human and sinless
blood, and from which Yahweh God’s truth is proclaimed to the ends of
the earth. And because he is the only true man, he is the only mediator
acting on man’s behalf (1Ti.2.5), just as Moses mediated on Israel’s
behalf. His is also the only name effective for mankind’s salvation; for
“there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven
given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). “Given” by
whom? Who else but by Yahweh God Himself?
208 The Only True God

From our study of the Scriptures it emerges that whereas trinitarian-

ism is erroneous on the one hand, yet on the other hand, the teaching of
various Christian groups both ancient and modern (e.g. Arians, Unita-
rians, etc) whose teaching about Jesus is that he was only an outstanding
person, a great prophet, and an adopted “son” of God, are totally inade-
quate, completely missing the most important element about Christ’s
humanity, i.e. his unique perfection, and was rightly rejected by the early
church.
Since it pleased Yahweh God, the Father, to exalt Jesus over all other
beings, such that every tongue should confess him as “Lord,” that is how
he is to be regarded and honored “to the glory of the Father” (Phil.2.10-
11). But the difficulty for us now is that as trinitarians we were Christ-
centered, we did everything for the honor and glory of Christ, and
because we thought of Jesus as God, we thought that in glorifying him we
were glorifying God. So the idea of honoring Christ “to the glory of the
Father (Yahweh)” is actually an alien concept to us. In our minds
Yahweh hardly figured at all, and even the trinitarian “God the Father”
had little, if any, real significance in our Christo-centric way of thinking.
This is where a radical change, a renewal of our minds (Ro.12.2), will be
necessary if we are to return to Biblical monotheism.
But our trinitarian past will not make this easy; it is difficult to let go
of something that has been at the center of our lives and thoughts for so
long. It is hard for us to realize that in deifying Jesus and idolizing him
(what else can we call it?) we have disobeyed both Yahweh God and His
Christ. We have failed to see that Jesus is the way, not the destination; he
is the mediator, the high priest who offered the sacrifice to Yahweh on
our behalf, but he is not the Yahweh God with whom we need to be
reconciled. We are eternally grateful that he is the perfect man who
“loved us and gave himself for us” in order “to bring us to God”
(1Pet.3.18). And now we are eternally united with God and with Christ in
“the body of Christ,” which is the church of God, and of which Christ is
the head and we are the members. In this new life we now learn to relate
to Yahweh God as the center of our lives, while always gratefully remem-
bering and honoring Christ, the perfect sacrifice (as at the Communion,
or Eucharist) that Yahweh provided for us. Christ Jesus, the only perfect
man, made the salvation of mankind possible.
 Chapter 3

The Need to evaluate

the Christian Under-
standing of Man

The low view of man in trinitarianism versus the Biblical

teaching of man as “the image and glory of God”
(1Cor.11.7)

A
serious obstacle to our acceptance of Jesus as true man and as
perfect man is the extremely low view of man in Christian
thought, especially since the time of Augustine, some four cen-
turies after the time of Christ. The notion of the total depravity of man,
which began to dominate Christian teaching from that time on, reduced
man to a state of total moral degradation. All this was done in the name
of exalting God’s grace as man’s only hope of salvation.
It was not enough for these dogmatists to show that man’s righteous-
ness, no matter what level of righteousness he could attain to, could
never be sufficient to merit salvation, because no man of himself could
210 The Only True God

reach the required standards of God. That is why salvation is available

only by grace through faith. No, it was thought necessary, on the basis of
a few verses quoted out of context, to insist that all men are utterly and
thoroughly depraved, rotten to the core, their righteousness being
nothing more than “filthy rags”.
Do these dogmatists really want to assert, for example, that the actions
of those who courageously laid down their lives to save others (of which
there are numerous instances almost daily, such as the more recent
example of the firemen who died in trying to save others from the fires of
the Twin Towers on 9/11) were not righteous, even in God’s eyes, and
does anyone dare to speak of such righteousness as “filthy rags”? The
Biblical statements about hypocritical or “show” righteousness, which
Jesus condemned most severely, are misapplied by the dogmatists to
human righteousness in general. “Give honor where honor is due.” But if
all men are depraved, why give honor to anyone? Paul spoke of a “good
man”; will we insist that he meant “good” only in man’s eyes? And is “a
man of peace” a righteous person or not?
Moreover, if this extraction of “filthy rags” from the context of Isaiah
64.6 (KJV, NIV, etc) to defile all human righteousness serves as an
example of Christian “exegesis” of Scripture, then the way Scripture has
been mishandled in trinitarian “exegesis” is hardly surprising. A look at
the passage in Isaiah will readily show that the dogmatists really cared
nothing about what Isaiah was actually saying. The words “all our
righteous acts are like filthy rags” (NIV) is a contrite confession of sin
before God on behalf of the nation of Israel, a confession of the hollow-
ness of their religious observances, because the fact was that “No one
calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you” (v.7); and for this reason
“you (God) have hidden your face from us and made us waste away
because of our sins” (v.7, NIV). But the immediately preceding verses
make it very clear that none of this was meant to deny that there were
those in Israel who “wait for” the Lord and who “joyfully work righteous-
ness”: “Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye
has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for
him. You meet him who joyfully works righteousness, those who remember
you in your ways” (Isa.64.4,5).
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 211

The careless and callous way these Christian dogmatists treat the
Scriptures in order to achieve their dogmatic objective of painting all
mankind in the lurid colors of depravity for the sake of establishing their
doctrine of grace must surely be astonishing to any responsible exegete of
the Bible. Thus, man who is portrayed as “a little lower than God, and
crowned with glory and honor” (Ps.8.5; RSV, NRS, NASB) is now
painted as being scarcely better than the devil! One Christian writer
quotes the Austrian writer Karl Kraus (d.1936) with some degree of
approval when Kraus wrote, “The Devil is wildly optimistic if he thinks
he can make human beings worse than they are.”

The one-sided emphasis on man as depraved sinner in

Christian teaching and its consequence: we are reluctant
to speak of Christ as man
So much of Christian teaching goes on the supposition that God is glori-
fied and His salvation magnified by degrading man as a degenerate or
depraved being. Typically, in a book on Christian theology, for example,
the writer puts together a list of verses which speak of man’s sinfulness
and depravity, while God’s glorious purpose for man gets scarcely a
mention. The words of Psalm 8, “What is man…?” is treated in writings
and songs as though these words posed a rhetorical question expecting
the negative answer, “He is nothing”. Evidently, no one had even
bothered to look at the whole verse: “what is man that you are mindful of
him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Ps.8.4; 144.3) Far from
being a rhetorical question, it is actually an expression of wonder, praise,
and gratitude, moved by God’s mindfulness and care for him!
Job, even in his disgruntled state, also acknowledged this: “What is
man, that you make so much of him, and that you set your heart on him,
visit him every morning and test him every moment?” (Job 7.17,18) God
has set His heart on man! He makes so much of him! Job’s question
“what is man?” does not propose the answer “nothing,” or “just a de-
praved sinner,” but “someone precious to God,” “one on whom God has
set His heart”.
Certainly, the Bible does not whitewash man’s sins, but it never sug-
gests that mankind has become degraded and worthless because of sin.
212 The Only True God

Man’s preciousness to God even as a sinner must always be kept in view

even when the seriousness of his sin is not overlooked; this is the Biblical
viewpoint. The Prodigal Son is still a son, at least in the Adamic sense
(Lk.3.38), even if not yet in the sense of one who is a child of God in
Christ.
Undoubtedly, sin has reduced mankind to a state of spiritual penury,
and worse, to the fearful consequences of slavery under sin and death.
But the evidence that God has at no time abandoned His predestined
eternal plan for man is clearly evinced by the redemptive plan for man
He had already established “before the foundation of the world” through
“the man Christ Jesus”.
But the low view of man so prevalent in the Christian church makes
Christians reluctant to speak of Christ as man, except by way of the
concession that unless Christ was man he could not be man’s savior. He
is portrayed as one who magnanimously humbled himself to this lowly
state of being human for the sake of our salvation though, in actuality, he
was God not man, for at the center of his being he was “God the Son”.
This is the kind of thinking which dominates the Christian mind and
which, unfortunately, is out of touch with Biblical anthropology and
God’s glorious eternal plans for man revealed in it.

The high view of man in Scripture

G
od’s glorious plans and purposes for man are clearly revealed,
not concealed, in Scripture, so there is little excuse for failing to
see it. We have already noted the fact that, in Genesis 2.7,
Yahweh breathed into man’s nostrils so that he became a living being.
What did God impart to man by breathing into his nostrils? Was it air or
oxygen? Hardly! Many other creatures which He formed also breathe air
and oxygen, but He did not breathe into them. What He breathed into
man was His own breath or spirit. Both in Hebrew and Greek, “breath”
and “spirit” are one and the same word, that is, the Hebrew word ruach
and the Greek word pneuma can be translated as either “breath” or
“spirit”. When a man dies “the spirit returns to God who gave it”
(Ecclesiastes 12:7).
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 213

It is precisely because man has a spirit which was given him by God
that he is, in this sense, a divine being. It may be that Jesus was also
drawing attention to this fact in John 10.34-36. It is a quotation from the
Psalms: “I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; never-
theless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince’” (Ps.82.6,7).
Beyond the possible reference to people of power and authority by the
word “gods,” could it be that Jesus wants to go deeper by indicating that
man is divine in the sense that he has received his spirit from God? If so,
how much more is Jesus divine as being the one in whom God dwells in
His fullness as incarnate Logos (word)? As a matter of fact, we are unable
to speak a word without breath or spirit. That is how closely related
breath or spirit is to word.
If Psalm 8.5 could speak of man even in his present state as being
“crowned with glory and honor,” how much greater will his honor and
glory be when Yahweh has completed His redemption of man! And in
what exactly does man’s glory and honor consist? “You have given him
dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under
his feet” (v.6). And what exactly is the extent of the dominion that God
has given to man in putting “all things under his feet”? The astonishing
answer is that the “all things” includes absolutely everything excepting
God alone!

‘For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But
when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he
is excepted who put all things in subjection under him’
(1Cor.15.27).

This means that God’s purpose in Christ is to make man His vice-regent
over all of creation, second only to God in the universe! All this is what
God will accomplish in and through Christ—as man, for the words in
Psalm 8 concern man and Yahweh’s exalted purpose for him.
This finds a good illustration in the well-known story of Joseph,
whom Pharaoh appointed ruler over everything in Egypt—everything,
that is, excluding Pharaoh himself (Gen.45.26), thus making him second
only to Pharaoh in the whole land. Such is God’s glorious predestined
plan for man in Christ. The exaltation of Christ in Philippians 2.9-11 can
be illustrated by the exaltation of Joseph as ruler of Egypt in the following
214 The Only True God

manner, “Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on
Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold
chain about his neck” (Genesis 41:42). These were not merely ceremonial
acts, for by them Pharaoh conferred his own authority and glory upon
Joseph, most notably by giving Joseph his signet ring which bore his
personal seal, with which the king’s official orders were sealed. That
meant that Pharaoh entrusted the full weight of his personal authority to
Joseph, thereby empowering him to act on Pharaoh’s behalf. In the same
way, in Philippians 2.9-11, Yahweh conferred on Jesus His own divine
glory and authority. Just as the signet ring bore Pharaoh’s name (the
name above all names in Egypt) upon it, so, too, Yahweh conferred on
Jesus the name above all names, and thereby fully empowered Jesus to act
on His behalf.
Yet the fact that the man Christ Jesus will be second only to Yahweh
God in all of creation (and we in Christ) seems not good enough for
trinitarians. Out of a misguided “zeal for God, but not according to
knowledge” (Ro.10.2; in which I also shared), they insist that Christ has
to be absolutely equal with God in every way—something which Christ
himself refused to grasp at (Phil.2.6). For some strange (perhaps per-
verse?) reason they will not have it that Yahweh alone must be “all in all”
(1Cor.15.28), even though this is what the Son himself affirms by his own
subjection to God, who subjected all things to him (v.28). We do well to
be careful lest we allow our misguided “zeal” to bring us into condemn-
ation.

Man’s worth in the Genesis Account

The Genesis account has its own powerful affirmation of man’s worth to
God. Looking carefully at the creation narrative we would be entirely
correct to say that a label could be attached to man with the words,
“Handmade by God”. This is because, physically, man is described as
having been individually “formed” by God personally (not via an agent);
and spiritually, man is “God-breathed”: “Yahweh God… breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen.2.7). Is it too far-fetched to see here a
picture somewhat like “mouth to mouth resuscitation”? Or was such a
picture actually intended by this vivid description? Whatever the case,
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 215

man was created as God’s personal image (Gen.1.26,27), designed to

make His glory known to all creation.
What is the Biblical basis for speaking of Adam as “handmade” by
God? It is the word “formed” in Genesis 2.7, “Yahweh formed the man
from the dust of the ground”. This word is used of potters forming, with
their hands, the vessels they make out of clay on their potter’s wheel. The
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB) gives the follow-
ing definitions of the word “form” (‫יָצַר‬, ysr) “1. of human activity: a. of a
potter who forms out of clay a vessel Is 29.16; 41.25; Je 18.4 (x2); 18.6
(x2); 1Ch 4.23; La 4.2; Zc 11.13 (x2). 2. of divine activity: a. (as a potter)
forming Adam out of ‫‘[ עפר‬pr, ‘dust’] from ‫[ אדמה‬admh, ‘earth, land’]
Gn 2:7; 2:8 (J)”.
It is mentioned in Genesis 2.19 that God also formed other creatures,
but not to carry His image, as in the case of man. There is also no men-
tion of God breathing into them as He did in Adam’s case. This seems to
indicate that Yahweh could have brought Adam to life without breathing
into his nostrils, but that He specially chose to do so for His own divine
reasons.
The woman, too, was specially “handmade” by God as is stated in
Genesis 2.21,22: “Yahweh God fashioned [bānāh, “to make, build, con-
struct”] the rib he had taken from the man into a woman” (v.22, NJB).
Since Eve was made from Adam’s living bone and flesh, it was not
necessary for Yahweh to breathe into her nostrils separately, as He did in
the case of the lifeless dust out of which Adam had been formed. And,
just like Adam she, too, is the bearer of God’s image (Gen.1.27).
No doubt someone will tell us that the Genesis account of God’s
forming man is anthropomorphic in character, and is to be understood
metaphorically not literally. We shall consider the question of anthropo-
morphism later. For now we will only ask: In that case, what would be the
“metaphoric” message of the account of man’s creation? Are the details
about God forming man merely a literary device to add vividness to the
story? This is what some writers mean by the “creation myth”. But even
they cannot deny that the Genesis account intends to show God’s
intimate involvement in man’s creation, and that man’s value for Him is
thereby indicated.
216 The Only True God

The image of God

V
erses speaking of Jesus as “the image of God” are often quoted as
though they serve as evidence of his deity. But man is likewise
spoken of as “the image of God,” yet no trinitarian would cite
this as evidence of man’s deity. Moreover, speaking of an image which is
adored or worshipped, raises the question: What is idolatry? Is it not the
worship of an image? If Jesus is the image of God, as is repeatedly stated
in the NT, is it the case that worshipping him is not idolatry? If it is
argued that it is all right in Jesus’ case because he is God, then it follows
that Jesus as God is being worshipped as the image of God. Can God be
His own image?
Or else is it being suggested that the 2nd person of the Trinity is the
image of the first person, that is, the Son is the image of the Father? But
an image in Scripture is by definition derived from that of which it is a
copy or image, such as a picture or statue; and if the Son is derived from
the Father so as to be His image, then he is clearly inferior to the Father.
On what basis, then, do the trinitarians reject the subordination of the
Son? Likewise, a word derives from the speaker, so how can the Word of
God be equal to God Himself?
It is important to notice that the Johannine writings, which are the
favored source of trinitarian proof-texts, close the first letter with a
warning about idolatry in its concluding verse: “Little children, guard
yourselves from idols” (1Jo.5.21). We must joyfully and gratefully honor
and love, praise and adore, our Lord Jesus Christ, but there is a line
which we may not cross without falling into the heinous sin of idolatry.
We go beyond that line when we proclaim Christ to be God, equal in
all respects to the Father, and therefore to be worshipped equally with
Him. In the book of the Revelation, the book in which God is worshipped
as the One who is supreme, God (Yahweh) is absolutely the central and
sole Object of worship, while Jesus is accorded adoration and praise in
several places, and always as “the Lamb”.
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 217

Jesus the Image of God

I
n Genesis 1.26,27; 9.6, we are told that man was created in God’s
“image” (‫צלֶם‬
ֶ ). An image is a picture, likeness, or representation of
someone or something. In Genesis 5.3 Seth is said to have been in
the “likeness” (‫ )דְּ מוּת‬and “image” of his father Adam, that is, he bore a
physical resemblance to his father and, perhaps, also resembled him in
his character. Does this not mean that Seth could have rightly said, “He
who has seen me has seen my father”? This reminds us of Jesus’ words in
John 14.9, “He that has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus was clearly
speaking of himself as God’s image. This was not a claim to be God but,
on the contrary, was a claim to be the true man, the “last Adam”
(1Cor.15.45), the one who truly represents mankind as God intended
man to be, namely, the image through whom God reveals Himself.
Both these words, “likeness” and “image,” are applied to man in
Genesis 1.26; and, as we have seen, they can refer to the resemblance of a
son to his father, as in the case of Seth. Does this not explain why Adam,
because he was created in God’s image, is called “son of God” (Lk.3.38)?
Man is nothing less than God’s representation of Himself for all creation,
in heaven and on earth, to see. How exalted is God’s purpose for man!
In Numbers 33.52 the same Hebrew word for “image” as in Gen.1.26-
27 is used of idols made of metal representing a god that was worshipped
by the local people. The word is frequently used of “images” which were
statues of gods (2Ki.11.18; 2Chr.23.17; Ezek.7.20; Amos 5.26), and of
“images of men” or “male idols” (Ezek.16.17; 23.14). From this it is
evident that these “images” were often in human form. Isaiah 44.13 des-
cribes a craftsman making an idol of this kind, “The carpenter measures
with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with
chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form of man, of
man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (NIV). The words
“form of man” in the Greek are the words morphē and anēr, which mean
a “male form” just as in Ezekiel 16.17.
All this shows that “image” and “form” are essentially the same in
meaning. But what is significant for our inquiry here is that the word
morphē (“form”) is the word used in Philippians 2.6, “form of God,”
which shows that “image of God” and “form of God” are evidently
synonymous. This means that the phrase “form of God” is to be under-
218 The Only True God

stood in terms of God’s image as in Genesis 1.26,27; 9.6. Man as created

in God’s image and likeness can properly be described as being in “the
form of God”. Yet as trinitarians we did not hesitate to read our own
interpretation into this phrase, in spite of the fact we could not produce
one shred of Biblical evidence to support our interpretation of it as
meaning that Jesus was God.
Now we must ask the question: do we actually see God’s image and
glory in man as he is now? Probably almost everyone will answer in the
negative. Why? Is it not obviously because of man’s present imperfect-
ion? Only the perfect man can truly reflect God’s glory. Now, we begin to
understand the significance of Jesus as the only perfect man.
That Jesus is the true image of God is unambiguously affirmed in the
NT:

2 Corinthians 4.4: “In their case the god of this world has
blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of
God.”

Colossians 1.15: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-
born of all creation.

An image is a representation of that of which it is the image; it must bear

his/its likeness or form. Therefore, unless Christ is in God’s “form”
(Phil.2.6, μορφή, morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape,” BDAG), he
cannot be God’s image.
Yet Paul also sees man in general as being in God’s image. Contrary to
Christian teaching, the Bible does not consider that man has lost God’s
image because of Adam’s sin, nor does it suggest that that image has been
destroyed or marred by Adam’s sin. This is not a purely doctrinal matter,
but one with a serious practical consequence for man. For if man were in
any sense no longer in God’s image, then the principle enunciated in
Genesis 9.6 would no longer be valid, “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made
man.” The sanctity of human life is rooted in his being in God’s image.
Hence killing a person carries serious consequences. But if man is no
longer in God’s image, then killing a human being would be little differ-
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 219

ent from killing an animal. Jesus’ endorsement of Genesis 9.6 is reflected

in his words to Peter, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who
take the sword will perish by the sword” (Mat.26.52, NKJV). This shows
that Jesus did not concur with the now generally accepted Christian
doctrine. It also shows that when Paul spoke of man as “the image and
glory of God” (1Cor.11.7), he was entirely in tune with the OT and with
his master’s teaching.
Yet the image of God in man remains to be perfected when Christ
appears, for only then shall we be like him, who is the perfect image of
God, as is stated in the following verse:

1John 3.2: “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we

will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears
we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is.”

The image of God in Christ is evidently far superior to that in man gener-
ally; but since both Christ and man are bearers of God’s image and,
therefore, have His “form” (though in different degrees of excellence),
Phil.2.6 cannot be used to argue for Christ’s deity in the trinitarian sense
of being essentially or inherently coequal with God.

“Let us make man”

Some of the more learned trinitarians are aware that the lack of OT
evidence for this doctrine poses a serious problem for its validity; they are
aware of the fact that there is scarcely a grain of evidence to be found
there. So some trinitarians clutch at any straw they think might provide a
modicum of support. Pathetically, they would even point to the thrice-
holy in Isaiah 6.3 (“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Host”), as though
they did not know that the three-fold proclamation of “Holy” is meant to
express holiness at the highest level, much as we speak of the three levels
of great, greater, greatest; or high, higher, highest; so also holy, holier,
holiest. This is somewhat like Jesus’ use of “Truly, truly” for greater
emphasis.
That Genesis uses the first person plural in Genesis 1.26 (“let us make
man in our image”) is constantly used to argue for the Trinity. The
problem with this argument is, first, that “us” and “our” do not tell us
220 The Only True God

anything about the number of persons referred to, because it can include
any number. Secondly, it proves nothing about the equality of any per-
sons comprehended within the first person plural. For example, a
commander-in-chief of a nation’s armed forces could say, “Together we
shall win this war”; the first person plural “we” in this statement does not
give any indication as to how many officers and men will fight under his
command, and even less does it suggest that any of them are his equal.
So, what more can be accomplished by using the “us” in Genesis 1.26
than to try to make a case for polytheism, where neither the number nor
the rank of the gods matter? But within the monotheism of the Bible no
such case can be made because it acknowledges no other than “the only
God” (Jo.5.44). Moreover, within the context of the OT, we see from
Proverbs 8.30 that Wisdom, spoken metaphorically as a person, co-
worked with God in the creation, so the most obvious way to understand
Gen.1.26 is that the “us” refers to God and His Wisdom. It could also
refer to His Word if the “Word of Yahweh” in Ps.33.6 is portrayed as
personified.
Regarding the plural in “let us make (‫עשׂה‬, yāsah) man in our image”
(Gen.1.26), what the average Christian does not know is that, when it
came to actually creating man in the next verse, the verbs for “create” are
all singular in Hebrew, meaning that only God Himself was engaged in the
act of creating man. This is how v.27 reads: “So God created [singular]
man in his own image, in the image of God he created [sing.] him; male
and female he created [sing.] them”. The verb “created” (‫בּ ָָרא‬, bārā)
appears 3 times in the singular—as though for emphasis! The same is true
in the Greek text. But one would not know this from the English transla-
tions because whether it is “they created” or “he created” there is no
difference in the English form of the verb “create”. In Genesis 9.6, “for
God made [sing.] man in his own image,” the verb “to make” is the same
as that in Genesis 1.26 and is singular. Also, in all subsequent references
to this act of God creating human beings, the Scriptures always speak of
it in the singular whether within Genesis (5.1; 9.6) or in the rest of
Scripture (Job 35.10; Ps.100.3; 149.2; Isa.64.8; Acts 17.24; etc).
Interestingly, this same verb āsah (“to make”) used in Genesis 1.26 in
plural form is used in 9.6 in the singular. So it is probably the “we” in
Genesis 1.26 which made it possible for Proverbs 8.30 to speak of
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 221

Wisdom as being involved in the fashioning and forming of all created

things, though perhaps not directly with reference to bringing them into
existence.
In regard to the difference in meaning between the two words tran-
slated “make” (yāsah) and “create” (bārā), the Theological Wordbook of
the OT (TWOT) has this to say: ‘The root bārā has the basic meaning “to
create.” It differs from yāsah “to fashion” in that the latter primarily
emphasizes the shaping of an object while bārā emphasizes the initiation
of the object.’ So this would indicate that Wisdom’s role was in the
fashioning of what had been created, which finds confirmation in the
description of Wisdom in terms of a “master craftsman” (Prov.8.30); as
such it is described as working alongside (“I was beside him”, Prov.8.30)
Yahweh in the making of man in God’s image, and would thus be in-
cluded by the word “us” in “let us make man”. Apart from this, Wisdom
has an important place in the OT. Under “Wisdom” the International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia has the following: “the verb Heb: chakham,
with the adjective Heb: chakham, and the nouns Heb: chokhmah, Heb:
chokhmoth, with over 300 occurrences in the Old Testament.”

Isaiah 9.6
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the govern-
ment will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful
Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
(NIV)

T
here is so little of use to trinitarianism in the OT that we are
obliged to take a huge leap from Genesis to Isaiah! Isaiah 9.6 is
another of the extremely few OT texts that trinitarians can find to
use as “evidence” for the deity of Christ, but as usual without any regard
for the context. A look at the next verse immediately shows that these
words speak of the promised Davidic king, the Messiah:

“Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be

no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to esta-
blish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness
222 The Only True God

from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of
hosts will do this.” (Isa.9.7)

So the “child” or “son” in 9.6 is the heir to David’s throne as verse 7

makes clear. It is to this promised heir that the words in Ps.2.7 are
addressed, “you are my son, this day have I begotten you.”
“Mighty God”: That the king could be addressed as “God (elohim)” is
seen in Ps.45.6. In the very next verse Ps.45.7 Yahweh is spoken of as
“your God”: “you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. There-
fore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond
your companions”. The first verse of this Psalm also plainly states, “I
address my verses to the king” (Ps.45.1). See, too, Psalm 82.6,7, “I said,
‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men
you shall die, and fall like any prince (sar, ruler).’” Jesus quoted this verse
in John 10.34. The point is that the word “god” is sometimes used in the
OT with reference to a person of authority such as a ruler or king and
does not imply that that person is divine. But “Mighty God” can also be
understood in terms of the exaltation conferred on Jesus described in
Philippians 2.9.
“Everlasting father”: A good king was regarded as a father to his
people; and since his kingdom would be without end (“from this time
forth and forevermore”, Isa.9.7), he could appropriately be called “ever-
lasting father”. In Daniel 7 God gives “the Son of man” an everlasting
kingdom: “And to him (“the Son of man”, v.13) was given dominion and
glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should
serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass
away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Dan.7.14)
“Wonderful counselor” and “mighty God” explain the reason for “the
increase of his government”. The increase of his government and peace,
being “without end” and “for ever,” in turn explains why he will be called
both “everlasting father” and “prince of peace”.
The capitalizing of the four epithets in the English translations has the
effect of raising them to divine status; that shows the effect on the reader
of capitalizing the words! These capitals are, of course, in the English and
not in the Hebrew text.
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 223

That these prophecies find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ is, in

view of the NT, without any doubt whatsoever. It finds its fulfillment also
in the fact that its accomplishment was carried out by God Himself, who
was in Christ bringing it all to pass. This is expressed in the final part of
this prophecy, “The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will perform this.” It is
Yahweh Himself that will see to its successful attainment.
But there is yet another possibility which is not excluded by the fore-
going exposition: Isaiah 9.6 could be a prophecy of Yahweh Himself
coming in the person of the Messiah Jesus in the sense revealed in
Colossians 2.9. This may be the simplest and clearest way to understand
this prophecy, though it does not rule out the previous exposition as
applying to the Messiah, son of David, as man.
The application of Isaiah 9.6 to Yahweh could find confirmation in
the title “Wonderful” or “Wonderful Counselor” because in Isaiah 28.29
Yahweh is described as “wonderful in counsel”. In Judges 13.18 “the
angel of the Lord” tells Manoah and his wife (the parents of Samson) that
his name is “Wonderful,” and then the couple realized that they had
“seen God” (Judges 13.22).
The title “Mighty God” has a parallel in Ps.50.1, and “Prince (Ruler) of
Peace” is illustrated in the beautiful picture portrayed in Isaiah 11.6-9.
Most people understand the word “prince” to mean the “son of a king,”
but this is not the meaning of the Hebrew word sar, which means “head”
(of a family, a tribe, an army), or “chief,” or “commander”. In Daniel 8.25
God is referred to as “Prince of princes” in the King James version and
this is followed by virtually all English translations. “Prince” is the title of
the “Commander (sar, prince) of Yahweh’s army” in Joshua 5.14f. and
who else can that be but “Yahweh of hosts,” for this is what He is called
in Daniel: “‫צּבָא‬ ָ ‫[ שַׂר־ ַה‬sar hasava] the prince of the host (the army) of
heaven, i.e. God (Dan.8.11)” (HALOT). “Everlasting Father” or “Father
from eternity” (HALOT) surely cannot also be claimed as a title of the
Son! In any case, if it be insisted that the titles in Isaiah 9.6 are divine
titles only, that would not prove that Jesus is God in some general sense
but only that he is Yahweh, seeing that these would be Yahweh’s titles!
Conclusion: While the four titles in Isaiah 9.6 can and do apply to the
promised Messiah, it is also true that they apply even better to Yahweh
224 The Only True God

Himself. By indwelling the Messiah during his ministry, the divine quali-
ties find expression in the life of the Messiah Jesus in such a way that the
divine glory is revealed through him as “the image of the invisible God”
(Col.1.15).

Is it acceptable to God that we worship His image?

W
e must return to the discussion about man as having been
created as “the image of God”. We have also seen that Christ
is God’s image par excellence because he alone is the perfect
man. But now we must ask the weighty question: Does the word of God
permit the worship of “the image of God”? In relation to trinitarianism it
is obviously not a purely academic question to ask whether it is right or
wrong to worship God’s image rather than God Himself, or even
alongside God Himself.
The description of Christ as the “image of God” (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ,
eikōn tou theou), as we have seen, is found in 2Co.4.4; Col.1.15; Heb.1.3;
and while the term is not used in John’s Gospel, the idea is expressed
through many important statements, esp. Jo.14.9 and Jo.1.14,18; 12.45;
14.10; 15.24. The emperor’s head on a coin is called an eikōn (image), i.e.
a likeness or portrait (Mt 22:20 and pars). Obviously, the image of the
emperor is not the emperor, so is it not evident that Christ as God’s
image is not God? Is there anything difficult to grasp about this fact? Yet
it seems that as trinitarians we were unable to distinguish between image
and the one represented by it because of the contorted reasoning of
trinitarian dogma.
But the question we set out to answer was: Is it acceptable to God that
we worship His image? If the answer is “Yes”, then there is no reason that
we cannot worship man, since he is created in God’s image. Yet Scripture
forbids not only the worship of man, any man, but even the image of a
man, a male or human idol (as we saw earlier, e.g. Ezek.16.17). Accord-
ingly, the Apostle Paul denounces those who turned away from God and
“claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for images (eikōn) resembling mortal man” (Ro.1.22,23).
Notice that the word “image” is the same word that the Apostle uses of
Christ and of man generally as God’s image. All men are mortal, and
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 225

Christ was no exception otherwise he could not have died for mankind’s
sins. He was raised from the dead, and so will all true believers; does that
mean that once raised from the dead it will be permissible to worship
man? And even in the case of a God-man, or divine man, can one
worship the one without the other?
The prohibition of worshipping any image of any kind is enshrined in
Deuteronomy 4.15-19. We need look only at the first two verses,
15
“Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no
form on the day that the LORD (Yahweh) spoke to you at
Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 beware lest you act
corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form
of any figure, the likeness of male or female.”

Two things stand out immediately: (1) Yahweh is without visible “form”
(tmunah “likeness, form”), v.15. (2) Four words are used in the next verse
to cover all options: “image”, “form”, “figure”, and “likeness”. No form or
imagery escapes the prohibition of devising any object of worship besides
the living God, Yahweh.
What needs to be realized is that it is the first of the Ten Command-
ments that we are discussing here; it is elaborated in Deuteronomy 5:
6
“I am the LORD (Yahweh) your God, who brought you out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
7
“You shall have no other gods before me.
8
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any like-
ness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
9
You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the
LORD (Yahweh) your God am a jealous God, visiting the ini-
quity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth
generation of those who hate me,
10
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love
me and keep my commandments.”
It should be observed that the “iniquity” spoken of (v.9) is not sin in
general, but refers to what has just been mentioned, namely, the “bowing
226 The Only True God

down” to any “image” or “likeness”. Yahweh alone is the true object of

worship because He alone is the Creator and Deliverer (v.6).
Any suggestion that there is some other “god” (v.7) that could be
worshipped instead of, or alongside, Yahweh is an insult to Him: “To
whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?”
(Isa.40.18). Trinitarians seem incapable of grasping the character of
Biblical monotheism, hence the notion of other persons besides Yahweh
as objects of worship. “To whom then will you compare me, that I should
be like him? says the Holy One” (Isa.40.25). To this question trinitarians
reply boldly, “Jesus, God the Son”. They do well to consider the First
Commandment carefully, and remember that Jesus himself firmly
endorsed the proclamation in Deuteronomy 6.4: “Hear O Israel, the
LORD (Yahweh) our God, the Lord is one!”

The Divine ban on the worship of any image will be

defied
Not surprisingly there is one individual who will deliberately defy the
divine ban on the worship of images: the Antichrist.
The word “image” is used 10 times in Revelation; all instances refer to
the image of the beast (Rev. 13.14,15 (x3); 14.9,11; 15.2; 16.2; 19.20; 20.4).
“Image” (eikōn) is a key word in Revelation, appearing more frequently
by far than in any other NT book—in fact, 3 times more than in any
other NT book.
In Rev.13.15 the image of the beast is given breath of life, that is, it is
animated and appears as a living image of the beast; this is clearly an
intentional imitation of the fact that man (and Christ the “last man”) is
the living image of God (Gen.1.26,27; 1Cor.11.7; cf.2Cor.3.18 and
1Cor.15.49). The worship of the beast and/or its image is idolatry im-
posed upon mankind by the beast as the expression of supreme rebellion
against God the creator and redeemer.
Rev.14 verses 9 and 11 speak of the worship of the beast and its image.
Rev.16.2 and 19.20 speak of that image as itself the object of worship;
receiving the mark of the beast and worshipping its image are insepar-
able. The refusal to worship the image of the beast will be punishable by
death, 13.15. And 20.4 indicates that worshipping the beast or its image is
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 227

actually one and the same thing. From all this it becomes clear that com-
pelling people into idolatry is the central purpose of imposing the “mark
of the beast,” and it sums up the aim of the beast’s anti-God campaign.
Those who had not already been deceived into idolatry will be forced into
it, or be killed.
In the Revelation those who worship the beast or its image are equally
culpable before God, and will face His wrath. To worship the idol of the
beast or the beast itself is essentially the same thing. Is the same true in
principle (even though the object of worship is different) of worshipping
God or His image? That is: Is it essentially the same whether we worship
God or His image, at least if that image is Christ and not some other
human being?

Is Jesus to be worshipped as, or because he is, God’s

image?

W
e have already noted that Christ is the image of God (and so
is man generally). Does this mean that it is Biblically accept-
able to worship the image of God together with God Himself,
because, after all, this is the image of God, not of the beast? And since
man is also the image of God, as we have seen above, is it then alright to
worship man as God’s image? If the answer is no, then why is it right to
worship the “man Christ Jesus” (1Ti.2.5)? Is not the worship of any
image an idolatrous act? Did not Jesus himself uncompromisingly
declare, “For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him
only (or, alone, monos)’”; “worship” (proskuneō) and “serve” (latreuō) are
synonymous (Mt.4.10; Lk.4.8). Do we call ourselves his disciples and yet
disregard his teaching? If we have decided that it is all right to worship
Jesus who is God’s image, then have we not already fallen into idolatry
before ever being compelled to another form of idolatry? Is there perhaps
a more acceptable form of idolatry than another? If the elect are deceived
into one form of idolatry (Mat.24.24), will their state be very much worse
if coerced into another?
228 The Only True God

Could Jesus become an idol?

The question could be asked in another way: Is it possible to make Jesus
Christ into an idol? And would that be an exception to the rule against
idolatry? Or is it that worshipping Jesus is not idolatry? The trinitarian
will, of course, insist that Jesus is God the Son, but can they deny his
humanity? If not, then does it not follow that worshipping Jesus still
means worshipping a man, even if one insists that he is a divine man? So
is it acceptable to worship this particular man? But acceptable to whom?
To the trinitarian or to God? Why is it that it is hard to find evidence of
worshipping Jesus (as distinct from according him the utmost honor) in
the NT? The doxologies in the NT are addressed to the only God,
without mentioning Jesus. For example, 1Timothy 1.17, “Now to the
King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for
ever and ever. Amen.” (NIV) Similarly, the word “worship” (proskuneō)
is never used with reference to Jesus, “the Lamb,” in the Revelation, but
only and always in relation to Yahweh God.
And if it is all right to worship “the man Christ Jesus,” why would it
be wrong to worship his mother Mary? And then why not all the saints,
as the Catholics do? If man is “the image and glory of God,” then once we
consider it permissible to worship one man, on what principle are other
human beings to be excluded, and who decides what that principle of
exclusion is? Where will the line against idolatry be drawn once the
floodgates are opened? We would do well, for the sake of our eternal
well-being, to keep the final words of 1John in our hearts and minds,
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (5.21).
So we need to press the important question: Is it ever justifiable in
Scripture to worship the image? The image of God is not God. If the
image is God, we need only worship the image; why do we still need to
worship God? The image of the Father is not the Father, but the Son.
Even if I had a twin exactly like me so that anyone looking at my twin
will think it’s me, that twin is still not me. Yet is not worshipping the
image of God as God precisely what trinitarianism does?
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 229

Does Philippians 2.10 give us the justification to worship

Christ?
9
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him
the name that is above every name,
10
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in
heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father.

J esus did not exalt himself; it was God who highly exalted him and
gave him a name above every name. Scholars are uncertain whether
this means that the name “Jesus” is henceforth exalted as the name
above every name, as the next verse seems to indicate; but it is much
more likely that the name or title given him is “Lord,” since every tongue
will confess him as Lord (v.11). “Lord” here is not “LORD” (Yahweh),
but is exactly what the Apostle Peter declared in Acts 2.36, “Let all the
house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both
Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” “God had made him
Lord” reflects exactly what is said in Phil.2.11.
It is, after all, hardly likely that Yahweh would share His own Name
with Jesus, for then there would be two persons by the same name,
making them practically indistinguishable! Moreover, Yahweh’s words in
Isaiah 48.11 rules this out, “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for
how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.” In
Scripture “glory” and “name” are often synonymous. What needs to be
kept in mind here is that it is God who exalts Jesus and that this is done to
the glory of God the Father (v.11). That is to say, God is both the initiator
(the beginning) and the goal (the end) of the exaltation of Jesus. The
failure to see this results in misinterpreting this section of the hymn.
It is well-known that Phil.2.10-11 derives from Isaiah 45.23, “To me
every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” To understand
it properly we need to look at its context in Isaiah 45,
21
“I, the LORD, there is no other god besides me, a righteous
God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
230 The Only True God
22
Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am
God, and there is no other.
23
By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in
righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee
shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’
24
Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness
and strength.”
This passage begins and ends with Yahweh, “the LORD,” and there is no
mention of anyone else in these four verses. Notice, too, that precisely the
words, “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance,”
appear in Philippians. But these words are the contents of an oath which
Yahweh Himself has sworn, such that they cannot apply to anyone other
than Yahweh. How then can these verses have anything to do with Jesus
in Philippians? The answer is not difficult to find if we do not allow our
dogma to cloud our perception. A careful comparison of the Philippian
passage with the one in Isaiah provides the answer. There is a crucial
difference between the two passages: In Isaiah it is “to me (i.e. Yahweh)”
that every knee shall bow, but in Phil.2.10 it is “at the name of Jesus”
where the Greek is literally “in the name of Jesus (en tō onomati Iēsou)”.
Now the meaning becomes clear: It is in, by, or at the mention of the
name of Jesus that every knee will bow to Yahweh, “to me”. So, too,
“every tongue will confess Jesus Christ as ‘Lord’ to the glory of God the
Father (namely, Yahweh)” (Phil.2.11).
It is not to Jesus that every knee shall bow, it is to Yahweh that every
knee shall bow “in Jesus’ name,” or at the mentioning of Jesus’ name.
This is how BDAG Greek-English Lexicon (onoma) translates this sen-
tence, “that when the name of Jesus is mentioned every knee should bow”.
BDAG provides many examples of this; one such is, “To thank God ἐν
ὀν. Ἰησοῦ Χρ. while naming the name of Jesus Christ, Eph.5.20,” which in
essence means to thank God because of Jesus. BDAG also makes this
interesting remark about “through” or “by the name”: “the effect brought
about by the name is caused by its utterance”. Thus the effect brought
about by the uttering of Jesus’ name is that every knee will bow to
Yahweh, just as Yahweh had sworn would happen.
By now it should begin to be clear from Phil 2.6-11 and the NT as a
whole that the superlative value of Jesus’ name does not lie in his
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 231

allegedly being “God the Son,” but rather in his being uniquely the
perfect man who alone was able to say, “I always do the things that are
pleasing to him” (Jo.8.29), and of whom Yahweh said, “This is my
beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mat.3.17; 17.5). Little
wonder Jesus could say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of
the Father in my name, he will give it to you” (Jo.16.23; 15.16). In what-
ever Jesus did or does, his aim is always and only to glorify the Father,
“Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be
glorified in the Son” (Jo.14.13).

The “form of God” and the “image of God”; Phil.2.6

Though we have discussed the terms “image” and “form” when conside-
ring Genesis 1.26,27, for the sake of thoroughness we will here consider
them via another route. BDAG:

“Form” (morphē) “μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward

appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13
(Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the
shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67,
11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons.”
(BDAG)

Similarly, Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon:

“μορφή [morphē], μορφῆς, ἡ from Homer down, the form by

which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appear-
ance: children are said to reflect ψυχῆς τέ καί μορφῆς
ὁμοιότητα (of their parents).”

From the first few lines of the definition given in BDAG we see that its
primary reference is to “bodily form,” which would clearly be inappli-
cable in this case. But the next definition, “Of the shape or form of
statues” shows that the word can mean “form” in the sense of an “image”.
But since an actual bodily form of God is not what is in question here,
then its meaning must point to the spiritual idea of an image of God, and
232 The Only True God

the NT (and Paul himself) does indeed speak of Jesus as God’s image
(2Cor.4.4; Col.1.15).
The use of form in relation to making an image can be seen, for
example, in Isaiah 44.13, “The carpenter measures with a line and makes
an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with
compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphē, μορφή) of man, of man in
all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.” (NIV) The context is about the
making (forming) of idols. See the whole section Isa.44.13-17; verse 17
reads, “And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to
it and worships it. He prays to it and says, ‘Deliver me, for you are my
god!’” Clearly, the form has to do with an image, in this case an idol.
The idea of “form” in the sense of “image,” can be seen also in Paul’s
use of the verb morphoō in Galatians 4.19, “My dear children, for whom I
am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed (morphoō) in
you.” What else can this mean but that Paul agonizes for the Galatians
through prayer and teaching until they finally are “formed” or con-
formed in their inner being to the image of Christ?
Phil.2.7 also speaks of Christ “taking the form of a servant” (ESV)
(μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, morphēn doulou labōn). Jesus was not actually a
servant or slave (doulos), but it expressed his attitude of heart, i.e. it is to
be understood spiritually, just as “the form of God” is to be understood
spiritually. Jesus’ attitude of being a servant is seen in his own words in
Matthew 20.28, “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and
to give his life as a ransom for many” (NJB) (=Mark 10.45).
Jesus is the image of God as man, for “he is the image of the invisible
God” (Col.1.15), that is, the character of the invisible God is made visible
in Jesus. The fact that he was already God’s image during his earthly life
(“he that has seen me has seen the Father,” Jo.14.9) would indicate that
he had a status before God which might have caused him to consider
grasping at equality with God. Could this have been a central element in
the temptations of Mt.4=Lk.4? Was it not at this point that Adam failed,
“you will be like God” (Gen.3.5)?
Was it then not necessary that at precisely this point where Adam
failed through disobedience, Christ had to succeed in order to be our
Savior (Ro.5.19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were
made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 233

righteous.”)? But if this obedience (this refusal to grasp at equality with

God) was in a preexistent state, then it was not as man, not as the “last
Adam,” and it could not therefore cancel Adam’s disobedience, for as is
written in Ro.5.19: “by the one man’s obedience”. This means, therefore,
that Phil.2.6 cannot be considered in terms of an assumed preexistent
state without negating mankind’s salvation “by the one man’s obed-
ience”. For this reason James Dunn’s view that this passage in Phil.2 is to
be understood in terms of an “Adam Christology” can be appreciated
(see his The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p.282).11 Adam failed precisely
because of his disobedience, and disobedience is in essence an act of
rebellion; and rebellion as a rejection of authority is an implicit claim to
equality with that authority. It is in this sense that Adam expressed a
claim to equality with God. But Christ, “the last Adam” (1Cor.15.45)
refused to grasp at equality with God. He was content with his God-given
role as the “last Adam,” with the result that God could make him “the
savior of the world” (Jo.4.42; 1Jo.4.14).
And speaking of a God-given role, “form” appears again in the next
verse (Phil.2.7) which is usually translated as “taking the form of a
servant,” where “taking” is the translation given for the word lambanō.
But lambanō can mean either “take” or “receive”, “accept”. So the phrase
can just as correctly be translated as “receiving the form of a servant,” the
role given him by God. “Receiving” or “obeying” need not be considered
as merely passive. For example, the same word lambanō which is tran-
slated as “take” in Phil.2.7 is translated as “receive” (in Gk. aor. active) in
John 20.22, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (also Ac.19.2, etc).
The trinitarian interpretation of Phil.2.6ff has been singularly
unconvincing. A major reason for this is that the term “form of God” is a
major stumbling block for them. The case would have been clear-cut for
them if it had simply said, “Though he was God…” But unfortunately for
trinitarianism, it does not say this. Refusing to accept the well-founded

11
Adam Christology represents the attempt to study Christ as man, “Adam”
being the Hebrew word for “man”. But the low view of man generally held by
Christians means that this kind of Christology is not widely welcomed by them.
During a conversation I had with a certain professor of theology some time ago,
he described Prof. Dunn’s Christology as “low”. This is because man in Christian
theology is “low”.
234 The Only True God

meaning of “form” as indicating a representation or image, they fail to

come up with an interpretation that properly expresses what the text
says, so they daringly read their own interpretation into it.
BDAG states dogmatically that “form” is the “expression of divinity in
the preexistent Christ” but gives no explanation whatever as to how,
lexically, the word can have this meaning. Thus a trinitarian lexicon is
seen to engage in the dissemination of trinitarianism rather than be faith-
ful to its task of lexicography. Hence, it is often necessary to turn to a
secular and authoritative Greek-English lexicon such as that of Liddell
and Scott to look for an unbiased view. Consulting my massive
unabridged (2042 large pages with small print, not counting the 153 page
Supplement) Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell, Scott, and Jones (Oxford,
1973), I look in vain for so much as a hint of any connection between
morphē and the idea of preexistence in any shape or form (pardon the
pun!). For this reason, too, there is no intrinsic connection between
morphē and the word “God”. Add to this the fact that morphē means
“outward appearance, shape, bodily form” (on BDAG’s own definition),
and it is obvious that none of these applies to God because “God is Spirit”
(John 4.24). This is why there is absolutely no way to connect “form”
with “God” except by way of the Biblical teaching about man as “the
image of God”. In Biblical language, “the form of God” means “the image
of God,” which undoubtedly refers to man as God’s image (Gen.1.26,27,
etc).
Thayer’s (Greek-English Lexicon, μορφή) argument that Christ in his
preexistence was in “the form of God,” in that it was in this form that “he
appeared to the inhabitants of heaven” is, sorry to say, purely the product
of imagination; and, not surprisingly, not one piece of Scriptural evid-
ence is produced to substantiate it. Moreover, while it is true that one
way that we, as human beings, recognize people is by their form or shape
(esp. of the face), we also recognize people by their voices (e.g. over the
phone) even without seeing their “form”. It is baseless, therefore, to
imagine that heavenly beings recognize each other by their “form”!12

12
Though God as Spirit is without morphē, “bodily or external form,” so that
one cannot properly speak of “the form of God” except in the Biblical sense of
“the image of God,” it need not be denied that God could assume “form” if He so
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 235

An analysis of Philippians 2.6-7

“Who (Jesus), though he was in the form of God, did not count
equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6)

O
nce we have been freed from the trinitarian indoctrination
which insists that being “in the form of God” simply means
“being God,” and once we have regained some degree of clear-
mindedness, we should easily be able to see that if Jesus were God there
would have been absolutely no reason or need for him to “grasp” (harpag-
mos) at equality with God, since he already possessed it. Only someone
who did not possess equality with God (as in the case of Adam) might
desire to grasp at it (cf.Gen.3.5,6). Therefore, to make this verse say that
“being God he (Jesus) did not grasp at equality with God” is to reduce
this Scripture to meaninglessness, indeed, to the verge of making non-
sense (lit. “no sense”) of God’s word. This is surely a serious offence
against the Lord and His word.
In the KJV translation of Phil.2.6 (“who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God”) there is something which
does not quite make sense: If the statement is about two equal persons,
under what circumstances would it be necessary to use a word like
“robbery” in relation to the question of equality? Even allowing for poetic
license, how does robbery come into this kind of discussion? Where two
equal persons are concerned, there is obviously no relevance whatever for
any reference to one “robbing” the other of equality. But even in the case
of two non-equal persons, is equality a thing or status that one person can
be deprived of by the other by means of “robbery”? For, to rob is not only

chooses. Perhaps the special “angel of the Lord” is an example of this in the OT.
Perhaps the book of Revelation is another example, if we do not confuse the
spiritual with the physical. In the Revelation, the Almighty is “seen” as the One
who sits upon the throne (mentioned 12 times). In John’s God-given visions in
the Apocalypse, heavenly beings were made “visible” in some spiritual way in
order to convey the divine message to John; another possibility was that John
was granted spiritual sight, being unable to see what is invisible to the eye of
flesh for, as Paul said, “The things which are seen are temporal, but the things
which are not seen are eternal” (2Cor.4.18).
236 The Only True God

to seize what is not one's own, but to remove what rightfully belongs to
the other person. So to “rob” is not merely a question of trying by un-
scrupulous means to attain to equality with the other person, but it is to
take away his status so as to make it one’s own. The other person would,
if the robber were successful, not only lose his equality but also become
subservient to the one who had taken away that equality, and be thereby
reduced to an inferior position.
All of this makes absolutely no sense in regard to Phil 2.6. For if Jesus
were God, the question of attaining equality with God would be utterly
redundant, and what purpose would the word “robbery” serve in this
redundant statement? “Rob” in this sentence would make the statement
not only meaningless but absurd. On the other hand, if Jesus were not
equal to God, in what sense would it be meaningful to speak of “robbery”
in regard to his acquiring equality with God? The only sense one could
think of is that the attempt to seize equality would be an act of robbery
against God, an act of rebellion, and this was something Jesus definitely
did not contemplate. This would make sense—except for the fact that the
KJV has, instead, inverted the meaning by saying that Jesus did not think
of it as robbery! What a thought to serve as the centerpiece of the “Christ
hymn”! Is it even imaginable that this is what Paul called the believers to
emulate (v.5)?! What is more, it becomes impossible to make such an
outrageous statement connect in any meaningful way to the following
sentence: “but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant...”
(v.7). Furthermore, if Jesus was already equal with God, then the state-
ment that “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name
that is above every name” etc (v.9) would have no significance or mean-
ing whatever, since that would not add one iota to the status he already
possessed.
Because this verse is of exceptional importance to trinitarians, and
because the KJV was the only version of the Bible in general use in the
English speaking world for some 300 years (early 17th to early 20th
centuries), and still holds considerable sway over many Christians today,
it is necessary that we bring the matter into even sharper focus.
In the previous verse (Phil.2.5) Paul exhorts believers to “have this
mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus”. For this reason Phil.2.6
reveals to us what Jesus thought, what went on in his mind; this is to
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 237

encourage us to learn to think as he did. Because this verse describes

Jesus’ way of thinking, his attitude, his mindset, this could be brought out
with greater clarity if we hear Jesus expressing it himself. Let us try to
understand his mind described from the point of view of either of the
two possibilities: (1) that he is God; (2) that he is not God.
What emerges when Phil.2.6 is read from the first point of view? (1)
Jesus is God, and he thinks: I do not consider it robbery to be equal with
God. What does such a thought tell us about his attitude and character?
He does not think it robbery to be equal with God because he thinks it is
his by right? But even if it were his by right, why does the idea of robbery
come into the thought? Does it not suggest an adversarial attitude
towards God? At the least, this way of expressing his thought would
suggest some element of arrogance. (2) If Jesus is not God, but expresses
his thought in the words: I don’t think it robbery to be equal with God,
what does that tell us about his “mind”? Would the thought not plainly
indicate that seizing equality with God is not seen by him as robbery; it is
for him an acceptable act, not an act of rebellion!
It should now be perfectly evident that there is simply no way to make
this statement in the KJV express anything but some form of spiritual
perversity. It expresses the precise reverse of what Paul intended to exhort
the believers to think, namely, that Jesus would never entertain in his
mind the thought of seizing equality with God; instead he chose the
status of a servant (slave, doulos), and was obedient unto death.
What then has happened in regard to the KJV translation? The
thought expressed here is in essence the thought of the devil, whose aim
has always been to seize equality with God, indeed, to exalt himself above
God’s throne, if possible, and whose ambition is declared in the words, “I
will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on
high… I will make myself like the Most High.” (Isa.14.13,14) How is it
that Satan’s mind has been allowed to subtly creep into this verse and be
attributed to Christ!?
No less serious is the problem: Why is it that as trinitarians we com-
pletely failed to detect the fearful problem in the translation of this verse?
Not only did we not see the problem, we constantly used it to “prove”
that “Jesus is God”. It now dawns upon me that what trinitarianism has
done is in fact perfectly expressed by this verse. Trinitarianism has
238 The Only True God

robbed Yahweh God of His central position as the supreme Object of our
faith. It has sidelined Him in order to give the central place to Jesus
whom it elevated to deity, making him co-equal with God, and none of
this was considered as robbery. In other words, Phil.2.6 in KJV perfectly
expresses the thoughts and mentality of trinitarianism. It was precisely
for this reason that as trinitarians we saw no problem with it.
Returning to the Greek text of Phil.2.6, and examining the word
harpagmos, which KJV translates as “robbery,” and considering the word
in the light of several Greek-English lexicons, we find that only BDAG
gives “robbery” as one of the definitions for harpagmos. But then it
immediately goes on to make the following striking comment regarding
that definition: “robbery, which is next to impossible in Phil.2:6” and adds,
“the state of being equal with God cannot be equated with the act of
robbery”. So BDAG affirms that this equation makes no sense. From all
this it becomes evident why most English translations do not use a word
such as “robbery”13 and do not structure the sentence as KJV did. They
thereby save the sentence not only from absurdity but from what must be
described as spiritual perversion.
Trinitarians simply refuse to face the fact that this verse makes it
clearly evident that Jesus was not God, and that he made no attempt
(unlike Adam and Eve) to grasp at equality with Him. Some trinitarians,
not surprisingly, do not hesitate to go so far as to try to make the word
which is translated as “grasp” in a number of English translations (a few,
like KJV, translate it as “robbery”) to mean something like: he did not
“hold on to” it. But the Greek word harpagmos is not amenable to such
word-twisting; here is its meaning in BDAG Greek-English Lexicon, “1. a
violent seizure of property, robbery 2. something to which one can
claim or assert title by gripping or grasping”; but regarding this second
definition, the Lexicon admits that “This meaning cannot be quoted from
non-Christian literature, but is grammatically justifiable”. This second
meaning is not given in the other authoritative Greek-English lexicons
such as that of Liddell and Scott, or Thayer. The primary meaning of the

13
Actually this is not the usual word for robbery in Greek; Woodhouse's
English-Greek Dictionary gives harpagē as the equivalent for “robbery,” but not
harpagmos.
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 239

word harpagmos, “robbery,” is to seize that which does not belong to you.
The second meaning given by BDAG aims at removing the violent
character of the act of “robbery,” and makes it refer merely to the claim-
ing of something by gripping or grasping it. But even this toned down
meaning does not remove the fact that it is to grasp at something that
does not belong to the one who grasps at it.
All this shows that the meaning of Philippians 2.6 is patently clear: it
states the exact opposite of what trinitarianism tries to argue from this
verse. What this verse does say is that Jesus, though he was God’s
supreme image, “the form of God,” made no attempt to seize or claim
equality with God. He stood in perfect contrast to Adam. He did not sin
as Adam did. As perfect man he could fulfill the exalted role of being the
Savior of the world.
Far from wanting to claim equality with God, he “emptied” (kenoō)
himself. In view of the foregoing discussion, we need not waste time
discussing the trinitarian speculations about Jesus in his alleged preexist-
ence emptying himself of his divine prerogatives. If they had paid more
attention to what this passage actually says, instead of making every
effort to read their own interpretations into the text, they would have
seen that the meaning of “emptied himself” is explained in this hymnic
passage by the poetic parallelism found in the very next line: “he
humbled himself” (Phil.2.8), which is the poetic equivalent of “emptied
himself” (this translation is not given in some modern versions; NIV, for
example, renders it: “made himself nothing”).
By refusing to snatch at, or even to claim, equality with God (in stark
contrast to Adam and Eve), it was thereby unquestionably established
that Jesus was the image of God par excellence. But he went much further
than not claiming that equality. For though Jesus in the Wisdom of God
was “born in the likeness of men” (Phil.2.7; cf. Mat.11.19; Lk.7.35;
11.49)—and according to John 1.14 the Word (Logos) was incarnate in
the man Jesus (was “found in human form,” Phil.2.7), something that
Jesus was profoundly conscious of, as can be seen in John’s Gospel—yet
“he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even
death on a cross” (Phil.2.8).
240 The Only True God

The spiritual yet practical purpose of Philippians 2.6-8

In interpreting this “Christ hymn” (Phil.2.6-11), trinitarians lose sight of
the reason why the Apostle Paul placed this hymn in this letter to the
Philippians. But his purpose was stated explicitly in the sentence imme-
diately preceding the hymn: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is
yours in Christ Jesus” (v.5). This hymn was not placed in the midst of a
theological discourse. Its chief purpose was to point to Jesus as the
exalted example for every believer to emulate. Paul’s purpose, therefore,
was intensely practical. He was not here intending to teach what later
theology called “Christology”; and if the general opinion of scholars is
correct, namely, that Paul was here quoting a hymn used in the early
church, then he was not the author of the hymn, but quoted it because it
eminently suited the practical purpose he had in mind.
We get sidetracked from the original purpose of this whole passage
when we drift off into theological speculations, while losing sight of its
call to live a Christ-like life. But if Christ is God, as trinitarians want to
use this passage to assert, precisely how can he serve as an example for us
human beings? We have no “divine prerogatives” to divest ourselves of,
and indeed most people have no real prerogatives or even exceptional
privileges to give up, even if they wanted to. Some of those who belong to
privileged levels of society might consider giving up some of their priv-
ileges, but what about the majority of people? What practical application
did Paul have in mind, seeing especially that most of the believers in his
time could be classed as “common people”?
This is where the important connection between Phil.2.17 (“poured
out”) and 2.7 has generally gone unnoticed, even though the semantic
connection between “emptied” (kenoō) and “poured out” (spendomai)
should have been fairly obvious, because a vessel that has been poured
out is thereby emptied. Paul always made it his aim to teach by example;
what he had said about Christ in 2.7 he applied to himself within the
scope of 10 verses!
But just as important (indeed, even more so for exegesis), Phil.2.17
throws light on the meaning of v.7, because it is in this light that the
meaning of “emptied himself” becomes clear, all the more so because, as
we have noted, it is evident that its meaning is explained in verse 8, “he
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 241

humbled himself to the extent of becoming obedient unto death”. This

obedience unto death, this pouring out of oneself, is precisely what Paul
imitates in being ready to let his life-blood be poured out for the sake of
God and His church. In 2Timothy 4.6 he is “already being poured out
(spendomai, the same word as in Phil.2.17)… the time of my departure
has come”. The practical spiritual purpose which Paul aims to emphasize
in Philippians 2 can be summed up in his words, “Be imitators of me, as I
am of Christ” (1 Cor.11.1).
It should now be clear to us that the trinitarian speculations about
Jesus’ “emptying” himself of his divinity, or its prerogatives, are ideas
which are read into the text and are practically impossible for us to
emulate or imitate—and emulation is, after all, the reason for Paul’s
referring to Christ’s “emptying himself” in this passage: “Let this mind be
in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil.2.5). Moreover, even if the
word “emptied” here did not refer to divine privileges, but only to human
ones, there would scarcely be anything for the Philippians (to whom Paul
addressed this letter) to emulate because they belonged to the lower
social classes (like most believers at the time, 1Cor.1.26) and were gene-
rally very poor (2Cor.8.2). What privileges or rights did they possess that
they could empty themselves of? They could, however, be faithful and
obedient unto death (Rev.2.10); they could be ready to be “poured out” as
Paul himself was (2Tim.4.6; Ac.20.24). Paul wrote this letter from prison,
and always lived with the prospect of imminent death for the sake of the
gospel. The believers, too, constantly lived either under the threat or the
reality of persecution. Paul was therefore calling believers to be especially
mindful of the example of Christ, which was now exemplified for them in
his own life, and the death which he readily anticipated.

Philippians 2.6-11

T
he trinitarian interpretation of this passage is based on the
trinitarian interpretation of John 1.1ff. Thus it is assumed that
Phil.2.6f refers to the preexistent Logos interpreted to mean God
the Son. Take away that assumption and the interpretation of Phil.2.6 in
terms of a preexistent Jesus Christ is left without anything to stand on
242 The Only True God

because it depends on the erroneous equation Logos = Jesus Christ

which, as we have seen, is without foundation in John’s Gospel.
Moreover, Philippians was written before John (in the opinion of most
scholars, about 30 years before John), so is there any reason to think that
the church at Philippi would have understood Paul’s letter to them in
terms of John 1.1, not to mention the trinitarian interpretation of it?
They had been taught by the Apostle Paul personally; where in his teach-
ing does he speak of a preexistent Christ? And there is nothing in the
Philippian passage that requires it to be understood in terms of preexist-
ence. Preexistence is read into the text, not out of it (eisegesis, not
exegesis). This includes the term “form of God,” as understood by trin-
itarianism.
Even if the attempt is made to interpret Philippians 2 in terms of
preexistent Wisdom, one would still be caught by the question: When did
Wisdom ever make any attempt to grasp at equality with God? None of
the other metaphorical “entities” such as Torah or Logos did this. This
means that even if Christ is thought of as being the preexistent Logos in
Phil.2.6, the clutching at equality with God is without any point of
reference. The plain fact is that only Adam through his disobedience did
something of this kind, and only Adam is relevant in terms of Pauline
christology in which Christ is “the second man” (1Cor.15.47), “the last
Adam” (1Cor.15.45).

Philippians 2.6-8
As trinitarians brought up on the doctrine of original sin and the total
depravity of man, we were totally at a loss to know how to understand
Paul’s statement that “man is the image and glory of God” (1Cor.11.7);
not that man was (i.e. before “the Fall”) but “is” in the present tense! Of
course, we had no grounds for saying that Paul had made a mistake, nor
is there evidence of error in the textual tradition.
Had Paul only said that “man is the image of God” that would have
been problematic enough, because according to the doctrine of original
sin, that image was tarnished at the very least, or even totally destroyed,
as a result of Adam’s sin. But the Scripture goes beyond this with the
“double-barreled” statement that man is both “the image and glory of
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 243

God”. That should have left our doctrines in total shambles but, nothing
daunted, we simply ignored the Scriptures (as usual) when these contra-
dicted our doctrines.
Had we not ignored these Scriptures we would not have had any diffi-
culty understanding the term “the form of God” in what some scholars
have called a “pre-Pauline hymn” in Phil.2.6-11; for “the form of God” is
a term that appears nowhere else in the Bible, but is nevertheless an
entirely appropriate way of speaking of “the image and glory of God” in
poetic language, such as is used in a song or hymn. This will be discussed
more fully below.
God is Spirit (Jo.4.24) and is, therefore, without visible form
discernible to the physical eye. Yet He makes Himself “visible” by
revealing His glory; Scripture repeatedly speaks of His visible glory:
Ex.16.10; Lev.9.23; Num.14.10; 16.19,42; 20.6; Ps.102.16; Ezek.1.28; 3.23;
8.4; Acts 7.2,55. Thus His glory is His visible “form, outward
appearance,” which is what the word morphē means. Thus Christ as man
and therefore as “the image and glory of God” (1Cor.11.7) is “in the form
of God” that reveals God to the world—he is “the light of the world”
(Jo.8.12; 9.5; of believers, Mt.5.14).
Considering further the question of “invisibility” and “form” in speak-
ing of God, we may ask: Why is God said to be “invisible” (1Tim.1.17)? Is
it not precisely because God as Spirit (John 4.24) does not have “form”?
How then can one speak of “the form of God”? Our only options are:
either “form” is understood as “image,” or the term “the form of God” is
a self-contradiction. Exegetically, therefore, we only have the first option.
As was noted earlier, the term “form of God” occurs nowhere else in
Scripture outside this poetical phrase in Philippians 2.6.

Philippians 2:
6
who, though he (Christ) was in the form of God, did not
count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7
but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being
born in the likeness of men.
8
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by
becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
244 The Only True God

This important passage has already been mentioned several times earlier
in this book. Here we will make a few further observations:
Two things should be borne in mind in the interpretation of this passage
which are generally overlooked or undervalued, and which consequently
result in its misinterpretation:
(1) It is not usually noticed that this passage is about “Christ Jesus”
(Phil.2.5) in which “Christ (Messiah)” is placed in the emphatic position
before “Jesus” 14, so the whole Philippian passage refers to Jesus as the
Messiah. The problem is that the title “Messiah” is virtually meaningless
to the non-Jew and that is why he reads “Christ” (the Greek form of
“Messiah”) as though it is a personal name rather than a title. The
Apostle Paul was a Jew and he certainly did not think of “Christ” as some
sort of personal name; to him, as to most Jews of his time, the title
“Messiah” carried great significance as the long awaited savior/king; but
the Jews did not think of the Messiah as a divine being. The importance
of the title “Christ” to Paul can be seen by a comparison of the statistics:
In a relatively short letter like Philippians, Christos (Messiah, Christ)
occurs 37 times in the 104 verses of this letter (35.6% or an average of
more than 1 occurrence in every 3 verses); in Romans it occurs 65 times
in the letter’s 432 verses (15.04% or an average of 1 in 6.6 verses); com-
pare this to John: 18 in 878 verses (2.05% or 1 in 48.7 verses), and
Matthew’s 16 times in 1068 verses (1.49% or 1 in 66.7 verses). Statist-
ically, the title “Messiah” or “Christ” occurs far more frequently in
Philippians than in any other NT book; in terms of percentages, more
than double that of Romans. This clearly indicates that the emphasis on
Christ as the Messiah, man’s hoped for savior and king, is a key to our
understanding of Philippians 2.6-11.
The Hebrew “Messiah” (“Christ” in Greek) means an “anointed one”.
To explain the significance of this title I shall here simply quote ISBE
[International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]:

The term is used in the Old Testament of kings and priests,

who were consecrated to office by the ceremony of anointing. It

14
“Christ Jesus” occurs 95 times in the NT, “Jesus Christ” 135 times, while
“Jesus” is found 917 times.
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 245

is applied to the priest only as an adjective—“the anointed

priest” (Lev 4:3,5,16; 6:22 (Hebrew 15)). Its substantive use is
restricted to the king; he only is called “the Lord’s anointed,” e.g.
Saul (1 Sam 24:6,10 (Hebrew 7,11), etc.); David (2 Sam 19:21
(Hebrew 22); 2 Sam 23:1, “the anointed of the God of Jacob”);
Zedekiah (Lam 4:20). Similarly in the Psalms the king is
designated “mine,” “thine,” “his anointed.” (Italics added)

Notice the italicized words in this quotation, which when applied to

“Messiah Jesus” (Phil.2.5) mean that Jesus is Yahweh’s anointed king. To
quote ISBE again: “The Messiah is the instrument by whom God’s king-
dom is to be established in Israel and in the world.” This fact provides an
explanation for why every knee is to bow to Jesus and every tongue
confess him Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2.9-11). It is
clearly for this reason that Jesus is “the Lord’s anointed,” the “king of
kings” (Rev.17.14).
It is a historically well attested fact that kings had the tendency to
claim divinity and/or to be deified by others. Nebuchadnezzar was one
such case in the OT, and Herod Agrippa I is a case recorded in the NT
(Acts 12.21ff). The deification and/or self-deification of the Roman
emperors is also well known. The Chinese emperors were called “sons of
heaven”. This was precisely something that Christ/Messiah Jesus refused
to do (Phil.2.6).
Adam was also a king because he was given the world as his domain
over which to rule (Gen.1.28). Judaic lore had some exaggerated descript-
ions of Adam’s greatness both in physical proportions and in spiritual
powers. Yet he fell because of yielding to a perverse desire to “be like
God” (Gen.3.5).
This clutching at divinity, or a certain equality with God, is what
Jesus, the new man, God’s anointed Messianic king, declined to do.
Instead, he humbled himself in total submission to the Father, Yahweh,
“becoming obedient unto death” (Phil.2.8). He demonstrated a funda-
mental spiritual principle of the kingdom: that spiritual greatness is not a
matter of arrogating glory to oneself but of serving others, for “the
greatest in the kingdom is the servant of all” (Mt.23.11; Lk.22.26). For
this reason God exalted him above all others.
246 The Only True God

(2) The whole passage is poetry: a song about Christ/Messiah Jesus as

“the Second Man” (1Cor.15.47).
Most people have little understanding of the characteristics of poetry.
The result is that poetry is read as if it were prose, and poetic language is
read as literal statements. Many English translations help the reader to
distinguish poetry from prose by printing poetry in verse form. Those
who have such a Bible will quickly see that large portions of the OT,
especially the Psalms and much of the prophetic books, are in verse form.
Philippians 2.6-11 is generally considered to be a hymn which Paul
incorporated into this letter and, as such, is poetry; yet it is often inter-
preted as though it is making prose statements. Consider what happens
when one tries to read poetry as prose in Ezekiel 28:
12
Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and
say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of
perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone
was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx,
and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in
gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that
you were created they were prepared.
14
You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you
were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of
fire you walked.
15
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were
created, till unrighteousness was found in you.
16
In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence
in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing
from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O guardian
cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17
Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted
your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the
ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.
18
By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of
your trade you profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought fire out
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 247

from your midst; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes

on the earth in the sight of all who saw you.
19
All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you;
you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever.
This passage is about the king of Tyre. Another king of Tyre called
“Hiram” is mentioned earlier in the OT as helping to supply the cedar
wood needed for the construction of the first Temple (2Sam.5.11; 1Ki.5.1;
etc). The attempts to take this passage in Ezekiel as making literal state-
ments meant that no human being could fit the descriptions given, with
the result that the passage was made to apply to Satan.
The problems with this idea are many, not least that Satan is nowhere
in Scripture specially associated with Tyre, least of all as its king. For
other interpretive problems for this idea, reference can be made to any of
the more scholarly commentaries or even to such popular commentaries
as The Expositor’s Commentary, which rejects the application of the
passage to Satan as exegetically unsustainable.
The same kind of problem arises when one takes every statement, or
even every word, in Philippians 2.6-11 literally. This is done even by
scholars who are (or should be) aware of the fact that this is poetry. They
don’t even ask the basic question, “If these are literal statements, then
why is it in poetic form?” Of course, this is not to say that no factual or
literal statements can be made in poetry, but only that when the state-
ments are evaluated, the fact that they are made as poetry should not be
overlooked. There is no doubt factual content in Ezekiel 28.12ff, but it is
stated in florid poetic language, and when this florid language is taken
literally, then it is supposed that the reference is to a supernatural being.
Prof. James D.G. Dunn, in The Theology of Paul the Apostle writes, “A
vigorous debate still continues around this hymnic passage. However, the
suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with strong allusion to
Adam or even modeled on the template of Adam christology is still
persuasive.” (Paul, p.282.)
“On the nature of allusion” Dunn writes,

“For the fact of the matter is that too much of the debate on the
exegesis of this passage has displayed rather crass artistic or
literary insensitivity. As we have occasion to observe more than
248 The Only True God

once in the present study, allusions by their nature are not

explicit. Poets or literary critics who had to spell out every allu-
sion and echo would undermine their art and deprive their
more perceptive readers of the moment of illumination, the
thrill of recognition. Their artistic skill would be reduced to the
level of high school examination cribs.

“So with Paul in particular, we have already suggested a num-

ber of allusions to Jesus traditions. And in his use of Adam
motifs we noted the allusions (hardly explicit) in Rom.1.18-25
and 7.7-13; indeed, if our earlier analysis of Paul’s christology is
at all justified, then Adam was a figure who lay behind a great
deal of Paul’s theologizing. To make recognition of such
allusions depend on precision of meaning in individual terms
would run counter to the art of allusion. On the contrary, it is
often the imprecision of meaning of a term or the multifaceted
imagery of a metaphor that enables the interconnection or
imaginative jump, which is the stuff of allusion. The import-
ance of the point justifies its reiteration: exegesis of particular
terms which insists on only one referential meaning for each
term and denies all the other possible meanings will often be
wrong exegesis because it unjustifiably narrows meaning
(“either-or” exegesis) and rules out associations which the
author may have intended to evoke precisely by using a
sequence of such evocative terms. It need hardly be pointed out
that such hermeneutical considerations have particular rele-
vance when the passage is a poem or a hymn. The relevance of
these reflections in this case should become clear as we
proceed.

“In assessing Phil.2.6-11 it is not too difficult to identify four or

five points of contact with Adam tradition and Adam christ-
ology as we have now become familiar with it.

“2.6a—in the form of God;

(Cf. Gen.1.27—“in his own image.”)
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 249

“2.6bc—tempted to grasp equality with God;

(Cf. Gen.3.5—“you will be like God.”)
“2.7—took the form of a slave [to corruption and sin];
(Cf. Wis.2.23; Rom.8.3,18-21; 1Cor.15.42,47-49; Gal.4.3-4;
Heb.2.7a,9a,15.)
“2.8—obedient to death;
(Cf. Gen.2.17; 3.22-24; Wis.2.24; Rom.5.12-21; 7.7-11;
1Cor.15.21-22.)
“2.9-11—exalted and glorified.
(Cf. Ps.8.5b-6; 1Cor.15.27,45; Heb.2.7b-8,9b.)”

(Paul, 283-4 and, in brackets, footnotes 78-82)

Regarding Phil.2.6a Dunn writes,

The hymn uses the term “form (morphē)” rather than the term
used in Gen.1.27, “image (ikōn).” In a discussion of allusion,
however, the argument [i.e. objection] carries little weight. The
terms were used as near synonyms, and it would appear that
the writer preferred “form of God” because it made the appro-
priate parallel and contrast with “form of a slave.” Such a
double function of a term is precisely what one might expect in
poetic mode. (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 284-285)

Lexical comparison of “form” with “image”

Phil.2.6: “form”, μορφή, morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape”,
BDAG. Outside of Phil.2.6,7 only in Mark 16.12 where it means a differ-
ent but visible form.
Let us compare this definition of the word morphē (“form”) with the
definition of eikōn (“image”) which BDAG gives as follows: “1. likeness,
portrait, 2. living image, 3. form, appearance”.
The similarity in meaning is evident. This means that “the form of
God” is semantically similar to “the image of God,” for only if Christ was
in “the form of God” could he be “the image of the invisible God”
250 The Only True God

(Col.1.15; 2Cor.4.4). Jesus has made the invisible God visible. What Paul
means by speaking of Jesus as “the image of God” in 2Cor.4.4 is
explained two verses later by the fact that we see or experience “the glory
of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor.4.6). Thus “image” and “glory”
are again seen to be linked together.

Misinterpretation resulting from trinitarian dogma

B
ut the doctrine of man’s total depravity has blinded us to seeing
that “the form of God” is a poetically expressive way of speaking
about man as “the image and glory of God” (1Cor.11.7). As a
result, we exerted ourselves, as trinitarians, to “prove” the deity of Christ
from the words “the form of God”. Often we found it simpler not to exert
ourselves in pursuing a rather futile enterprise and simply assume “the
form of God” to be equivalent to “God,” even if we cannot demonstrate
that to be the case. Most Christians are trinitarians anyway, so what need
is there of proof? We were, after all, just “preaching to the converted”.
Also for this reason, it is hardly worth commenting on some of the
commentaries on this verse because it is hard to believe that what is
written there can pass for serious scholarship, and therefore any evaluat-
ion of these commentaries will appear to be harsh. To illustrate the point,
one scholarly commentary (The Expositor’s Greek Testament), unable to
determine the meaning of morphē (form) beyond something which it
admits to be merely “probable,” nonetheless concludes without further
ado (in the next sentence) that “He (Paul) means, of course [!], in the
strictest sense [!] that the pre-existing Christ was Divine” (exclamation
marks mine). The “of course,” though a logical non sequitur, is made to
do duty for the lack of evidence, that is, the “of course” simply replaces
the needed evidence! In any other academic discipline this way of pre-
senting a case would be thrown out with contempt.
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 251

Three important synonyms

In Phil.2.6,7 three synonymous words are used:

(1) morphē vv.6,7; “form, outward appearance, shape” (BDAG);

the only other instance in the NT is in Mark 16.12, “After these
things he (Jesus) appeared in another form to two of them, as
they were walking into the country.”

(2) schēma, v.7, “the generally recognized state or form in

which someth. appears, outward appearance, form, shape”
(BDAG).

(3) homoiōma, v.7, “state of being similar in appearance, image,

form” (BDAG), in Rom.1.23 with ref. to idols; it is used 6 times
in Deut.4.16-18, and is used with eikōn (image) in v.16; in
1Sam.6.5 it means “image”, see also 1Macc.3.48.

From this, the synonymity of “form” with “image” is made even clearer.
This is to say that the identity of meaning between “form of God” and
“image of God” is well-founded linguistically even without necessarily
bringing in the fact of allusion. In contrast, linguistically there appears to
be no way to argue for the deity of Christ on the basis of the words “the
form of God.” 15

Christ “the second man” is in the form and image of God

T
he ideas of form and image are so clearly linked even in the
definition of the word morphē itself that it seems hardly necessary
to point out once more that the Apostle Paul repeatedly spoke of
Jesus as “the image of God,” 2Cor.4.4; Col.1.15. The reason why trinita-
rianism finds it so difficult to accept this meaning in Phil.2.6 seems to
have no other evident explanation than that trinitarianism has relatively
little else to hold on to in the NT, so it must try to make “form of God”
mean something it can use to support its dogma.

15
See further Appendix 8: “More evidence from the Hebrew Bible”.
252 The Only True God

To summarize the foregoing discussion, the point being made in

Phil.2.6-11 is that Christ, “the second man” (1Cor.15.47) was, like the
first Adam, in the “form” or “image” of God, but unlike the first, he did
not grasp at equality with God or clutch at becoming “like God”
(Gen.3.5). On the contrary, “he became obedient unto death, death on a
cross” (Phil.2.8), and it is precisely this by which he was “made perfect”
(Heb.5.9; 7.28), making him the perfect man necessary for mankind’s
salvation.

The early date of Philippians as another important factor

T
he relatively early date of Philippians (AD 63 or 64) needs fuller
consideration. The church at that time was still predominantly
Jewish and therefore strongly monotheistic. Paul made it his
objective to reach “the Jew first” (Ro.1.16), so whether at Philippi or in
any other city where he preached, the Jews were always his primary
“target” of evangelism. His passion for his own people, the Jews, is
powerfully expressed in Romans chapters 9-11. He was more concerned
about their salvation than his own, something which he expresses
passionately at the beginning of that passage (esp. Ro.9.1-3). We can,
therefore, easily imagine with what zeal he preached to the Jews wherever
he went, and what hostility that zeal incited in some of the places he went
to, as recorded both in Acts and in Paul’s own account in 2Cor.11.23-27.
The point here is that Paul was not writing primarily, let alone
exclusively, for Gentiles as we usually mistakenly suppose when we read
Paul’s letters. Certainly, his letters were addressed to cities in the Greek-
speaking world, but these were commercial centers where, in many cases,
large numbers of Jewish businessmen and craftsmen resided with their
families. Paul himself is an example of a Jew who was born and grew up
in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus (“no mean city”, Ac.21.39), and
learned tent-making as a skill. In writing to Jews, Paul would certainly
not have tried to alienate and antagonize them by including as a center-
piece in his letter (e.g. Phil.2.6-11) something contrary to monotheism.
That the congregations to whom Paul wrote were quite certainly
largely Jewish at the time of his writing to them, and the early date of his
letters (generally considered the earliest of the NT writings), are consid-
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 253

erations that have an important bearing upon our understanding of the

passage we are considering in Phil.2. For one thing, it cannot simply be
assumed that the “pre-Pauline hymn,” as some scholars consider this
passage in Phil.2.6-11 to be, was originally written in Greek. It is not
unreasonable to assume the possibility that this song about (not to)
Christ was written in Aramaic or Hebrew in the early Jewish church, and
then translated by someone into Greek. It is even possible that Paul
himself translated it (no scholar to my knowledge has suggested that Paul
composed it himself).
In view of these observations, it is relevant to bear in mind the Semitic
background, especially that of the OT, because the passage abounds with
allusions to OT passages as James Dunn has pointed out (quoted above).
Its Semitic origin, including Paul’s authorship—we keep forgetting that
he was a Jew, and was not ashamed to declare himself “a Hebrew of
Hebrews” which he stated precisely in this Philippian letter (3.5!)—
practically “guarantees” the monotheism of this passage. If we still insist
on forcing a polytheistic trinitarian interpretation upon Phil.2.6f by
claiming that it speaks of Jesus as a “second divine person,” that surely, in
the light of all the gathered evidence, is to “adulterate (doloō, also falsify,
distort) the word of God” (2Cor.4.2) to suit our dogma.

Conclusion

W
e have examined the word “form” as used in the Greek OT,
which was the Bible of the early Greek-speaking part of the
church, such as those at Philippi. We have also looked at
some of the Hebrew words underlying the Greek translation to gain a
more precise idea of the concepts expressed by those words. We looked
at the Hebrew word tmunah which the Greek OT translates as morphē
(“form”). The fact that the Hebrew word appears in an ancient work like
Job does not at all mean that it is obsolete and that its meaning may have
changed. This same word (tmunah) was used much later in rabbinic
literature with much the same meaning. An example of this is given in M.
Jastrow’s Dictionary of the Talmud, under tmunah:
254 The Only True God

“form, shape. Mekh, Yithro, s, 6 (ref. to Ex.XX,4)… I may think

(from the word pesel [idol]) that one must not make for himself
a carved figure, but may make a block: therefore the text says,
‘nor any shape’” (Hebrew script omitted).

It will be recalled that Ex.20.4 appears in the earlier quote from BDB that
entered in the discussion on Job 4.16 above. This quotation from Jastrow
serves to confirm the definition of tmunah and thus also of morphē. 16 17

Christ’s obedience
The trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2.6 is that the preexistent
Christ at some point in eternity refused to grasp at equality with God but
emptied, or humbled, himself so as to become man. This self-emptying
or humbling of oneself is the very essence of obedience, an obedience
which submitted even to death on the cross. Now if Jesus was already
perfect in obedience in heaven, an obedience which reached its conclus-
ion and climax on the cross, then why does Hebrews speak of his having
“learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb.5.8), and that he was
“made perfect through suffering” (Heb.2.10)? This clearly shows that
Hebrews has a very different understanding of the matter than that of
trinitarians. Hebrews indicates that Jesus learned obedience on earth; it is
not something that a supposedly preexistent Christ already possessed in
heaven. The gospel accounts confirm this when they describe Jesus’
submission to God in the Garden of Gethsemane in the words, “Father, if
you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but
yours, be done” (Lk.22.42).

16
Full name of Jastrow’s work: Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud
Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, by Marcus Jastrow.
17
Which Hebrew word would a modern Hebrew translation use to translate
“form” in Phil.2.6? The Salkinson-Ginsberg Hebrew NT translates “in the form
of God” as ‫ בִדְ מוּת אְ ֶ הִים‬bdmuth elohim. The definition of bduth is given as
“likeness, similitude, of external appearance” in BDB, where Genesis 1.26 (man
was made in God’s “likeness”; and “image” and “likeness” are used as synonyms)
is cited as an example.
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 255

Moreover, a careful look at the whole Philippian passage (2.6-11)

shows that the only element characterizing Jesus’ life and death is his
obedience. And as far as his salvific ministry was concerned, nothing else
was needed: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made
sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”
(Romans 5:19). It is this “one man’s obedience,” not that of a divine
being, which is absolutely crucial for mankind’s salvation; and it was
precisely this obedience that was the key element of Jesus’ life and death
on earth. This means that his refusal to grasp at equality with God
(Phil.2.6) had to do with his life on earth, and not his alleged preexist-
ence. Now it should also be evident why it is a serious misinterpretation
of John’s Gospel to allege that Jesus did actually claim equality with God
in that Gospel.
Philippians 2.9-11
9
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him
the name that is above every name,
10
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in
heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father.
First, the exalted name was given to Jesus by God the Father. The word
charizomai means “to give freely as a favor” (BDAG). If the divine glory
had belonged to Jesus by right in his preexistence, it could not now be
conferred on him as an act of grace or favor. For, to simply return to him
what had already been his before cannot correctly or truthfully be
described as giving him something “freely as a favor”.
Secondly, because of the conferring of the exalted name, every knee is
to bow and every tongue is to confess “Jesus is Lord” (vv.10,11a; cf.
Isa.45.23). From this it is evident that the title “Lord” (kurios) is also
“given freely as a favor” (BDAG) to him by “God the Father” (v.11). Here
again it is not his by right. He is spoken of as “the Lord Jesus Christ”
precisely because this title was given him by God. That is why Peter
proclaimed that “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord
and Christ” (Acts 2:36).
256 The Only True God

Notice again that it is God who has made him Lord. Lordship was
conferred on him by God, and the same is true of his messiahship
(Christ). The remarkable thing about Jesus is that everything he has was
given him by the Father, including the name “Jesus” (Mt.1.21). Jesus was
happy to go even further than that by saying that “the Son can do
nothing of his own accord” (Jo.5.19,30). What we usually fail to see is
that precisely herein is found the secret of Jesus’ spiritual greatness—
which is something at the opposite pole of grasping at equality with God.
And it is precisely for this reason that Yahweh, the Father, confers upon
him the highest possible honor.
Thirdly, this super-exaltation of Jesus is “to the glory of God the
Father” (Phil.2.11). What can this mean but that this astonishing act of
favor given to Jesus reveals God’s unspeakable graciousness and magna-
nimity such as to cause everyone to praise and glorify Him? For “God
our Father,” by bestowing on Jesus “the name,” in some significant sense
bestows on him a place of honor which practically places him on a level
with Himself.
In terms of Biblical exegesis our work on this passage is not yet
complete until we have examined the evident reference to Isaiah 45.23 in
this passage.

“Turn to me (Yahweh) and be saved, all the ends of the earth!

For I am God, and there is no other (also v.21). By myself I
have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a
word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every
tongue shall swear (allegiance)’” (Isa.45.22,23).

It will immediately be noticed that this passage contains strong affirm-

ations of monotheism, “I (Yahweh) am God, and there is no other”
(vv.21,22). Given Paul’s own explicit monotheism (1Cor.8.6, 1Ti.1.17,
2.5, etc.), how is the reference to Isaiah 45.23 in Phil.2.10 to be under-
stood? Consistent with the synonymity of “form of God” with “image of
God,” and Paul’s repeated affirmations of Jesus as God’s image (2Co.4.4;
Col.1.15), what else can “every knee” bending to the image of God mean
except adoring Yahweh in His image? And to acknowledge as Lord the
one whom the Father has chosen to appoint as Lord, this can surely mean
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 257

nothing else but the acknowledging of the Father’s absolute sovereignty

in what He chooses to do. All this is evidently “to the glory of the Father”.
An image is, in its very nature, a reflection of the one whose image it
is, so any honor paid to a true image is honor given to the one repre-
sented by that image. This was what Adam was meant to be but failed
through disobedience; yet this was precisely what Jesus attained through
his absolute obedience, thereby becoming the perfect image of God,
reflecting God’s glory and drawing all men to Him. In this way the first
part of the quotation in Isaiah is fulfilled in Christ Jesus, “Turn to me
(Yahweh) and be saved, all the ends of the earth!” (Isa.45.22). “Christ our
savior” (Tit.1.4; 3.6 etc) is the exact reflection of “God our Savior”
(Tit.1.3; 2.10; 3.4 etc); in God’s plan of salvation as revealed in the NT,
men are drawn to “the only true God” (Jo.17.3) through Christ Jesus the
Lord. Yahweh God is adored and glorified through His image; for the
fundamental principle in Scripture is that everything comes to us from
God through Christ. God is the ultimate source of all things; and He has
appointed Christ as the channel. Thus God is the source of salvation,
hence He is “God our savior”; Christ is the one through whom God’s
salvation comes to us, hence he is “Christ our savior”. Paul puts it like
this: “for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came
and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom all things came and through whom we live” (1 Corinthians 8:6,
NIV).
Finally, an important principle is established here: Jesus is only properly
exalted when his exaltation brings glory to the Father; this was the aim of
his entire ministry as is also the teaching of the NT. But exalting Jesus at
the expense of the Father’s glory, in particular the exalting of Jesus
instead of the Father—making Jesus the center, the God, of the Christian
religion—is certainly false and therefore “heretical” where the Scriptures
as a whole are concerned. This Biblical principle—that all things are “to
the glory of God the Father”—is definitely beyond any dispute.
It cannot be otherwise because, as God’s image, Jesus is the embo-
diment of God’s glory as is splendidly stated in Hebrews 1.3: “He is the
radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” There
is, therefore, no way to glorify the Biblical Jesus without glorifying God
the Father whose glory he represents—unless another Jesus and another
258 The Only True God

gospel is preached contrary to what is in the Bible. If false teaching is to

be avoided it is absolutely necessary to adhere to the principle clearly
enunciated here: all true teaching is “to the glory of God the Father”, “the
Father” being none other than Yahweh God, the LORD God.18

1Corinthians 15.45-47, 49, “the image of the man of

heaven”
45
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living
being” [Gen.2.7]; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46
But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then
the spiritual.
47
The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second
man is from heaven.
The phrase “the second man is from heaven” has led some to assume that
Jesus, “the second man,” is here said to be preexistent. But Prof. Dunn
has pointed out that this meaning is negated by the statement in the
previous verse that the natural man “is first,” that is, he existed before the
spiritual man (James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p.289).
Even apart from this valid observation, “from heaven (ex ouranou)”
provides no proof of preexistence as can be seen from the way this term
is used in the NT. For example, Matthew 21:25, “The baptism of John,
from where did it come? From heaven (ex ouranou) or from man?” (also
Mk.11.30; Lk.20.4) Clearly, the question here is whether John’s baptism
was from God or from man. This meaning corresponds with “from
heaven” in John 6:31, “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it
is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” There is no suggest-

18
In what way does trinitarianism glorify God in maintaining that Jesus as
the Son was in all aspects equal with the Father from all eternity, and merely laid
down his glory temporarily at his incarnation? For, if this were the case, the
Father merely returned to the Son what was his from eternity. How can this
bring glory to the Father? But the trinitarian is, after all, not really concerned
about the glory of the Father because he has already replaced the Father with the
Son as the true center of the Christian religion, which they declare to be
Christocentric.
 Chapter 3 — Reevaluating the Understanding of Man 259

ion here about the manna being something preexistent but that it was
sent down from God. Likewise, Jesus is “the true bread from heaven”
(vv.32,33, etc).
“From heaven” can also mean “spiritual” as distinct from “earthly” or
“natural”. Thus, 2Cor.5.2, “For indeed in this house [earthly body] we
groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven” (NASB) i.e.
our spiritual body, the resurrection body. So “from heaven” here means,
essentially, “spiritual”. This meaning also fits 1Cor.15.47 perfectly: the
first man was earthly, the second man is spiritual. This echoes precisely
with vv.46 and 48.
All that concerns us here is summed up in verse 49, “Just as we have
borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the
man of heaven”; for we shall become perfectly like him, as 1John 3.2 says,
“we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” But we have
already taken the first steps in this direction: “you have put off the old self
(Gk: man) with its practices and have put on the new self (man), which is
being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col.3.9,10).
So, this being conformed to His likeness is a process which has already
begun through the transforming of our minds (Ro.12.2). If we are in
Christ, we are to “put on the new self (Gk: man), created after the like-
ness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph.4.24). We are “the
new man” referred to in Ephesians 2.10, “For we are God’s workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus,” so we already now begin to “bear the image of
the man of heaven”; and, as the Apostle put it, “I am sure of this, that He
who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of
Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1.6).
 Chapter 4

The Trinitarian
Deification
of Christ

T
he low view of man in Gentile Christian thought contributed
powerfully to the determination to raise Jesus to the level of God,
indeed, even to equality with Yahweh! Jesus, the object of
Christian faith, could not just be an ordinary man or even an extra-
ordinary man, he had to be more than man, he had to be God! So the
church established this by decree at Nicaea; whether or not the Scriptures
provided any justification of this was, evidently, a secondary question for
them. No Scripture was cited at Nicaea in support of their decree. They
considered themselves as having the right to determine the faith of the
church, without showing any evident concern about the Scriptures.
However, some efforts were made to read the trinitarian faith into
some NT passages either by way of interpretation and even, in a number
of places, by apparently tampering with the NT text. One of the key
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 261

passages used by trinitarianism, Philippians 2.6-11, we have already con-

sidered in some detail. We have studied it in the proper context of Christ
as being the image of God. We shall now go on to examine some other
important NT texts used as proof-texts by trinitarians, though not
necessarily in the order in which these texts appear in the NT. The idea of
Christ as the image of God is so central to the NT understanding about
Christ that it is again a key to another important passage used in trinita-
rianism, that is, Colossians 1, where Christ as God’s image occurs again,
in Col.1.15. In order to see the context, we quote the relevant passage:
Colossians 1
12
giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in
the inheritance of the saints in light.
13
He (the Father, v.12) has delivered us from the domain of
darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
14
in whom (the Son) we have redemption, the forgiveness of
sins.
15
He (the Son) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
of all creation.
16
For by (or in) him (God, the Father) all things were created,
in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones
or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created
through him and for him.
17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold
together.
18
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the begin-
ning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might
be preeminent.
19
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether
on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
The great problem for understanding this text is the fact that after “the
Father” is mentioned in v.12 and “the Son” in v.13 there follows a
profusion of the pronouns “he” and “him” which do not specify whether
the reference is to the Father or to Christ. This will have to be determined
by the context, which in most cases makes it clear who is being referred
262 The Only True God

to—that is, if one is a monotheist brought up on the Hebrew Scriptures.

But the situation is different when one is brought up on trinitarianism.
This is notably the case with verse 16 where the “by (or, in) him” is taken
by trinitarians to refer to Christ as creator of all things. But this is to
ignore the following facts:
(1) This interpretation runs counter to the OT where God, the Father, is
without question the creator;
(2) The previous verse (v.15) speaks of Christ as “the image of God”, and
nowhere in Scripture can it be shown that God’s image created all things;
(3) The same is true of “firstborn of all creation”: nowhere is it stated that
the firstborn brought creation into existence;
(4) Apostle Paul uses much the same terms or expression in Romans
11.36 as those in Colossians 1.16 and there is no question whatever that
he was referring to Yahweh God as is clear from the previous verses
(Ro.11.34f). Ro.11.36: “For from him and through him and to him are all
things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
(5) So also Hebrews 2.10: “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting
that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make
the author of their salvation (Christ) perfect through suffering.” (NIV)
(6) That it is Yahweh God, the Father, who created all things is the teach-
ing not only of the OT but also of the New: Revelation 10.6 “and swore
by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it,
the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would
be no more delay”. Yahweh God is the central figure in the Book of
Revelation; Jesus is consistently referred to as “the Lamb”.
(7) The attempt to interpret Col.1.16 as “by him” in relation to John 1.3 is
based on the trinitarian assumption that the Word in John’s Prologue is a
separate individual from Yahweh, and the further assumption that this
individual is the preexistent Christ. That is to make a lot of assumptions
which, as we have seen earlier in this work, are unfounded.
If, however, we discard the trinitarian interpretation of Christ as the one
by whom all things were created, and understand the Greek as saying “in
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 263

him” all things were created, then the picture changes completely, and
the foregoing objections do not apply to this understanding. This is
because “in him” is a concept that is central to Paul’s teaching on
salvation, and also to the cosmic effect (“all things”) of God’s salvation
“in Christ”. Consider, for example, the following verse:

Ephesians 2.10: “For we are his (God’s) workmanship, created

in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before-
hand, that we should walk in them.”

What does “which God prepared beforehand” mean? This is to be under-

stood in relation to the opening verses of Ephesians, and in particular 1.4:
“For he chose us in him (Christ) before the creation of the world to be
holy and blameless in his (God’s) sight.” (NIV) What this verse means
will be considered more fully below.
The cosmic extent of salvation in Christ is powerfully described in
Colossians 1.19,20: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in
him (Christ), and through him to reconcile to himself (God) all things,
whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through
his (Christ’s) blood, shed on the cross” (NIV; see also Eph.1.10). Here we
see the term “through him” again, as in verse 16, in the context of
salvation.
Redemption and reconciliation with God is the central idea of
Colossians 1.13-22: “13 He (the Father, v.12) has delivered us from the
domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved
Son, 14 in whom (the Son) we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins… 20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things… 22 He has now recon-
ciled you in his fleshly body through death.”

A glance at the commentaries

C
hecking the commentaries available to me, I see that the major
scholars are learned and wise enough to avoid trying to argue for
the deity of Christ from this passage, even though many do argue
for his preexistence.
A.S. Peake, for example, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (which is,
of course, trinitarian in its orientation) makes important observations on
264 The Only True God

this passage, such as the following on v.16: “ἐν αὐτῷ [en autō]: this does
not mean ‘by him’”. Yet many English translations insist on putting “by
him” in the text while relegating “in him” to the margin.
Concerning “in him,” after considering ideas such as that “the Son
was from eternity the archetype of the universe” which Peake rejects as
hermeneutically inappropriate, he mentions that several major com-
mentators understand “in him” “to mean simply that the act of creation
depended causally on the Son. This is perhaps the safest explanation”. By
“safest” Peake was referring to the avoidance of the pitfalls of exegetical
error and misinterpretation.
As to what the statement “the act of creation depended causally on the
Son” means, this is spelled out more fully in the following: “The Son is
the Agent in creation (cf. 1Cor.8.6); this definitely states the preexistence
of the Son and assumes the supremacy of the Father, whose Agent the
Son is.” Here Peake argues for the preexistence of the Son while acknow-
ledging the supremacy of the Father. But preexistence is not equivalent to
deity; angels are also considered to be preexistent beings, i.e. they existed
before the creation in Genesis 1. Moreover, the supremacy of the Father
is not compatible with the trinitarian dogma of the equality of the Son in
every respect with the Father. Further, the supremacy of the Father must,
of course, mean the subordination of the Son to the Father. Why does
Peake concede all this? Is it not because that is all he thinks he can
“safely” extract from the passage without himself falling into one of the
pitfalls of error or misinterpretation?
Peake, however, also acknowledges that,

The interpretation of vv.15-17 given by Oltramare should not

be passed over. He [Oltramare] eliminates the idea of pre-
existence from the passage, and says that the reference is
throughout to Christ as Redeemer. God had in creation to
provide for a plan of Redemption for the entrance into the
universe, and only on that condition could it take place. So
since Christ is the Redeemer, creation is based on him. He is
the means to it, and the end which it contemplates.

It is certain that in Colossians 1.12-22 creation and redemption can-

not be considered separately, as is often done. Redemption was not a
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 265

mere afterthought on God’s part as though man’s sin in the Garden took
Him by surprise and He had to hastily devise a plan of redemption. God’s
plan for man’s salvation was already in place “before the foundation of
the world”. This is stated with perfect clarity in Ephesians 1.4, “For he
chose us in him (Christ) before the creation of the world”.
This being the case, creation was carried out through the six days of
Genesis 1 with redemption in view all along. This means that “the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev.13.8) was central to God’s
plan for creation just as he is central to God’s plan of salvation. If, in
God’s eternal plans, there could be no redemption without him, then
without him there would also be no creation. It is “in him (Christ)”
(Col.1.16), in relation to him, that all things were created. It follows that
all the statements made in this Colossian passage must be understood in
relation to its central concept of redemption.

“From the foundation of the world”

The phrase “from the foundation of the world” occurs 7 times in the NT,
and “before the foundation of the world” 3 times. What concerns us here
is the phrase “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”
(Rev.13.8): is this to be understood to mean that Christ was actually
crucified in heaven before the creation? I suppose that no one would be
foolish enough to suppose that this is how the phrase is to be
understood.19
What then does the phrase mean? Surely, its only possible meaning is
that the Lamb was slain in God’s eternal plan before He brought creation
into being. But if we insist on being literalistic then it can be pointed out
that as the phrase stands, it does say that the Lamb was actually slain

19
RSV and some other English versions translate Rev.13.8 as, “every one
whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book
of life of the Lamb that was slain.” This would mean that the names of believers
were written into the book of life before they came into existence in this world.
This would be saying something similar to Ephesians 1.4. But how did these
versions come up with this translation? It was by inserting the equivalent of a
comma into the Greek text after the word “slain”; such a reading seems
gratuitous.
266 The Only True God

before the foundation of the world! If the only correct way to understand
such an important redemptive statement about “the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world” is not in some literalistic way but in the light of
God’s eternal cosmic plan of redemption, would not the same be true of
correctly understanding a passage on redemption such as that in
Colossians 1.15-17?
A crucial historical event—the crucifixion of Christ (Col.1.20, 22)—is
spoken of as though it had already occurred in eternity. Is this (i.e.
Rev.13.8) the only statement of this kind in the NT? No, as we have seen,
we too were “chosen before the foundation of the world” (Eph.1.4) long
before we ever came into existence physically as human beings, before we
heard someone proclaim the gospel, and before we turned our backs
upon sin and the world and made the commitment of faith! The church,
of which Christ is the head, existed in God’s eternal plan long before it
came into being, and could thus be spoken of as “chosen” when it did not
as yet exist on earth.20

Further observations on Colossians 1.12-20

If we look carefully at Colossians 1.12-20 we will see something signifi-
cant: All the active verbs are used in relation to the Father (Yahweh)
while the role of the Son is consistently passive, e.g. the repeated “in
him”. (The Greek probably shows this even more sharply than the
English.) This active role of the Father in our redemption, and the Son’s
relatively passive role vis-à-vis the Father’s, is precisely what we saw Jesus
himself teaching in John’s Gospel. This important fact stands out so
clearly in the Colossians passage that it is hardly necessary to elaborate
upon it in detail here.
The point that emerges most clearly from this fact is that it is God the
Father (Yahweh) who is our Redeemer/Savior in and through Christ. It
was He who “was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19
and Col.1.22). Christ is our Savior in that all God’s saving work took

20
Can we establish the preexistence of the Lamb on the basis of Rev.13.8? If
we can, then we can also establish our own preexistence on the basis of
Ephesians 1.4 (and Rev.13.8, if we accept the RSV translation).
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 267

place in him and through him. To speak of Christ as though he is prim-

arily, if not solely, our Savior is to totally fail to understand the NT
revelation, including Jesus’ own teaching. This is why the Apostle Paul
commences this Colossian passage with the words, “giving thanks to the
Father…” (v.12)—without even mentioning the Son as an object of
thanksgiving (to our surprise). This is because, as the passage goes on to
elucidate, the prime mover in the work of our salvation was the Father,
who was working “in Christ”—a favorite term of Paul’s.
The LORD (Yahweh) as the Redeemer or Rescuer/Savior of His peo-
ple appears frequently in the Old Testament. Yahweh as Redeemer (Heb.:
Goel) of Israel is spoken of 16 times in Isaiah, and is a central concept in
that book. One verse which is a striking parallel to Colossians 1, in that it
too combines redemption and creation, is Isaiah 44.24, “Thus says the
LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, ‘I,
the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by
Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone’” (NASB; other translations
do not differ much in their wording).
Let us also carefully notice the last sentence which declares that in the
work of creation Yahweh stretched out the heavens by Himself, and
spread out the earth “all alone”. This statement proclaims unequivocally
that Yahweh had no “partner” when He created the heavens and the
earth. Yet in our exegesis of some New Testament verses we do not
hesitate to disregard this declaration in favor of a trinitarian interpret-
ation.

Wisdom and Logos

B
ut will it not be asked again: Does not Proverbs 8 say that wisdom
co-worked with Yahweh in the work of creation? Does Proverbs
contradict Isaiah, such that Scripture contradicts itself? Here we
see the danger of ignoring the fact that Proverbs speaks metaphorically of
wisdom as a (female) person. Proverbs, which is a book about the
importance of wisdom, emphasizes wisdom’s importance by pointing out
that God Himself employed wisdom when He created the universe.
But trinitarians are so anxious to “prove” their doctrine from
Scripture that they do not hesitate to ignore both the fact that it is (or
268 The Only True God

should be) obvious to everyone that this is metaphorical hypostatization

of wisdom and the fact that wisdom is feminine, even though this is not
evident in the English word “wisdom,” though it can still be seen in the
feminine pronoun (“she”) used in the translations in reference to it. Once
we adhere to the fact that what we have in Proverbs is metaphor, then no
Scriptural contradiction with Isaiah exists.
Here we simply cannot have it both ways: Either we acknowledge
wisdom in Proverbs for what it really is, namely, a “personification,” or
we deny the truth of the statement in Isaiah that Yahweh created the
heaven and earth without the assistance of any other person. Contra-
dictory statements cannot both be true.
But if wisdom is not a person, then there is certainly no problem
whatever to say that Yahweh employed wisdom in accomplishing His
creative work, any more than saying that a man building a house em-
ployed his knowledge in building it. If the man says that he employed his
knowledge to guide him through every step of the building process, no
one in his right mind will assume that he is speaking literally of a person
called Knowledge who guided him in his work, even though it does
sound as though knowledge is personified in the way it is said.
This kind of metaphor is common in everyday speech, and often
seems unavoidable. If someone says, “Pain in my back is killing me,” no
one assumes that he means that there is some kind of being or person
called Pain residing in his back who is trying to kill him!
Yet it seems that in the name of trying to support a particular dogma
just about any kind of interpretation goes—even if it means insisting that
the metaphorical is to be taken literally, such that Wisdom in Proverbs is
interpreted as being another name for the “person” of the Word/Logos. I
have never in the past considered how a personified interpretation of the
Word in John 1 can be reconciled with the monotheism of the OT, or
with such a statement as we have seen in Isaiah 44.24 that, on the
personal level, Yahweh created all things “by Himself,” He “alone”—
notice this twofold affirmation.
For no one who has seriously studied the OT can claim that it teaches
that Yahweh is a multi-personal divine “substance” (to use trinitarian
language), much less could he prove such a claim. This being the case, it
should be evident that there is no way to reconcile the OT revelation of
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 269

Yahweh with the trinitarian insistence upon the Word being a divine
being equal with the Father (Yahweh) within a divine “substance” called
“God”—as though there is something called “God” besides and yet
including Yahweh!
It seems that trinitarianism has taught us the art of mental contortion,
to the extent that we supposed that we (as exegetes) had successfully (at
least to our own satisfaction) twisted contradictions into paradoxes, and
then contented ourselves that these “paradoxes” represented the truth.
Even simpler, we simply ignored the contradictions, usually by overlook-
ing the immediate and/or general contexts.
But it must be clearly stated that all this was not done because of any
deliberate intention to deceive, not at all, but only because we had already
been deceived, and therefore tried by all means to see trinitarianism in
the texts before us, even when it was often difficult to reconcile what we
honestly thought we saw with other texts which seemed to say something
different. How difficult it is to escape the tentacles of error! But for the
grace of God it must surely be impossible.

A closer look at salvation as the central message of

Colossians 1.12-20
In verse 13, the verb rhuomai (ῥύομαι) in the phrase “For he (the Father,
v.12) has rescued (ῥύομαι) us” means “to rescue from danger, save,
rescue, deliver, preserve, someone” (BDAG). In the OT it occurs most
frequently in the Psalms (62 times in LXX) and Isaiah (26 times in LXX),
almost always of Yahweh as the One who rescues, which is also the case
in Col.1.13. Its most familiar use is in Matthew 6.13 in the plea to the
Father, “deliver us from evil,” so well known to us from the Lord’s Prayer.
Thus, whether in Colossians 1, the OT, or the Lord’s Prayer, it is the
Father (Yahweh) who is the Savior/Redeemer to whom we call for deli-
verance.
Interestingly, there is another connection to the Lord’s Prayer in
Colossians 1.14, “the forgiveness of sins” which corresponds to the
prayer, “forgive us our sins” (Mat.6.12; Lk.11.4). “The forgiveness of sins”
in Colossians expands upon the meaning of the immediately preceding
word “redemption” (apolutrōsis, ἀπολύτρωσις), which is defined as
270 The Only True God

“release from a captive condition, release, redemption, deliverance”

(BDAG). God has released us from the debt and the bondage of sin
through the blood of Christ. How God did this “in Christ” is more fully
developed in v.20.
Notice how all the key NT words and concepts relating to salvation
appear together in this passage: rescued, redemption, forgiveness
(vv.13,14), reconciled (vv.20,22), making peace through his blood shed
on the cross (v.20), and “present you holy and blameless and irre-
proachable before him” (v.22).
Now let us notice, too, that there are five verses (vv.15-19), all relating
to creation, which are “sandwiched” between the verses relating to salv-
ation. In other words, the section begins with God’s work of salvation,
goes on to his work of creation, and continues with His salvific work,
thus clearly indicating that it is all inseparably connected; it is all part of
the one “package”. In God’s eternal plan and purposes, Christ is central
to both inextricably related parts. But we must never lose sight of the fact
that God (Yahweh) is the Prime Mover in both parts, working out His
purposes in and through Christ: “For God was pleased to have all His
fullness dwell in Christ” (v.19). This is reaffirmed in 2.9.
Failure to clearly perceive the fact that, both in Colossians 1 and in the
whole of the NT, God is always the Prime Mover, will result in falling
into the notion that the NT is “Christocentric,” and thence into trinita-
rianism. As a trinitarian I always emphasized this Christocentricity,
always supposing that this was the NT emphasis. As we can now see, this
emphasis is not true to the NT.
Since the five verses relating to creation is “sandwiched” between the
verses on salvation, it is surely reasonable to ask whether those verses
should be understood in relation to God’s work of redemption in Christ.

“The image of the invisible God”

T
he first of those five verses (v.15) says, “He is the image of the
invisible God”. 2Corinthians 4.4 also affirms that Christ is the
image of God. These statements are identical to 1Corinthians 11.7
where it is said of man that “he is the image and glory of God”. God is
invisible to the human eye, but man is His image. So Christ, like every
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 271

man, is the image of God. Therefore, in affirming that Christ is God’s

image, it is being affirmed that he is man; for unless he is man, he cannot
be the savior of mankind. But how can one derive any argument for his
preexistence from his being the image of God? If being God’s image
involves preexistence, then man is also preexistent!
The problem of trinitarian Christology is tied to the problem of its
anthropology. The significance of the assertion in 1Cor.11.7 that man is
“the glory of God” has never been understood. To be “the glory of God”
means that to see man is to see God, for in Scripture to see His glory is to
see Him (esp. Isa.6; Ezek.1, but also in the case of Manoah, etc).
But evidently, when we see man now, we usually have difficulty (with
some exceptions) seeing God’s glory. Why? Because, as is expounded in
Romans, mankind is under bondage to sin, and until the process of
redemption is complete, the glory of God will not be clearly seen in him.
But on that day when we will be “holy and blameless and irreproachable
before him” (Col.1.22) then, indeed, we will truly be “the glory of God”.
Thus when Paul speaks of man as God’s glory (1Cor.11.7), it seems that
he is speaking of man in God’s plan and purpose as God intends man to
be, not as he is at the present moment.
But this is entirely different for Christ, because “though he was
tempted in all points as we are, he was without sin”. Being without sin he
is always truly “holy and blameless and irreproachable before Him
(God)”. That is why he is the glory of God, and that is why in seeing him
we see God in His glory. It is precisely in this fact that trinitarianism has
confused its christology with NT anthropology; now we can see that this
is because it has failed to understand the vital NT truth that man is the
glory of God.
The Scriptural revelation also shows that man can never be God’s
glory independent of Him. It was precisely when man exercised his inde-
pendence and sought to be “like God,” thereby gaining some kind of
independence from Him, that he ceased to manifest His glory. Man is,
and enjoys, God’s glory only through oneness or union with Him, and
this can only be realized through the fullness of His indwelling presence,
as is perfectly demonstrated in Christ’s case: “For in him all the fullness
of God was pleased to dwell” (Col.1.19). And this was a reality in Christ
only because of his total and glad submission to the Father (Yahweh).
272 The Only True God

This also impacts upon our understanding of NT soteriology, the

doctrine of salvation. For if Christ is not wholly and truly man, then we
would have no salvation, for it was by one man’s sin that death came into
the world and it was by one man’s obedience that we are made righteous
(Ro.5.15-19). Since there is hope of salvation for us only if Christ is man,
why is trinitarianism always arguing for Christ’s deity when this has no
relevance whatever for the salvation of mankind? Nowhere in the New
Testament is faith in Christ’s deity required for salvation. Yet the trinita-
rian church dares, in defiance of God’s Word, to declare anyone a heretic
who refuses to accept their christology.
You will recall that as a trinitarian I rationalized the soteriological
connection between manhood and deity by arguing that if Jesus were
only a man, his death could not avail for all mankind, but as God he is
infinite, and an infinity can cover any number, no matter how great the
number. This argument is not illogical; at least it has a mathematical
basis. But the problem is that it is simply an unscriptural argument, for in
Scripture the soteriological logic is not a mathematical one, but functions
on a different principle.
For example, when the Israelites sinned grievously in the wilderness
and were perishing because of being bitten by poisonous snakes, God
instructed Moses to put a bronze snake on a pole; whoever looked up to
that bronze snake suspended on the pole would live (Num.21.7-9). There
was only one bronze snake, yet no matter how many people looked at it,
they were saved from death. Clearly, mathematics was not a factor.
Obedience to the call to look at the serpent, on the one hand, and the
pardoning grace of God, on the other, were the only operating principles.
It was to this critical life and death incident in the wilderness that Christ
compared his own saving ministry, and specifically to his being “lifted
up” on the cross: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may
have eternal life” (John 3.14,15).
Likewise, the obedience of Christ has cancelled out the disobedience
of Adam for all those who are in Christ. Indeed, it does more than that,
in fact “much more” as is reiterated in Ro.5.9,10,15,17. Here again it has
nothing to do with the logic of mathematics, but has everything to do
with the grace and wisdom of God.
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 273

Another picture of salvation that derives from the wilderness journey

of the Israelites is that of the manna, which Yahweh provided for them
daily from heaven. Jesus refers to this remarkable heavenly provision in
John 6 where he reveals that he is the true bread from heaven. Jesus is the
heavenly bread which Yahweh provides for the salvation of mankind
who, when they eat it, will not perish. If Yahweh could provide for the
multitudes of Israelites in the wilderness numbering some 2 million
people, would it have been any more difficult for the Creator to provide
for 2 billion or 2 trillion people? Such numbers may be stunning to us,
but hardly to Him who created Adam and Eve (and likewise all of us)
with trillions of cells in each of their bodies! Yahweh can give life to any
number of people through Jesus the “bread of life”. 21
In 1Corinthians 10.3,4, Paul in midrashic (“midrash” was a technique
used by Rabbis in interpreting Scripture) fashion writes, “all (those in the
wilderness) ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual
drink; for they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the
Rock was Christ.” The manna is described as “spiritual food” because it
was not from some earthly source, but was specially provided by Yahweh.
The same is true of the water; it is called “spiritual drink” because it was
not from some fountain within the desert rock but was specially provided
by Yahweh in His creative power. Paul, here writing in midrashic style
(as scholars generally agree), points out that that rock from which they
drank was a portrayal or “type” of Christ, who would later be the
fountain of the water of life for the world (Cf. John 4.13,14). And just as
that water was sufficient for the multitudes in the wilderness, it is suffi-
cient for any number of people because Yahweh, who is infinite, is its
source.
We now see that Christ does not need to be infinite to be able to save
the world, for salvation has its infinite source in Yahweh Himself. Water
symbolizes life, and Jesus is the “rock” or fountain through which it
flows. The ultimate giver of that water, and of “every good and perfect
gift,” is Yahweh Himself (James 1.17).

21
Wikipedia, under “Cell (biology)”, says that the human body has an
estimated 100 trillion cells.
274 The Only True God

Where Jesus is portrayed as the sacrifice for sin, as “the Lamb of

God,” or simply “the Lamb” in the Revelation, it must be borne in mind
that he is the “Lamb of God” precisely because he is the Lamb that
Yahweh provided for man’s sin: “He did not spare his own Son but gave
him up for us all” (Romans 8.32); and could Yahweh’s provision for sin
ever be inadequate?

“The firstborn of all creation” (Col.1.15)

B
oth in Col.1.18 and Rev.1.5 Christ is spoken of as “the first-born
from the dead,” being the first one to be raised up from the dead
by the power of the Father; and because the Father will raise up
many more after him and through him, “he is the beginning, the first-
born of the dead” (Col.1.18). In the church, Christ is “the firstborn
among many brothers” (Romans 8.29).
This is how the whole of Col.1.18 reads, “he is the head of the body,
the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in
everything he might be preeminent.” One thing will become ever clearer
to us as we better understand God’s glorious purposes for man as taught
in the NT, and also here in Colossians 1, namely, that Christ who is head
of the church is also, for that very reason, head of all creation, or to use
the language of 1.15, “the first-born of all creation”.
God’s eternal purposes for man, with Christ as the head of a
redeemed humanity, is not described in detail, but causes wonderment
even from the few glimpses revealed in Scripture. For example, “The
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk.2.27). What
are the implications of this statement? If even the holy Sabbath was made
for man, then what was not made for man? “He that spared not His own
Son but gave him up for us all, how shall he not with him give us all
things?” (Ro.8.32) This rhetorical question indicates not only God’s will-
ingness but also His intention to give us all things! Thus Hebrews 1.2
speaks of Christ as the one whom God has “appointed heir of all things,”
and this is what Romans 8.17 says: “if we are children, then we are heirs,
heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ”. This is to say that we are co-
heirs with him who is heir of all things! Paul uses the phrase “owner of
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 275

everything” in Galatians 4.1 in the context of our being heirs (see the
whole section from 3.29-4.7).
In this connection, consider this astonishing statement: “For all things
are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or
death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s,
and Christ is God’s” (1Cor.3.21-23).
Consider carefully what is included in the “all things” that are yours:
It includes even the Apostles (Cephas is, of course, the Apostle Peter);
“the world” translates kosmos, which in the context of this verse includes
everything from life to death, from the present to the future, having the
meaning that it most often has in the NT, “the sum total of everything
here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe” (BDAG). This compre-
hensive “all” leaves nothing out, except for Christ and God, who are ours
nonetheless, though in a different sense, for they are our Lord and our
God respectively. But notice, too, that “Christ is God’s” in much the same
way as “You are Christ’s” (1Cor.3.23). The question of Christ’s equality
with God is never raised in the NT: Christ is God’s—even as we are
Christ’s, and all things are ours. (Cf., similarly, the order in 1Cor.11.3.)
Can we grasp the implication of all this? Can we begin to perceive the
meaning of what is being revealed? Is it not summed up in the last
sentence of Col.1.16? “All things were created...for him”—for him, not as
a “private” individual, but as head and representative of redeemed
humanity. That is to say that God created all things for man with Christ
as head. That is why Paul could say, “All things are yours” (1Cor.3.21)!
Can we really grasp this astonishing, mind-boggling, revelation: Yahweh
did not create all things just for Himself, but for us?! Being the self-
centered creatures that we are, can we even begin to comprehend a God
who brought all creation into being not for Himself, but for His
creatures, specifically, us! What is revealed is a God who is totally selfless
in what He does, and this gives a totally new meaning and depth to the
statement that “God is love” (1Jo.4.8,16).
In this connection, consider also 1Ti.6.17, “God, who richly provides
us with everything for our enjoyment.” Do we suppose that God created
the myriad variety of flowers which bedeck the earth, all resplendent in
multitudes of colors, shapes, and fragrances, for His own personal enjoy-
ment? Such is their splendor that Jesus remarked that king Solomon in all
276 The Only True God

his splendor could not outshine one of these (Mt.6.28,29). Have we

considered the enormous variety of trees that provide delicious fruit,
delightful blossoms, wood for all sorts of use, and, not least, oxygen
essential for man? It should be evident that God did not create trees
solely for His own pleasure or for Christ’s use alone.
And shall we go on to speak of all the multifarious diversity of
vegetables providing essential nutrition for mankind? Did we suppose
that these were created for God’s own nourishment? Or of the river,
lakes, and oceans which God stocked with a huge variety of fish? We
need not go on, the point should be clear enough: God “richly provides
us with everything for our enjoyment” (1Ti.6.17). This also provides
sufficient evidence for what we saw is the NT revelation, namely, that
God created all things for man, not just for “the man Christ Jesus,” who
God made head of the church—but what is a head without a body? And
in this case, too, “it is not good for man (Christ) to be alone” (Gen.2.18)!
Did not Paul affirm that this account in Genesis spoke proleptically or
typologically of Christ and the church (Eph.5.32)?
Though some areas of the world periodically suffer famine mainly due
to man’s wars, mismanagement, corruption, etc, the earth currently pro-
vides food for 7 billion people! 22 God lovingly provides all things for
mankind even though man is generally ungrateful. God is, moreover, a
God whose reality can be experienced in this life when we seek Him with
open and humble hearts, a God who has come to us in Christ.
In stark contrast to this amazing revelation that God in His love
created every good thing for mankind, what kind of a picture of Christ
emerges from such an English translation as translates that sentence in
Col.1.16 as, “All things were created by him and for him” (NIV, etc).
What else could this mean but that Christ created all things for himself?
What a totally different picture from the picture of the selfless God seen
in the previous paragraphs!

22
7 billion in late 2011, Wikipedia, “World Population”.
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 277

God’s eternal plans for man

G
od’s plans for man goes even further than we can imagine, “as it
is written, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of
man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him’”
(1Cor.2.9). One of these things Paul puts in the form of a question, “Do
you not know that we are to judge angels?” (1Cor.6.3). Angels are
spiritual beings, “mighty ones who do God’s word” (Ps.103.20). How can
anyone judge angels unless he is given authority over them? What then
can this mean but that redeemed man will be granted authority even over
the highest spiritual beings in creation under God! And since angels do
not have their abode on earth but in heaven, what does this mean but
that redeemed man will be granted authority both in heaven and on
earth! To Jesus this authority has already been granted in order to bring
to completion God’s work of salvation (Mat.28.18ff).
If any problems arise in understanding Colossians 1 in the light of
Christ’s being truly man, it arises from a failure to see the amazingly
exalted role that God envisioned and planned for man already “before
the foundation of the world” (Eph.1.4; etc). It is in relation to man,
always with Christ as his head and representative and therefore “in him”
(that is, in relation to Christ), that God brought the whole creation into
being. Once we are freed from the thoroughly negative view of man as
utterly degenerate which dominates Christian theology, and once we can
recover from our amazement at the mind-boggling grandeur of what
God wills for man (and which He is in the process of fulfilling), we will
see no difficulty at all in understanding what is revealed in this astonish-
ing passage of Scripture.

“He is before all things” (Col.1.17)

A
s “the firstborn of creation” (Col.1.15), as well as “the firstborn
from the dead” (Col.1.18), it can truly be said that “He is before
all things” (Col.1.17); and it is God’s purpose for him “that in
everything he might have the preeminence” (v.18). “Before all things” is
used to argue for Christ’s preexistence in trinitarianism, but this is of
little help for trinitarian dogma because preexistence provides no proof of
deity, not even of preeminence. Few, for example, would deny that Satan
278 The Only True God

(“the serpent”, Gen.3.1ff; Rev.12.9) already existed before the creation in

Genesis 1, when everything was created “very good”. Yet he already
appears in Genesis 3 to tempt Adam and Eve to sin. Nor would anyone
care to suggest that Satan enjoyed preeminence by reason of his preexist-
ence. The preeminence ascribed to Christ is something conferred upon
him by the Father. In Scripture, preeminence is usually, but not necessa-
rily, a consequence of seniority. For example, although Joseph was the
11th of the 12 sons of Jacob, and therefore the second youngest among
his brothers, God exalted him to preeminence not only over them but
also over the great land of Egypt (Gen.30-50). Jesus said that “many who
are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (Mat.19.30).
Is there not also interplay between first and last in the descriptions of
Christ as “the firstborn of creation” and “the firstborn from the dead”?
“Firstborn” is explained as “pertaining to having special status associated
with a firstborn” (BDAG), which this lexicon explains more fully as “The
special status enjoyed by a firstborn son as heir apparent in Israel”. The
lexicon also understands the phrase “the firstborn of creation” as pertain-
ing essentially to salvation rather than to the material creation, though, as
we have seen, the two are integrally intertwined: “of Christ, as the first-
born of a new humanity which is to be glorified, as its exalted Lord is
glorified πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς [firstborn among many
brethren] Ro 8:29” (BDAG). The lexicon adds: “This expression is
admirably suited to describe Jesus as the one coming forth from God to
found the new community of believers”. Thus “the firstborn of creation”
speaks of Christ as the first, the preeminent one, in God’s new humanity,
the new creation (2Co.5.17).
“The firstborn from the dead,” on the other hand, reminds us that “he
humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross”
(Phil.2.8), without which there would have been no possibility of becom-
ing “the firstborn from the dead”. In other words, it was only by
becoming last, humbling himself to the lowest form of death—that on a
cross—that he was raised up by Yahweh God to be the first, not only of
the dead but also of all creation (Phil.2.9-11). It may also be for this
reason that Jesus is “the first and the last” (Rev.1.17; 2.8).
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 279

“In him all things hold together” (Col.1.17)

W
hat does this statement mean? Since “the man Christ Jesus”
is the center, the very hub, of God’s purposes for both
creation and redemption, then does it not necessarily follow
that he gives coherence to all things, or that all things find their
coherence “in him”? That is, all things have their purpose and meaning
because of him and in relation to him; they “fit together to form a
harmonious and credible whole” (as Encarta Dictionary nicely defines
“coherence”)—but always and only in relation to him.
Thus one could say that God brings everything together, or unites
everything, in Christ; this is indeed is central to His redemptive purposes
for His whole creation: “to unite all things”—which is a good definition
of the word translated as “hold together” (sunistēmi, συνίστημι) in some
translations. Thus BDAG also gives the definition of sunistēmi as, “to
bring together by gathering, unite, collect”. Consider the following
remarkable passage in Ephesians 1:
7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgive-
ness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8
which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
9
making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his
purpose, which he set forth in Christ
10
as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him,
things in heaven and things on earth.
Let us observe that (1) here, too, creation and redemption are inextri-
cably linked, and (2) all this is “in him” or “in Christ” (occurring 3 times
in these 4 verses).
Thus, in Christ everything in creation is united into a coherent whole.
BDAG also gives this definition of sunistēmi (συνίστημι): “to come to be
in a condition of coherence, continue, endure, exist, hold together, pres.
mid. and perf. act.” which is certainly compatible with the previous
definition. This definition is stated to be applicable to words in the
present middle and perfect active forms of the verb. It is the latter form
which appears in Colossians 1.17. Notice, too, that only the definition
“hold together” is given in the translation cited above (in the heading).
280 The Only True God

But BDAG shows that the “condition of coherence” extends also to the
ideas of continuity, endurance, and even existence. Such is the power,
nature, and scope, of the redemptive unity “in Christ”!

2Corinthians 8.9
“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though
he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by
his poverty might become rich.”

O
ur trinitarian interpretation of this verse was contingent upon
our interpretation of Phil.2.6ff: Jesus was rich in heaven but
chose earthly poverty so that we might become rich. If this,
however, is the incorrect interpretation of the Philippian passage, then it
cannot be used here. Moreover, there is nothing in the Corinthian letters
that justifies such an understanding of this verse.
First of all, we need to ask what kind of riches and poverty is under
consideration here. “That you might become rich” is hardly a reference
to material riches as is clear already from the first two verses of this
chapter:

“We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that
has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a
severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their
extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on
their part.” (2Cor.8.1,2)

The Macedonian churches were the recipients of God’s grace, and the
evidence of this grace was their generosity in spite of the sufferings they
were enduring and “their extreme poverty”. The grace of God had not
made them materially rich but had made them joyful and generous in the
midst of their trials and their poverty; therein lies the greatness of God’s
grace. Likewise, the riches which the Corinthians would receive is
evidently the same spiritual riches of God’s grace in Christ as the
Macedonians received; this was something of much greater (i.e. eternal)
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 281

value to Paul than material riches. Paul hardly had in mind that Christ
became poor to make us materially rich.
When Paul spoke of Christ as “rich” would he then have meant that
Christ was materially rich? Even heavenly riches are surely not material
riches. What is meant by riches is already well defined in 2Cor.8.2: it is
“the abundance of joy” and the “wealth of generosity” which neither the
“severe test of affliction” nor “extreme poverty” could affect in any way.
This is true riches indeed, especially when some of us have personally
witnessed the misery of millionaires and, on the other hand, the joy of
the penniless who walk with God and daily experience His provisions,
His love and His care.
What then does it mean that “for your sake he became poor”? Paul, as
an “imitator” of Christ (1Cor.11.1), illustrates this in his own life: “For
his sake I have suffered the loss of all things” (Phil.3.8). Now left with
nothing, he still had one last thing to offer: his life—“Even if I am to be
poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I
am glad and rejoice with you all” (Phil.2.17). He used this imagery of
being “poured out as an offering” once again when the time came for him
to lay down his life: “For I am already being poured out as a drink offer-
ing, and the time of my departure has come” (2Tim.4.6). To be “poured
out” is truly to be “emptied” (cf. kenoō, Phil.2.7), and here we see it in
two stages: first the intention, an expression of the heart and will, as
expressed in Phil.2.17 (also Ac.20.24), and then at its actualization at “the
time of departure” as in 2Tim.4.6. It seems that this is also how the
“emptying” in Christ’s case in Phil.2.7 is best understood because Paul’s
life is patterned upon Christ’s; he has Christ’s “mind” (Phil.2.5), his way
of thinking.
All this makes it clear that Christ’s becoming “poor” has reference
above all to his “death on a cross” (Phil.2.8). On the cross he endured “for
your sake” (2Cor.8.9), a poverty which no one else could endure because,
as Paul had said earlier, God “for our sake made him to be sin who knew
no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”
(2Cor.5.21). For us to become “the righteousness of God” is to become
eternally rich indeed, for that means reconciliation with God and eternal
life as its result (2Cor.5.17-20). But to obtain such “riches” for us, Christ
apparently also experienced the deepest level of poverty not just in
282 The Only True God

physical suffering and death but in the inner experience of deprivation of

the Father’s presence as expressed in the poignant words of Ps.22.1, ‘And
about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli,
lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me?”’ (Mt.27.46; Mk.15.34). He who enjoyed the incomparable spiritual
riches of a life of intimacy with the Father as described in John’s Gospel,
now “for your sake” endured the unspeakable pain of separation because
of becoming the sin-bearer, sin having the effect of separating man from
God: “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins
have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59.2;
NIV).
It was evidently this fearful prospect of separation from God that
explains his sweat and tears in the Garden of Gethsemane; but it was also
because of this “godly fear” that he was heard: “In the days of his flesh,
Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to
him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly
fear” (Hebrews 5:7, RSV). Jesus had known, as no one else had ever
known, the “rich” life of communion with the Father, such as could be
described as being “one” with Him; no privation or poverty could
compare with being deprived of His presence even for a moment, and
such a moment must have seemed like all eternity. Some people have
endured for a time this kind of privation which was described by John of
the Cross as “the dark night of the soul,” but certainly no one could have
experienced it at the depth that Jesus did, and all this “for your sake”—as
Paul would have the Corinthians (and others) remember.

1Timothy 3.16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was
manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken
up in glory. (1Timothy 3.16)

Regarding 1Timothy 3.16, we know, of course, that it is usually made to

refer to Christ by trinitarians, even though Christ is not mentioned in the
immediate context in relation to this verse. Typically, for example, The
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 283

Expositor’s Greek Testament bases the assumed reference to Christ on the

pure conjecture that with regard to 3.16f “it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that what follows is a quotation by St. Paul from a primitive
creed… about Jesus Christ”. This kind of purely conjectural conclusion
should be avoided, especially when there is not a shred of evidence given
for this alleged “primitive creed”. There are in fact a number of manu-
scripts in which the reading “God was manifested in the flesh” is found,
but these recensions could be the work of trinitarians trying to “prove”
the deity of Christ. But the possibility remains that the statement “God
was manifest in the flesh” echoes John 1.14 where it says that “the Word
(‘Memra’, metonym of Yahweh) became flesh”.

1John 5.7,8
“For there are three that testify: the k Spirit, the water and the
blood; and the three are in agreement”. (1John 5.7,8, NIV)

The NIV version is given here because it shows the later trinitarian in-
sertions, as explained in the following NIV footnote: “7,8 Late manu-
scripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy
Spirit, and these three are one. 8And there are three that testify on earth:
the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)”.
On this passage the comments of Prof. Küng will suffice, “In 1John
there was once a sentence (comma johanneum) connected with the say-
ing about the Spirit, the water and the blood, which went on to speak of
the Father, the Word and the Spirit, which, it said, are ‘one’. However,
historical-critical research has unmasked this sentence as a forgery which
came into being in North Africa or Spain in the third or fourth century.”
(H. Küng, Christianity, p.95)
In the footnote on this passage, Küng provides an explanation of the
meaning of the verse: “The original text 1John 5.7f. speaks of spirit, of
water (=baptism) and of blood (= eucharist) which ‘agree’ or ‘are one’
(both sacraments witness to the power of the one spirit).”
284 The Only True God

1John 5.20
1John 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God has come and
has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is
true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He
is the true God and eternal life.”

Jesus came to give us understanding. What is this understanding? It is to

know “Him (God) who is true” and to be “in Him (God) who is true”.
How can we be “in Him”? It is through being “in His Son Jesus Christ”
(also 1Jo.2.24). In the words which follow immediately, “He is the true
God” must surely refer to the twice mentioned “Him” and also to the
“His” in the words “His Son” mentioned in the preceding sentence. That
“the true God” refers to Yahweh God not Christ is placed beyond any
doubt by the fact that God is described as “Him who is true” in the
preceding sentence of the same verse.
Typically, disregarding the syntax of the verse, many trinitarians still
insist that “the true God” refers to Jesus Christ. By so doing they
disregard also what Jesus himself said: “And this is eternal life, that they
know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John
17:3). Notice how precisely these words correspond to 1John 5.20 in that
they speak likewise of “the true God” and of “eternal life.”

John 1.18 and its textual problems

John 1.18 “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and
Only, {Or the Only Begotten} {Some manuscripts but the only
(or only begotten) Son} who is at the Father's side, has made
him known” (NIV).

T
he NIV translation gives an idea of the textual problems in this
text; because of these problems, this verse may not be particularly
useful for the purpose of this study, but we shall discuss it for the
sake of completeness, and also because it may provide some evidence of
tampering with the text, resulting in a considerable number of textual
variations. These can be seen in the various translations: “The only Son”
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 285

(RSV, NJB), or “the only begotten Son” (NKJV), or “the only begotten
God” (NASB), or even “God the One and Only” (NIV), “the only God”
(ESV), etc.
This large variety of translations makes it difficult to pursue a mean-
ingful discussion of the text, without first trying to sort out the reason for
such a confusing variety. The problem appears to arise from the fact that
the original text has been tampered with, so the problem becomes one of
trying to determine which one of the ancient texts was most likely to have
been the original one. But since this cannot be determined with any
absolute certainty at this point in time, this means that the discussion of
this text becomes merely a matter of possibilities or probabilities, which
greatly reduces its value for the present study.
The one word common to all the various Greek texts is monogenēs. It
is what is, or is not, attached to this word that causes the problems. Some
texts have monogenēs theos (only begotten God, or the only God), others
have monogenēs huios (only son, or only begotten son), others monogenēs
huios theou (only begotten son of God), while some have ho monogenēs
(the only begotten). It is clear that a text of this kind cannot serve as a
solid basis for a doctrine.
We can, however, briefly discuss the word monogenēs, since this word
is evidently the central element to which other words are attached in the
various texts. This word has basically two definitions as given in BDAG
Greek-English Lexicon: (1) it refers to an “only child” (son or daughter);
in Hebrews 11.17 it refers to Isaac as Abraham’s only son, as also in Luke
7.12; 9.38, or an only daughter Luke 8.42; (2) it has the meaning “unique,
one of a kind” as in John 3.16,18 and 1John 4.9 referring to Jesus as the
“only,” or “unique son of God,” in the older translations usually “the only
begotten son of God”.
1) Regarding monogenēs we can ask: Why must it be assumed that “only
begotten Son” is a description that proves divinity? In Luke the explan-
ation was given that the title “Son of God” (Luke 1.35) was given him
because of his virgin birth. That this title was not meant to convey the
idea of divinity or deity seems clear from the fact that Adam is also called
“son of God” just two chapters later (Luke 3.38). Also in consequence of
that birth Jesus can be called “the only begotten” because no one was ever
286 The Only True God

begotten in this way. When Scripture provides perfectly clear and intelli-
gible explanations, why do we read our own ideas into the term?
2) “Who is in the bosom of the Father” (cf. BDAG “Bosom”); the present
tense “who is in the bosom” provides no reason to argue for preexistence.
The Logos was spoken of as having “become flesh” in v.14, and the verses
following it speak of events after that event, so there is no reason to
suppose that v.18 returns to preexistence.
3) The description of Jesus as being “in the bosom of the Father” beau-
tifully describes the living relationship between Yahweh and man in
Christ, bringing out its proximity and intimacy, “i.e. in the closest and
most intimate relation to the Father, John 1:18 (Winer’s Grammar, 415
(387))” Thayer Greek-English Lexicon. The same expression “in the
bosom of” is used of the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” usually thought to
be John, in relation to Jesus, in Jo.13.23.

“The only begotten God”

Most of the oldest Greek manuscripts have monogenēs theos (“only
begotten God”), so from the textual standpoint, the reading “God” has
better manuscript support. B.D. Ehrman, who chairs the Department of
Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and
is an authority on NT texts, writes, “It must be acknowledged that the
first reading (i.e. “God”) is the one found in the manuscripts that are the
oldest and generally considered the best—those of the Alexandrian
textual family.” (Misquoting Jesus, Harper San Francisco, 2005, p.161f.)
But Prof. Ehrman surmises that the original text was “Son” and was
changed by the antiadoptionists (the later trinitarians) to “God” to
counter the adoptionist teaching that Jesus was only man, not God, but
was “adopted” by God as His Son at his baptism when the heavenly voice
declared, “You are my Son…” (Mark 1.11).
From the point of view of monotheism, neither reading is problem-
atic. Because if the reading is “Son,” as we have seen in the immediately
preceding discussion, preexistence is not necessarily implied in John
1.18, even though trinitarians would read that into it. But if the correct
reading is “God,” then it would be a reference to John 1.14, “the
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 287

Word/Memra became flesh”. This would add strong confirmation to the

exposition of John 1.1ff as expounded in this book. But my exposition
does not need to depend on this reading for support.
In other words, trinitarians suppose that the reading “God” supports
their doctrine, but that is only because they assume that “God” refers to
Jesus, disregarding the fact that “God” (as distinct from “god”) in
Scripture always refers to Yahweh. Ehrman also affirms that “only
begotten God” can only refer to the Father because he maintains that
monogenēs, generally translated as “only begotten,” here means “unique,”
and writes, “The term unique in Greek means ‘one of a kind.’ There can
be only one who is one of a kind. The term unique God must refer to
God the Father himself—otherwise he is not unique. But if the term
refers to the Father, how can it be used of the Son?” (Misquoting Jesus,
p.162, italics his, bold lettering mine).
Clearly, to speak of Jesus (or the Son) as “the unique God” would be
to eliminate the Father; for if Jesus is “the one of a kind God,” where does
that leave the Father? It is evidently for this reason that Ehrman says, as
far as the Bible is concerned, “the term unique God must refer to God the
Father himself”.
Ehrman’s conclusion on this point: “Given the fact that the more
common (and understandable) phrase in the Gospel of John is ‘the
unique Son,’ it appears that that was the text originally written in John
1.18.” (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p.162) The point is that if the changing
of “unique Son” to “unique God” was the work of an Alexandrian
scribe(s), then by failing to remove the word “unique” he thereby gives
his alteration away and defeats his own efforts.

OT sayings about Yahweh applied to Jesus in the NT

W
e have seen an example of this in Philippians 2.10,11 where
there is a clear reference to Isaiah 45.22,23. How are these to
be understood? The answer to this question is relatively easy
because the logical options available are very limited: (a) The “man
Christ Jesus” (1Ti.2.5; Ro.5.15,17; Ac.4.10) is Yahweh—an impossible
identification because Yahweh is “God and not a man” (Hos.11.9;
1Sam.15.29; Job 9.32; etc), or (b) Jesus is the embodiment of the glory of
288 The Only True God

God (Heb.1.3; Jo.1.14, etc), the fullness of God (Col.2.9; 1.19; Jo.2.21,
etc); he was the one in whom the Father lived and worked (Jo.14.10).
Clearly, (b) is the only correct option.
But if Jesus is neither (a) nor (b) then to apply OT Yahweh verses to
him would mean that he is a second Yahweh which, Biblically speaking,
is absolutely impossible; even worse, this could rightly be considered as
blasphemous. Moreover, identifying Jesus with Yahweh does not help
trinitarianism in the least because Yahweh is the Father not the Son, so
the Yahweh verses cannot in any way be made to provide evidence for
the existence of a “second divine person”.
The application of the Yahweh verses to Jesus provides further strong
confirmation that the “fullness” of God came into the world bodily, and
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19).

Questions about the Day of the Lord and Melchizedek

Closely related to the previous question are these two questions which
were sent to me and which I shall leave as received. The reply also
remains essentially unchanged. This correspondence is included here
because it is likely that some readers have questions similar to these.

“I hope you don’t mind me asking a couple of questions here.

First, it’s about the term ‘Day of the Lord’. It is used about 25x
in 23 verses in the combined OT/NT. It seems that the ‘Lord’ in
the OT generally refers to Yahweh. But the 5x in NT (Acts 2:20;
1Co 5:5; 2Co 1:14; 1Th 5:2; 2Pe 3:10) seem to refer to Jesus as
Lord. Acts 2:20 is a quote from Joel 2:31. So, in the term ‘Day of
the lord,’ who does the ‘Lord’ refer to? I understand that the
‘day of the lord’ can mean different things at different times
and events, but it is rather confusing that sometimes it refers to
Yahweh and other times, particularly in NT, the term refers to
Jesus.

“The 2nd question I have is about the mysterious person

Melchizedek (Heb 7:3), having no father and no mother, no
genealogy. Jesus follows the priestly line of Melchizedek. Who
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 289

is Melchizedek? Jesus has an earthly line and a spiritual line.

Would people conceive that he is both man and divine?”

My reply: The “Day of the Lord” has to do with judgment. On this matter
Jesus has already given a very clear description of the situation, “The
Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son” (Jo.5.22).
That is to say, Jesus will exercise all judgment as Yahweh’s appointed
judge, that is, as His plenipotentiary acting in His Name, on His behalf.
The same point is made in Peter’s message from which you quote (Acts
2.20) and which he concluded by saying, “Let all the house of Israel
therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ,
this Jesus whom you crucified” (v.36). The same point is made here: God
has appointed Jesus as His plenipotentiary. This means that “the Lord”
will act on behalf of “the LORD (i.e. Yahweh)”; for this reason “the Day
of the Lord” refers to either or both without essential difference.
As for the second question, there does not seem to be any logical
connection between the Melchizedek priesthood and Jesus’ being con-
ceived of as “both man and divine”. Hebrews does not speak of Jesus as a
physical descendant of Melchizedek, so whether Melchizedek was divine
or not has no bearing on Jesus’ person. In fact no direct personal
connection between Melchizedek and Jesus is anywhere postulated in
Hebrews. Only his priesthood is under discussion, and it addresses a
serious problem for the Jews (Hebrews): How can Jesus be a priest, let
alone a high priest (a central theme of Hebrews), when he was not
descended from the priestly tribe of Levi? Hebrews’ answer to this is that
it had already been prophesied (Ps.110.4, a messianic psalm) that the
Messianic Davidic king would also be a priest—the Messiah will combine
kingship and priesthood in himself—but being from the tribe of Judah he
would not be a priest from the tribe of Levi, but his priesthood would be
like that of Melchizedek who was also both king and priest. But none of
this has anything to do with Jesus’ being both man and divine.

Another trinitarian proof text: John 12.41

“Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of
him.”
290 The Only True God

T
rinitarians usually assume, without regard for the exegesis of this
verse, that what is said here is that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and
spoke of him. Actually, not a scrap of evidence can be produced
from the passage in Isaiah that Isaiah spoke of Jesus, or that the glory he
saw was Jesus’ glory. All this has to be read into the passage in Isaiah. Nor
is there any evidence that John was claiming that Isaiah saw the man
Jesus in his vision of Yahweh. But this is the kind of blatant disregard for
proper exegetical procedure on which trinitarianism thrives.
The discussion of this verse can be simplified by noting carefully that
(1) it refers to Isaiah’s vision in Isaiah 6, where Isaiah’s account is of a
vision of Yahweh; but (2) no one can see Yahweh and live (Ex.33.20, etc),
so what Isaiah saw is explained in John 12.41 as “His glory,” which the
Jews spoke of as His Shekinah; therefore (3) if John had any intention of
applying these words to Jesus there are only two possibilities: a. the man
Jesus is being identified with Yahweh as one and the same person, which
is impossible, and would in any case not serve the trinitarian purpose, or
b. identify Jesus as the expression of Yahweh’s glory, the embodiment of
His Shekinah, and this would fit in perfectly with John 1.14. But, of
course, none of this provides any support for trinitarianism, and this is
fundamentally because there is simply no trinitarianism in John’s Gospel.
So this text is actually of no value to trinitarianism because either the
“his” is taken to refer to Yahweh, in which case, it does not serve as a
proof text, or if it is taken to refer to Jesus it would equate Jesus with
Yahweh, which is to confuse the “First Person,” the Father, in trinita-
rianism with the “Second Person,” “God the Son”.
When we compare John 12.41 with 1.14 we immediately see that “his
glory” (tēn doxan autou) occurs in both verses, so one explains the other:
“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory”
(1.14a,b). The subject of John 1.14 is the Word, so it is evident that “his
glory” refers to the glory of the Word. Since the Word/Memra in the
Johannine Prologue is a metonym or synecdoche of Yahweh (we shall
study this more closely later in this book), then it is clear that “his glory”
refers essentially to Yahweh’s glory, which is precisely what John 12.41
speaks of as the glory which Isaiah saw. But the further point in both
these verses in John is that this glory of Yahweh was now “revealed in the
flesh” (1Tim.3.16) because “it became flesh and dwelt among us”. It was
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 291

in that “flesh” that “we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from
the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jo.1.14). Having come in the flesh he
was known as “the only Son from the Father” who is named three verses
later as “Jesus Christ” (v.17).23

“I have seen the Father”: evidence of preexistence?

In Jo.12.41, “Isaiah saw his glory”; “saw” is the word horaō. This is the
same word used of Jesus’ seeing the Father:

John 3.32, “He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet
no one receives his testimony.”

John 6.46, “not that anyone has seen the Father except him
who is from God; he has seen the Father.”

John 8.38, “I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and

you do what you have heard from your father [and therefore
reject me].”

But is it necessary to assume (another assumption) that these references

refer to a “seeing” in the supposed preexistence of Jesus? Or is it some-
thing after his birth? Notice the present tense in the words of Jesus in
John 5.19, “So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can
do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.
For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise’.” This indicates
that Jesus’ “seeing” of the Father was something he was experiencing on
earth, and surely not only at the time of speaking in Jo.5.19, but already
during the past years of his earthly life. So it is purely a matter of reading
one’s own trinitarian dogma into the text to argue that the perfect tense
in “I have seen with my Father” (Jo.8.38) had to be something which took
place in Jesus’ preexistence. On the logic of this argument we would have
to accept the preexistence of Isaiah because he said “I saw the Lord”, “for
my eyes have seen the King, the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts!” (Isa.6.1,5)! 24

23
See further “A few notes on the exegesis of John 12.41”, Appendix 5.
24
On the other hand, these sayings about “seeing” could also be considered
as instances of the Logos (like Wisdom, Mat.11.19; Luke 7.35 cf. 11.49) speaking
292 The Only True God

John 16.15, “All that the Father has is mine” —evidence

of divinity?

T
his corresponds to John 17:10, “All I have is Yours, and all You
have is mine.” This is evidently a part of the meaning of being one
with the Father, a oneness in which believers are called to
participate, “that they may be one even as we are one” (17.22b). As for
the second part of 17.10 (“all You have is mine”), we find a striking echo
in Paul’s words, “So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours,
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the
present or the future—all are yours; and you are Christ’s, and Christ is
God’s” (1Cor.3.21-23).
But “all things” certainly belong to God, for there is nothing that does
not belong to Him; yet now as a result of His uniting us to Himself
through Christ, all things—including the Apostles, the world, life, death,
the present and the future (what an astonishing list!)—all belong to us,
and this is repeated again: “all are yours,” ensuring that we did not miss
this amazing point!
This point is unequivocally affirmed in another striking verse:
Romans 8:17, “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God
and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that
we may also share in his glory.” (NIV)
All things belong to God, therefore to be “heirs of God” is to be heirs
to all things and “co-heirs with Christ”. Now we understand why Jesus
was able to say, “All that the Father has is mine”—for he is God’s heir
because of being His Son. Now, by the saving mercies of God, we can say
with Christ, “All that the Father has is mine” because He has made us co-
heirs with Christ; through him we are heirs of God!
All these remarkable and important spiritual truths enable us to better
understand the significance of Jesus’ words in John 16.15 (“all that the
Father has is mine”), and it clearly shows that it does not prove Christ’s
inherent equality with the Father. What it does prove is the Father’s love
for him, just as 1Corinthians 3.21ff (quoted above) certainly proves the
Father’s amazing love for us.

through Christ.
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 293

What is also usually overlooked is that to say that Christ is God’s

appointed heir is also to say that everything Christ has is given him by the
Father, and that he possesses nothing apart from what the Father gives
him. This is, in fact, precisely what Jesus himself affirms as something he
had taught his disciples: John 17:7 “Now they know that everything you
have given me comes from you.” Barrett (John) writes that this could be
expressed as “‘Everything I have is from thee’… John as ever emphasizes
the dependence of Jesus, in his incarnate mission, upon the Father” (on
Jo.17.7). Likewise, saying that we, by His grace, are co-heirs with Christ,
is also to say that whatever we have, we received from the Father because
of His unfathomable love for us; we of ourselves have nothing whatso-
ever.

John 17.5
“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the
glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

T
his is one of those verses which trinitarians are quick to point to
as implying Jesus’ deity. There are two elements in this verse
which they suppose support their view: (1) “glory”: “the glory that
I had with you” and (2) preexistence: “before the world existed”. The
error of the trinitarian argument lies in the fact that their own ideas are
read into the meaning of these two elements, because they fail to under-
stand what these elements mean in John’s Gospel and in the NT. In other
words, it is another of the many cases of trinitarian eisegesis: reading into
the text what is not in the text and not intended by it.
In regard to (1), “glory,” trinitarians simply assume that the glory
being referred to here is divine glory, though there is no evidence for this
in the text itself, so the idea of divine glory is simply read into it. Paul
speaks of there being many kinds of glory (1Cor.15.40-43).
But the fact is that in John’s Gospel, “glory” has an unusual and,
therefore, unexpected meaning; it is characteristic of this “spiritual”
gospel that human values are inverted so that what is not glorious in
human eyes is glorious in God’s eyes. It is just as it is written in Isaiah,
294 The Only True God

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
declares the LORD (Yahweh)” (Isa.55.8). Accordingly, in the Beatitudes
Jesus told his disciples that persecution is a cause for great joy (Mat.5.10-
12), and what is seldom noticed is that he used the word “blessed” twice
in this section, thus making it a “double blessing”; yet, strangely enough,
the Beatitudes are frequently spoken of as “the eight blessings” (e.g. in
Chinese) when in fact there are nine. But joy is hardly the usual reaction
of Christians to persecution. Not many regard being persecuted as a
glorious experience. Yet in John, Jesus speaks precisely of his crucifixion
as his exaltation, his being “lifted up,” his being glorified.
The special character of glory in John—“lifted up”:

Jo.3.14,15: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wild-

erness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever
believes in him may have eternal life.”

Jo.8.28: “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.’”

Jo.12.32-33: “‘and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will

draw all men to myself.’ He said this to show by what kind of
death he was to die.”

Jo.13.31: “When he (Judas) had gone out, Jesus said, ‘Now is

the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him.’” (The
passion narrative constitutes a large proportion of the gospel,
about one third of it, thus indicating its enormous importance;
it “kicks into high gear” from this point of the narrative.)

Jo.7.39: “Jesus was not yet glorified”—at this point he had not
yet been “lifted up”.

Jo.12.23,24: “And Jesus answered them, ‘The hour has come

for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains
alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.’”
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 295

The connection of Jesus’ being “glorified” and the grain of wheat which
can only “bear much fruit” by dying is made explicitly clear. Death is the
“glory” of the grain of wheat precisely because it becomes greatly fruitful
by means of it, and only by this means, because there is no other way for
a seed to become fruitful and multiply. The ancient adage “the blood of
the martyrs is the seed of the church” proclaimed this same truth.
The idea of death as glorifying God is seen also in Jo.21.19, “This he
(Jesus) said to show by what death he (Peter) was to glorify God.”
But how can suffering and crucifixion be the “glory” that Jesus had
with the Father before the world began? This takes us to the second
element: “preexistence”.

(2) “Before the world existed” (Jo.17.5)

Trinitarians assume that these words speak of Jesus’ preexistence, but this
is exegetically problematic because (a) on the principle that Scripture is
its own best commentary, there is no direct parallel to these words of
John 17.5 anywhere else in Scripture (excluding for now the trinitarian
interpretations of John 1 and Philippians 2), so no Scriptural evidence
can be adduced to support the idea of Christ’s preexistence here. (b) But
even if, with trinitarianism, it is assumed that this verse speaks of a
preexistent glory of Christ, it would in no way provide proof of his deity.
Preexistence is not evidence of deity. Angels and other spiritual beings are
also preexistent in the sense that they existed before the world was
created, as can be seen from the fact that they are not mentioned as being
created as part of the present material creation in Genesis 1. (c) The
“with you” (in “the glory I had with You before the world existed”) is not
a direct parallel with John 1.1 (“the Word was with God”) where the
word “with” in Gk is pros; in John 17.5 it is para as in Proverbs 8.30 of
Wisdom, “I was with (para) Him as a master craftsman” (see Prov.8.22-
31). This could suggest that here the Logos in Christ is speaking as
Wisdom. But this would mean having to understand “glory” in a differ-
ent sense from the one Jesus uses of his being “glorified,” and in John
17.5 it is Jesus who is speaking.
In order to avoid reading our own ideas into the text, we need to
carefully examine the concept of preexistence as it appears in the NT.
296 The Only True God

The Apostle Paul puts the matter clearly and succinctly like this in
Romans 8:
29
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be con-
formed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the
firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predes-
tined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified,
and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Here a chain of events is laid out as follows: foreknew  predetermined

(to be conformed to Christ)  called  justified  glorified. Notice that
it is Yahweh God who is the author of all these five events, which all
begin with His foreknowledge as the omniscient One.
What must be borne in mind is that there is a long interval of time, or
time-gap, between Yahweh’s knowing all things “before the world
existed” and the time that the believer is called and justified. And there is
yet another (perhaps lengthy) interval or time-gap between the believer’s
calling and justification to the time when he will be glorified at the
resurrection from the dead and enters the fullness of eternal life. That is
to say that the “foreknew” to the “glorified” in Romans 8.29,30 spans the
preexistence in the eternity that stretches into the past all the way to an
eternity extending into the future: as it is written “from everlasting to
everlasting you are God” (Ps.90.2).25
What is relevant in all this for our understanding of the Biblical
concept of preexistence is that Yahweh God foreknew the believer long
before he actually existed, indeed, “before the world existed”; the believer
existed in God’s omniscient foreknowledge long before his actual
appearance in the world. This is, of course, exactly the same for “the man
Christ Jesus”. People and events existed in God’s foreknowledge, and He
was therefore able to act on that foreknowledge, such as that everyone
that He called would be conformed to the image of His Son according to
His eternally predetermined (predestined) plan of salvation for mankind.
This is confirmed by considering another Johannine reference, this
one in the Book of Revelation, where eternal realties are revealed:

25
Or “from forever to forever You are God”, The Book of Psalms, Norton
2007, Robert Alter’s translation of Ps.90.2.
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 297

Revelation 13.8, “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the

beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of
life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of
the world. {Or written from the creation of the world in the book
of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain}” (NIV).

The syntax, or sentence structure, of the Greek text would favor the NIV
translation as against the alternative one it gives within brackets. On this
reading, the Lamb, Jesus, was slain already at the creation of the world,
that is, in the mind and saving purposes of God, long before he was born
in Israel. Now we can see how the glory of his being “lifted up” on the
cross is linked to “before the world existed” in Jesus’ words in John
17.5—a statement of astonishing spiritual depth.

The preexistence of God’s plan for mankind’s salvation in

Christ

S
alvation was something already in existence in God’s plan before
the world came into existence. In the following verses we see fur-
ther examples of “before the world existed” applied to all believers:

Matthew 25.34: “Then the King will say to those on his right,
‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’” The
kingdom was prepared for “you” long before “you” had even
come into existence, indeed, already “from the foundation of
the world”!

Revelation 13.8: “and all who dwell on earth will worship it

(the beast), everyone whose name has not been written before
the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that
was slain.” This is the other possible way of translating the
Greek text of this verse; so “before the foundation of the world”
refers either to believers or to the Lamb, but either way they
existed in the foreknowledge of Yahweh God before they
entered the world. If this translation is accepted, then it means
298 The Only True God

that those who did not worship the beast were those whose
names were written in the Lamb’s book of life before the found-
ation of the world.

2 Timothy 1.9: “(God) who has saved us and called us to a holy

life—not because of anything we have done but because of his
own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus
before the beginning of time [i.e. in eternity, πρὸ χρόνων
αἰωνίων]” (NIV).

Of Christ himself it is said that, “He was foreknown before the foundation
of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake”
(1Pet.1.20; cp. 2Tim.1.9,10). He was “foreknown” by God, but there is no
mention of preexistence. The next verse (1Pet.1:21) goes on to say, “who
(you believers) through him are believers in God, who raised him from
the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God”;
here the glory given Christ by God is not a preexistent glory but was given
him after God had raised him from the dead.

Romans 4.17: God “calls things that are not as though

they were”
he God who…calls things that are not as though they were”

“T (Romans 4.17, NIV). James Dunn (Word Biblical Comment-

ary, Romans) agrees that this translation is correct, but
considers it too “weak,” preferring “who calls things that have no exist-
ence into existence” or “calls things that are not so that they are”.
Certainly both translations are possible, and are not mutually exclusive.
But Dunn’s preferred translation serves primarily to underline the
statement which immediately precedes it (“the God who gives life to the
dead”). Even so, the NIV translation expresses a profound truth: To God
things that have not yet come into existence are, for Him, “as though they
were,” i.e. already in existence.
Thus, for example, how could God have acted for our salvation before
the foundation of the world when we did not yet exist? The answer is
found precisely in Ro.4.17: In His mind and foreknowledge, we already
existed, and He acted on that foreknowledge by taking concrete steps in
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 299

relation to us even before the world was created! Is this not exactly what
Paul says, “Whom He foreknew He also…called” (Ro.8.29,30)? The
verses we considered in a previous paragraph, such as Matthew 25.34;
2Timothy 1.9; and Revelation 13.8, all exemplify this same truth about
God, who gave us His saving grace in Christ “before the beginning of
time” (2Ti.1.9).
This means that a purpose formed in God’s mind is as good as though
it had already been fulfilled or come into existence. In this sense, we
already existed “before the foundation of the world”, and “whom He
foreknew…He glorified” (Ro.8.29,30)—God glorified us before the
creation was brought into being! Such is the inexorable certainty of the
accomplishing of Yahweh’s purposes, regardless of how near or distant
the future, that the words (called, justified, glorified) are all in the past
tense (Greek: aorist)! Paul was granted a profound understanding of God;
it was on this basis that he was able to make such remarkable statements.
As applied to himself, he understood that God in His unfathomable love
and grace had chosen him and glorified him from eternity.
If Paul understood this, would not Jesus have known this too? Cer-
tainly. This can be seen in John 17.5, “And now, Father, glorify me in
your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world
existed,” if the words are correctly understood. In view of the preceding
discussion, we are now in a position to conclude our study of these
significant words of Jesus:
(1) “Now, Father, glorify me in your own presence,” with which the
sentence begins, clearly indicates that Jesus is preparing to enter the
Father’s presence through his death and resurrection: Cf. “I go to the
Father” (Jo.16.10), “I go to prepare a place for you” (Jo.14.2,3), “I have
not yet ascended to the Father” (Jo.20.17), but he was going to very soon.
(2) “Glorify me”; we have already seen the special meaning of “glory” and
“glorify” in John. What needs to be observed here is that “glorify” is in
the active form, indicating that this glorifying is the Father’s action: Jesus’
being “lifted up,” his death on the cross for sin is, ultimately, God’s
accomplishment, not man’s; the death of Christ for our salvation was
God’s plan, not man’s. Jesus was “the Lamb of God”. The priest in the
temple who slaughtered the lamb was merely acting on behalf of the one
300 The Only True God

who offered the lamb; it was not the priest’s lamb. “The Lamb of God” is
so called because it was presented by God for our salvation: “This is love:
not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an
atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1John 4.10; NIV). The death of Christ as
atoning sacrifice for us is, therefore, ultimately God’s act. When we fail to
see this we mistakenly lay blame for his death on the Romans or the Jews
who were merely serving as instruments in God’s plan for mankind’s
salvation.
(3) These plans of salvation were not the result of some afterthought on
God’s part, but had already been laid out in eternity “before the world
existed” and were now being implemented by God’s love, power, and
wisdom. Considering such things as these, the Apostle exclaimed, “Oh,
the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How un-
searchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans
11:33)
Finally, the truth that God “calls things that are not as though they were”
(Ro.4.17) is not merely an item of Biblical theology of some intellectual
interest to us, it was written for a very practical purpose, namely, to show
that faith is not some form of wishful thinking but rests upon the
bedrock of God’s own character, and whose plans and purposes cannot
fail. Faith, even in the face of apparently insurmountable obstacles, will
certainly triumph, not because of anything inherent in faith itself, but
because of the One in whom faith rests. This is why the context of
Romans 4 is primarily concerned with the practical application of faith in
our lives even in the most apparently adverse circumstances, and
Abraham is held up as an example of this very thing:
19
He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own
body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred
years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s
womb.
20
No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God,
but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,
21
fully convinced that God was able to do what he had
promised.
22
That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 301

Even more remarkable is Jesus’ unshakeable confidence in the Father’s

eternal plan of salvation now being carried out through him, especially
now that his being “lifted up” was the event looming immediately before
him. It is in this light that we begin to understand the depth and power of
his words in John 17.5. With steadfast resolve Jesus asks the Father to
“glorify me” now, and what other glory could be given him at that crucial
moment in “salvation history” but his “exaltation” in his death on the
cross, which would then be vindicated through his being “raised from the
dead by the glory of the Father” (Ro.6.4)? The “now” (nun, “at the
present time”) which begins the sentence in John 17.5 (“Now, Father,
glorify me in your own presence”), is no mere florid introduction to what
follows, but points specifically to the moment at hand: he asks that his
glorification according to Yahweh’s plan, established “before the world
existed”, begin now.26 Herein we see the worthiness of Christ to receive
acclaim by the multitudes in heaven proclaiming, “Worthy is the Lamb
who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and
honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5.12)

“The Lord of glory,” 1Corinthians 2.8; James 2.1

I
n view of the extended discussion of “glory” in the foregoing section
on John 17.5, this would be an appropriate place to insert a discuss-
ion of the title “the Lord of glory” which appears only in these two
places in the NT (1Cor.2.8; James 2.1). We first consider the one in Paul’s
letter:
7
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which
God decreed before the ages for our glory.
8
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had,
they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9
But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor
the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those
who love him.” [Isa.64.4]

26
The time factor is seen also in the previous sentence: “I glorified you on
earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do”, Jo.17.4.
302 The Only True God

We see at once that the title “the Lord of glory” (v.8) is sandwiched
between two verses that speak of the glory that God has prepared for
believers (“our glory”, v.7), that is, for “those who love him” (v.9); and he
prepared this “before the ages” (v.7). This makes it evident that Jesus is
the “Lord of glory” precisely because it is through Christ that Yahweh
God makes this predetermined glory available to “those who love Him,”
that is to say that God glorifies Jesus as the glorious “Lord,” and through
him fulfills his glorious purposes in all who believe. But here the con-
nection with the “glory” in John (understood in terms of being “lifted
up”) must not be overlooked for, as in John, Paul here speaks of “the
rulers of this age” as having “crucified the Lord of glory”. Thus “the Lord
of glory” and “crucified” are inseparably related. As in Phil.2.9-11, he is
the “Lord of glory” because he was crucified. To use “the Lord of glory” as
a divine title, which we did as trinitarians, is to wrench it out of its
Pauline context and, therefore, to misuse it.
In the OT, Yahweh is described as “the King of glory”: “Who is this
King of glory? The LORD (Yahweh), strong and mighty, the LORD
(Yahweh), mighty in battle!” (Ps.24.8). But this is of no use to trinitarian-
ism because to identify Jesus as Yahweh does not serve the trinitarian
purpose: it would only serve to confuse “the First Person” with the
“Second Person” of the Trinity.
G.G. Findlay (formerly Professor of Biblical Literature, Exegesis, and
Classics, Headingley College, UK) observes correctly, “The expression
kurios tēs doxēs (‘Lord of glory’) is no synonym for Christ’s Godhead; it
signifies the entire grandeur of the incarnate Lord, whom the world’s
wise and great sentenced to the cross” (The Expositor’s Greek Testament,
on 1Cor.2.8; the Gk. has been transliterated and translated). But though
it is true that “Lord of glory” contains no reference to Christ’s deity,
could it nevertheless contain a reference to Yahweh’s glory as indwelling
Christ in his incarnation? The well-known OT scholar W.E. Oesterley
thought that this was quite certainly the case, and discusses this at consi-
derable length in his commentary on James, particularly on James 2.1.
This verse is variously translated in the different modern translations.
Their main problem is with how to translate the Greek phrase in this
verse which, translated literally, is “our Lord Jesus Christ of glory” (τοῦ
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 303

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης). The following are some exam-
ples of how James 2:1 is translated:

ESV: “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in

our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (also RSV). This
provides an obvious parallel to 1Cor.2.8, but the problem with
this translation is that “Lord” occurs twice when it actually only
appears once in the Greek text.

NIV: “My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus

Christ, don’t show favoritism.” Here “of glory” is taken as a
descriptive genitive, hence “glorious”.

NJB: “My brothers, do not let class distinction enter into your
faith in Jesus Christ, our glorified Lord.”

No matter how James 2.1 is translated, the words “the glory” (tēs doxēs)
certainly appears in the Greek text, and on this W.E. Oesterley wrote,

the intensely Jewish character of the Epistle makes it reasonably

certain that the familiar Jewish conception of the Shekinah is
what the writer is here referring to. The Shekinah (from the
root skn “to dwell”) denoted the visible presence of God
dwelling among men. There are several references to it in the
N.T. other than in this passage, Luke 2.9; Acts 7.2; Rom.9.4; cf.
Heb.9.5; so, too, Targums, e.g., in Targ. Onkelos to Num.6.25ff.
the “face (in the sense of appearance or presence) of the Lord”
is spoken of as the Shekinah. A more materialistic conception is
found in the Talmud where the Shekinah appears in its rela-
tionship with men as one person dealing with another; e.g., in
Sota, 3b, it is said that before Israel sinned the Shekinah dwelt
with every man severally, but that after they sinned it was taken
away; Pirqe Aboth, 3.3: “Rabbi Chananiah ben Teradyon [he
lived in the second century, A.D.] said, Two that sit together
and are occupied in words of Torah have the Shekinah among
them” (cf. Matt.18.20). The Shekinah was thus used by Jews as
an indirect expression in place of God, the localized presence of
the deity… If our interpretation of doxa (‘glory’) is correct it
304 The Only True God

will follow that the meaning of the phrase… Iēsou Xristou tēs
doxēs (‘Jesus Christ of glory’) is free from ambiguity, viz.,
“…Have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Shekinah” (literally
“the glory”); this is precisely the same thought that is contained
in the words, “who being the effulgence of his glory…”
(Heb.1.1-3). (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, on James 2.1;
the Gk. has been transliterated and translated.)

Oesterley began his discussion of “the glory” as referring to the

Shekinah with a reference to “the intensely Jewish character” of James,
but it could hardly be more Jewish than Paul was, for Paul could
exultingly speak of himself as “a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Phil.3.5);
therefore what is true for James would hardly be less true for Paul. So it is
interesting that Oesterley points to Romans 9.4 as an example in Paul’s
writings where “the glory” (the same as in James 2.1 and 1Cor.2.8) is the
Shekinah: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the
glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”
(Ro.9.4). It is not easy to find a better explanation of “the glory” in this
verse, as a look at other commentaries will show. The Shekinah will be
discussed in greater detail later in this book.

John 17.22: The oneness of Jesus with the Father

John 17.22, “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that
they may be one as we are one.” (NIV)

Jesus’ oneness with the Father is another argument used by trinitarian-

ism, it being simply assumed that oneness proves equality. But it actually
does nothing of the kind. This should have been obvious in the light of
1Corinthians 6.16,17, but we paid no attention to it, at least in so far as its
relevance for John 17 was concerned:

1Corinthians 6:17, “But he who is united to the Lord becomes

one spirit with him.” (RSV)

The believer’s union with the Lord is in essence the same in meaning as
that in John 17.22, yet no one is likely to be so presumptuous as to
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 305

suppose that this union with the Lord in any way implies equality of the
believer with Him.

John 17.23: Jesus says that the Father loves us just as He

loves him

L
et us consider Jesus’ astonishing statement in John 17.23 that the
Father has loved us just as He has loved Jesus as His Son, and that
this is something to be made known to the world. Every believer is
familiar with John 3.16, “God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten Son,” but how many know 17.23, “you have loved them (the
disciples) just as you have loved me”? The Father loved the world to the
self-sacrificial extent of giving what was dearest to Him, His Son; just
how much more could He love those who have turned their backs upon
the present age and are united to Him in Christ? The answer we discover
is that He loves them just as He loves Christ!
Amazing as indeed it is, yet upon giving the matter further thought it
becomes clear that it is also inevitable. Why? Well, is it conceivable that
the Father, having united the disciples with Christ as Body to Head,
would then love the Head more than the Body? What, indeed, is a Head
without a Body? For a head finds its fullness and completeness in its
body. Moreover, in this case the Body is that which Yahweh purposely
brought into being through Christ according to His eternal plan, and
thereby the glory of His saving power and wisdom are revealed, just as it
is written in Ephesians 3:21 “to Him be glory in the church (the Body)
and in Christ Jesus (the Head) throughout all generations, forever and
ever. Amen.”
That God loves those in Christ, just as He loves Christ, is surely cause
for rejoicing—rejoicing in the Lord who loves us. It is this unspeakable
love of His that is the cause of our rejoicing in Him under all the circum-
stances we must experience in the world. This is certainly the reason for
Paul’s exhortation to “Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again:
Rejoice!” (Phil.4.4, NIV). Paul had already exhorted the Philippians to
“rejoice in the Lord” in Philippians 3.1; but this phrase occurs nowhere
else in the NT. It does, however, occur 9 times (4 times in the Psalms) in
the OT, which is quite certainly the source from which Paul derives these
306 The Only True God

words. It should also be noted that in every one of these OT occurrences,

“the Lord” is “the LORD”, i.e. Yahweh. Philippians was written under the
harsh circumstances of a Roman prison, so it may well be that Paul had
Habakkuk 3 particularly in mind:
17
Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the
vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food,
the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the
stalls, 18 yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God
of my salvation.

Even when there is nothing in our circumstance to rejoice about, Yahweh

Himself is always the true cause of our rejoicing, because He has loved us
just as He loved His beloved Son, and we are beloved in Christ Jesus,
which is “His glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved”
(Eph.1.6)—we are beloved in the Beloved!
The Beloved is the head of the community of the beloved, the church.
As a result, we take for granted the term “the church of Christ”. What
was my surprise to discover that this term does not exist in the NT!
Instead, the term “the church of God” is found 7 times in the NT. The
concept that the church is ultimately God’s as His unique possession has
become unfamiliar to most of us, for we appear also to have forgotten
that Christ himself belongs to God: “Christ is God’s” (1Cor.3.23). Here
we can see another instance of how trinitarianism affects our under-
standing of the Biblical revelation, in this instance our concept of some-
thing as fundamental as the church. We keep speaking of “the church of
Christ” when there is not a single instance of this term in the NT!

The ministry of Christ and the church reaches its

completion and climax in the ultimate exaltation of
Yahweh God as “all in all”

O
ne of the places in which Paul makes reference to “the church of
God” is in the important 15th chapter of 1Corinthians (v.9).
Many very important truths are revealed uniquely in this chap-
ter. Here the truth that God (Yahweh) alone is supreme over all,
including the Son, is stated with absolute clarity. Going from one weighty
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 307

point to another we come to v.28: “When all things are subjected to him,
then the Son himself will also be subjected to him (God, the Father, v.24)
who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”
This verse was very problematic to me as a trinitarian, as it is for all
trinitarians, because it states plainly that even the authority that the Son
exercised up to that point in time will be returned to the Father, Yahweh
God, and “the Son himself will be subjected to Him”.
The usual way to try to get out of the difficulties posed for trinita-
rianism was, of course, to engage in “double talk” with which we are all
familiar, namely, to argue that this did not apply to Jesus as God, but only
as man. But this argument ignores at least two serious problems: (1)
although nowhere else in this chapter does the term “the Son” appear, it
is exactly in this crucial verse that it appears! It is as though God foresaw
this double talk! “The Son” is precisely the title by which trinitarians refer
to “God the Son”; (2) this verse speaks about the future, not the past,
when “the Son” (in the trinitarian sense) subjected himself to God the
Father as the man Christ Jesus (Phil.2.6-8). The remarkable thing,
moreover, is that even though Christ is exalted by God the Father after
his death and resurrection (Phil.2.9-11), yet in the eternal order of things
“the Son himself will also be subjected to him”; for it is of the essence of
eternal reality that God alone is “all in all” (1Cor.15.28). Yahweh God
from whom all things came, and to whom all things will return, will
finally be recognized and glorified as being absolutely everything to
everyone in every way—“all in all”.
What is seen in the NT is that Christ’s ministry has as its single ulti-
mate goal the exaltation of Yahweh God alone as the One supreme over
all. When this objective is successfully reached, his ministry is therewith
concluded. This means that his glorious and ultimately triumphant
ministry is “time-limited”; it does not go on indefinitely without reaching
a conclusion: it has a specific goal to attain and, when that is attained,
Christ’s work is triumphantly concluded at that point. A work that goes
on indefinitely would also be a work that never reaches a conclusion; but
that is not the case with Christ. Once mankind is successfully redeemed
then, obviously, the work of redemption and salvation is concluded.
Once sin has been atoned for once and for all, the work of our great high
priest Jesus Christ is accomplished, and there is no longer any need for
308 The Only True God

the sacrificial ministries of the Temple. The high priest has no further
sacrificial duties. But since we have not yet attained to perfection
(Phil.3.12) and could, therefore, be guilty of unwitting sin, our great high
priest continues to make intercession for us (Heb.7.25; 1Jo.2.1), which he
will do until we are perfected on the day that “we shall be like him”
(1Jo.3.2).
Likewise, once reconciliation has been accomplished there is no
further need of a mediator (1Tim.2.5). Moreover, salvation in the NT
goes beyond reconciliation to the grace by which “we are children of
God” (Ro.8.16), “and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow
heirs with Christ” (Ro.8.17) and, surely, no child requires a mediator to
come to his father. So a good mediator (like a good physician) “puts
himself out of business” by successfully effecting reconciliation. This is
the glory and beauty of Christ as the successful mediator, to whom all
who have been reconciled will remain eternally grateful, giving praise to
God who provided mankind with such a wonderful mediator.
“The Son” in 1Corinthians 15.28 is certainly used in the usual way as a
title of the Messiah, or the “Christ,” and in this sense it poses no pro-
blems whatever. On the contrary, it emphasizes the triumphant complet-
ion of the Messianic ministry of Christ Jesus, just as it was stated in verse
24, “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the
Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power,” that is,
every power that had refused to be subjected to him. All this has as its
ultimate objective “that God (the Father) may be all in all”. The absolute
monotheism of the New Testament can hardly be made clearer than this.

John 20.28

T
rinitarians constantly point to Thomas worshipping Jesus with
the words, “My Lord and my God” (Jo.20.28). Perhaps they sup-
pose that Thomas did not know or did not care what Jesus had
said to the devil when he was tempted: “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only (monos) shall you
serve (or worship, Phil.3.3; Acts 26.7 cf. Heb.9.9; 10.2; latreuō “to render
religious service or homage, to worship,” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon)’,”
Mat.4.10; Lk.4.8? Or perhaps Thomas did not know Jesus’ teaching, or
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 309

his prayer addressed to “the only true God” (Jo.17.3)? Perhaps trinita-
rians assume that Thomas was not a Jew or a monotheist? Had Jesus
forgotten his own teaching and did not, therefore, rebuke Thomas? Such
thinking is out of touch with the Biblical facts. A fundamental problem of
trinitarian interpretation is that it constantly disregards the context of the
verses or passages that it uses or misuses. It is a basic fact in interpre-
tation that “a text taken out of context is a pretext.” Thomas’ words are
only correctly understood within the whole context of John’s Gospel.
Here we can only consider a few directly relevant points:
The memorable conversation which Jesus had with his disciples not
long before his crucifixion would undoubtedly have imprinted itself on
Thomas’ memory; it was about seeing the Father, who is none other than
Yahweh:
John 14: 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it
is enough for us.”
9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still
do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the
Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is
in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own
authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
11
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or
else believe on account of the works themselves.”
In view of this discourse, when Thomas saw the crucified Christ, now
“raised from the dead by the glory of the Father” (Ro.6.4), standing
before him, Jesus’ words “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” now
quite literally “came to life” before his eyes. He now saw the Father in
Christ in a way he had never done before and exclaimed “My Lord and
my God,” a phrase which would readily come to the lips of a Jew at seeing
such a vision. It echoes Isaiah’s words, “For my eyes have seen the King,
the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts!” (Isa.6.5). Undoubtedly, Thomas spoke for
all the other apostles in the room.
It should also be noticed that the reason Jesus gives for saying that
anyone who has truly seen him has seen the Father is expressed in the
words, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” which is stated twice
310 The Only True God

(Jo.14.10,11), thereby emphasizing their importance. This repeated state-

ment is not meant only to affirm the intimacy of his relationship with the
Father in metaphorical language but to state an actual spiritual fact,
namely, that the Father lives in him and that “the Father who dwells in
me does his work” (v.10). In other words the indwelling of the Father in
him is the dynamic spiritual reality of Jesus’ life and ministry. Jesus, for
his part, lives wholly in the Father which, in practical terms means living
wholly under His authority: “The words that I say to you I do not speak
on my own authority” (v.10).
The indwelling of the Father in Jesus was something that Jesus men-
tioned not only towards the end of his earthly ministry but already at its
beginning. Thomas would certainly have remembered that Jesus had
spoken of his body as Yahweh’s temple (Jo.2.19), all the more so because
what Jesus said was quoted against him at his trial (Mt.26.61; Mk.14.58).
And since Jesus’ body was Yahweh’s temple, it is evident that Yahweh
dwelt in him bodily (Col.2.9). In regard to the resurrection, it is speci-
fically stated in John 2.22 that “When therefore he was raised (by Yahweh
God) from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and
they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” Would
not Thomas be one of the disciples who remembered this? And would
not this astonishing experience of Christ standing before him because of
having been raised by the power of Yahweh, just as Jesus had said would
happen, have caused Thomas to burst forth in praise and adoration to
Yahweh in the words often addressed to Him by His people, “My Lord
and my God”? In view of these facts, what is the more likely: that Thomas
worshipped Jesus, or the God who had raised him according to His
word?
As a monotheist Thomas could only have properly addressed the
words “My Lord and my God” to Yahweh alone. But the significance of
this confession lies in the fact that Thomas had now come to realize that
Yahweh had indeed come into the world bodily in the man Jesus the
Messiah, having “made His dwelling among us” (John 1.14). The phrase
“Yahweh (the LORD) my God” occurs no less than 36 times in the OT; it
was therefore a frequent form of address to Yahweh and would thus
readily come to the lips of a Jew.
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 311

Consider, too, the fact that the Jews prayed facing the temple (when it
still stood in Jerusalem) and its “holy of holies”. This was in accordance
with the Scriptures, as can be seen in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication
of the temple as recorded in 2Chronicles 6:
21
“And listen to the pleas of your servant and of your people
Israel, when they pray toward this place. And listen from heaven
your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive.”
26
“When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they
have sinned against you, if they pray toward this place and
acknowledge your name and turn from their sin, when you
afflict them, 27 then hear in heaven and forgive the sin of your
servants, your people Israel.”
29
“Whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by
all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his
own sorrow and stretching out his hands toward this house, 30
then hear from heaven your dwelling place and forgive and
render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways,
for you, you only, know the hearts of the children of mankind.”

When the Jews uttered their prayers toward the temple, were they
praying to the temple or to the One whose Presence was in it (2Chr.6.2)?
Thomas had, evidently, finally come to understand the truth Jesus had
spoken in John 2.19 about his being God’s temple, and his teaching about
the Father as the one who spoke and acted in him. Now seeing with his
own eyes the fulfillment of the temple (Jesus) having been raised up by
the power of Yahweh God and now standing before him, is it at all
strange that he would have cried out “My Lord and my God”? Why, then,
must trinitarians assume that the words Thomas spoke were not
addressed to Yahweh, who had now through Jesus become his Lord and
his God in a profoundly experiential way?
Another thing that the indoctrinated trinitarian mind seems incap-
able of grasping, even though it stands in plain view throughout the OT,
is that the title “Lord God” is the standard form of address to Yahweh.
Without having to refer to the Hebrew text, anyone can see that “LORD
God” or “Lord GOD” (where the capitalized word represents the Name
312 The Only True God

“Yahweh”) occurs in 383 verses in the ESV (210 times in Ezekiel alone!).
But “Lord” and “God” occur with far greater frequency when they are
used separately though in close conjunction, which is the case in Thomas’
exclamation where “Lord” and “God” are connected by the conjunction
“and”. Thus when “Lord” and “God” are not joined together as the one
title “Lord God,” but nonetheless occur together in the same verse, the
count immediately increases to 2312 occurrences (ESV), 281 times in
Deuteronomy alone, and 110 times in the Psalms. (The last two numbers
refer to number of verses. In terms of number of hits, it would be 487 in
Deuteronomy and 133 in Psalms.)
What all this means is that Thomas’ exclamation is something that
comes straight out of the Hebrew Bible, and would have come out spon-
taneously from the lips of anyone steeped in the OT. What is also
absolutely clear is that “Lord” and “God” are titles applied to Yahweh,
especially when used in combination. Therefore, applying this combin-
ation to Jesus does not prove that Jesus is God (as many trinitarians
vainly and ignorantly suppose) but it could only prove that Jesus is
Yahweh, yet this is not a “proof” that trinitarians would want to arrive at
because it would confuse their “God the Father” with “God the Son”.
In short, John 20.28 is of no value whatever to trinitarianism. But
what it does proclaim is that Thomas had come to see the reality of
Yahweh in and through Christ. He saw “the glory of the LORD, the
majesty of our God” (Isa.35.2). The words that Thomas uttered remind us
of words in the Psalms such as, “Awake and rouse yourself for my
vindication, for my cause, my God and my Lord! Vindicate me, O LORD,
my God, according to your righteousness” (Ps.35.23,24).
In view of the Biblical evidence, will we insist that these words in John
20.28 referred to Jesus? Or were they addressed to God in response to
Jesus’ appearance to Thomas, which was so overwhelming an experience?
It is not unusual even today in the secular world for people to exclaim in
astonishment “My God”. We feel repulsed by this exclamation when it
comes from the mouth of an unbeliever; but are there no circumstances
in which a believer might make such an exclamation to God, especially
when, in the words of C.S. Lewis, they are “surprised by joy”?
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 313

John 21.17, “Lord, you know everything”

‘He (Jesus) said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do
you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the
third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you
know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him,
“Feed my sheep.”’

The words “Lord, you know everything” have been used by some trin-
itarians to argue for Jesus’ omniscience. This could be considered an
instance of trinitarianism trying to make “a mountain out of a molehill”
(here turning relative into absolute), because in this context it need not
mean more than “Lord, you know me through and through; you know
that I love you”. To turn a statement relative to Peter into a statement of
absolute knowledge is typical of trinitarian argumentation. It is also to go
against Jesus’ own declaration that there was indeed something import-
ant that he did not know, namely, the time of the end of the age and the
coming of the Son of man; this is known only to the Father, He alone has
absolute knowledge of everything:

Matthew 24.36-37 “No one knows about that day or hour, not
even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As
were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man
[i.e. his coming will be unexpected, v.38].” (NIV)

Elisha was credited with knowing everything the Syrian king spoke about
in regard to his plans against Israel. As a result, Israel was constantly
forewarned by the prophet and was prepared for Syria’s attacks whenever
these occurred. Bewildered by the fact that he could never catch Israel
off-guard, the king tried to find out whether someone in his inner circle
was betraying his plans to Israel. He was then told the true source of his
problem, “Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the
words that you speak in your bedroom.” (2Kings 6.12)
What God can do through a man who is wholly yielded to Him is
truly wonderful, and the Bible furnishes us with many examples of what
God has accomplished through faithful men. Jesus was undoubtedly
granted to know all that was necessary for him to complete his mission
for the reconciliation of mankind with God; so there is no doubt that far
314 The Only True God

more was revealed to him than was revealed to Elisha. Jesus as the only
perfect man is certainly unique among men, and through him God was
able to accomplish the matchless work of “reconciling the world to
Himself” (2Cor.5.19), “making peace by the blood of his cross”
(Col.1.20).

The importance of the teaching about Christ in Acts

T
he messages in Acts immediately followed the outpouring of the
Spirit at Pentecost, and therefore were spoken as a direct result of
the filling of the Holy Spirit—so these must be determinative for
the understanding of the person of Christ. Yet it is hard to find so much
as a hint of the deity of Christ in Acts, while his humanity stands out
clearly. Since the alleged deity of Christ is not a factor in the earliest
Spirit-filled apostolic preaching in Acts nor, indeed, anywhere else in
Acts, there is nothing in particular to discuss in this important book
relevant to trinitarianism.
But there is an important related observation that should be carefully
considered: The church was equipped with power from above at
Pentecost, and in that power went forth to proclaim the Gospel to the
ends of the earth. That power is no longer evident in the churches today,
and this must clearly be related to the fact that the church is today
proclaiming a message which is based on a different theology and
Christology than that proclaimed in Acts.

Romans 9.5

B
ecause there are no punctuations in the Greek text, the meaning
derived from the text depends on the way the translator chooses
to punctuate it. The possible ways of translating Romans 9.5 are
made very clear in NIV:

“Theirs (i.e. of the Jews) are the patriarchs, and from them is
traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for-
ever praised! {Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!
Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!} Amen.”
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 315

The two main alternative translations, which are not substantially differ-
ent because both attribute the praise to God not Christ, are given in the
brackets for Romans 9.5. NIV, being a trinitarian translation, places their
preferred translation in the main text. The other trinitarian Bible versions
obviously follow this same preference, but the RSV is a notable exception:
“to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is
the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”
The RSV translation (and those in the NIV brackets) is definitely the
correct translation for three very strong reasons:
(1) Paul has clearly declared his monotheism in several places, and in
1Cor.8.6 he stated plainly that “for us there is one God, the Father, from
whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and through whom we exist”. For this
reason Paul would never describe Jesus as “God”. Jesus is always con-
sistently “Lord” in the Pauline writings. The following are other examples
of Paul’s monotheism:

1Timothy 1.17, “To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the

only (monos) God, be honor and glory forever and ever.
Amen.”

1Timothy 6: “15 which (i.e. Christ’s coming again, v.14) God

will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only
(monos) Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who
alone (monos) is immortal and who lives in unapproachable
light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and
might forever. Amen.” (NIV)

(2) Exactly the same words of praise as in Ro.9.5, “he who is blessed
forever,” refer to Yahweh God in the Greek text of 2 Corinthians 11.31,
“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever”. It is,
therefore, not directed to Jesus in Ro.9.5; Jesus is the cause of the praise
not its object. For ease of comparison, the two texts are placed side by
side:

Ro.9.5: ho ōn (epi pantōn theos) eulogētos eis tous aiōnas

316 The Only True God

2Cor.11.31: ho ōn eulogētos eis tous aiōnas

Apart from the words placed in parentheses to facilitate comparison, the

phrase “he who is blessed forever” is precisely the same in both verses. In
2Cor.11.31 the reference to God as “the God and Father of the Lord
Jesus” is made before this phrase, while in Ro.9.5 the reference to God is
placed within the phrase as the One who is “over all God” (epi tantōn
theos). Since the Apostle used this phrase specifically of “the God and
Father of the Lord Jesus” in 2Cor.11.31, there is no reason to suppose
that in Ro.9.5 he would refer to Jesus as “God over all,” a phrase which
we can be certain that no Jew, including Paul, would apply to anyone
except to Yahweh.
(3) Examining the matter within Romans itself, what puts the matter
beyond any dispute is (a) that the same phrase translated here as “blessed
forever” (eulogētos eis tous aiōnas) is also applied to Yahweh God as the
Creator “who is blessed forever! Amen” (Rom.1.25). And (b) the
concluding “Amen” is a special feature of praise to Yahweh God in
Romans where it occurs five times. Apart from Romans 1.25 and 9.5,
there are the following:

Romans 11.36, “For from him (Yahweh God, cf. v.33ff) and
through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever.
Amen.”

Romans 15.33, “May the God of peace be with you all. Amen.”
Here God is praised as the Giver of peace to all with whom He
resides (meta, “gen. with, in company with, among; by, in; on
the side of”, UBS Dictionary)

Romans 16.27, “to the only wise God be glory forevermore

through Jesus Christ! Amen.”

In all these verses in Romans, Yahweh God is the object of praise, and
there is no reason whatever to suppose that Ro.9.5 is an exception.
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 317

Hebrews

T
he Israelites were also known as “the Hebrews” or “the Jews,” so
the Letter to Hebrews was written to the Jews; it was written by
Jews for Jews. What trinitarians seem to be almost incapable of
grasping is that Jews, especially in the first century, were monotheists
through and through, so neither the writers nor the readers would have
had anything to do with trinitarianism, which cannot be reconciled with
Biblical monotheism. It is, therefore, futile to attempt to extract trinita-
rian proof texts from Hebrews; this was something I also attempted in
former days, and thus have firsthand knowledge of it. It can be accom-
plished only by ignorant misinterpretation or else by eisegesis, which is
the usual trinitarian practice of reading one’s own dogma into the text.
The first chapter of Hebrews, which is where trinitarian attempts at
gathering proof texts are made, is primarily a collection of Messianic
passages from the OT which was used by Jewish believers to convince
fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. These OT passages were, of
course, generally familiar to the Jews and were therefore useful as a
means of discussing the Messiahship of Jesus. So the letter to the
Hebrews clearly shared the same goal as John’s Gospel, namely to
convince the Jews (and others) that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”
(Jo.20.31). The “Son” occurs already at the beginning of Hebrews (1.2);
but this letter shares other important themes with John, specially that of
Christ as “the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world”
(Jo.1.29,36). Christ as the one eternally effective sacrifice for sin is a
central theme of Hebrews; the other central theme, inseparably joined to
the previous one, is the unique fact that Christ is both sacrifice and high
priest! John 17 is frequently described as “Jesus’ high priestly prayer.”
Another strong point of contact between Hebrews and John is the
emphasis on believing or faith. “Believe” is a key word in John’s Gospel
(pisteuō, 98 times, far more frequent than any other NT book), while
“faith” is a key word in Hebrews (pistis, 32 times), mainly concentrated in
chapter 11, where every instance is about faith in Yahweh. There can be
no doubt that Hebrews and John not only have these major themes in
common, but are also united in their unquestionable commitment to
monotheism.
318 The Only True God

The term “the Son” in Hebrews refers to the Messiah but, needless to
say, trinitarians want to make it mean “God the Son,” which is something
unthinkable to the Jews, and which is certainly not the meaning in
Hebrews or anywhere else in the Bible. Yet as trinitarians we supposed
that Hebrews 1.8 provided an excellent proof text of Jesus’ deity. We did
not concern ourselves with the fact that it is a quotation from Psalm 45.6,
nor did we really care what those words mean in the context of that
psalm:
8
“But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and
ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; there-
fore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness
beyond your companions.’” (Heb.1.8,9; Ps.45.6,7)
If we pay attention to Heb.1.9 we see that, also concerning the Son, it
says, “God, your God, has anointed you”; the word “anointed” is what the
word “Messiah” means in Hebrew, and what the word “Christ” means in
Greek; so the Messianic character of this passage (and of Psalm 45, from
which it is quoted) is stated explicitly. Psalm 45 is a song about the
enthronement of the king of Israel, who having been anointed by
Yahweh, acts as Yahweh’s servant and regent. So if the words in Heb.1.8,
“Your throne, O God,” are applied to the Messianic king, then the word
“God” should properly be spelt as “god” and understood in the sense in
which Jesus used it in John 10.34,35 (quoting Ps.82.1,6,7) where it refers
to servants and representatives of God. OT scholars are well aware of the
fact that “O God” in Psalm 45.6 can only be applied in this sense in the
light of OT monotheism; this is reflected in some of the translations:

“Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal
scepter is a scepter of equity” (RSV)

“Your throne is from God, for ever and ever, the sceptre of your
kingship a sceptre of justice” (NJB)

Robert Alter (Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the

University of California, Berkeley) translates the first line as “Your
throne of God is forevermore” and comments, “Some construe the
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 319

Hebrew here to mean “Your throne, O God,” but it would be anomalous

to have an address to God in the middle of the poem because the entire
Psalm is directed to the king or to his bride” (The Book of Psalms, A
Translation with Commentary, Norton, 2007, on Ps.45.7).
Hebrews 1.10-12 quotes Psalm 102.25-27 from the Septuagint. Psalm
102.1: “Hear my prayer, O LORD (Yahweh); let my cry come to you!”
The whole Psalm is a prayer of faith to Yahweh, who is mentioned many
times through this prayer. This means that “Lord” in Ps.102.25 and
Hebrews 1.10 can only refer to Yahweh. Why is this passage inserted into
this collection of OT Messianic passages in Hebrews 1? Is it in order to
substantiate the certainty of the promise in Hebrews 1.8 that “Your
throne is for ever and ever”? Or is there, too, a recognition of the unique
relationship between Yahweh and Jesus in the Johannine sense that the
Word/Memra of Yahweh was embodied in Jesus?
That the author of Hebrews understood Jesus in terms of both the
Memra and the Shekinah is extremely likely, indeed one could say quite
certainly, in view of Hebrews 1.2,3. Verse 3 speaks of Jesus as “the
radiance of the glory of God” which could properly be understood by the
Jews, to whom the letter was written, as a reference to the Shekinah of
God. The next phrase speaks of Jesus as the image of God, which is “the
exact representation of his being” (NIV); Christ as God’s image was
considered earlier in this study. It then goes on to say, “sustaining all
things by His (God’s) powerful word” (NIV). What is particularly
interesting here is that “word” here is not logos but rhēma. It would be
hard to explain the reason for this use of a different word from John
except for the quite striking fact that rhēma is the word used in the Greek
OT for God’s “word” in Isaiah 55.11. This important passage (Isa.55.10,
11) is discussed in detail in chapter 7 (“The OT roots of ‘the Word’”).
The Greek OT was the Bible that the readers of Hebrews (and other
Greek speaking believers) would have been using at that time, as is widely
known; so this use of the word rhēma could have served to indicate to
them that Hebrews 1.3 points to Isaiah 55.11.
On the other hand, the humanity of Christ is emphasized more
strongly in Hebrews than in any other NT letter. Hebrews 1.3 speaks also
of Jesus “making purification of sins”. There is strong emphasis on the
sacrificial blood in Hebrews: “blood” in this sense is a key word in this
320 The Only True God

letter, and is far more frequent than in any other book in the NT: it
occurs 21 times. (“Blood” occurs 19 times in Revelation, but a large
proportion of these refer to blood as a consequence of divine judgment
on the world.) “Flesh and blood” is a common way by which Scripture
refers to a human being (Heb.2.14; Mat.16.17; 1Cor.15.50; Eph.6.12).
From this it becomes perfectly clear that the humanity of Christ is
absolutely essential to his “making purification of sins” for mankind’s
salvation. In contrast to this, nowhere in Hebrews, or anywhere else in
the NT, is it ever said that Jesus had to be God in order to make
purification of sins or to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mat.20.28;
Mk.10.45).

The Monotheism of the Book of Revelation

T
he Johannine book of Revelation is regarded as having a “high
Christology,” mainly because of what appear to be divine titles
ascribed to Christ in it. As the latest of the NT writings, it is
thought to have the most developed NT Christology. We shall take a
careful look at its key features. The first thing that strikes the reader of
the Revelation is the fact that the title given to Jesus above all other titles
is the “Lamb” (arnion); this word occurs 29 times in the Revelation, but
one reference (Rev.13.11) refers to the antichrist who also appears as a
lamb, or we might say “anti-lamb”. This means that there are 28 (= 4x7)
references to the Lamb, and this number fits in precisely with the inbuilt
pattern of the number 7 in Revelation. Thus the Lamb is central to the
description of Jesus in the book. The explanation is also given explicitly
in the book, for the Lamb is described as one that “was slain” and, by its
blood, has redeemed the saints (Rev.1.5).
What every Jewish believer knew was that the sacrificial lamb had to
be “without spot or blemish” of any kind if it was to be offered up in the
temple, that is, it had to be perfect to qualify as a sacrifice. What all this
means should be perfectly clear: Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for
mankind. In other words, the Revelation was concerned above all else
with Christ as the perfect man. The Lamb is the perfect symbol of the
perfect man!
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 321

The deity of Christ is, accordingly, not something that emerges in the
Revelation. This becomes strikingly clear from the fact that “the Lamb” is
never the sole object of veneration or praise; he is adored always and only
together with God, and even then this only occurs on 2 or 3 occasions.
On one occasion it seems as though the Lamb is the sole object of
veneration even though the word “worship” is not used (5.8ff) but in v.13
God is adored together with the Lamb, and at the end of the section the
word “worship” is used very probably in relation to God together with
the Lamb (v.14, but cf. next paragraph).
It is significant that the word “worship” (proskuneō) is used 8 times in
Revelation with reference to God alone, and never of the Lamb alone. In
only one instance it could, and perhaps does, refer to both God and the
Lamb together (5.14). The uncertainty expressed by the word “could” in
the previous sentence is based on the way “worship” is used in Revelation
as a whole: Consider, for example, the scene of worship in Rev.7.9-12 in
which countless multitudes offer veneration and praise “to our God, who
sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (v.10). Then in the very next verse
(v.11), to my great surprise, all the exalted spiritual beings of the highest
order in heaven “fell down on their faces before the throne and wor-
shipped God” (without reference to the Lamb just mentioned in the
previous verse), and offered to Him alone (“our God for ever and ever”,
v.12) a seven-fold doxology.
Remarkably, even though the Lamb is said to have some kind of
central position in regard to God’s throne (7.17), this is most likely to be
understood as exercising God’s reign and authority over all things as His
fully empowered agent or representative, as mentioned also elsewhere in
the NT (Mt.28.18; 1Cor.15.25-28); even so, he is never the sole object of
worship. Even in the very passage where this verse (Rev.7.17) appears, we
read (v.15), “they (the saints) are before the throne of God and serve
(latreuō) Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne
will spread His tent over them”. There is mention of the Lamb in the first
part of v.17, but the section closes with the reference going back to God
alone.
Something very similar to the previous examples is found in
Revelation 22:3, “No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God
and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve (latreuō)
322 The Only True God

him.” This is the only other place in Revelation where the word latreuō
(to serve in a religious sense and can therefore mean ‘worship’, e.g.
Ro.12.1) appears; the other is in 7.15 quoted in the previous paragraph.
In both verses we read the words “serve him (sing.)” There is no problem
with regard to 7.15 since only God is mentioned there; but notice that in
22.3 there is reference to both God and the Lamb, then notice the double
singular: “his (sing.) servants will serve him (sing.)” Since this is very
evidently an echo of 7.15, there can be no doubt that the reference is to
God. So even though the Lamb is granted a place on God’s throne
(Rev.3.21), God still remains the One who alone is worshipped. This
pattern in Revelation shows how remarkably God-centered it is.
Throughout the whole of Revelation 4, the Lord God Almighty (v.8) is
the sole object of worship. Chapter 5 is a continuation or extension of the
heavenly scene in chapter 4. This means that the adoration of the Lamb
takes place within the context of the worship of the One who sits on the
throne mentioned in 4.2 and 5.13, and is not a separate event.
If all this strong evidence of theocentricity in Revelation was not suffi-
ciently surprising to me, because of my strong trinitarian background
and emphasis on Christocentricity, there were more surprises to come in
the course of my investigation. For example, looking at the scene of
worship in Rev.15.1ff, the “Lord God Almighty… King of the ages” is
once again the sole object of worship, but what struck me is that this song
of worship is “the song of the Lamb,” which in the same verse (v.3) is
compared to “the song of Moses”—the song that Moses taught the
Israelites to sing in praise and worship to Yahweh (Ex.15.1-18). In other
words, it is the Lamb himself who teaches the saints to worship (proskuneō
appears in v.4) “the Lord God Almighty”!
Nor is this the only instance. At the end of the Revelation, we find that
John is so overwhelmed by all that has been revealed to him through that
special angel (who had been commissioned to serve as his heavenly
guide) that he “fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been
showing them to me. But he said to me, ‘Do not do it!....Worship God!’”
(22.8,9). There would be nothing particularly remarkable about these
words of the angel until we read that “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give
you this testimony for the churches” (22.16). What does this mean? It
means that this angel is not just one of the many angels in heaven but
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 323

Jesus’ angel, one sent specially by him. Significantly, it is this angel of

Jesus who instructs John to worship God alone. This instruction is
consistent with the use of “worship” (proskuneō) in Revelation as a
whole, where the Lord God Almighty is always the central object of
worship (4.10; 7.11; 11.16; 14.7; 15.4; 19.4,10; 22.9). The consistent
monotheism of Revelation should now be very clear to us; and we should
not be surprised when we find that the same is true of all the Johannine
writings.27

Revelation 1

R
evelation 1 is another passage used for arguing for Jesus’ preexist-
ence and deity. But the portrayal of Jesus as the high priest in
heaven in this chapter does not provide any basis for arguing for
his preexistence because the vision is seen long after Jesus’ resurrection
and exaltation. In fact the picture is strikingly akin to the portrayal of
“one like a son of man” (the same words in Rev.1.13; also 14.14) in
Dan.7.13. There is also the same reference to his “coming in the clouds of
heaven” (Rev.1.7).

27
Note on Rev.22.8: We have seen that in Revelation the word “worship” is
never used except in relation to God alone, yet strangely enough John says: “I fell
down to worship at the feet of the angel” (Rev.22.8). This seems almost incom-
prehensible especially in view of the fact that the worship of angels is among the
things condemned in Colossians 2.18,19; but it is also utterly incompatible with
the monotheism of Revelation itself. It seems that the only way it can be
understood in this context is in light of what was said shortly before this, “the
Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his
servants what must soon take place” (Rev.22.6). It seems that John may have
thought that what these words indicated is that the angel standing before him
was none other than “the angel of Yahweh,” frequently mentioned in the OT,
who was a manifestation of Yahweh Himself. It is only revealed to John some 8
verses later that this angel is in fact an angel sent by Jesus (Rev.22.16); so this
angel was certainly one of God’s angels but not that “angel of Yahweh” well
known in the OT.
324 The Only True God

James Dunn suggests that some of the language in Rev.1. is remini-

scent of the descriptions of visions of angels in ancient literature. Daniel,
for example, describes a vision in these words, 10.5,6:

“5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in

linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6
His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of light-
ning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the
gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the
sound of a multitude.” (Dan.10.5,6)

The Expositor’s Commentary remarks, “Verses 5-6 are probably the most-
detailed description in Scripture of the appearance of an angel”. Noting
the description, “his eyes like flaming torches,” the commentator says
that ‘Revelation 1.14 states that Christ appeared to John with “eyes ... like
blazing fire”’.
But there are other important similarities that this commentary does
not mention; for example:

 Dan.10.5, “a belt of the finest gold around his waist” (NIV), cf.
Rev.1.13, “a golden sash around his chest” (NIV) cp. “a long robe
tied at the waist with a belt of gold” (NJB).

 Daniel 10.6: “legs like the gleam of burnished bronze” cf. Revelation
1.15: “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace” (NIV) cp. “his
feet like burnished bronze when it has been refined in a furnace”
(NJB).

 Dan.10.6, “his voice like the sound of a multitude” (NIV) cf. “the
sound of his voice was like the roar of a multitude” (NJB), cp.
Rev.1.15 “his voice was like the sound of rushing waters”. The words
translated as the “sound of a multitude” can refer to the sound of
crowds of people, of water (e.g. rain), or even the rushing of chariot
wheels, as The Expositor’s Commentary also mentions.
Thus Revelation 1 certainly describes the risen Christ in terms of the
grandeur and glory of a heavenly being but does not provide the basis for
arguing for his deity. Indeed, another angelic being is portrayed in
similarly splendid terms in Revelation 10. Again I quote The Expositor’s
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 325

Commentary on Daniel 10.4ff: “Note Rev 10:1, where the angel is

depicted as robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head, his face
shining like the sun, and his legs like fiery pillars—a description with
striking similarities to this one in Daniel.”
Since The Expositor’s Commentary has mentioned Revelation 10.1,
notice, too, that the description of this “mighty angel coming down from
heaven” says that “his face was like the sun” which is exactly how the face
of Christ, as the resurrected one, is described in Rev.1.16.
But the similarities between the vision in Daniel 10 and Revelation 1
extend still further. There is also the similarity of the effect on Daniel and
on John respectively: “I had no strength left, my face turned deathly
pale… I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground” Dan.10.8,9, which
is not essentially different from “I fell at his feet as though dead”
(Rev.1.17). Again, in both instances, a hand is placed upon them as the
person they have seen speaks to them.
In view of all this, there can be no doubt that Christ is portrayed in
angelic terms in Rev.1. But the inclusion of the title “I am the first and the
last” (Rev.1.17), which may be a divine title, could suggest that a
reference to the OT “angel of the Lord” is intended. However, “The first
and the last” is a title used of Christ on three occasions (1.17; 2.8; 22.13),
though never of God in the Revelation.
But there may be a relationship in substance with Isaiah 41.4, “I, the
LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He” (NASB), but some
uncertainty of meaning is underlined by the variety of translations, such
as: “I, the LORD—with the first of them and with the last—I am he”
(NIV) and “I, Yahweh, who am the first and till the last I shall still be
there” (NJB). Even so, the parallels with Isa.44.6 and 48.12 are very close
in their wording.
But it is always necessary to exercise caution when trying to prove a
theological point by the use of similar titles. For example, all true
disciples are called “the light of the world” by Jesus (Mt.5.14), and he also
speaks of himself by exactly the same title, “the light of the world”
(Jo.8.12; 9.5). Can we argue from this that if Jesus is God, so are we? If
not, then why is it constantly assumed that when a divine title is applied
to Christ it must mean that he is God? If, in the case of “the light of the
world,” it can only be properly understood to mean that we are “the light
326 The Only True God

of the world” because the Spirit of Christ who indwells us shines through
us with the light of Christ, then does it not mean the same thing in regard
to Christ? Christ is “the first and the last” by virtue of the fact that the
Father who indwells him is “the first and the last”. This fundamentally
important point is simply disregarded by trinitarians. Moreover, as usual,
trinitarians either intentionally or carelessly overlook the fact that all
three references in Isaiah (mentioned in the previous paragraph) refer to
Yahweh by “first” and “last,” so to argue for the identity of the references
in Revelation with those in Isaiah only results in identifying Jesus with
Yahweh and, as we have seen before, this is not the result that trinitarians
wish to achieve because it results in reducing the First and Second
Persons of the Trinity to one and the same person, thereby eliminating
the Trinity.
Moreover, “first” and “last” in Isaiah has a meaning which could not
possibly apply to Christ in the use of these terms in Revelation, thus
Isaiah 43.10b,11: “Before me no god was formed [therefore Yahweh is
“the first”], nor shall there be any after me [therefore Yahweh is “the
last”]. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.” The meaning
here is evident: Since He is both first and last, He is the only God and
Savior. In other words, “the first” and “the last” is another way in which
the absolutely resolute monotheism of Isaiah’s message is proclaimed.
We can conclude from the discussion in the preceding paragraphs
that it is indeed possible that Christ is portrayed in Rev.1 as “the angel of
the Lord,” an epiphany of Yahweh. If the preceding exegesis is on the
right track, then it shows a link between Christ in the NT and the angel of
the Lord in the OT, even though Revelation 1 may provide the only such
link with the angel of the Lord.

God and the Lamb in the Book of Revelation

W
e can see in the book of Revelation how the phrase “to the
glory of God the Father” (Phil.2.11) is revealed with wonder-
ful clarity.
Many references to the book of Revelation have been made because,
as we have seen, trinitarian Christology has considered it fertile ground
from which to dig up proof-texts without any regard for the context in
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 327

which they are found, that is, the main themes of Revelation are simply
disregarded, and texts are torn out of their context. For example, it
should have been observed that Yahweh God alone is spoken of as “the
One who sits on the throne” no less than 12 times in the Revelation.
“Throne” is a key word in Rev., occurring 47 times in 37 verses; it is the
symbol of power, authority, and sovereignty. Most of these references to
“throne” refer to God’s throne, that is, to His kingship and sovereignty;
but a few refer to the delegated (by God) authority of other beings. In
2.13 there is even a reference to “Satan’s throne”; he always seeks to
usurp God’s kingship.
Jesus, in direct contrast to this, always sought to live in total obed-
ience to his Father (cf. Rev.1.6, “his God and Father”), for he was
“obedient unto death” (Phil.2.8), a truth captured in the striking picture
of “the Lamb that was slain” in Revelation. It is clearly because of this (cf.
Phil.2.9-11) that the truly beautiful picture emerges at the conclusion and
finale of the Revelation in which God is seen to share His throne with the
Lamb: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as
crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev.22.1, cf.3).
This sharing of God’s throne fulfills what Jesus mentioned in Rev.3.21,
“The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as
I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” This is
also to say that the throne he is granted to sit on is essentially the Father’s
throne. The phrase “the throne of God and of the Lamb” appears only in
these two verses in the Revelation.
As we noted earlier, the “Lamb” as applied to Jesus appears 28 (4x7)
times in Revelation and is, therefore, a key word. The slain Lamb por-
trays Christ as the sacrifice for sin through his death and resurrection.
Having faithfully and victoriously completed the mission which God our
Father entrusted to him, he was granted to sit upon God’s throne (cf.
again Phil.2.9-11), just as all those who conquer will be granted a place
on Christ’s throne (Rev.3.21). Peter in Acts 2:36 proclaimed that “God
has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,” which is
also why Paul speaks of him as “the Lord Jesus Christ”. Notice again that
it is God who has made him Lord. Lordship was conferred on him by
God, and the same is true of his messiahship (Christ). This is something
328 The Only True God

that we who were brought up as trinitarians must not lose sight of if we

are not again to stray from the truth of God’s word.
The fact is that in Revelation the central object of worship is God, our
Father. This is specifically stated, indeed commanded, in Rev.22.9,
“Worship God”. This is all the more significant when we realize that here
it is Christ who is speaking through his angel (Rev.22.16).
The many references to God’s “throne” in Revelation speak of His
universal reign; we are thereby reminded of the “kingdom of God” so
central to Jesus’ teaching. “The kingdom of God” is a term which occurs
31 times in Jesus’ teaching in Luke; its equivalent “the kingdom of
heaven” also occurs 31 times in Matthew, where “heaven” is a metonym
for “God”. What this means is that God’s kingship is a central and vital
element in Jesus’ teaching. From this it should also be evident that
Yahweh God is Himself central to Jesus’ teaching. Has it ever crossed our
minds that to try to exalt Jesus to innate equality with Yahweh God is
contrary to his teaching? And if by so doing we are disobedient to him,
what will happen to us on that Day?

“God” in the Book of Revelation is Yahweh

T
his is made clear at the very beginning of Revelation: “Grace to
you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come”
(Rev.1.4) and again in verse 8, “the Lord God, who is and who was
and who is to come, the Almighty.” This is easily recognized, as Bible
commentators have observed, as the equivalent of Exodus 3.14, “God
said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM. {Or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE}
This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you’”
(NIV). It also reminds us of such descriptions of God as “from everlast-
ing to everlasting you are God” (Ps.90.2); “they (the heavens) will pass
away, but you are the same, and your years have no end” (Ps.102.26,27);
and “I, Yahweh, do not change” (Mal.3.6).
The same divine description as in Revelation 1.4,8 occurs also in 4.8
in the following magnificent way, “day and night they never cease to say,
‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to
come!’”. The thrice holy recalls the vision in Isaiah 6. “The Lord God” is
the familiar title of Yahweh in the OT.
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 329

In the NT, “The Almighty” (pantokratōr) as a title of Yahweh is

unique to the Revelation, where it occurs 9 times (1.8; 4.8; 11.17; 15.3;
16.7; 16.14; 19.6; 19.15; 21.22; it appears in a quotation from the OT in
2Cor.6.18). Pantokratōr (“the Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent (One)
only of God”, Greek-English Lexicon, BDAG) is frequent in the Greek OT
(including Apocrypha), where it occurs 181 times, and is used to
translate two titles of Yahweh: “The Lord of Hosts” and El-Shaddai. It
occurs an astonishing 55 times in the relatively short book of Zechariah,
where it usually translates “Yahweh Sabaoth” (NJB, or “the LORD of
hosts” in most other versions, but “the Almighty” in NIV). “Therefore
say to them, Thus declares the LORD of hosts: Return to me, says the
LORD of hosts, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts”
(Zech.1.3).
“Shaddai” appears 48 times in the Hebrew Bible, of which 31 times are
in Job: “Blessed is the man whom God corrects; so do not despise the
discipline of the Almighty. {Hebrew Shaddai; here and throughout Job}”
(Job 5.17, NIV). Its first occurrences in the Bible are in Genesis 17.1, “the
LORD (Yahweh) appeared to him (Abraham) and said, ‘I am God
Almighty (Heb: El-Shaddai); walk before me and be blameless’,” and
Genesis 28.3, “May God Almighty {El-Shaddai} bless you and make you
fruitful” (NIV). When we look at these examples, we cannot help being
struck by how closely “the Almighty” relates to man in spite of His un-
imaginable exaltedness and power. This is a striking characteristic about
Yahweh; it is evident throughout the Bible. In Revelation we see that the
Almighty is closely involved in what goes on in the world, and that He is
using such means as are necessary to accomplish His purposes for man-
kind.
We have already noted that “throne” is a key word in the Revelation.
The concept of God seated upon His throne and reigning over the world
and the universe occurs frequently in the OT, particularly in the Psalms:
“Yahweh has fixed his throne in heaven, his sovereign power rules over
all” (Ps.103.19, NJB); “You, O LORD, reign forever; your throne endures
to all generations” (Lam.5.19). In Matthew 5.34 Jesus speaks of heaven as
“God’s throne” and the earth as “His footstool” (Mt.5.34,35).
Especially relevant for the Revelation is Isaiah’s vision of God seated
upon His throne, “In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord
330 The Only True God

sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled
the temple” (Isa.6.1); and all the more so because of verse 3, “And one
called to another (i.e. the seraphim, v.2) and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the
LORD (Yahweh) of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!’”; this thrice
repeated “holy” is echoed in Revelation 4.8: “day and night they never
cease to say, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is
and is to come!’” The throne (Ezek.1.26), in what is often called Ezekiel’s
heavenly “chariot vision,” is also a vision of Yahweh’s throne: “The
radiance of the encircling light was like the radiance of the bow in the
clouds on rainy days. The sight was like the glory of Yahweh” (Ezek.1.28,
NJB).

“I have made you like God” (Exodus 7.1) —a man

appointed to function as God’s representative to carry
out His purposes

I
n the heavenly atmosphere of the Book of Revelation there seems,
almost inevitably, something God-like about Jesus the Lamb. This is
perhaps what gave us the impression that we could easily find mate-
rial in it to demonstrate the trinitarian doctrine of his deity. We simply
assumed that the titles used of him were divine titles, such as “I am the
first and the last” (Rev.1.17, which we discuss elsewhere in this study),
and are surprised when upon analysis it turns out that these are not
necessarily divine titles. This raises the question: “Does God’s granting of
divine titles, such as ‘the Lord,’ to Jesus mean that he should be wor-
shipped on the same level with Yahweh God?” We thought that the
answer should be in the affirmative, but we discover to our surprise the
answer which Revelation gives does not correspond to our ideas.
Evidently, there is something concerning the divine revelation about
Jesus we had failed to perceive, and therefore understood the matter
wrongly. In this matter of God-likeness, there is striking similarity with
the case of Moses where God said, “I have made you like God to Pharaoh”
(Ex.7.1, NIV) or, “I make you as God to Pharaoh” (NASB). God’s own
divine status and authority are conferred upon Moses, so that interaction
between Moses and Pharaoh now becomes the interaction between God
and Pharaoh, who is the king of the world as far as the Israelites who
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 331

lived in Egypt were concerned. Moses now comes to Pharaoh not just as
a servant of God or a prophet of God (as one having power and authority
to act in God’s Name), he is God as far as Pharaoh is concerned. But the
same was true already in regard to Moses’ relationship to Aaron (and
therefore to the priesthood) Ex.4.16, “He shall speak for you to the
people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him.”
Thus the conferring of a divine status on a person is not a totally new
idea in Scripture. Jesus, in fact, confirmed this fact in Jo.10.34,35 quoting
Ps.82.6.
We have already considered Psalm 45 (NIV: “A wedding song” for the
king of Israel) where the king (v.1) is spoken of as “God” in verse 6. But
the very next verse makes it clear that this “God” or “god” is not the
supreme God, because “the Most High God” (Ps.78.35,56; etc) is “your
God” who has conferred upon this “god” a place “above your compan-
ions” (Ps.45.7). The description or title “Most High” (Elyôn, ‫עלְיוֹן‬ ֶ ) is
applied to Yahweh 53 times in the OT, of which 22 are in the Psalms.
There was never any question of worshipping the earthly king of Israel,
not even the greatest of the Israelites, Moses. This is because ultimately
only Yahweh is the true King of Israel and, as the Most High, He alone is
the object of worship. See, for example, the majestic declaration: “Thus
says the LORD (Yahweh), the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD
(Yahweh) of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no
god.’” (Isa.44.6); and again: “The LORD (Yahweh) has taken away the
judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of
Israel, the LORD (Yahweh), is in your midst; you shall never again fear
evil.” (Zep.3.15) Perhaps all this will help us to understand a little better
the fact that in Biblical monotheism no one, no matter how highly
exalted by God he may be—and Jesus is certainly more highly exalted
than any other—can ever be the object of worship instead of Yahweh.
What these examples show is that the transcendent God carries out
His saving work immanently through holy vessels that He has chosen.
Jesus is His chosen one (“My Chosen One,” Lk.9.35; cf. Lk.23.35, Gk.)
above all others. In the NT we see that God does everything in and
through the Lord Jesus Christ, hence the familiar terms “in Christ” and
“through Christ” so frequent in Paul’s letters. However, what we tend to
332 The Only True God

forget is that Christ is God’s chosen vessel to carry out God’s (not Christ’s
own) eternal purposes.
Another instance, which was the subject of much discussion in Jewish
literature, was the remarkable angel who was appointed by God to lead
the Israelites through the wilderness and guard them along the way.
What is remarkable about this angel is that he is the bearer of God’s
Name, “My Name is in him” (Ex.23.21). From v.22 it is clear that to obey
him is to obey God, for it is God who speaks and acts in and through
him. This angel is, as far as Israel is concerned, God Himself by virtue of
being the bearer of God’s Name. Even so, there was never any question of
worshipping this angel, for they were only to “Worship the Lord your
God” (v.25).
The problem for us is that we have been so deeply indoctrinated by
trinitarianism that we find it easier to accept ditheism or tritheism, in
regard to Christ, than monotheism. Our minds have been so shackled by
the trinitarian form of polytheism that, when unshackled, we don’t even
know what to think. It is rather like those prisoners who have spent most
of their lives in prison with the result that, when released, they have no
idea where to go and, consequently, choose to return to prison as the
only home they have known. To avoid returning to error will, evidently,
only be possible through an abundant supply of God’s grace and strength
to love His truth no matter what the cost, for it is the narrow and difficult
road that leads to life.

What can we do in the present situation of the church?

I
s there anything that we, on our part, can do in the current situation
of the Christian church to prevent ourselves from sliding back into
error? By the grace of God, there is. We can learn, as Jesus’ disciple,
to be like him in his single-minded devotion to his Father. The whole NT
testifies unequivocally to the fact that he loved his Father with all his
heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mat.22.37; Mk.12.30; Lk.10.27). What he
taught us to do, he first did himself. When we love God our Father in this
way we will find our hearts wholly united with Christ, because it was he
who taught and practiced it. Moreover, loving the Father should not be
difficult when we realize that it was He who first loved us (1Jo.4.19) and
 Chapter 4 — The Trinitarian Deification of Christ 333

loved us to the extent that “He did not spare his own Son, but gave him
up for us all” (Ro.8.32; cf. Jo.3.16). “How great is the love the Father has
lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” (1John 3:1,
NIV)—“And we have known and believed the love that God has for us”
(1Jo.4.16, NKJV).
As for prayer, we can learn to call upon God our Father as “Abba,
Father” just as Jesus himself prayed (Mk.14.36), and as the Spirit of God,
“the Spirit of adoption,” enables us to pray (Ro.8.14,15). Galatians 4.6
reads, “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His
Son into our hearts, crying (krazō is a strong word, expressing intensity),
‘Abba! Father!’” These words make it very clear that if the Spirit of Christ
is in us, we will call or cry out from our hearts, “Abba, Father”. It may
also be of significance that this verse states that it is not the Son who
sends His Spirit into our hearts, but it is God our Father Himself who
does this.
Further, we can learn to meditate on heavenly things by meditating,
for example, on the heavenly scene described in Revelation 4 and 5,
noticing how the heavenly multitudes worship “the One seated upon the
throne” (Yahweh God, the Father, is described in this way, or its equiva-
lent, 12 times in Revelation). “Throne” is a key word in Revelation
occurring 47 times (of these, 14 times in Rev.4, and 5 times in Rev.5). As
mentioned above, the Lamb was granted to sit with God our Father on
His throne, just as the overcomers will be granted to share Christ’s throne
with him (Rev.3.21). After the opening of the seal in Rev.5, the Lamb is
praised and adored together with God. By visualizing these wonderful
scenes of worship, and learning the meaning of the doxologies in them,
we could learn to worship in that heavenly manner, for are not these
things written for our instruction? Paul exhorted us to set our minds on
the things above (Col.3.2). Rev.4 and 5 can certainly help us do this in a
deeper way.
Perhaps it was some such heavenly vision of worship that inspired
Paul to burst forth in the intensity of his beautiful doxology, “Now to the
King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for
ever and ever. Amen” (1Ti.1.17, NASB). We may wonder what had
caused him to suddenly pour forth this doxology in the midst of writing
his letter. Was it perhaps the reference to eternal life in the previous
334 The Only True God

verse? Would our hearts similarly rise in praise to God our Father at the
thought of eternal life? Let us also not overlook his strong monotheistic
affirmation of “the only (monos) God (theos)” in the center of that
doxology.
 Chapter 5

Yahweh in the
Hebrew Bible

“Yahweh” in the Hebrew Bible (“the Old Testament”)

he Name Yahweh (‫יהוה‬, YHWH) occurs 6828 times in the OT;

T this figure does not include the 49 occurrences of “Yah,” such as

in Exodus 15.2; Psalm 68.5; and the many expressions of
“Halleluiah” or Hallelu-Yah, “praise Yahweh,” in the Psalms. (If
we include the suffixed –iah (=Jah or Yah) in such names as Isaiah and
Jeremiah, and the prefixed Je- or Jeho- (e.g. Jehu, and Jehoshaphat
“Yahweh judges”), the number would be further increased.) The total
number of references to Yahweh in the OT amounts, therefore, to about
7000.
The word “God,” Elohim (‫)אלהים‬, is found 2600 times; but a
considerable portion of this number refers to the many other gods
mentioned in the OT. So the number of references to “God” (especially if
the references to other gods are excluded) in the OT amounts altogether
to little more than 1/3 of the references to “Yahweh”. The absolute
336 The Only True God

preponderance of “Yahweh” is perfectly evident. The combination

“Yahweh (‘LORD’) God (Elohim)” (‫ )יהוה אלהים‬appears 891 times in
817 verses.
From these figures it is clear that Yahweh is by far the predominant
Name in the OT. Moreover, nowhere is there any sign of there being
another person equal to Yahweh or that there is more than one person
within Yahweh Himself.

What will the trinitarian do about Yahweh?

W
hat is truly remarkable is the fact that in spite of the huge
number of references to Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, His
Name does not appear in the major versions of the English
Bible; it has, in effect, been eliminated from all of them! (The New
Jerusalem Bible is a notable exception.) This serves the trinitarian pur-
pose perfectly because it thereby avoids having directly to face the crucial
question: How exactly is trinitarianism compatible with Yahweh? The
truth is: trinitarianism has no answer to this question! That is because
Yahweh, who is consistently revealed as the only true God besides whom
there is no other, simply cannot be made to fit into the trinitarian scheme
of things. It is no more than a subterfuge to try to identify Him with “the
Father” in the Trinity, besides whom there are two other persons co-
equal with Him—something abominable to Yahweh, as anyone who has
so much as read the OT ought to know but, blinded by trinitarian dogma,
failed to see or care.
What a trinitarian must come to grips with is that he/she is faced with
a stark choice: Either Yahweh or the Trinity but not both. Either God is
one or there are three. Trinitarianism tried to “have its cake and eat it,”
that is, tried to have the best of both worlds, monotheism and trinita-
rianism, by reducing “God” to a “divine nature” in which the three co-
equal persons are made to participate. The final outcome of trying to ride
two horses at the same time is not difficult to imagine; and the spiritual
end of those who suppose that they can get the best from two totally
incompatible worlds (monotheism versus trinitarian polytheism) should
also not be difficult to foresee. From the point of view of Scripture, it is
utterly foolish to suppose that a choice could be avoided, because the
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 337

final spiritual outcome will be disastrous. Elijah put the choice before the
Israelites on Mount Carmel: “How long will you waver between two
opinions? If the LORD (Yahweh) is God, follow him; but if Baal is God,
follow him.” (1Kings 18.21, NIV) But long before the remarkable events
on Mount Carmel, Joshua had already called the people of Israel to face
up to the same kind of choice, “choose for yourselves this day whom you
will serve” (Joshua 24.15, NIV). He made his own stand unequivocally
clear before all the people, “as for me and my household, we will serve the
LORD (Yahweh).” May the Lord grant us courage to make the same
stand today.

The Name “Yahweh”

I
n NT times the Jews (including, of course, the members of the Jewish
church) would for the most part have known the Hebrew Bible
because it was regularly read in the synagogues (Lk.4.16f). But
Hellenistic Jews (Jews brought up in Greek society and/or culture) would
have been less conversant with Hebrew, and therefore had to rely on the
Septuagint (LXX) in which YHWH (Yahweh) was translated as “Lord”
(kurios); this was in accordance with the exilic and post-exilic practice of
not enunciating or pronouncing God’s Name for fear of His Name being
“taken in vain” (Ex.20.7). English Bibles (with the exception of the New
Jerusalem Bible) follow the Septuagint in translating YHWH as “LORD,”
but with the difference that the word is capitalized (which is irrelevant
when the word is spoken). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testa-
ment (TWOT) informs us, “Only in pre-NT times was God’s personal
name [Yahweh] replaced with the less intimate title ădōnāy (Gr. kurios)
‘Lord’.”
TWOT also makes the following instructive observation about
“Yahweh”:

Scripture speaks of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as ‘this

glorious and fearful [awesome] name’ (Deut 28:58) or simply
‘the name’ (Lev 24:11). But it connotes God’s nearness, his
concern for man, and the revelation of his redemptive covenant.
In Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3, the general term elōhîm
338 The Only True God

“deity,” is appropriate for God transcendent in creation; but in

Gen 2:4-25 it is Yahweh, the God who is immanent in Eden’s
revelations. (TWOT, ‫( י ָהּ‬yāh) Yahweh, italics added).

The result of the Jewish fear of pronouncing God’s revered Name was
that in time the pronunciation of His Name became unknown or, at least,
uncertain. The Name of God is now generally unknown to most Jews and
Christians. God, for them, is now nameless! But the Scripture says,
“Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (Yahweh) will be saved”
(NIV, Joel 2.32; Acts 2.21; Romans 10.13). Should we then not ask: How
shall they call on His Name when they don’t know what it is? For the
verse does not merely say, “Call on God,” but to call on “His Name”. The
phrase the “Name of Yahweh” (shem YHWH) occurs 97 times in the
Hebrew Bible. If calling upon His Name is a matter that concerns man’s
salvation, then it must be a matter of near insanity to eliminate His Name
from daily use. Moreover, who initially authorized the non-pronun-
ciation of the Divine Name? Who has authority to forbid the use of His
Name? It seems impossible to trace the origin of the ban on the use of
Yahweh’s “glorious name” (Deut.28.58). Its development long ago seems
to have been much like the way a rumor is spread, its origin can no
longer be discovered—yet, though false, it is believed!
But the spread of this “rumor” or, more precisely, a lie (because it not
only has no authorization in God’s word, but is contrary to it), has spirit-
ually disastrous consequences, in particular for the church. For now the
only true God has been deprived of, indeed, robbed of His Name! The
Jews at least still address Him by the title “Adonai” (“Lord”). But for
Christians “Lord” is primarily the form of address for Jesus Christ, so
Yahweh is actually left without any specific title! Some Christians may
refer to Him as “Father” but, of course, in the trinitarian sense in which
“Father” is one of three persons, thus constituting a third of the Trinity.
But even this use of “Father” is not necessarily consistently applied
because some Christians also use the term for Jesus, according to their
interpretation of “everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9.6. So Yahweh is left
without Name or specific title in the church! What a shocking state of
affairs! Yet it would seem that few, if anyone, in the church has discerned
the seriousness of the spiritual condition of the church as revealed by this
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 339

appalling situation. This would seem to indicate that a certain spiritual

numbness, blindness, or even paralysis has taken hold of the church. We
may wonder: Where are those who belong to Yahweh, who care about
His Name and His glory?
Christians can sing the hymn, “How sweet the name of Jesus sounds
in a believer’s ear” without ever being disturbed that Yahweh’s glorious
and beautiful Name has been relegated to oblivion. It is also something of
a mystery as to why the English translations (except the Jerusalem Bible)
choose to follow the Septuagint when it is not the Septuagint they are
translating but the Hebrew Bible?! Moreover, I am not aware of Christ-
ians ever having considered themselves bound by the Jewish refusal to
pronounce the Name. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old
Testament produced by Jewish translators in Alexandria (Egypt) during
the 2nd century BC to meet the needs of Greek-speaking Jews who were
no longer conversant with Hebrew; there was the further aim of intro-
ducing their Scriptures to the Gentile world. These translators, bound by
the post-exilic taboo among Jews prohibiting the pronunciation of the
Name “Yahweh,” replaced it with “Adonai” (Lord). What is the Christian
translator’s reason or excuse for following this taboo? Is it because it
happens to suit trinitarianism better?
As for the “beautiful” name of Jesus, it is actually Yahweh that makes
that name beautiful, because “Jesus” in Hebrew means “Yahweh saves” or
“Yahweh is salvation,” or simply the “salvation” which Yahweh provides;
so in an indirect sense to call on Jesus’ name is to call on the Name of
Yahweh. But Christians do not think of Yahweh when praying to Jesus,
so it would not amount to calling on Yahweh’s Name. Yet Christians do
think that when they pray to Jesus they are praying to God, that is, to
“God the Son” in trinitarian terminology. And since Jesus to them is
God, what need do they have of Yahweh?
As for the word “Jehovah,” BDB (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament) explains its origin in the Western church: “The
pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced
by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L.
Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety.” In spite of
this, the Darby translation, made at the end of the 19th century, uses this
word in place of “Yahweh,” and so does the Chinese (Union) translation.
340 The Only True God

The pronunciation of the Name

Note: Some readers may find some of the material in the
following short section too technical. It is included for the sake
of completeness, and for the convenience of those who desire
such information but may not have access to the reference
works mentioned here.

T
he pronunciation “Yahweh” seems to be well-founded because
the first part “Yah” (‫ )י ָהּ‬appears frequently in poetic use (38 times
in the Psalms, twice in Exodus, and twice in Isaiah = 42 times in
OT). This is familiar to us from “Halleluiah,” where “iah” is the same in
Hebrew as “Yah”. This also appears in many Biblical names, e.g. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, etc., and also in contracted form in Joshua=Yeshuah (“Jesus” in
Greek).
BDB, Hebrew and English Lexicon, also notes: “The traditional Ἰαβέ
[Iabe] of Theodoret and Epiphanius”. Similarly, The Theological Word-
book of the OT (TWOT) says, “Theodoret in the fourth century A.D.
states that the Samaritans pronounced it ‘iabe’. Clement of Alexandria
(early 3rd century A.D.) vocalized it as ‘iaoue’.” Some earlier sources
appear to have been available to these church leaders (the Samaritans in
the case of Theodoret).
‘Iabe’ (Ἰαβέ) is pronounced “Yaveh,” and is the equivalent of
“Yahweh” because the Hebrew letter ‫“( ו‬w”) is pronounced as an English
“v” (“w” in German is also vocalized like the “v” in English), while the
Koine Greek “b” was probably pronounced like the English “v”, as it still
is in modern Greek.28

28
Seeing that there is no “v” sound in Chinese (Mandarin; there is in
Shanghainese), the “w” in “Yahweh” will have to be pronounced as “ou” (cf.
Clement of Alexandria above).
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 341

The meaning of “Yahweh”

I
t is generally recognized that the meaning of the Name “Yahweh” is
given in Exodus 3.14: ‘God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. {Or I
WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE} This is what you are to say to the
Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (NIV)
The Hebrew word translated as “I am” is in the imperfect tense. That
is why the NIV is here quoted to show that what is translated as “I am
who I am” can also be translated as “I will be what I will be” (as can be
seen in the margins of various other translations; this was also how
Luther (1545 German Bible) translated it: “Ich werde sein, der ich sein
werde.”) So, too, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Koehler and Baumgartner): “‫הי ֶה‬ ְ ‫שׁר ֶא‬
ֶ ַ ְ‫ ֶא ְהי ֶה א‬I shall be who I shall
prove to be, Ex.3.14.”
In a previous section, attention was given to the important obser-
vation made in The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT)
that the Name “Yahweh” is indicative of His immanence, His nearness to
man: “Scripture speaks of the Tetragrammaton [YHWH, Yahweh] as
‘this glorious and fearful name’ (Deut 28:58) or simply ‘the name’ (Lev
24:11). But it connotes God’s nearness, his concern for man, and the
revelation of his redemptive covenant.” (TWOT, ‫( י ָהּ‬yāh) Yahweh; italics
mine)
On Exodus 3.14, TWOT concludes that the Name “Yahweh” ex-
presses His “faithful presence” with His people:

God’s immediately preceding promise to Moses had been,

‘Certainly I will be with you’ (Exo 3:12). So his assertion in
verse 14 would seem to be saying, ‘I am present is what I am.’
Indeed, the fundamental promise of his testament is, ‘I will be
their God, and they will be my people’ (Exo 6:7; etc.; contrast
Hos 1:9); thus ‘Yahweh,’ ‘faithful presence,’ is God’s testa-
mentary nature, or name (Exo 6:2,4; Deut 7:9; Isa 26:4).
(TWOT, ‫( י ָהּ‬yāh) Yahweh; italics mine)29

29
Similarly BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon: “‫[ יהוה‬YHWH]… is given (in)
Ex 3:12-15 as the name of the God who revealed Himself to Moses at Horeb, and
342 The Only True God

Commenting on Exodus 3.14, Prof. Robert Alter provides the following

useful observations:

’Ehyeh-’Asher-’Ehyeh [“I AM WHO I AM” in most English

translations]. God’s response perhaps gives Moses more than
he bargained for—not just an identifying divine name but an
ontological divine mystery of the most daunting character.
Rivers of ink have since flowed in theological reflection on and
philological analysis of this name. The following remarks will
be confined to the latter consideration, which in any case must
provide the grounding of the former. ‘I-Will-Be-Who-I-Will-
Be’ is the most plausible construction of the Hebrew, though
the middle word ’asher could easily mean ‘what’ rather than
‘who,’ and the common rendering of ‘I-Am-That-I-Am’ cannot
be excluded. (‘Will’ is used here rather than ‘shall’ because the
Hebrew sounds like an affirmation with emphasis, not just a
declaration.) Since the tense system of biblical Hebrew by no
means corresponds to that of modern English, it is also
perfectly possible to construe this as ‘I Am He Who Endures.’
The strong consensus of biblical scholarship is that the original
pronunciation of the name YHWH that God goes on to use in
verse 15 was ‘Yahweh’. (R. Alter, The Five Books of Moses,
Norton, 2004; italics added)

Alter’s observation that what Yahweh reveals to Moses is “not just an

identifying divine name but an ontological divine mystery of the most
daunting character” is an important one. This is to say that the Name
reveals something about the very nature of His Being or Person. “I-Will-
Be-Who-I-Will-Be” would, for example, indicate the timeless or eternal
nature of His Being, as expressed also in “I Am He Who Endures.” This
implies complete control of the future, which in turn implies omnipo-

is explained thus: ‫ ֶא ְהי ֶה ִע ָמּ‬I shall be with thee (v:12), which is then implied in
‫שׁר ֶא ְהי ֶה‬
ֶ ַ ְ‫ֶא ְהי ֶה א‬ I shall be the one who will be it v:14a (i.e: with thee v:12) and
then compressed into‫ ֶא ְהי ֶה‬v:14b (i.e. with thee v:12), which then is given in
the nominal form ‫ יהוה‬He who will be it v:15 (i.e. with thee v:12).”
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 343

tence. But Alter points out that the Hebrew word “’asher, could easily
mean ‘what’ rather than ‘who’”. The ‘what’ would point strongly to the
ontological element in the divine Name. Yet Exodus 3.14 does not appear
to reveal explicitly the ‘what’ of the divine character. This is precisely
what is done in magnificent fullness later on in Exodus.
When Yahweh first appeared to Moses in Exodus 3, Moses was so
overawed that he could scarcely have borne a fuller revelation of the
divine Being than what was then initially given him. In Exodus 34 we
find Moses ready and eager for a fuller revelation of the divine Person
and His character. “Then Yahweh passed before him and called out,
‘Yahweh, Yahweh,30 God of tenderness and compassion, slow to anger,
rich in faithful love and constancy’” (Exodus 34.6, NJB). Five fundament-
ally important elements about Yahweh’s character are revealed which
provide us with a unique and profoundly deep view into the nature of
His inner Being. It is also most reassuring to know that these five ele-
ments of His character are firmly undergirded by an uncompromising
commitment to justice and righteousness that will pursue wickedness to
the extent necessary to terminate it (Ex.34.7).To know that this is the
character of the God who created all things, and who is working out His
eternal purposes for His creation, must surely inspire us with hope and
courage.
The revelation given in Exodus 34.6 is of foundational importance for
Biblical monotheism as can be seen from the fact that it echoes through
the Hebrew Bible no less than 9 times31. Yahweh’s loving-kindness is a
frequent theme in the OT, and it is beautifully expressed in these words
in Jeremiah, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with
lovingkindness I have drawn you” (Jer.31.3; NKJV).
The echo of Yahweh’s loving-kindness is also heard throughout the
NT, where God’s redeeming love in Christ is its key element, and which
is immortalized in the well-known words of John 3.16. It is powerfully
reflected in the person of Christ who, as the visible image of God,

30
This double proclamation of the Name of Yahweh is found nowhere else. It
is unique in the OT. The fact that it is proclaimed by Yahweh Himself indicates
the exceptional significance of the self-revelation recorded in this passage.
31
Ex.34.6; Num.14.18; Neh.9.17; Ps.86.15; 103.8; 145.8; Joel 2.13; Jon.4.2;
Nah.1.3.
344 The Only True God

manifested God’s love on the cross in the one “who loved me and gave
himself for me” (Gal.2.20).

Exodus 3.14 in the Greek Bible

We get some further insight into how the Name “Yahweh” would have
been understood by those who read the Greek Old Testament (LXX),
which was the Bible of the early Greek-speaking church. The first part of
Exodus 3.14 reads, “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν,
egō eimi ho ōn)’.” The importance of God’s words is not in the first “I am
(egō eimi),” but in the second “I am” which translates the very different
words “ho ōn” (“he who is”), for the Greek text has, “I am ho ōn” (ὁ ὤν,
lit. ‘the One who is’ or ‘the existent One’). Now notice carefully the
second part of Ex.3.14, “This is what you (Moses) are to say to the
Israelites: ‘Ho ōn has sent me to you.” What emerges from the Greek is
the understanding of Yahweh as the eternal, self-existent One; the One
who owes His existence to no one, but is the ultimate source of all that
exists.
The Book of Revelation refers to “the Lord God,” “the Almighty,”
three times by the description “him who is and who was and who is to
come,” a description which gives excellent expression to the meaning of
the Name “Yahweh”:

Revelation 1.4, “John to the seven churches that are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who
is to come.”

Rev.1.8, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God,
‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’”

Rev.4.8, “And the four living creatures, each of them with six
wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night
they never cease to say, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God
Almighty, who was and is and is to come!’”

From the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that “Yahweh” is no

ordinary name. An ordinary name such as “John Smith,” for example,
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 345

tells us virtually nothing about who that person is. In contrast to this, the
Name “Yahweh” is profoundly self-revelatory, revealing His unique
nature and character. “Yahweh” is, therefore, undoubtedly the most out-
standing and distinctive name in the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call
the “Old Testament”) not only because of the frequency of its occurrence
(almost 7000 times) but because it reveals the wonderful character of the
only true God. This is the Word par excellence of the OT. So it should
not be surprising that this is the word which underlies “the Word” of the
Johannine Prologue.

Anthropomorphism in relation to Yahweh

W
hat has long been noticed by those who read the OT is the
strikingly “anthropomorphic” descriptions of Yahweh, that
is, describing Him in language that makes Him appear to be
rather like a human being. If the Scriptures are indeed the inspired word
of God, which we believe to be true, then we should be careful about
using this term “anthropomorphic” because the use of this term usually
implies that the human author is describing Yahweh in human terms, i.e.
that this is a human work attempting to describe Yahweh in human
terms. But if Scripture is inspired by God, then the striking thing is that it
is Yahweh (not the human author) who is speaking of Himself in human
terms.
What can this mean? Is this to be understood as meaning that
Yahweh is using human forms of description to make Himself under-
stood to us? But in so doing, is there not the danger that we will actually
misunderstand, rather than understand, the description by taking it
literally and assuming that what we read is an actual description of
Yahweh, as so many teachers of Scripture both Jewish and Christian
warn against? But could it be that Yahweh Himself did not fear the
possibility of such “misunderstanding”? Indeed, could it be that under-
standing Yahweh in this way is no misunderstanding at all, but precisely
what Yahweh intended? That is to say, Yahweh portrays Himself in
human terms because that is the way He actually related to Adam and
Eve, to Abraham (e.g. Gen.18.1ff), and to others. One could say that He
humbled Himself to relate to them on their level.
346 The Only True God

In fact, if we dehumanize the language of Scripture in these accounts,

how then are we supposed to understand them at all? What exactly
would emerge from a dehumanized rendition of those significant
accounts? Would we not be left with little more than a nebulous or even
ghostly encounter of Yahweh with those He approached and spoke to?
Why is it so inconceivable that Yahweh should appear in human form?
And is it utterly impossible according to the Scriptures that the human
form is really His form? Does not Scripture affirm that man is made in
God’s image and glory (1Cor.11.7, etc)?
By ruling out the possibility of Yahweh’s actually having a “human”
form, we must then seek some other explanation as to what it means that
we are created in His image; and, as is well known, a variety of explan-
ations are offered, none of which is satisfactory, or at most offer some
partially acceptable explanation.
Would it not be true to say that we are in “divine” form, having been
created in His image, rather than that Yahweh appears in “human” form?
If this is true according to Scripture, then the gap between God and man,
from God’s point of view, is not so wide as we have supposed or been led
to believe. So, instead of speaking of God having appeared anthropo-
morphically we can say that man was created theomorphically, which is
what the Scriptures explicitly state.
Elliot R. Wolfson (Professor of Hebrew Studies and Director of
Religious Studies at New York University) in his essay ‘Judaism and
Incarnation,’ in Christianity in Jewish Terms (Westview Press, 2000),
writes,

“One must distinguish between the prohibition of depicting

God in images and the claim that God cannot be manifest in a
body. One may presume, as indeed the evidence from the Bible
seems to suggest, that God is capable of assuming corporeal
form, although that form should not be represented pictorially.

“Needless to say, many passages in Hebrew Scriptures presup-

pose an anthropomorphic conception of God. This conception,
moreover, is predicated on the notion that God can assume an
incarnational form that is visually and audibly available to
human perception. There is no reason to suppose, as have
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 347

apologists of Judaism in both medieval and modern times, that

the anthropomorphic characterizations of God in Scripture are
to be treated figuratively or allegorically. I will cite here one
example of what I consider to be a striking illustration of incar-
national thinking in biblical religion. In the narrative concern-
ing Jacob’s struggle with the mysterious ‘man,’ who is explicitly
identified as Elohim and on account of whom Jacob’s name is
changed to Israel, Jacob is said to have called the place of the
theophany ‘Peniel,’ for he saw Elohim face-to-face (va-yikra
ya’akov shem ba-makom peni’el ki ra’iti elohim panim el panim
Gen.32.30). The anthropomorphization of God in this biblical
text suggests that in ancient Israel some believed that the divine
could appear in a tangible and concrete form. The issue, then,
is not how one speaks of God, but how God is experienced in
the phenomenal plane. In this light, it becomes quite clear that
in some cases the anthropomorphisms in Hebrew Scripture do
imply an element of incarnation.” (p.242)

“There is ample evidence, however, that the biblical conception

(at various stages reflected in the redactional layers of Script-
ure) maintain the possibility of God manifesting himself in
anthropomorphic form. For example, God is frequently
depicted in regal terms: in the theophany related in Exodus
24:10-11, in Isaiah’s vision of God enthroned in the temple
(6:1-3), in Ezekiel’s vision of the glory enthroned upon the
chariot (chapters 1 and 10), and in Daniel’s apocalyptic vision
of the Ancient of Days (7:9-10). These epiphanies of the divine
in human form have the texture of a tangibility that one would
normally associate with a body of flesh and bones. Clearly, the
God of Israel is not a body in this sense, but this does not
diminish the somatic nature of the divine appearance attested
in various stages of the history of the biblical canon.” (p.243)

What cannot fail to seize the attention of any attentive reader of the
Torah—the Pentateuch—is how “human” Yahweh appears in His self-
revelation. Therein lies the beauty and power of His self-revelation,
because He thereby closes the distance between Him and us, revealing
348 The Only True God

His remarkable immanence which, strangely enough, scholars prefer to

expunge in favor of His transcendence, as though they think it their
business to protect God from us, that is, from our coming too close to
Him!
There is another way that this Biblical anthropomorphism has been
dealt with, and that is by declaring it to be mythological language, written
in much the same way as children’s stories are told. Alternatively, it could
be read as fictional literature, like those “who are prepared to read the
Bible in something like the same spirit in which they read Shakespeare”
(Harold Bloom, The Book of J, Grove Press, 1990, p.12; Bloom uses “J” as
abbreviation for “Yahweh,” and “The Book of J” refers to the Pentateuch
as edited by “the Yahwist”). Bloom’s more recent book is Jesus and
Yahweh, The Names Divine (Riverhead Books, 2005; Bloom is Professor
of Humanities at Yale University). In the latter book he makes it clear
that he is not a believer; so in what other way can he read the Bible if not
as literature? Can Biblical language be demythologized, and if so, what
would it mean? What meaning or significance does it have as literature?
What Prof. Bloom does recognize is that the attack upon Biblical
“anthropomorphism” has its roots in Greek thought:

“Greek philosophy demanded a dehumanized divinity, and

Jewish Hellenists rather desperately sought to oblige, by alle-
gorizing away a Yahweh who walked and who argued [?], who
ate and who rested, who possessed arms and hands, face and
legs.

“Philo of Alexandria, the founder of what I suppose must be

called Jewish theology, was particularly upset by J’s Yahweh,
since Philo’s God had neither human desires nor a human
form, and was incapable of passion, whether anger or love. But
even the less Platonized great rabbis of second-century C.E.
[Common Era] Palestine tended to argue these same difficult-
ies, as in the celebrated disputes between Akiba and his
colleague Ishmael, who also followed allegorical procedures in
order to expunge the anthropomorphic.” (The Book of J, p.24).
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 349

In any case, it seems clear that man simply refuses to believe that God
could or would walk and talk with man in the ways described in
Genesis—it just cannot be; it’s impossible, according to them. Why?
Don’t they believe that all things are possible with God? He is trans-
cendent, but not immanent?
Very shortly before the manuscript of this book was sent on its way to
the publishers, I came across the thought-provoking work by James L.
Kugel (Professor of Hebrew Literature at Harvard University) entitled
The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible, 2003, just in time to
insert a reference to it here. As the title and subtitle of his book indicate,
the thesis of the book is that the concept of God as seen in the earlier
parts of the Bible, where God interacted with men, is later replaced by a
concept of God who is cosmic in the sense that He becomes too great to
interact with puny human beings in the way that “the God of old” did.
Thus the God of the Bible who could and would appear at any time in the
world of men became an idea belonging to “the lost world of the Bible”.
This is how Kugel describes the world of the Bible:

There is, I think, an important difference between the way that

most people nowadays (indeed, starting as early as the author
of the Wisdom of Solomon “written just before the start of the
common era,” p.21) are accustomed to conceive of the spiritual
and the way this same thing was conceived in ancient Israel, at
least in the texts that we have been examining. There are not
two realms in the Bible, this world and the other, the spiritual
and the material—or rather, these two realms are not neatly
segregated but intersect constantly. God turns up around the
street corner, dressed like an ordinary person…He appears in
an actual brushfire at the foot of a mountain [when He first
spoke to Moses]” (p.35).

Kugel points to the fact that in the world of the Bible, God made Himself
visible to man in one way or another. He mentions the interesting
ancient suggestion that the name Israel means “a man seeing God” from
the Hebrew ’ish ra‘ah [or ro’eh] ’El (The God of Old, pp.101,230).
350 The Only True God

The spiritual cost of this loss of the Biblical concept of “the world of
the Bible” is expressed boldly and quite satirically by the great Jewish
scholar G. Scholem:

“The philosophers and theologians [of medieval times] were

concerned first and foremost with the purity of the concept of
God and determined to divest it of all mythical and anthropo-
morphic elements. But this determination to… reinterpret the
recklessly anthropomorphic statements of the biblical text and
the popular forms of religious expression in terms of a purified
theology tended to empty out the concept of God… The price
of God’s purity is the loss of His living reality. What makes Him
a living God… is precisely what makes it possible for man to see
Him face to face.” (G. Scholem, Kabbalah and Myth, quoted by
Kugel in The God of Old, p.201; italics added in the last two
sentences.)

The force and satire of Scholem’s statements are better understood if the
words “purity” and “recklessly” are seen in quotation marks.

Biblical “anthropomorphism” v. Trinitarian Christology

W
e have seen that the Hebrew Bible can speak of the “hands”
of God, or His “feet,” and even His “face” in what is called
“anthropomorphic” forms of describing God. Indeed,
Yahweh of Hosts is even described as a “man of war” (Ex.15.3). He
appeared to Abraham in human form. Perhaps He also appeared as “the
angel of Yahweh,” generally recognized as being a theophany, who was
seen as being in human form. Yahweh’s appearance in human form is
repeatedly recorded in Scripture, especially in the Pentateuch. The
immanence of Yahweh is thus strongly emphasized in the earlier books
of the Old Testament. His transcendence, however, is not lost sight of. As
mankind, and Israel in particular, sank ever further into disobedience
and sin, man’s distance with God increased; and we see in the Old
Testament that God seemed to become ever more remote, and His
presence became correspondingly harder to find: “Truly, you are a God
who hides yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior” (Isa.45.15).
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 351

But this would change with the coming of Jesus Christ. God would
come to save His people as He had said through His servants the
prophets. The mind-boggling message of the Gospels and of the NT is
that God had done what He had promised He would: Yahweh Himself
came in Christ “in order that the world might be saved through him”
(Jo.3.17). But He came into the world incognito, “the world did not know
Him” (Jo.1.10).
John, particularly in his Prologue (1.1-18), stated this as clearly as he
possibly could and as simply as he could. The message is that God, in His
dynamic self-revelation called the Word (Memra), came into the world
embodied in the man Jesus the Messiah. The “flesh” or body of Jesus was
the Temple in which God dwelt, which is why Jesus could speak of his
body as the temple of God (Yahweh), John 2.19. God, for His part, came
into the world in Christ in order through him to reconcile the world to
Himself (2Cor.5.19); and the true man Christ Jesus, for his part, lived and
died to bring us to God.
To crystallize the whole matter as clearly as possible, the matter can be
put like this: As trinitarians we believed that “God the Son” became a
human being called “Jesus Christ” in order to save us. The Biblical
teaching, in stark contrast, is that God our Father (Yahweh) came into
the world by indwelling “the man Christ Jesus” as His living temple. This
He did in order to save us by uniting us with Christ through faith so that
we ourselves become living temples through that saving union with
Christ (1Cor.3.16,17; 6.19). In short, trinitarianism teaches an incarn-
ation of the Second Person of the Trinity. The purpose of this study is to
show that the NT proclaims the coming in the Body of Christ of the
“First” and Only Person, the one and only God, Yahweh.

Transcendence-immanence

L
et us now study some of the instances in which God draws near to
man. In the following section I quote some extracts from a tran-
script of a message I gave about a year ago to a group of church
352 The Only True God

leaders.32 The following extracts from that message have been edited and
condensed for inclusion in this study, but the colloquial style is retained
and not re-written in a more literary form:

— Start of Transcribed Excerpt —

Let us now try to understand Yahweh God as both immanent and

transcendent in the Biblical sense of these terms, but not transcendent in
the Greek sense of the word: a “dehumanized” God. Try to understand
Him as immanent in the sense that “God is very near,” or in the words of
Jacob’s awe-filled experience in Genesis 28.16, “Truly, Yahweh is in this
place and I did not know!” (NJB) Try to re-read the Bible one more time,
without your old concept of a transcendent God high up and far away in
the heavens. Read it again and see what it is that you are reading. When I
read it again, I was surprised by what I had read. Let’s try a bit of reading
in Genesis. Let’s go back to Genesis and see if you really know your Bible
as well as you may think you do. After all, you are in the ministry this
long; surely you know your Bible, right? Go back to Genesis 1 to see
whether God is that remote, that transcendent, that far away. Now, in
verse 27 it says:

Gen 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image
of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
(RSV)

“God created man in his own image”. Why would you create a person in
your own image? Presumably it is so that you could communicate with
the person, is it not? Can you think of any other reason why God would
create us in His image? What else but to commune with us?
And then it goes on. The next thing which I find very touching and
which had never struck me before, is this: After God had created man,
what was the first thing He did? He blessed them. This had never struck
me before; I seem to have never had seen this verse before. He blessed

32
The original transcription of this message was done by Elena Villa Real and
Rhoda Batul; their work is here acknowledged with thanks and appreciation.
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 353

them! That’s the first thing God did to man. He blessed us. Look at verse
28:

God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over
every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Gen 1:28, RSV)

Is God remote? Is He distant? According to the Greek idea of God, He

doesn’t care much about earthly affairs. Not at all! But having created
them, the first thing He does is to bless them. After that, He keeps on
talking to them. Have you noticed that? Now, would a God who is very
remote even bother to talk to the creatures He has made? In the next
verse we read:

God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its
fruit; you shall have them for food. (Gen 1:29, NRSV)

“And God said…” and you know what? I marked all the places in Genesis
where it says, “and God said,” and I was amazed. Genesis was beginning
to turn red with my markings of “and God said.” God spoke a lot to man!
Did anybody listen to Him? God is still speaking to us today. And so,
right from the beginning, He blessed us and spoke to us. In verse 7 of the
next chapter, more detail is given:

Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man
became a living being. (Gen 2:7, NRSV)

Notice the words “the LORD (YHWH) God”—the LORD God. The first
occurrence of Yahweh is seen in verse 4, “…the LORD God made earth
and heaven”—Yahweh God. Now, you can learn to stop saying just Lord,
because with the word “Lord” you don’t know who you’re talking about,
whether it’s the Father or the Son or someone else. Remember that every
occurrence of the capitalized word LORD is Yahweh. “And Yahweh God
made...” So which God are we talking about? The God that is being
referred to here is Yahweh. Why use the two words “Yahweh God”
354 The Only True God

together? Because the Scripture wants to specify which God we are

talking about: not the god of the Babylonians, nor the god of the
Assyrians, but Yahweh God.
Chapter 2 verse 7, “Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became
a living being.” Notice the word “formed”. What does it mean? To give
shape to something. It is the word used in the Hebrew Old Testament for
a potter who is forming the clay. Think of this: He did not just say the
words, “Man, come into existence,” thereby bringing him into existence
by a word of command (as He did with other things in Genesis 1) such
that man immediately became a human being walking around with eyes,
a nose and a mouth, and hair that stands up because he hadn’t got the
chance to comb it yet. No, God took this clay, this mud, and formed it
with His own hands. How does a potter form the clay? With his own
hands! Here the word “formed” is specifically and purposely chosen. He
formed the man. The shape of the man is formed by the very fingers of
God. And if we didn’t get the point, it is repeated at the end of verse 8:

And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and
there he put the man whom he had formed. (Gen 2:8)

“…he placed (into the garden) the man whom he had formed.” There is
the word again. Chapter 1 made the general statement that God created
man. But now it tells us what that creating of man involved: Yahweh took
the mud and, like an artist, carefully shaped his nose, his eyes, his ears.
Every part of his body was made with the fingers of God. And Adam was
formed. We too were formed, in Adam, by God’s fingers. Think about it.
No word in the Bible is wasted. No word is put there for no reason. And
if we don’t bother to look at what the word means, we won’t get the
point. Our hair didn’t suddenly appear on our heads. Do you remember
what the Lord Jesus said? Not a hair of your head will fall to the ground
without your Father (cf. Mt.10.29-31). He created every hair on your
head. And how many strands of hair drop off every day when you comb
it? How much does God care? How much does Yahweh care? We may
not care too much about small things like sparrows (Mt.10.29), or the
strands of hair that fall on the ground, but God does.
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 355

Is God transcendent in the sense that He is far away? Not according to

the Bible. Yahweh cares about us because He was the one who formed us.
That’s the beauty of it. Is man of any value? Well, God took the time to
form man. How long does it take a potter to make a vessel? Not very long
actually, because a vessel is relatively simple to make. But have you ever
seen an intricate carving which took an artist weeks or months to carve?
In China I watched a program about the skills involved in the carving
of ivory (which was legally obtained, or else it probably wouldn’t have
been shown on state TV). The beautiful and exquisitely detailed artwork
could almost be described as ‘fantastic’. One such work could occupy the
artist for weeks or months, depending on how detailed the work is and
how many balls, one within another, were to be carved. They were all
formed from a single piece of ivory. I didn’t know that there could be as
many as 34 balls within the one ball. Could you imagine the skill and
work that goes into carving this ball—34 layers—one within the other,
each able to rotate within the next? I am told that 34 is the absolute
maximum that has ever been achieved. A lesser work may have only 4 or
5 free-floating balls within it. As remarkable as this is, just think how
incomparably more complex is the living human body which Yahweh
God had made. Making it could have taken some considerable amount of
time. The intricate details! The wonderful workmanship!
Contemplating these things, the Psalmist exclaims, “I praise you
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.” (Psalm 139.14, NIV) We can read this simply as an
elated expression of praise and admiration for Yahweh’s works in the
course of meditating upon it; or, on a higher level, it could express the
elevation of the spirit of one who is carried into communion with Yahweh
through having been granted a profound spiritual perception of the
wonder of His Person as revealed in His works.
I say this because I was given such an experience—unexpectedly—of
Yahweh’s presence when, on one occasion, I was contemplating His
creation of man and some of His other wonderful deeds. I would suppose
that this is what His Word is meant to accomplish for every one of us,
namely, to lead us into an experience of Him as the living, loving, and
creative God.
356 The Only True God

If God didn’t care about man, why would He waste time on us? Why
doesn’t He just speak His almighty word, and presto, a man comes into
existence? But that’s not what the word “formed” means. Presumably he
could have done it that way, but He chose not to. Clearly the Genesis
account shows how much God cares about man.
For this reason, too, God constantly speaks to man, and notice here,
“the LORD God”—Yahweh God—“commanded”:

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat
of every tree of the garden; (Gen 2:16, RSV)

Yahweh provided the food that man needed. He cares about what is good
for man, so He provided him a companion:

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be
alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” (Gen 2:18,
NASB)

More than that, Yahweh Himself comes to visit them, to be with them.

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden
at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the
trees of the garden. (Gen 3:8, NRSV)

God was walking in the garden. What an amazing statement! What does
He walk in the garden for? I mean, He’s got the whole of heaven to be in
and He chooses to walk in the garden. Why? Well, if it’s not to commune
with man, then he would have nothing to do in the garden. He, the
almighty God, is indeed transcendent but not solely transcendent. In the
Old Testament, the transcendence of God is spoken of much later on, as
we shall see. But it begins with His immanence. He walks in the garden—
we read about it and do not understand. It says that Adam and Eve had
sinned, and they suddenly realized that they were naked. They tried to
sew some fig leaves together, not exactly artwork I suppose, but quite an
interesting way to get dressed. And then, “They heard ... God walking in
the garden”. Note carefully the text: “They heard the sound of Yahweh”.
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 357

Let’s stop and think about that. Do we ever read our Bibles with any
attention? Can you imagine that? Nowadays we wear shoes that make
almost no sound. With these shoes I am wearing now, I can walk up to a
person and he doesn’t hear me coming. But they heard Yahweh—“the
sound of Yahweh”—walking in the garden. How did they manage to hear
Him? Obviously Yahweh was not walking softly, softly, so that He could
steal up on them and say “Boo!” and they jump! You can actually hear
Him coming. Maybe it’s the sound of the leaves on the ground. Maybe
it’s the sound of the grass that He is walking on. I presume they didn’t
have paved roads in the Garden of Eden, on which you could walk with
rubber-soled shoes that don’t make a sound. He is walking, and they hear
Him coming.
Now, a God who is transcendent and “light as air” would surely make
no sound as He walks on the ground, right? Can you imagine a ghost
walking and making a boom-boom sound? Is it a special kind of ghost?
You may think that God is just floating through the air, but no, He walks
on the ground in such a way that there is contact with the ground. And
this creates a sound of something moving, maybe the brushes, maybe the
leaves of the trees. They hear Him coming and they hide themselves. If
God had sneaked up on them, they wouldn’t have had a chance to hide; it
would be like treating them as children—so cute and so sweet. Do you
think God doesn’t know where you are, and that you can play hide and
seek with Him? He comes along and, like a loving father, He says,
“Adam! Eve! Where are you?” An all-knowing, omniscient God doesn’t
know where they are? That must be a joke. But He relates to us at our
level, sort of plays our game, if you like, as if to say, “You want to hide?
Okay, I’ll play seek.” It’s really remarkable. And in case we missed that
statement about “heard the sound of him,” it is stressed again in verse 10:

He said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was

afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” (Gen 3:10,
NRSV)

They could actually hear God walking in the garden? Do we ever think
on these things? No, we were taught that God is transcendent and that we
must not read this literally. It is all metaphor and symbolic language. But
a symbol of what? Can you tell me what it is a symbol of? If it is a symbol,
358 The Only True God

it must symbolize something. Why can’t we just read it as it is written

there?
Going back to chapter 2 verse 8, we might not have noticed some-
thing else there. There it says, “Yahweh God planted a garden”. Think
about it. He is doing the work of a gardener or farmer! Yahweh God
planted a garden. It did not come into being simply by His “speaking the
word”. He brought light into being, He brought the creation into being,
with a word, but now He is working in the garden. Amazing! If this is
symbolic of something, would you kindly tell me what it is symbolic of?
And He planted a garden for whom? For man! He fashioned man into
being, then He planted a beautiful garden for him. But we are told that
what we read about God and His actions should not be taken literally. He
is all transcendent and therefore somewhere else. Transcendent? What
are we doing? Are we dismissing God from His creation? That’s what we
have been doing all the time because of the corrupted teaching we have
received. God planted a garden (or assisted by angels, as some would
have it)—can you imagine that? It means that He had to plan it and
design it. He made a garden and put man there to enjoy it:

And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and
there he put the man whom he had formed. (Gen 2:8, NRSV)

Then we come to the part about God walking in the garden and their
attempt to hide from Him, as seen in the words “from the presence of the
LORD God” in chapter 3 verse 8:

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden
at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the
trees of the garden. (Gen 3:8, NRSV)

How do you hide from an omnipresent God? Yet they tried to hide from
Him anyway. Did they suppose that God was transcendent, high up in
the heavens, and was unaware of what they had been doing on earth, so
they could still try to hide from Him? They hadn’t read Psalm 139!
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 359

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from

Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make
my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. (Ps 139:7-8, NASB)

Sinners, to the extent that they believe in God at all, would undoubtedly
prefer to believe that He is transcendent, far away from human affairs,
and does not concern Himself with their sins. Such an idea of transcend-
ence would be a good way to hide from God, at least in the sinner’s mind.
But even after Adam and Eve had sinned, we continue to see the words
“Yahweh said”. He continued to talk to this couple. God still talked to
man after he had sinned; He mercifully did not completely close the door
on communicating with man.
And then what happened in chapter 4? Cain murdered Abel out of
jealousy because Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and his was not. When I
re-thought this whole passage, freeing myself from the theological con-
cepts I had been taught from the beginning, I began to see things there
that I hadn’t seen before. For example we read,

The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your
countenance fallen?” (Gen 4:6)

Here it does not speak of “LORD God” but simply “LORD” (Yahweh).
Yahweh says to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your counte-
nance fallen?” Then He goes on to warn him that if he does well, he will
be accepted; but if he doesn’t, his desires will master him. Then Cain tells
Abel about what God had said to him. The story goes on to say that Cain,
out in the field where he thinks nobody is watching, kills Abel. Wicked
guy! The first murderer. But wait, there’s something else. The account
goes on to say that even after Cain had murdered his brother, Yahweh
continues to talk to him. Have you noticed this? If Cain is such an evil
person, why is Yahweh talking to him? In the following passage, we see
that Yahweh (again the word “God” does not appear) talks to Cain:

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” And the
LORD said, “What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood
is crying out to me from the ground!” (Gen.4.9-10, NRSV)
360 The Only True God

That’s quite a conversation with Cain. And the amazing thing is that
Yahweh protects Cain from being killed. Why would Yahweh do this?
Doesn’t the Law say that if you kill someone, you must pay for it with
your own life? That’s the Law of Yahweh. Yet Yahweh protects Cain from
death, by putting a mark on him so that nobody would kill him:

Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will
suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the LORD put a mark on
Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him. (Gen
4:15, NRSV)

Yahweh speaks to Cain. Notice again that the word “God” does not
appear, so the focus is on the name “Yahweh” alone. Yahweh says to
Cain: “Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance”. What a
protection He puts on Cain! But Cain’s a murderer. Why doesn’t some-
body in Sunday school explain to us why Cain is protected? But it
reminds us of someone who, in the New Testament, is called a friend of
sinners, presumably including murderers. Jesus is indeed called a friend
of sinners (Mt.11.19; Lk.7.34). How amazing!
Yahweh asks Cain, “Why are you angry?” God had rejected his
offering and that disturbed him so much. He could not cope with
Yahweh’s rejection. Cain took the rejection of his offering as indication
that Yahweh had rejected him altogether. He could not accept being
rejected by Yahweh. He was so desperate that it drove him quite insane,
such that he killed Abel. Do you get what I’m saying? If God rejects you,
does that worry you? Maybe, maybe not. The average person on the
street would hardly be worried about being rejected by God. But Cain
was so disturbed by Yahweh’s rejection that he couldn’t take it.
Now why should it disturb him that Yahweh didn’t accept him? Is
there any reason but that he loved Yahweh? Can you think of another
reason? You wouldn’t endure being rejected by somebody you love,
would you? If you are rejected by someone who hates you, you couldn’t
care less; you reject him back. But if you are rejected by someone who
had loved you or whom you love, you can’t cope with that. Some people
commit suicide over rejection. Cain didn’t commit suicide, but he killed
his brother instead. He was jealous because Abel was accepted. But
jealousy comes from love, does it not?
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 361

In other words, Cain committed murder out of love, which is what

people still do today. If somebody loves the girl you love, you may want
to go and kill that guy so you can have the girl all to yourself. Cain wants
Yahweh’s love and acceptance, but Yahweh doesn’t accept him. He
accepts Abel instead! That won’t do, so remove Abel! I can’t think of any
other explanation for God’s sparing Cain. God knew his heart. He knew
that Cain loved Him, but loved Him in the wrong way. Otherwise God
would have consigned him to death for having killed his brother. But
God instead put such a protection on him that anybody who dares to
touch Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance. That’s frightening. What
other purpose could there be in sparing Cain from immediate death than
to give him the chance to repent of what he had done, and thus to be
saved? Yahweh cares even for the worst sinner.
Let’s backtrack a bit. Adam and Eve too had sinned grievously. And
what did Yahweh do? Why didn’t He immediately put them to death?
After all, He had warned them, “in the day that you eat of it you shall
surely die”. Yet He doesn’t put them to death. What did He do instead?
He did something extraordinary. Why I couldn’t see all this in the past, I
don’t understand.

And the LORD God made garments of skins for the man and
for his wife, and clothed them. (Gen 3:21, NRSV)

Read it again: Yahweh himself made garments! First He was a gardener,

now He is a tailor! But more than a tailor. How do you get skins from
animals? Well, you have to kill an animal to get its skin. You have to shed
its blood. Do you get the picture? Yahweh was Himself the priest! The
animals He had created, He slew in order to take their skins. He made
garments from them as tailor and priest, and covered Adam and Eve.
Covered! Do you know what the word atonement in the Old Testament
means? It means “covered”. The Hebrew word for “cover” is the word we
translate as “atonement, to atone for”. He covered their sins with the
blood of these animals, taking the skins and covering them.
Yahweh is amazing. But is this too hard to swallow? Too down to
earth and too bloody? We are told that He’s transcendent, that He
doesn’t do such things as killing animals. But if you don’t kill an animal,
how can you get the skin to make a garment? The blood of the animal has
362 The Only True God

to be shed in order to get the skin. Certainly no one enjoys killing

innocent animals. But that’s what the priests did in the temple. They
slaughtered the animals and offered atonement (covering) for the sins of
the people with the blood of the animals.
All this was already seen in this early Bible account. It’s not as though
the Old Testament Law and the sacrificial system sprang out of nowhere.
It was already there in Genesis in seed form. Even more amazing, we now
realize that all this foreshadowed God’s plan of salvation for mankind
which He accomplished when He “gave up His own Son for us all”
(Ro.8.32), ransoming us “with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a
lamb without blemish or spot” (1Pet.1.19).
Does it not bring tears to our eyes to think that Adam and Eve—
whom Yahweh had formed with His own fingers, and for whom He had
planted a garden and had given this wonderful life in the garden—that
they could go and sin? If Yahweh had been like most people (so perhaps
He is transcendent in the sense of not being like most human beings in
character), He would have blown up in anger: “Okay, I’m done with the
two of you.” No, instead He takes an animal, slaughters it, and takes its
skin to cover Adam and Eve. That’s amazing. But aren’t we reading it too
literally? Can we read it in a non-literal or symbolic way which brings out
the rich meaning of the passage? I haven’t found a way, have you?
What Yahweh did to cover and protect Cain from death was not
something new. He had already done that kind of thing for Cain’s
parents. He had provided a covering, an atonement, for Adam and Eve.
Of course He couldn’t allow them to stay in the garden. They had to face
certain serious consequences for their sins. They had to leave the garden,
but they did so in the covering which Yahweh had given them to wear.
For the rest of their lives these garments would remind them, “Yahweh
was merciful to us. We did not die on the day we sinned; instead Yahweh
clothed us and covered us in His mercy.”
Do you think Yahweh is very far, remote in the heavens? Or that only
Jesus is very near? What have we learned about God? What have we
learned about Yahweh? Not much? How close can Yahweh be? The love
for sinners is not something new. It didn’t start with Jesus. It came long,
long before, right from the Garden of Eden. That is the beauty of
Yahweh. Why was all this hidden from us? Was it because we thought
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 363

that only Jesus is a friend of sinners who saves us from a wrathful God? If
so, would the term “God our Savior” (1Tim.1.1; Tit.1.3, etc) have any
meaning for us? Let’s begin to see how different from ours is the concept
of Yahweh in the Old Testament, a God who is very close and very
caring, who watches over us. And when we sin, He does not always
condemn us, does He? He himself prepared a way by which He covered
our sins.
When we come to chapter 6 of Genesis, we see that man is becoming
thoroughly corrupted by his sins. But there is still one person whom
Yahweh can communicate with, and that is Noah. With mankind falling
increasingly under the dominion of sin, we find that Yahweh still tries to
communicate with man, but can do so only with certain individuals who
are still open to Him, who have an ear that listens to Him, whose heart is
what is called perfect in relation to Him—perfect in complete openness to
Him. “And Noah found favor” it says in chapter 6 verse 8, “in the eyes of
Yahweh.”
Then it goes on to say that Yahweh spoke with Noah. And oh, He
spoke a lot with Noah. I counted over 30 verses in which Yahweh spoke
to Noah. Yahweh kept on communicating with Noah. Doesn’t that tell us
how close He was to Noah, and Noah to Him?
Then the floods came to wash away the awful corruption that had
polluted the earth. Yes, Yahweh is holy. He will forgive sin but there is a
measure of sin which, once you fill it up, He cannot do anything more
about it. It is beyond rescue. And when people are beyond rescue, there is
nothing left for Yahweh to do but to deal with them in judgment. But
even in judgment He shows mercy: there is still Noah and his family. You
would remember that Noah had built this huge ark that looks like a huge
box, that floated on the water with pairs of animals of all kinds. It’s a cute
story, right? But did you see what Yahweh did when Noah and all these
animals had gone in into the ark and were ready to face the coming
flood?

Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God
had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him.
(Gen 7:16, NASB)
364 The Only True God

Yahweh closed the door behind him. Have you ever noticed these words?
This is amazing! He planted a garden, He made clothes. Like a priest He
made atonement for the sins of Adam and Eve. Like a builder He
designed an ark for Noah to build, in order to save Noah, his family, and
a multitude of animals. But who shut the door of the ark? Why not let
Noah close the door? Was it too big and heavy for Noah? Whatever the
reason, Yahweh put the final touch on this huge saving operation: He
himself shut the door of the ark. Or do we think that it would have been
more appropriate that He appoint an angel to do this sort of thing, rather
than stooping to do it Himself? Such a thought would show that we don’t
really know the Yahweh who is revealed in the Bible. The kings and
presidents of this world do not open or shut doors for their subordinates,
but that is precisely the point: Yahweh is not like them. His character is
perfectly exemplified in Jesus (“the image of God,” 2Cor.4.4), who not
only washed his disciples’ feet and cooked breakfast for them by the Lake
of Galilee even after his resurrection (Jo.21.9,12,13), but offered up
himself on the cross for their salvation. As for shutting the door of the
ark, it is somewhat like a father standing at the door to say goodbye to the
children going off to school in the morning.
These little touches show something beautiful about Yahweh. There is
no detail that He overlooks. He cares. Why does this verse mention that
Yahweh closed the ark? It’s simply because that’s what He did. And why
did He do it? Because He cared! Is there any other reason for what He
did? Perhaps He wanted to make sure that the water won’t get into the
ark and drown them, so He had to make sure the door was closed
properly. It’s like when you’re taking your kids in a car, you make sure
the door is closed properly for their safety. If we may say so reverently, all
this reveals something very sweet about Yahweh. The way He does things
is really amazing. If the Bible were of purely human origin, it would be
hard to imagine that anyone would have dared portray God in this way.
As we go on in Genesis, who is the next person God talks to? There
were others who walked with God. We won’t go in detail about Enoch,
who walked with God for 300 years and was raptured. What does
walking with God mean on Enoch’s part? Walking for 300 years! It
wasn’t just a few days. For 300 years he walked with Yahweh. What an
experience, what a life! No wonder he was lifted up!
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 365

Then Abraham came into the scene. He is known as the friend of

Yahweh. Does God need a friend? Does He need you and me? No, He
doesn’t need us, but He wants us to be friends; it’s not that He needs us.
God finds a friend in Abraham. This whole story is truly beautiful:
Abraham is sitting at the door of his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis
18). He is probably trying to catch some breeze at the door of the tent.
And he sees three men walking towards him. Being the gracious person
that he is, he gets out of his tent and bows with his face to the ground, in
much the same way as Muslims pray today. Abraham has his face to the
ground as he welcomes the three men. And one of them turns out to be
Yahweh, as the account reveals.
Then comes the amazing story in which Abraham bargains with
Yahweh over Sodom which is about to be destroyed. “Now, if there are
50 good people, will you spare Sodom?” “Sorry, don’t be angry with me,
Yahweh, but what about 40?” He is bargaining with Yahweh like he’s in
an oriental market. And Yahweh is patiently going along with him.
“Yahweh, please, don’t be angry with me. Will you spare Sodom for 30?”
Yahweh says, “Yes, 30, I will.” One more time: “20?” “Yes.” “Please,
please, bear with me, but how about 10?” He said, “Yes, 10.” And poor
Abraham does not dare go any lower than ten. Even when you bargain in
the market, you have to be reasonable. I mean, if he is asking for $100, do
you give him $2? Come on, don’t be ridiculous. You can bargain down
from 50 to 30 and 20 and finally 10. Come on, it’s a whole city—you can’t
go lower than 10, right? But Yahweh says, “Yes, even 10”. Abraham
thinks, “Okay I’m content. Surely there must be at least ten good people
in the city of Sodom.”
But there were not even ten. And even if Abraham had gone any
lower, it wouldn’t have helped because there was only one: Lot. That
doesn’t say much for Lot’s wife; she turned into a pillar of salt afterwards.
There was no decent person left in all of Sodom except one. Can you
imagine that? This sweet story about Abraham bargaining with Yahweh
brings out His incredible patience! What makes us think of Him as a
raging judge, a wrathful God up there, ready to destroy all sinners?
Moreover, are sinners in fact frightened into repentance by our preach-
ing the wrath of God? Or does God not rather draw us with His love, as
366 The Only True God

can be seen in the gospels? He hardly tries to frighten us by His power.

Do sinners really fear, or are they drawn more by love?
As we look at the panoramic picture of Yahweh in his relationship to
man as seen in the Bible, we begin to discover that, as in the case of
Sodom, the righteous are so few that there’s almost nobody for Yahweh
to talk to. Nobody! Then Moses appeared on the scene, and it says that
God talked with him face to face (Ex.33.11; Dt.34.10). Isn’t that beautiful?
And there you see the account of how Yahweh God took the people—the
Israelites—out of Egypt. What you see again is not a God who is trans-
cendent in the sense of being remote, but a God who was constantly
relating to the Israelites. Where? In a pillar of cloud, in a pillar of fire, He
traveled with them in the desert. While they walked, He walked with
them in the desert, as a shepherd with his sheep as described in the 23rd
Psalm, “The Lord is my Shepherd”. He led them through the wilderness
as a shepherd leads his sheep. If you go to the wilderness in the Middle
East today, you can still see shepherds leading their sheep.
And then He met with the people to commune with them. Do you
remember how Yahweh came down on Mount Sinai? The whole
mountain burned with fire! He revealed the greatness of His majesty and
power to the multitudes—some two million Israelites in the wilderness—
so that this homeless people wandering in the wilderness won’t need to
fear for their future as they go forward under Yahweh’s leadership and
under His constant care and provision for their daily needs (“give us this
day our daily bread”). How do you feed two million people in the desert?
Yahweh provided the bread, the manna, daily. How else could two
million people be fed in the desert? From a human point of view, the
logistics of supplying for the needs of such a multitude is mind-boggling.
What about water? The most desperately needed thing in the desert is
water, if they are not to die of thirst in the scorching heat. And Yahweh
saw to that need as well. He did this over a period of 40 years! Try leading
two million people through the desert today and see how far you will get.
You will soon realize that Yahweh did an amazing miracle, not just for a
few days but for 40 years. Moreover, He did all this for a stubborn and
disobedient people who incessantly tried His patience. The prophet
Micah put it beautifully: “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and
passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 367

not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.”

(Mic.7.18)
This is clearly echoed in the New Testament. The feeding of the 5,000
or the feeding of the 4,000—what does it call to mind? It calls to mind
what Yahweh did in the wilderness for His people. And Jesus was doing
the very thing that Yahweh had been doing in the Old Testament. Or
more precisely, Yahweh was doing through Jesus what He had been
doing in the Old Testament. Wonderful! The same is true regarding
water, but on the spiritual level. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “If
you had asked me for water, I would have given you water to drink that
would well up within you into a fountain of living water” (Jo.4:10,14). It
will keep on flowing like a river. Wonderful! John 6 refers to the events in
the wilderness, “I am the bread (manna) that Yahweh sent down from
heaven. If you eat this bread, you won’t die. But those in the wilderness
died. If you eat of this spiritual bread that Yahweh gives you—I being
that bread—you will live forever.” (cf. Jo.6.51,58) He still provides the
manna of life for those who, in the present time, look to Him for that
provision.
In the wilderness, miracles occurred daily which the Israelites could
see. So the miracles in the gospels were not something altogether new,
though they were generally on a much smaller scale as compared to what
happened in the wilderness (e.g. feeding 5000 as compared to feeding two
million). These were not meant to match the scale of what had taken
place in the wilderness, but to remind the people of what Yahweh had
accomplished for His people in the past, indicating that in some signifi-
cant way that Yahweh has again come to His people in the person of
Jesus Christ, and is again doing the things they had heard were done by
Him before.
As we go on from Genesis through the Old Testament, we see that
there were gradually fewer and fewer people who communed with
Yahweh or with whom He was able to communicate. That’s not because
Yahweh was becoming less inclined to communicate with people, but
because people were apparently becoming less and less sensitive to Him.
After Moses it was a long time before another prophet of some spiritual
stature appeared, but none communed with Yahweh with the kind of
368 The Only True God

intimacy (“face to face”) that characterized Moses’ relationship with

Him—that is, until Jesus came.
Regarding Moses, I want to show you another little touch that is quite
remarkable. You know that the Torah, the five books of the Law, ends
with Deuteronomy. The account of Moses’ death was added to the end of
Deuteronomy. He was 120 years old, but he still had his health and
strength, and was not sick. Apparently it is not always necessary for
God’s people to fall sick in order to die. When the time comes, they just
“fall asleep,” as one preacher said about his father who had been a faithful
servant of the Lord. He was not known to have any sickness, but when
his time came, he just sat in his chair. His head bowed down and he went
to be with the Lord. That’s wonderful.
And so it was that “Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye
was undimmed, and his vigor unabated” (Dt.34.7). His work was com-
plete, his time had come, so Moses died or simply “fell asleep”. But notice
that there is again that remarkable touch about Yahweh that we tend to
miss. What is that little touch? He took Moses away, but of course his
body stayed on earth. So what happened to the body? You would
remember that Moses died by himself, alone, on Mount Pisgah from
which he looked into the Promised Land which he was not permitted to
enter because of just one serious failure in his life. Yet Moses was not
alone by himself, for Yahweh was with His faithful servant right to the
end. It says in Deut.34:6,

And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite

Beth Peor; but no one knows where his grave is to this day.

Have you noticed the four little words: “And He buried him.” And who is
“He”? Who else but Yahweh? This is amazing. Think of it again: He
forms Adam and Eve like a potter; He plants a garden like a gardener; He
slays an animal like a priest; He makes garments like a tailor and covers
Adam and Eve, and so on it goes. At the end He personally buries His
friend on a mountain—a final act of love and a final tribute to Moses’
earthly ministry.
Of course we can read the whole account in some symbolic or meta-
phorical way, as is usually done, by insisting that Yahweh is transcendent
and that none of this is to be understood literally. But what would it
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 369

mean non-literally? What exactly is being accomplished by insisting on

our theological dogma but removing the poignant beauty of Yahweh’s
character as revealed in these accounts? I look at these words and find
them powerfully touching.
Moses was given a private burial; this was evidently to prevent him
from being made into an idol by the people he had led for a very long
time, because if that had happened, Moses would have ended up as a
stumbling block rather than a blessing to his people. But Yahweh had
also revealed Himself openly and publicly to the people of Israel as, for
example, when He came down on Mount Sinai and multitudes were
there to see it. The elders actually saw the glory of the Lord with their
own eyes. You see that for example in Ex.24:10-11 where it says that the
elders of Israel “saw the God of Israel, and under His feet there appeared
to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not
stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel, and they
beheld God and they ate and drank.”
They saw God and lived. Verse 16 says, “the glory of the LORD
(Yahweh) rested on Mount Sinai and the cloud covered it for six days.”
And verse 17: “to the eyes of the sons of Israel, the appearance of the
glory of the LORD (Yahweh) was like a consuming fire on the mountain-
top.” There we get the phrase “a consuming fire” (Heb.12.29). On the one
hand, He is a consuming fire; on the other hand, He gently takes Moses
his friend and buries him in the ground, like planting a seed. And Moses
will rise again! Yahweh will call him forth from the dead; but for the
moment, he must rest.
What we discover in the progression of the Biblical narrative is that,
though the Lord still spoke to people, the distance between God and man
gradually became greater and greater. But the distance between God and
man was increasing not because God wanted to be remote, but because
man no longer cared about seeking Him. Eventually, they didn’t even call
His Name anymore. But Yahweh still communed with a few persons like
Samuel the prophet, whose heart was open to Him and who was still
speaking for God. Then there was Isaiah who, when he was in the temple,
was granted a vision of the glory of God. Ezekiel, too, saw a vision of the
glory of God. What he saw was someone who had the appearance of a
370 The Only True God

man. It’s important to note this fact: Yahweh revealed Himself to Ezekiel
in a human form (Ezek.1.26,28).
Theologians have argued that God is presented in anthropomorphic
terms in the Old Testament, that is, God is presented as though He is a
human being, or in language that would be used to describe human
beings. Well, it is more likely that we’ve gotten the matter the wrong way
around. According to Scripture, man is theomorphic; that is so because
man is created in God’s image. “Theomorphic” literally means in God’s
(theos) form (morphē) or image. This is the Biblical teaching. The reason
why man was created theomorphic—in God’s image—was so that he
could commune with God. That’s what God created him for. The last
great person to commune with God intimately was Moses. God talked
with him “face to face” (Deut.34.10). Face to face! How close was their
communion!
Later on, the great prophet Isaiah still spoke the word of God and still
saw the glory of the Lord. There was still a great sense of awe but not with
the kind of intimacy that Moses had enjoyed. After Moses, all this grad-
ually disappeared. As you go on in the OT, the distance becomes greater
and greater. After Ezekiel, we hear of visions; we still hear of the word of
the Lord spoken through people, but the intimacy of the prophet with
Yahweh is no more there. After the last prophet, Malachi, there is only
silence—400 years of silence. The word of the Lord speaks no more.
There is just nobody, apparently, that Yahweh can communicate with. Is
there someone in this generation whom Yahweh can communicate with?
But the promise remained:

A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilder-
ness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.”
(Isa.40:3, NASB)

Why would you want to prepare a highway in the wilderness? Well, this
highway is declared to be specifically for “Yahweh,” “for our God”. Why?
Because He is coming. And “the glory of Yahweh will be revealed and all
humanity will see it together, for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.”
(Isa.40.5, NJB) Yahweh is coming!
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 371

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a

virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His
name Immanuel. (Isa.7.14, NASB)

A child will be born but, significantly, the child bears divine names:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the
government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be
called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father,
Prince of Peace. (Isa.9.6, NASB)

Divine names point to a divine person. Certainly, not all the names in
this verse are necessarily divine, but some are harder to explain in non-
divine terms, especially “Eternal Father”. As trinitarians we applied this
verse to Jesus. But to do this is to confuse Father and Son, and also to
contradict Jesus’ teaching in which he had said, “And call no man your
‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Mat.23:9)
We can be sure that Jesus never asked anyone to call him “Father”. But if
“Eternal Father” refers to Yahweh as it should, then we are left with the
mind-boggling thought that Yahweh would come into the world in the
person of Jesus, and already at Jesus’ birth. How else can this verse be
understood as it stands?
In Malachi, the last book in the Old Testament, God says:

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear

the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will sudden-
ly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in
whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of
hosts. (Mal 3:1, NASB)

Again, a promise: “The Lord will suddenly (unexpectedly) come to His

temple” in Jerusalem. Who can “the Lord” be but Yahweh, seeing the
temple being referred to is “His temple”.
But when will this take place? As I said, there were 400 hundred years
of silence. When will the silence end and God speak again? The prophecy
in Malachi says that, first, Yahweh will send a messenger “before Me”.
Jesus pointed to John the Baptist as that messenger (e.g. Mat.11.9-11;
Lk.7.26-28). The long silence ended suddenly, unexpectedly, and Yahweh
372 The Only True God

came to His temple as promised. We shall look into this more fully in
what follows.
— End of Transcribed Excerpt —

Further observations on God’s immanence-

transcendence

Y
ahweh’s immanence is seen clearly not only in the Torah and the
OT as a whole, but especially in the NT, for example:

Acts 17.28, “In Him we live and move and have our being”.

Matthew 10, “29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And
not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
30
But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not,
therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.”

Luke 12.7, Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered
[by God]. Don't be afraid; you are worth more [to God] than
many sparrows.

But the “enfleshment,” or incarnation, of the Word in Messiah Jesus,

such that Yahweh lived in him bodily, is the supreme example of His
choice to be immanent, though this in no way negates His transcendence.
In fact, what we have failed to see is that in Scripture God’s transcend-
ence is such that it involves, or even requires, His immanence:

1Kings 8.27: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold,
heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much
less this house that I have built!”

Yahweh’s transcendence is of a kind that defies theological categories, for

His transcendence is such that not even “heaven and the highest heaven”
can contain Him—hence His transcendence “overflows,” as it were, out
of the heavens encompassing the earth. God can never be thought of in
Scripture as confined to heaven. It is Scripturally erroneous to think that
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 373

“heaven” refers to His transcendence, while earth speaks of His “imma-

nence” as we usually do. This notion is also shattered by such a verse as:

Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is

my footstool”. (Isaiah 66.1, quoted in Acts 7.49)

These words present the striking picture of Yahweh seated on His

heavenly throne with His feet resting on the earth. This picture of
Yahweh’s transcendence-immanence is incorporated in Jesus’ words in
the Sermon on the Mount: “But I tell you, do not swear at all: either by
heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by
Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.” (Matthew 5.34,35)
Since His feet rest firmly upon the earth, the phrase “Father in
heaven” is not to be understood as meaning that He is remote from the
earth; rather it serves to distinguish Him from earthly fathers. “Father in
heaven” occurs 14 times in Matthew, once in Mark, and once in Luke,
indicating its importance in Jesus’ teaching in Matthew. For example, the
Lord’s Prayer (Mat.6.9-13) begins with “Our Father in heaven,” yet He is
close enough to listen to our whispered prayers and even the unspoken
supplications of our hearts. The word “father” in Jesus’ mind speaks of
one who hears and cares: “Which one of you, if his son asks him for
bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a
serpent?” (Mat.7.9,10)
Moreover, the idea of God as Father is not something that first
appeared in the NT. In the OT there are at least 6 men and 2 women who
have the name Abijah. “Abi” means “my father” and “Jah” is the short
form of “Yahweh”. Here is the definition as given in the International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Abijah, Heb: ’abhiyah or Heb: ’abhiyahu (2
Ch 13:20,21), ‘my father is Yahweh,’ or ‘Yahweh is father’”.
The notion of heaven as some transcendent place far above the stars is
another erroneous idea. In Scripture the heavenly is the spiritual, in
contrast to the earthly or what is physical and material. The physical has
a geographical location, but not what is spiritual. “God is Spirit” as Jesus
said, and spirit is not confined to any particular earthly or cosmic
location. To understand this is to understand that geographical location
does not matter; what matters is that “God is Spirit; and they that wor-
ship him must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4.24). God’s
374 The Only True God

transcendence-immanence abolishes any notion of His being remote and

unreachable in some distant heavenly place.
But trinitarianism has left us with the notion that the Father is far
away in heaven while “Jesus is very near” (in the words of a once popular
song). It is little wonder that Christians prefer to pray to Jesus, even
though the Biblical warrant for doing so is lacking. To Christians, Jesus’
being “near” makes him more accessible. Even though the Father may be
able to hear us, if He is willing to do so, yet was it not Jesus who gave us
the assurance that “I will certainly not reject anyone who comes to me”
(Jo.6.37, NJB)? These words are interpreted in such a way as to imply that
we can be more certain of acceptance by Jesus than by the Father; this is
because the Father (Yahweh) is the transcendent God, while Jesus is the
immanent God, who for that very reason is more approachable. This is
the kind of misrepresentation of God that we learned from our trinita-
rianism. All this is very far from the truth about God as revealed in the
Scriptures, as we have seen in the preceding paragraphs.

Yahweh’s love

W
hat does all that we have seen in Genesis (and the rest of
Scripture) tell us about Yahweh’s attitude towards man? An
answer can be found in Jesus’ words in John 17.23: “I in
them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the
world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved
me” (NIV). Consider the staggering implications of the last statement in
this verse, “You (Father) have loved them even as (καθώς, kathōs) you
have loved me”! Can it really be that the Father (Yahweh) loves us even
as He loves the one of whom He declared, “This is my beloved Son,” the
one who is “the only begotten of the Father”? Or perhaps we should
understand this as meaning “in a similar way” but not “to the same
extent”? The definition of kathōs (καθώς) as given in BDAG is, “of
comparison, just as”. An example of its use (it appears frequently in
various contexts) can be found in 1John 3.2, “We know that when He
appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as (καθώς)
He is”. The point here is surely not that we shall see Him as He is in some
generalized or approximate way (whatever that might mean) but that “we
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 375

will see Him as He really is” (1Jo.3.2, NJB). Does this not mean that what
Jesus is saying in John 17.23 is that the Father loves the disciples in
exactly the same way as He loves Jesus?

He comes to save us because of His love for us

It is worth pausing for a moment to consider who the “He” is in 1John
3.2 (“but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because
we shall see Him as He is”). In the preceding verse the Father is the
subject, and there is no reference to the Son. Also, there is no instance in
the Johannine writings in which the word “appear” (phaneroō) refers to
the second coming of Christ. The word phaneroō does occur a few verses
before 1John 3.2, namely in 2.28, with reference to the Lord’s appearing
but, significantly, there is again no reference to Christ in the context from
v.27ff. But in the next verse (v.29) “born of him” must surely refer to God
(the Father), not Christ, since nowhere in the NT are believers said to
have been “born of Christ” or “born of the Son,” but only “born of God”
(1Jo.3.9; altogether 7 times in 5 verses in 1John).
Can it be that John is indicating an “appearing” of Yahweh Himself?
This would not be at all surprising to those familiar with the words of
Isaiah 40.3-5. This is how the New Jerusalem Bible translates it,
3
A voice cries, ‘Prepare in the desert a way for Yahweh. Make a
straight highway for our God across the wastelands. 4 Let every
valley be filled in, every mountain and hill be levelled, every
cliff become a plateau, every escarpment a plain; 5 then the glory
of Yahweh will be revealed and all humanity will see it together,
for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.

Here then is a prophecy of His “appearing” as in 1John 2.28. Moreover,

this prophecy can refer to the “first coming” in view of the references to
this verse in all four gospels (Mt.3.1-3; Mk.1.2-5; Lk.3.2-6; Jo.1.23), as
well as to a future “second coming” of His glory in Christ, seeing that the
part of the prophecy which declares that “the glory of Yahweh will be
revealed and all humanity will see it together” (Isa.40.5) does not yet
appear to have been fulfilled (cf. 2Th.2.8). Significantly, it is precisely in
this context, and immediately before John speaks about our “seeing Him
376 The Only True God

as He is” (1Jo.3.2) that he exclaims, “How great is the love the Father has
lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what
we are!” (1Jo.3.1).
Yahweh’s love is seen in His coming to be with us, as is expressed in
the name “Immanuel”: Isaiah 7.14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give
you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and
will call him Immanuel. {Immanuel means God with us.}” (NIV). BDB
Hebrew and English Lexicon:

“Immanuel (with us is God); Is 7:14 ‫ִע ָמּנוּ אֵל‬ name of child,

symbolizing presence of ‫[ י‬Yahweh] to deliver his people; 8:8;
8:10 is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God! (cf.
Psalm 46:8; 46:12)”. [The references in the Psalms which BDB
gives are those of the Hebrew text; in English they are Ps.46.7
and 46.11 and both read, “The LORD (Yahweh) of hosts is with
us [Heb. immanu (with us)]; the God of Jacob is our fortress.”]

The prophesied coming and consequent presence of Yahweh in relation

to the conception and birth of Jesus is seen in Matthew 1:
21
‘She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he
will save his people from their sins.’
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the
prophet:
23
‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they
shall call his name Immanuel’ (which means, God with us).
[Isa.7.14]
In view of the explicit reference to Yahweh in Isaiah 40.3-5, and of “God
with us (Immanuel)” through Christ’s birth, it can be reasonably
concluded from these verses that it was Yahweh who was prophesied as
coming into the world in Christ. If this conclusion is rejected then the
only option left is to deprive “Immanuel” of substantive meaning in
regard to Jesus by generalizing it in the way it is often used in greetings to
mean something like “let God be with us”; in this sense “Immanuel”
would mean little more than “God will be with Jesus in some special
way”. But the word does not mean that God will be with Jesus but that, in
Jesus, God will be “with us”. That is to say: God will be present in Jesus in
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 377

such a way that He is the God who is present with us. Trinitarians, of
course, accept this understanding of “Immanuel,” but by “God” they
mean “God the Son,” not “the only true God” Yahweh. But this option is
not available to them for the reason which should by now be perfectly
clear: there is no such person in the Scriptures as “God the Son”.

The Angel of the Lord

Y
ahweh’s love for His people, His practical care and concern for
them, is seen in the way His presence is with them in all the
crises of their lives. The Psalmist expresses it like this, “God is
our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble” (Ps.46.1, NIV).
This is a statement of experience, not merely of religious faith. One way
in which Yahweh interacted with His people was through the figure or
form of “the angel of Yahweh”. In the following section we shall often
refer to “the angel of Yahweh” simply as “the Angel”.
The “angel of the LORD (Yahweh)” (‫ ַמ ְל ַא יהוה‬, malach Yahweh) is a
term that occurs 52 times in the OT 33. But not all of these refer to what
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes as the “Angel of
Theophany”; some are “ordinary” angels sent by God to fulfill a specific
task (e.g. Zech.1.12). On the other hand, there are a considerable number
of appearances of “the angel of Yahweh” where there can be no doubt
that these are theophanies, that is, God appearing in a visible form.
Angels usually appear in human form (see below), so “the angel of the
Yahweh” provides another highly significant example of “anthropomor-
phic” theophany. Thus this “Angel” could, for this reason, be described as
a visible “form” of God.
Yahweh’s self-revelation in Exodus 3.14 is of great importance, which
we discussed earlier. It is precisely in this connection that there is the
appearance of “the angel of the LORD”. Here we need to observe how the
whole event is described in Exodus 3:

33
There are 54 occurrences; but the ref. in Haggai 1.13 is to the prophet as
Yahweh’s messenger, and in Malachi 2.7 it is the priest who is His messenger.
378 The Only True God
1
Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro,
the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the
wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
2
And the angel of the LORD (Yahweh) appeared to him in a
flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold,
the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.
3
And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why
the bush is not burned.”
4
When the LORD (Yahweh) saw that he turned aside to see,
God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he
said, “Here I am.”
5
Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your
feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
6
And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses
hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.
There can be no doubt whatever from this passage that the appearance of
“the angel of Yahweh” in this passage is none other than an appearance
of Yahweh Himself, so the term “the Angel of the Theophany” is entirely
appropriate here. A long and important conversation between Yahweh
and Moses about rescuing the enslaved people of Israel out of their
bondage in Egypt extends all the way from Exodus 3.7 well into the
following chapter. It is in this context that God’s self-revelation as “I am
that I am” (Ex.3.14) is given. It will be seen, too, that His appearances in
the form of “the angel of the LORD” happen consistently at crucial points
in Israel’s history. This again powerfully reveals Yahweh’s character as
One who is deeply concerned about the plight and needs of His people.
In addition to the 52 references to “the angel of Yahweh” there are
another 9 that refer to “the angel of God” who, at least in some cases,
seems to be none other than “the angel of Yahweh”. Judges 6.20 speaks of
“the angel of God,” whereas in the following two verses he is referred to
as “the angel of Yahweh”. This also comes out clearly in Judges 13 where
verses 6 and 9 speak of “the angel of God” who in verses 13-22 is “the
angel of Yahweh”. Moreover, from verses 8-11 we see that Manoah and
his wife, to whom the angel of God had appeared, thought that what they
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 379

saw was a “man of God,” so he was clearly in human form. This remains
true also after the reference is changed to “the angel of Yahweh” (from
v.13 onwards). “Manoah did not know that he (“the man of God”) was
the angel of the LORD (Yahweh)” (v.16), but he and his wife later
realized that they had seen God in human form and were terrified of the
consequences: “Manoah said to his wife, ‘We shall surely die, for we have
seen God’” (v.22).
The “Angel” appeared at crucial points in the “salvation history” of
the OT. His first recorded appearance was in Abraham’s time when he
appeared to Hagar, the mother of the Arab peoples, and made her a
promise very much like the promise Yahweh had made to Abraham
(Gen.16.7-11; cp. Gen.13.16). Yahweh’s fairness or justice is here made
evident.
The “Angel” appeared to Abraham at the crucial moment when
Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac his son in his absolute devotion and
obedience to Yahweh (Gen.22.11ff). But Yahweh mercifully spared
Abraham from actually having to sacrifice his son. Yet Yahweh Himself,
for the sake of mankind’s salvation, “did not spare his own Son but gave
him up for us all” (Ro.8.32). Paul’s remarkable choice of words in this
verse would seem to indicate that he was thinking about Abraham’s
sacrifice, which was an act of great significance in Judaism.
How the nation of Israel received its name is interestingly narrated in
Genesis 32.24-30 where Jacob, the father of the nation, wrestled with a
“man” all night and ended up crippled with a dislocated hip; yet the
“man” graciously said that Jacob had “prevailed” (v.28) and gave him the
new name “Israel”: “Then the man said, ‘Your name will no longer be
Jacob, but Israel, {Israel means he struggles with God} because you have
struggled with God and with men and have overcome’” (v.28, NIV).
Jacob then realized that he had been “face to face” with God: “So Jacob
called the place Peniel {Peniel means face of God} saying, ‘It is because I
saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.’” (v.30, NIV). There is
no mention in this passage about “the angel of the Lord,” but the “man”
with whom Jacob “wrestled” was evidently a human form in which God
chose to appear to Jacob.
This causes us to realize that quite apart from the considerable
number of references to the “Angel” there are other important events in
380 The Only True God

which the “Angel” may have appeared but is not named. An example of
this may be found in the remarkable account recorded in Joshua 5.13-15
where, on the eve of the attack on Jericho at the beginning of the
conquest of the Promised Land, Joshua saw a “man” with a sword in his
hand (see below for instances where the “Angel” appeared with sword in
hand). When Joshua, who Moses had appointed as his successor to lead
the armies of Israel, asked the “man” on whose side he was, he was
informed that this “man,” not Joshua, was “commander of Yahweh’s
army”; Joshua immediately prostrated himself before him. This was
certainly because Joshua now became aware of who the “man” really was.
“Yahweh’s army” was not known to have any other commander other
than Yahweh Himself, hence the title “Lord of Hosts,” “host” being the
old English word for “army”. Here the term “Yahweh’s army” may be
intended to include the armies of Israel which were about to enter
Canaan.
Another confirmation that it was actually Yahweh who appeared to
Joshua is seen in the fact that Joshua was instructed to “take off your
sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy”
(5.15)—which is exactly what the angel of the Lord had instructed Moses
to do at the burning bush, “take your sandals off your feet, for the place
on which you are standing is holy ground” (Ex.3.5).
The angel of the Lord appeared with sword in hand in Numbers 22.
There are 10 references to the “Angel” in this chapter, and we may
wonder why there should be so many references in what seems to be a
relatively trivial event concerning Balaam. But when we perceive that
what was at issue here was the cursing of Israel by Balaam (v.17), then we
see that this was not at all a trivial matter in God’s sight. The whole
section extends from vv.22-35. In verse 23 we find exactly the same
phrase as that in Joshua: the Angel stood with “drawn sword in hand,”
and again in v.31 (another instance is the fearful event chronicled in
1Chron.21.16).
2Ki.19.35 mentions another frightening act of judgment, this time
against the Assyrian armies which had come to destroy Jerusalem and to
subjugate Israel. To save Israel, the angel of Yahweh struck dead 185,000
Assyrians in one night, causing the invading Assyrian army to withdraw.
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 381

Though the word “sword” does not appear in this passage, the sword of
judgment (and of deliverance for Israel) is undoubtedly intended.
The “Angel” is involved in the pivotal events of OT history. Since the
“Angel” was a theophany, what does his activity mean if not Yahweh’s
intense care and concern for His people, that is, “those who love him,
who have been called in accordance with his purpose” (Ro.8.28)?
In view of what we have studied, we can in general endorse
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’s observations:

“It is certain that from the beginning God used angels in hu-
man form, with human voices, in order to communicate with
man; and the appearances of the angel of the Lord, with his
special redemptive relation to God’s people, show the working
of that Divine mode of self-revelation which culminated in the
coming of the Saviour, and are thus a foreshadowing of, and a
preparation for, the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ.”
(ISBE “Angel,” under the section “The Angel of the
Theophany”)

Prof. E.R. Wolfson, referring to the many passages in the Hebrew Bible
which speak of the Angel of the Lord, says that in them “God appears in
the guise of the angel”. He then continues, “One scriptural verse that is
extremely significant for understanding this ancient Israelite conception
is God’s statement that the Israelites should give heed to the angel whom
he has sent before them and not rebel against him, for his name is in him
(Ex.23.21). The line separating the angel and God is substantially blurred,
for by bearing the name, which signifies the power of the divine nature,
the angel is an embodiment of God’s personality. To possess the name is
not merely to be invested with divine authority; it means that ontolo-
gically the angel is the incarnational presence of the divine manifest in
the providential care over Israel.

“The ancient belief was that God could appear as an angelic

presence to human beings, and the shape that this presence
took was that of an anthropos [man, or human being]. The
angelic form, therefore, is the garment (as later kabbalists
expressed the matter) in which the divine is clad when it is
382 The Only True God

manifest in the world in the shape of an anthropos.” (Wolfson,

chapter on “Judaism and Incarnation,” Christianity in Jewish
Terms, p.244)

Very shortly before the manuscript of this book was about to go to the
publishers, I had the good fortune to come across the insightful and
thought-provoking book by Professor James Kugel entitled “The God of
Old”. Here I include some of his concluding observations following his
study of the Biblical texts about the angel of the Lord:

“Here, then, is the most important point about the angel in all
these texts. He is not so much an emissary, or messenger, of
God as God Himself in human form”.

“The angel, in other words, is not some lesser order of divine

being; it is God Himself, but God unrecognized, God intruding
into ordinary reality.”

“The angel looks like an ordinary human being for a while, but
only for a while; then comes the moment of recognition, when
it turns out that, oh yes, that was God and no ordinary human”

(The God of Old, 2003, pp.34,35; James L. Kugel is Starr

Professor of Hebrew Literature at Harvard University.)

Yahweh’s loving-kindness

W
hat this means is that the idea of Yahweh coming into the
world in human form is not something strange or foreign to
the Bible. On the contrary, the notion of God’s personal
intervention, often appearing in human form at crucial times in the
history of His people, is something frequently mentioned in the
Scriptures. It can rightly be said that, given His nature and character as
revealed in the Scriptures, Yahweh would not, and could not, be indiffer-
ent or unconcerned about mankind and his needs, and especially his
sufferings, even when these sufferings were brought upon man by his
own sins.
 Chapter 5 — Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible 383

One of the most frequently used words in the Hebrew Bible in

relation to Yahweh’s character is hesed. The word occurs 251 times, of
which a large proportion has to do with Yahweh. The difficulty of trans-
lating this word is shown by the variety of ways it is rendered in the
various translations: “lovingkindness” (NASB), “mercy” (KJV), “steadfast
love” (ESV), “unfailing love” (NIV), “faithful love” (NJB), “loyal love”
(NET). All these variations are found in the translations of Exodus 15.13.
The translation of the word may vary even within the same version. But
what is clear from the variety of words used is that love is the common
element in all of them, including “mercy”. This is how Theological Word-
book of the Old Testament summarizes a lengthy academic discussion on
hesed:

“...it refers to an attitude as well as to actions. This attitude is

parallel to love, rahûm, goodness, tôb, etc. It is a kind of love,
including mercy, hannûn, when the object is in a pitiful state. It
often takes verbs of action, ‘do,’ ‘keep,’ and so refers to acts of
love as well as to the attribute. The word ‘lovingkindness’ of the
KJV is archaic, but not far from the fulness of meaning of the
word.”

Yahweh’s character is beautifully expressed in these tender words, “I have

loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-
kindness (hesed).” (Jer.31.3, NIV).
 Chapter 6

Christianity has Lost

its Jewish Roots: the
Serious Consequences

Christianity has lost its Jewish roots

T
he church we see in the book of Acts was a Jewish church in the
30s and 40s of the first century thriving through God’s dynamic
power and under Jewish leadership. One of the most vigorous
and learned among these first leaders was, of course, the Apostle Paul,
the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Ro.11.13); he is the chief figure in the Book
of Acts, and his evangelistic activities are the subject of most of that book.
But Gentiles appear to have quite forgotten not only that he was a Jew,
but how Jewish he was, and how proud he was of it. In a recent book
Garry Wills (Professor of History Emeritus at Northwestern University
in the US) does a good job of reminding his readers of this fact:
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 385

“There is no more Semitic a Semite than Paul. ‘If one relies on

lineage, I can do so more than others—circumcised on the
eighth day, by race a man of Israel, by tribe of Benjamin,
Hebrew from Hebrews, in Law a Pharisee, in dedication a
persecutor of the gathering [the church], in vindication under
the Law a man faultless’ (Phil 3.4-6). ‘For Jewishness I out-
stripped many contemporaries of my own lineage, extreme in
my zealous preservation of the patriarchs’ traditions’ (Gal 1.14).
Paul is just as Jewish as Jewish can be … He boasts only of his
Jewish roots and observance.” (What Paul Meant, Penguin,
2006, p.129, 130).

Clearly, Paul did not desert his Jewish roots by becoming a follower of
Messiah Jesus. A fundamental defining mark of the Jew was his mono-
theism, and Paul was as monotheistic as any monotheist, as is perfectly
clear from his letters (Ro.16.27; 1Cor.8.6; 8.4; Ro.3.30; Eph.1.3; 3.14; 4.6;
1Tim.1.17; 2.5, etc). As apostle to the Gentiles, Paul saw his mission to be
that of bringing Gentiles into “the commonwealth of Israel” through
faith in Christ (Eph. 2.12); they thereby become members of “the Israel of
God” (Gal.6.16).
But within a hundred years, the church had passed from being under
dedicated Jewish leadership to becoming a predominantly Gentile church
under Gentile leaders. A quantum shift had taken place. The church was
now composed of people from a polytheistic background, without the
ardent commitment to monotheism characteristic of the Jews. It soon
became apparent that the Gentile church was not particularly averse to
adding one or two more persons to the Godhead, while nominally
acknowledging the monotheistic character of the faith and the Scriptures
(both Old and New) that they had inherited from the Jewish church.
The Gentile church moved on boldly with the process of the
deification of Christ in spite of the fact that they could not find one verse
in their New Testament which plainly stated that Jesus is God. The fact
that trinitarianism could find nothing in the NT that supported them is
hardly surprising given the fact that all except one (i.e. Luke) of the
writers of the New Testament were Jews. Little wonder that the Nicene
Creed, which became determinative for the Christian (Gentile) church,
386 The Only True God

and in which Jesus is raised to full deity so as to be coequal with the

Father, does not quote a single verse in support of this new dogma.
Most Christians to this day are unaware of just how feeble the Biblical
foundation of trinitarianism is. The Scriptural situation for trinitarian-
ism, where the New Testament is concerned, is put clearly and concisely
by J.H. Thayer: “Whether Christ is called God must be determined from
John 1:1; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8f, etc.; the
matter is still in dispute among theologians.” (Thayer’s Greek-English
Lexicon, under θεὸς, sec.2, emphasis added). Yes, 1700 years after the
Nicene Creed was established as official church dogma, Christian theolo-
gians are still unable to ascertain whether Christ can be called God
according to the New Testament! To put the situation in another way,
whether Jesus can be called God depends on the interpretation of a small
number of verses, but the validity or correctness of these interpretations
is disputed.
But this situation was inevitably the result of the church’s having lost
its connection to its Jewish roots. How could one extract trinitarianism
from the monotheistic writings of the New Testament? Voluminous
efforts expended in countless books and articles could not accomplish
this. All that could be (and has been) done was to impose interpretations
on the unyielding monotheistic writings that are fundamentally incom-
patible with them. These interpretations, sitting insecurely on founda-
tions that will not support them, can easily be overturned. Is it not time
for the church to return to its monotheistic Jewish foundation rather
than continue to try to build something on that foundation that is not
compatible with it?
The church received God’s revelation of Himself as recorded in the
Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament. What most
Christians today don’t know is that the early church had no other Bible
except “the Old Testament”. What was circulated in the early churches
were some letters, such as those written by the Apostles Peter and Paul,
originally written to specific churches whose names are still attached to
them. Some churches may have had one or more of the four gospels we
now have. Not until the late 2nd century were these letters and gospels
collected together into something like our present NT.
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 387

What all this means is that the early church was built up on the solid
foundation of the monotheism of “the earlier Scriptures,” the Hebrew
Bible. The NT writings are likewise firmly built on the foundation of the
OT as its many allusions to, and quotations from, the OT show. The
inextricably close relationship between the earlier and later Scriptures,
the Old and New Testaments, finds expression in the saying, “The New is
in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed”.
What we learn in the OT is that God created the world and chose a
line of faithful individuals through whom He worked out His plans for
mankind. God began to reveal Himself to these persons, and through
them to the world. He then chose the people of Israel, not because they
were a great nation, but precisely because of their insignificance among
the nations (Deut.7.7). This exemplifies the way God works as enunciated
in 1Corinthians 1.27, “God chose what is weak in the world to shame the
strong”.
Jesus, God’s uniquely “chosen one” (Lk.9.35), was a Jew and so were
all his apostles. The first Christian church in Jerusalem was made up of
Jews. But the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple in AD 70 by the
Roman armies resulted in the end of Israel as a nation for almost 1900
years. The short-lived Bar Kochba uprising against the Romans was put
down in AD 135, with even harsher consequences for the Jewish people
in Palestine. The gospel had, however, through the missionary efforts of
Paul and others, already been spread far and wide in the Roman Empire.
But one result was that the church by the latter part of the 2nd century
had become a predominantly non-Jewish church which quickly lost its
connections to its Jewish roots. Its leaders had grown up in the religious
and cultural atmosphere of paganism and polytheism. Those who had
some degree of education had drunk deeply from the fountains of Greek
religious and philosophical ideas. These ideas had shaped their minds,
and would prove to be difficult to unlearn even when they became
Christians. This would, inevitably, have profound consequences when it
came to formulating doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity, established as
the official dogma of the Gentile church 300 years after Christ, is an
almost natural product of this series of events, beginning with the
separation of the church from its Jewish origin.
388 The Only True God

The Bible was now being read as though it were a trinitarian book
instead of what it really was: a monotheistic one. Every effort was made
to find trinitarian proof-texts in the New Testament, even though
practically nothing could be found in the Old Testament for this purpose.
Accordingly, NT texts were often given a trinitarian meaning without
proper reference to their OT background. Even today, OT scholarship
and NT scholarship function as separate domains (perhaps thanks also to
this age of specialization), such that there appears to be little interaction
between the two. Years ago I met an acquaintance at a library in
Cambridge, where he was completing a doctorate in some OT subject. He
asked me what I was doing at that time. When I told him that I was
studying some questions in the NT, he smiled and said, “Oh, I didn’t
think there were any questions left in the NT to study!” Of course he said
this jokingly, but that the idea would even cross his mind that there may
be no more questions left to study seemed at least to indicate that he did
not really know what those questions might be.
The church’s separation from its Jewish roots meant that it no longer
knew the religious and cultural atmosphere of the time of Christ and his
apostles, or of those who wrote the NT. Most Christians today don’t even
know what Jesus’ mother tongue was, or in what language he taught,
because they have no idea what was the spoken language in Palestine in
Jesus’ time. Most have not even heard of the word “Aramaic,” let alone
know that this was the language which Jesus spoke in his daily life
because this was the language spoken in the land of Israel at that time,
and for about 500 years before that.
Even in the world of New Testament scholarship, insufficient attent-
ion has been paid to Aramaic. After all, most theological seminary grad-
uates have scarcely attained even an elementary knowledge of Hebrew,
let alone Aramaic, a related but different Semitic language.
But the appreciation for the importance of Aramaic began to change
in NT scholarship with the discoveries at Qumran beginning in 1947,
when it was found that substantial parts of the Qumran writings were in
Aramaic. Also around that time the discovery was made of a complete
Aramaic Targum; previously only portions were available. “Targum” is
the Aramaic word for “translation,” and the Targums were translations
into Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible. These translations became necessary
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 389

because from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the people who returned
from the Exile could no longer speak Hebrew. Having lived in Exile for
several decades, they spoke the Aramaic language of the lands in which
they lived. This is a situation which is replicated by the Jews today who
have lived in foreign countries for generations, very few of whom are able
to speak Hebrew. When I went to Israel to learn Hebrew in my student
days, most of those in my language class were Jews who had come to
learn the language of their early forefathers.
Certainly, the importance of Aramaic for the understanding of the NT
was known to a relatively small number of scholars (Wellhausen, Burney,
M. Black, and others) already before the above mentioned discoveries.
But it did not receive the attention it deserved until the impetus given by
those new discoveries. Scholars such as M. McNamara (Targum and
Testament) have made significant contributions in this direction. Some
examples of these contributions are given expression by a group of
scholars in their studies published in The Aramaic Bible, ed. D.R.G.
Beattie and M.J. McNamara, JSOT Press, 1994.
One of the articles in The Aramaic Bible is titled “The Aramaic
Background of the New Testament” by Prof. Max Wilcox. Of the many
points he makes at the conclusion of his article, one is that “the material
from the Targumim [Heb. for Targums] and from Qumran should be
utilized to the full” (p.377; italics and explanation in brackets added). This
is precisely what we intend to do when we come to the crucial study of
the “Word” (Logos in Greek; Memra in Aramaic) in John 1.1 and other
verses where applicable. But first we need to gain a better understanding
of the significance of Aramaic for the study of the Scriptures.

The extremely serious spiritual consequences of the shift

away from the Jewish mother church

F
ew Christians today seem to be aware of the truth that all churches
that claim to be “Christian” grew out of the first church at
Jerusalem which can, therefore, be appropriately called “the Jewish
mother church”. We have an account in the first several chapters of the
book of Acts about how that church came into being at Pentecost in or
about the year AD 33. The tragedy is that the mother church would be
390 The Only True God

unable to recognize her “children” if she were to see them as they are
today. In regard to the matter of prayer, for example, there is no doubt
whatever that the Jewish church knew only the one true God, and prayed
to Him alone and absolutely no one else. The words of Deuteronomy
10.17 would have characterized their concept of the only God: “For
Yahweh your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the
mighty, and the awesome God”; that is to say in the strongest possible
terms that Yahweh alone is the one true God. This was epitomized in the
Shema (Deut.6.4), which was central to their faith and could never be
compromised. The New Jerusalem Bible rightly expresses the spirit of the
Shema: “Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.”
What, therefore, would the shock and horror of the Jerusalem mother
church be if they could see the non-Jewish churches today? They would
find some Christians praying to “God the Father,” who is not the only
God because to them there are two other persons who are equally God
besides him. They would find most Christians praying to and worship-
ping Jesus, who is one of the two persons besides “the Father,” and who
himself is now “God the Son”. What has happened to the church? Or is
this really the church? It now has nothing of spiritual substance in
common with the Jerusalem church; almost everything has been changed
or distorted.
The early Jewish church certainly loved and honored Jesus as God’s
servant (pais, Acts 3.13,26; 4.25,27,30), a title found primarily in the early
chapters of Acts and therefore apparently their preferred way of referring
to him. But it would have been inconceivable to them that Jesus would
have been worshipped alongside Yahweh and on the same level with
Him. They saw Jesus as their Savior and friend, whom they could
approach as their great high priest who intercedes for them with Yahweh
at “the throne of grace” (Heb.4.16). But the Jews did not pray to the high
priest, but only to Yahweh, who was “enthroned above the cherubim,” or
in the words of king Hezekiah’s prayer, “O LORD of hosts, God of Israel,
who is enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone”
(Isa.37.16; 2Ki.19.15; 1Chr.13.6; cf. Heb.9.5). We have a record of how
the Jerusalem church prayed in a time of crisis: “they lifted their voices
together to God and said, ‘Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the
earth and the sea and everything in them…’”, and it is in this prayer that
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 391

Jesus is twice referred to as “your holy servant Jesus” (Ac.4.27,30). King

David is referred to by the same word “servant” (pais, v.25). They
honored Jesus as both “Lord and Christ” (Ac.2.36), but their prayers were
not addressed to him; they prayed only to the God who alone is God.

Prayer was not made to Jesus in the NT

T
his fact should be considered decisive against any argument for
Jesus’ deity. The Jerusalem church both knew and declared that
“God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you
crucified” (Ac.2.36), but the prayers of this spiritually dynamic church
were directed to God, not to Jesus.
When Stephen was being stoned to death, he committed his departing
spirit to Jesus’ care (Ac.7.59). Shortly before this he had a vision in which
he saw Jesus standing in attendance at the right hand of God as “the Son
of man” (Ac.7.56). No matter how exalted a being “the Son of man”
might be, no Jewish believer would have prayed to a man, which is
essentially what “the son of man” means in both Hebrew and Aramaic.
So Stephen’s interaction with the resurrected Jesus is not something on
the level of praying to God. It is at most on the level of communicating
with a heavenly being in much the same way that John conversed with
the angel in the Revelation. This was not something unfamiliar to the
Jewish mind. Consider, for example, the extended story of The Rich Man
and Lazarus told by Jesus in Luke 16.19-31. Whatever may be the genre
and nature of this story (that is, whether it is factual or not, which does
not concern us here), in it Jesus describes how when the rich man died,
his spirit departed to Hades and was in torment. There he looked up and
saw Abraham. He pleaded with Abraham to send Lazarus to bring him a
little “water” to cool his “tongue”; but since the rich man is no longer in
the body, clearly “water to cool the tongue” is metaphorical for relief of
his spiritual torment. But we need not here discuss the details of this
story. The only point of relevance for us is whether this “prayer” to
Abraham constitutes prayer according to the NT, and exactly how it
differs from Stephen’s “prayer” to Jesus. As far as the Scriptures are
concerned, prayer (properly so called) was addressed only to God, “the
only God” (Jo.5.44).
392 The Only True God

It would be quite absurd to suggest that Jesus taught by that story that
people should pray to Abraham in time of need. Yet a substantial part of
the Christian church endorses “praying” to the saints; and though
Abraham is not a “saint” of the church, yet since praying to a saint is
praying to a human being, then praying to Abraham should not be a
problem for this part of the church. But since the NT church addressed
prayer only to God, Jesus’ story of Lazarus should not be used in the
church in support of prayer to the saints. Moreover, a major doctrine
about prayer cannot be based upon one story. The rich man in Hades
made a plea to Abraham (and for those in Hades without access to God,
with whom else could they plead?), but not every plea or request is a
prayer.
In Stephen’s case, being a follower of Jesus he had already committed
his life to following Jesus and did not need to plead to be accepted again;
he was now faithfully following Jesus right into heaven, and giving notice
of his coming to him with the words “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”
(Ac.7.59). A much fuller communication was that between Jesus and Saul
on the Damascus road (Ac.9.3-7). In another instance, Jesus communi-
cated a message of assurance to Paul at Corinth in a vision at night
(Ac.18.9,10), but this was apparently a one way communication. The
point is that there is simply nothing in the book of Acts that can be cited
as evidence for praying to Jesus. The same is true for the whole NT. If the
Apostolic church thought of Jesus as God, then this fact is totally
inexplicable. “Maranatha” or “Come, Lord Jesus” (1Cor.16.22; Rev.22.20)
are prayers only if every invitation to “come” is considered a prayer.

Is there anyone here who prays to Yahweh?

This was a question I asked a room full of pastors and preachers. No one
raised his/her hand. Yahweh has effectively been eliminated from
Christianity. Is this a matter for concern? There is no cause for concern if
salvation does not matter to us. But what do the Scriptures say?

Romans 10.13: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the

Lord will be saved.’”
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 393

Acts 2.20: “The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon
to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and
magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who
calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

These are quotations of Joel 2.31,32: “The sun shall be turned to dark-
ness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the
LORD (Yahweh) comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who
calls on the name of the LORD (Yahweh) shall be saved.”
But do we realize that the statement in Romans 10.13 (and Ac.2.20),
which concerns the weighty matter of eternal salvation, refers to calling
on Yahweh? And does Yahweh have any place at all in the prayers,
thoughts, and lives of Christians today? Has not Yahweh been practically
eliminated from Christianity? Has not even the Name “Yahweh” become
foreign to us (somewhat like “Allah”)? How has this come about?
Christianity today has made itself into a self-contained package or
system which does not need Yahweh; He is, for all practical purposes,
quietly and politely set aside by this system. Within this system, Christ is
everything, he is center and circumference. He is the object of prayer and
worship; for he is the one who came into the world because he loved us,
and proved this by giving himself for us; he rose from the dead and took
his place of honor beside the Father. By his suffering and the blood of his
cross he secured the salvation of all those who have faith in him and call
on his name. He is coming again to reign upon the earth together with
those who are faithful to him, his saints. This is the trinitarian doctrinal
“package”.
Actually, what did the Father do for our salvation, apart from sending
Jesus into the world to die? Or did He really need to send him? Was not
Jesus more than willing to come, whether or not he was sent? But at least
the Father did raise him from the dead, or was even that necessary? For
does not the Scripture say that death could not keep God’s “holy one” in
its grip (Ps.16.10; Ac. 2.27ff); that being the case, would not death be
obliged to release him because death could have no hold on the sinless
one? Moreover, does not Scripture also say that Jesus is “the everlasting
Father” (Isa.9.6)? So the Son is also the Father!
Thus in this Christocentric, Christ-all-sufficient system, what need is
there for the Father, beyond merely acknowledging His existence? After
394 The Only True God

all, without the Father there could be no Trinity; indeed, without the Son
there could also be no Trinity. As for the Holy Spirit in this Christo-
centric system, he is for all practical purposes an extension of Christ, for
is he not called “the Spirit of Christ” (Ro.8.9) or “the Spirit of Jesus
Christ” (Phil.1.19)?
Christ is coeternal and coequal with the Father in every respect but,
admittedly, if that is the case, it is not easy to explain why he is called
“God the Son,” for a son derives his being from his father, or perhaps it is
just because he was called “the son of God” on earth, so the title “the Son”
is applied to him retroactively into eternity because there is no other
convenient title available. After all, did not Jesus himself speak of “Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit” (Mat.28.19)?
Since Jesus is coeternal and coequal with the Father, it logically
follows that when we use the word “God” it does not necessarily refer to
the Father. So when we talk about “God,” or read about God in the OT, it
could just as well be referring to Jesus.
From the moment the church declared Jesus to be God they thereby
inevitably made the Father redundant. If Jesus is both God and man then
he would clearly mean more to us than one who is “only” God, not man.
We can relate to a God who is also man far better than one who is only
God, for we think we can identify with him because of his humanity. This
God-man, therefore, relates to us as man, and is all sufficient as God, so
what use does the trinitarian Christian have for the Father who does not
have the advantage of being human like the God-man Jesus? So for all
practical purposes we can forget about the Father—if trinitarianism is
true. In any case, Christians don’t really know who the Father is, nor does
it matter to them because Christ is His image, and this image is more
than adequate for them.
Moreover, is not the total sufficiency of Christ for everything in the
Christian life and for salvation summed up in the words “Christ is all and
in all” in Colossians 3.11?
But the answer to this question is, exegetically speaking, a definite
“No, it does not support this trinitarian Christ-all-sufficient system of
doctrine.” Look at Colossians 3.11 in full, “Here (in the new man, v.10)
there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian,
Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” This verse addresses
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 395

specifically the question concerning relationships, especially that of Jew

and Gentile, in the church. In the “new man,” which is the church with
Christ as its head, there are no ethnic, cultural, or social distinctions of
any kind, because here Christ is everything that matters to everyone—
which is what “all in all” means. It is specifically within the context of the
new man that Christ is all in all.
Ephesians 2.15 addresses the same issue (also Acts 15.5ff) with the
words, “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two
(Jew and Gentile), so making peace”. Christ is all that matters in the
context of all relationships within the church. This same point is affirmed
again in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in
Christ Jesus.” All this makes it perfectly clear that “Christ is all” is a
statement made in the context of relationships within the church, especial-
ly that between Jew and Gentile, and is therefore misapplied when made
into a universal or cosmic principle. Ultimately, Yahweh God alone will
be “all in all” (1Cor.15.28).
The other reason for failing to understand verses like Colossians 3.11
correctly is that Gentiles, generally having an inadequate foundation in
the OT, usually have little appreciation for the significance of the Messiah
in Scripture. And though “Christ,” like “Messiah,” means “Anointed
One,” the significance of this has also evaporated. No Jew could have
thought of the Messiah as God, yet Gentiles can readily declare that
“Jesus Christ is God” without any hesitation. Here is Colossians 3.11
according to the ancient Syriac Peshitta (Murdock), “there is neither Jew
nor Gentile, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither Greek nor
barbarian, neither bond nor free; but the Messiah is all, and in all.”

The loss of Jewish roots meant the loss of pure

monotheism, resulting in the trinitarian corruption of the
concept of God

W
hat does “God” mean in trinitarianism? Well, it could refer
to the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit, or any combination of
them (e.g. Father and Son), or all three persons together. But
the God of trinitarianism is not a person; he is not even “person” in some
396 The Only True God

generalized sense because “he” is the “substance” of which the three

persons consist. To speak of a substance as “he” is contrary to language
and logic, for a substance is an “it”. So trinitarianism has reduced “God”
to an “it”.
Moreover, since God consists of three persons, he (or rather “it”)
should be spoken of as “they,” as would be true of speaking of more than
one person in any language. Trinitarianism has so corrupted the meaning
of the word “God” that when a trinitarian speaks of God one does not
know exactly who he is talking about (i.e. which of the three persons); but
in most instances he is likely to be talking about Christ. It is not
uncommon for Christians to pray to Jesus and then end their prayer “in
Jesus’ name”!
This fuzzy concept of “God,” allegedly derived from the NT, stands in
complete contrast to the God revealed in the Bible, who revealed His
Name as “Yahweh”. There is simply nothing that can properly be called
“evidence” in the OT in regard to there being “three persons in the
Godhead”. If Christians are to be delivered out of their doctrinal fog, they
will have to see that their God is simply not Yahweh. And if they wish to
equate Yahweh with “the Father” of trinitarianism, then they should
realize that Yahweh has no co-equal “Son,” and that His Spirit is not a
distinct person from Him. One can certainly call Him “Father,” but not
in the trinitarian sense of the word. Sadly, trinitarianism has corrupted
even the use of “Father” such that one has to define in which sense the
word is being applied to God.
And the same is true in regard to “Son,” a term in Scripture that is
applied to the Messiah (meaning God’s “anointed one”) in Psalm 2.2, and
with reference to whom Yahweh declares (v.7): “You are my Son; today I
have begotten you.” “Today” marks an event in time, not eternity
(“eternally begotten”), and this event is mentioned in the previous verse,
“I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” Yahweh appoints His mess-
ianic king to reign over all the nations of the world, even to “the ends of
the earth” (v.8ff). This is the basis of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 28.19f.
So the term “Son” describes the Messiah, and not an “eternal Son”.
The church needs to return to Yahweh and put an end to all distort-
ions of the concept of God. Only so can we be delivered from the evil of
falsehood and return to the truth which can only be found in Yahweh. “I
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 397

the LORD (Yahweh) speak the truth; I declare what is right” (Isa.45.19).
“Teach me your way, O LORD (Yahweh), that I may walk in your truth;
unite my heart to fear your name” (Psalm 86:11).
Because the words “God” and “Father” have been corrupted by trin-
itarianism, these terms need to be redefined when the intention is to refer
to “the one true God” (John 17.3). Trinitarianism has even robbed us of
the vocabulary with which to correctly refer to the only God! Biblical
monotheism cannot be expressed by means of trinitarian terminology.
How then are we now to refer to Him? Is there any better way than to
return to calling on His Name again as “Yahweh”? This may offend some
Jews, who have made the pronouncing of His Holy Name taboo accord-
ing to their tradition—in spite of the fact that their Scriptures instruct
them to call on His Name, also commanding them to “swear (i.e. take
their solemn oaths) by His Name” (Deut.6.13). Therefore when relating
to the Jews one could use their preferred metonym “Adonai” when refer-
ring to Yahweh; in any case, to religious Jews generally the word “God”
refers to Yahweh when talking about the Bible. People should be free to
speak of “Yahweh” or “Adonai”.
There is actually no reason why it is necessary to abide by the man-
made prohibition of speaking the Name “Yahweh”. The prohibition is to
be rejected because it is un-Biblical as is evident from the obvious fact
that the Bible itself delights in abundant references to His Name—some
7000 references in all! It makes no sense whatever to argue that the Name
should not be used for fear of misuse when the Scriptures use it with such
frequency that “Yahweh” appears several times on almost every page. If
anyone brought forward the argument that we should not use money, or
a car, or anything else for fear of misusing it, we would surely regard such
an argument as quite absurd. Similarly, I doubt that anyone in the United
Kingdom would consider it sensible to suggest that speaking the name
“Elizabeth” should be prohibited for fear of insulting her majesty the
Queen. On the contrary, do we not delight in speaking the name of the
one we love—like the proud father who delights to speak of his son or
daughter? It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why the Name of
Yahweh appears so frequently in the Scriptures—His people delight in
speaking His Name.
398 The Only True God

Getting to the root of the matter: “Their olive tree”—and

ours

B
ut the matter goes even deeper. Jesus summed it up concisely in
the words, “salvation is from the Jews” (Jo.4.22). This is not an
ethnically motivated statement, but a statement about spiritual
reality, as Jesus said, “My words, they are spirit and they are life”
(Jo.6.63). To understand his words on the level of the flesh is to misun-
derstand them. In John, Jesus is very stern with the Jews because of their
obstinate unbelief (a sternness also expressed by the great prophets of the
OT); because of this some scholars have alleged anti-Semitism in John.
But the succinct statement that “salvation is from the Jews” (Jo.4.22)
effectively shatters such an allegation. The spiritual point of the reference
to the Jews as the conduit of God’s salvation is to put into focus the
“salvation history” delineated in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Jews
are not a merely dispensable channel of salvation in the sense that once
we have received salvation through the Jews, we can dispense with them.
“Salvation” and “Jews” are linked in such a way that to be severed from
the Jewish “tree” is to be severed from salvation. Let us consider this
matter carefully from the Scriptures.
In Romans 11 Paul portrays the people of God as an olive tree whose
roots stretch back in Biblical antiquity to Abraham and earlier; these
godly men together constitute a holy root (Ro.11.16), rooted in a deep
relationship with Yahweh God. Jews are branches of this olive tree, but
because of their unbelief some of them were broken off by God
(Ro.11.17); but the believing Jews, including Paul, and the members of
the early Jewish Church, remain a part of the tree. The breaking off of the
unbelieving “branches,” even if many, did not mean that God had
rejected Israel as His people. It was with this very fact that Paul started
this portion of his letter: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no
means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member
of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he
foreknew.” (Ro.11.1,2) In God’s wisdom and mercy, the breaking off of
those unbelieving branches created an opening into which believing
Gentiles could be grafted into the olive tree; this olive tree represents the
people God has chosen, also called “the elect” (Ro.11.5,7). In this way
“through their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles” (Ro.11.11).
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 399

But with this gracious provision of salvation for the Gentiles comes a
stern warning:
17
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you,
although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others
and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not
be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not
you who support the root, but the root that supports you
(Ro.11).

Salvation is portrayed as being grafted into “the olive tree” and drawing
spiritual life and nourishment from its root. A branch stays alive only so
long as it remains firmly grafted in the tree; no branch can survive being
cut off from the tree. To remain in this tree is life; to be cut off from it is
death. Jesus, the “deliverer” or “redeemer,” is an essential part of this tree
(cf.Ro.11.26; Isa.59.20, etc); therefore, to be united with Christ through
faith is another way to explain how one is grafted into the tree. That is
why in John 15.1ff Jesus also speaks in terms of a Vine and its branches.
Grafting is a regular procedure in viticulture; it is Yahweh God who
grafts in or cuts off, because He is the “vinedresser”: As Jesus said, “I am
the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser” (Jo.15.1). He also warned
that unfruitful branches could be cut off and thrown away, “If anyone
does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and
withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned”
(Jo.15.6, NIV); but “whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears
much fruit” (v.5).
What all this means is that to be cut off from the spiritual “olive tree”
(or “vine,” cf. Isa.5.1-7) of Israel is to be cut off from salvation, whether
he be Jew or Gentile, which is precisely what Paul warns could happen,
and has happened to unbelieving Jews (Ro.11.22). Here is the whole
passage:
19
Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might
be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of
their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not
become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the
natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the
400 The Only True God

kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who

have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue
in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

In spite of these perfectly plain statements, there is no lack of Christians,

especially in certain Protestant circles, who maintain that they cannot be
cut off from salvation under any circumstance! How blind can one be
even in the light of the clear language of Scripture?
On the other hand, those Jews who are willing to return to their God
will be grafted back into the olive tree:
23
And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will
be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24
For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and
grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how
much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back
into their own olive tree.

Notice these last words, “their olive tree,” for it was theirs by God’s grace
in the first place, although it also becomes the Gentile’s by God’s grace,
by their being grafted into it through faith; for it is through faith that we
become members of “the Israel of God” (Gal.6.16). When we are grafted
into the olive tree through faith, then “their olive tree” also becomes our
olive tree.

Gal.3 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of
Abraham.
29
And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring,
heirs according to promise.

Rom.2 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor

is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one in-
wardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit,
not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Rom.4 12 (The purpose was) to make him (Abraham) the father

of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 401

also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham
had before he was circumcised.

Rom.9 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For
not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not
all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but
‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ 8 This means
that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of
God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Phil.3 3 For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the

Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence
in the flesh.

Can we grasp what the Apostle is saying in all these passages? Is he not
declaring that it is through faith that a person becomes a descendant of
Abraham, and “heirs according to promise” (Gal.3.29)? It is by faith, not
physical descent, that one becomes a child of God. Being a Jew is not a
matter of race or religion but “a matter of the heart” (Ro.2.29), so being
an Israelite is not a matter of physical descent from Israel; to belong to
Israel is a matter of being “children of the promise” (Ro.9.8) through
faith. So he tells the Philippians, a proportion of whom are Gentiles, “we
are the real circumcision”. “Circumcision” is another word used to
describe Jews (Eph.2.11; Col.4.11; Ro.3.30; 4.9, etc), so Paul is saying to
the Philippians, “you and I, we are the real Jews”.
The point is that the true believer (not just any Christian) is the real
Jew before God, the spiritual Jew whose praise comes from God, not man
(Ro.2.29). Becoming a believer is to become a true Israelite, a real Jew!
Little wonder that Paul declared that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor
Greek” (Gal.3.28; Col.3.11)—there are only real Israelites, the true
descendants of Abraham (Gal.3.29), the heirs of God’s promises, the
chosen people of God, the spiritual Jews! In the church of God there are
only spiritual Israelites, all of whom are circumcised in heart (Ro.2.28,29;
Phil.3.3) even though not all were circumcised in the flesh. James Dunn,
in his large commentary on the Greek text of Romans, puts this in
theological language when he writes of “the Christian Gentile rejoicing in
the gift of the eschatological Spirit—the eschatological Jew is Gentile as
402 The Only True God

well as Jew!” (Romans, Word Biblical Commentary, Word Publishing,

1991, p.125, re. Ro.2.28,29).
The Apostle Peter wrote to encourage persecuted believers by remind-
ing them that “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a
people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of
him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1Pt.2.9). In
this verse the terms applied to Israel in the OT are applied to the church
(still largely made up of Jews when 1Peter was written); what Peter writes
echoes a passage like Deuteronomy 7.6, “For you are a people holy to the
LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for
his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the
earth” (cf. Mal.3.17, etc).
It should now be clear that when speaking about “Jewish roots” we are
not speaking primarily about Judaism in its various forms but in
particular about the Scriptures which the Jews have zealously guarded,
preserved, and transmitted with utmost care throughout the centuries.
Their unwavering commitment to the word of God and to monotheism
is something which should put the church to shame. The Jewish root is
the rich spiritual heritage made available to us, above all through the
Jewish Scriptures.
It must be remembered that Islam, too, grows out of this same Jewish
root, which is visible everywhere in the Qur’an. The Qur’an freely ac-
knowledges the Jewish Scriptures and also the gospel as being the word of
God. Muslims, too, acknowledge themselves to be the descendants of
Abraham.
Yahweh has chosen in His wisdom and kindness to provide life
through the Jewish root. We do well to remember that no branch can
survive if severed from the tree. And if now we realize, even if we have
never realized it before, that we are the true Israelites, the real Jews, then
why would we want to be severed from the olive tree into which God has
graciously grafted us?
That Gentiles became Jews through conversion was something the
Jews were familiar with; it was through the process of proselytizing (i.e.
converting people to Judaism) that Gentiles entered into the Jewish
religion. This was accomplished through the vigorous missionary efforts
of Judaism. Jesus pointed to the missionary zeal of the Pharisees who
 Chapter 6 — Christianity Has Lost Its Jewish Roots 403

“travel over land and sea to win a single convert” (Mat.23.15). Anyone
visiting Israel even today will see Jews who are black (e.g. from Yemen)
as well as Jews who are white, both among its civilians as well as in the
army. For the Jews, being a Jew was not exclusively or even primarily a
matter of race but of religion. The New Testament concept differs from
theirs not on the question on whether Gentiles can become Jews, but on
how the transition is made; Paul proclaims that it is through faith in
Christ. This is stated clearly in Ephesians 2:
11
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the
flesh, called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called the circum-
cision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that
you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the
commonwealth (or, citizenship, membership) of Israel and
strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and
without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who
once were far off have been brought near by the blood of
Christ.

In Christ, then, we are no longer “alienated from the people of Israel”

(BDAG, politeias, re. Eph.2.12), but are now members of God’s elect
people. “‘The Israel of God’ is still God’s covenant people… into whom
believing Gentiles are being incorporated” (Dunn, Romans, p.540, re.
Ro.9.6). The profound consequence of this incorporation into Israel is
that the Gentile, who is now a member of “the real circumcision”
(Phil.3.3), is no longer a “stranger to the covenants of promise”
(Eph.2.12), but becomes “the Gentile convert entering into Israel’s
promised blessings” (Dunn, Romans, p.534, re. Ro.9.4). Everything that
God promised Israel becomes ours in Christ (2Cor.1.20). So Paul could
say that in Christ “all things are yours” (1Cor.3.21), such are the unimag-
inable riches of our inheritance: “as it is written: ‘No eye has seen, no ear
has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who
love him’ {Isaiah 64:4}” (1 Corinthians 2.9, NIV); so there is abundant
cause to give “thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the
inheritance of the saints in light” (Colossians 1.12).
Yet there are very few Christians today who realize that the true
believer is “the real circumcision,” the true Israelite. This shows how
404 The Only True God

completely disconnected the Christian church is from its Jewish roots

and from the New Testament teaching on this vital matter. Let us
remember: no branch can survive once it is cut off from the tree and its
roots—here we are, of course, speaking about spiritual life and survival.
Little wonder that the Gentile church, having separated from its Jewish
roots, strayed into serious doctrinal error. Error leads to death; it is time
to realize this and to heed the word of God, “come back to Yahweh your
God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, rich in faithful
love, and he relents about inflicting disaster” (Joel 2.13). Yahweh, the
God of Israel, is not only the God of the Jews but of all who belong to
“the Israel of God” (Gal.6.16), God’s spiritual Israel. Sadly, most
Christians scarcely know His Name, but the true Israelite will aim to love
Him wholeheartedly (Mk.12.30, etc) and learn to honor His name, for “it
is wonderful” (cf.Judg.13.18; Isa.28.29, etc).
 Chapter 7

The Old Testament

Roots of “the Word”
in John 1.1

T
he “Word” in the phrase “The Word of Yahweh” is, basically, a
collective noun for a group or collection of words which conveys
a command of Yahweh (e.g. “Let there be light,” Gen.1.3). Refer-
ring to a message from Yahweh, the phrase “the word of the LORD
came” (to Abram, or Elijah, or Jeremiah, etc) occurs over 100 times in the
OT.
To appreciate the importance of “the word,” there are some basic facts
we need to understand about it. For example, how do human beings
communicate with each other if not by means of words? We need only go
to a foreign country whose language we do not understand to appreciate
the fact that without knowing their language we find ourselves unable to
communicate even on the simplest level. Even knowledge of a few local
words could prove helpful. We soon realize that words are the essential
406 The Only True God

way by which people communicate; all communication relies on words

whether spoken (in a variety of sounds), written (in whatever forms,
signs, or symbols), or (as in the case of computers) digitalized. Without
language there is simply no way of communicating—apart perhaps from
telepathy, the existence of which appears to be, scientifically speaking,
doubtful. Not even husbands and wives who know each other well, and
can therefore guess what is in the other person’s mind under various
circumstances, can be sure of what the other person actually thinks in
everyday matters without verbal communication. Facial expressions can
communicate certain emotions, but the contents of those emotions can
only be communicated by words. But we take language so much for
granted in our daily lives that we tend to forget how indispensable it is
for human life as a whole.
The word is equally indispensable for God’s communication with
man. Here, too, there is no other way to communicate effectively or
intelligibly. A sign, such as a miracle, communicates a message if we are
able to interpret its significance; and words are still needed to interpret it.
In Scripture, the meaning of divine actions is usually explained, so that
people are not left to guess at their meaning and end up misunderstand-
ing it. God’s desire is that we come to know Him, hence the importance
of His Word. In relation to God, there is something fundamentally im-
portant to grasp: all communications between God and man are mediated
either audibly or in written form through His word. If, as we have seen,
all human communication is essentially mediated by words, it is all the
more so in relation to God because “God is Spirit” (John 4.24); moreover,
He is holy, as so frequently reiterated in the Scriptures, such that no one
can have a direct, unmediated vision of Him and live (Ex.33.20); so it is
primarily by verbal communication that He reveals Himself to man.
There is no possibility, during man’s earthly life, of a direct,
unmediated, or “unfiltered” vision of God. When it is stated, for example,
that Isaiah had a vision of God (Isa.6.1ff), it is explained that what he saw
was the “glory” of God (Jo.12.41), not a direct vision of Him. The same is
true of Ezekiel’s vision of God which he was granted to see, looking
upward through something like a crystalline pane of “glass,” which he
described in this way, “Over the heads of the living creatures there was
the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 407

above their heads” (Ezek.1.22). There above the living creatures he saw a
throne, “and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a
human appearance” (v.26); “such was the appearance of the likeness of
the glory of the LORD (Yahweh)” (v.28). Like Isaiah, what Ezekiel saw
was the “glory of Yahweh”; indeed, he goes further to say that it was only
“the likeness” of His glory. The important point is that all God’s inter-
actions with man are mediated either through His word or His glory, or
both: for example, Ezek.1.3, “the word of Yahweh came to Ezekiel,” and
“I saw visions of God” (Ezek.1.1; “the glory of Yahweh”, v.28). It is for
this reason that both “the Word” and “the Glory” (e.g. 1Sam.4.21,22;
15.29; cf. Heb.1.3; 8.1) serve as metonyms for Yahweh God; but the Word
is the main way God interacts with man.
All this is of the greatest importance for understanding John’s Gospel,
and especially the only two verses in John where “the Word” is
mentioned: verses John 1.1 and 14. It is significant that verse 14 speaks of
both “word” and “glory” (as in Ezekiel 1) because it is in this verse that
“the Word became flesh” with the result that “we have seen his glory”.
Who does “his” refer to? The subject of the sentence is “the Word,” so
clearly the glory which the apostles saw was the glory of the Word. His
glory was made visible by His becoming “flesh” in the person of Jesus
Christ. So the term “the Son” does not just refer to Jesus, but to the Word
incarnate in him; the glory of the Word is the glory made visible in this
unique or “only” Son: “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (v.14).
This is crucial for understanding John’s Gospel. To suppose that “the
Son” refers only to the man Christ Jesus is the error of unitarianism; but
to assume that “the Son” refers to “God the Son” incarnate as man is the
error of trinitarianism. Only when “the Son” is understood in terms of
the Shekinah—Yahweh God (as the Word) dwelling among men—is it
correctly understood in terms of the Biblical revelation.

The foundational verse of Trinitarian Christology: John

1.1

T
he first few verses of John’s Gospel are undoubtedly the most
crucial for trinitarian Christology; it is the foundation stone upon
which it builds its case. With regard to the fundamental
408 The Only True God

importance of the Johannine Prologue for Trinitarian theology, Ben

Witherington III (Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological
Seminary in Kentucky), in his book Jesus the Sage, rightly observes:

“Without question, John 1:1-18 has had more impact on

Christian thinking about the Son of God as preexistent and a
divine being than any other New Testament passage. Here is
where the early church derived its logos (i.e., the Son of God as
the “Word”) Christology and its basic understanding of the
incarnation.”

Witherington, like most other scholars, recognizes the crucial import-

ance of the Prologue, particularly the first verse, for trinitarianism. We
shall, therefore, begin this part of our study with an in-depth examina-
tion of this first portion of John’s Gospel.
Continuing his discussion on John’s Prologue, Witherington writes:

“The evidence that this is an independent hymn that has been

incorporated into this Gospel is strong, for there are various
key terms in this hymn that one finds nowhere else in the
Gospel, including the word logos, the word for grace (charis),
the word for fullness (pleros). Further, the idea found in v.14 of
the Word coming and tabernacling or setting up his tent in our
midst is found only in this passage of the Gospel.

“The best way to describe this hymn is to call it poetry with

some lapses into prose, or poetic prose at the end. In the Greek
it has a certain rhythmic cadence which can even be picked up
in a good English translation.” (Jesus the Sage, p.283).

It is worth noting that the major NT passages which trinitarianism relies

on to support its christology are passages which are generally recognized
to be hymns and, therefore, of a poetic character. Apart from John’s
Prologue, there is Philippians 2.6-11, also possibly Colossians 1 and, less
likely, Hebrews 1. But what should also be carefully noted is that these
hymns are about Christ (and God) but are not addressed to him (viz. in
worship, as is often wrongly supposed).
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 409

Witherington traces the origins of the Logos to the Wisdom literature

in the Old Testament and other early documents, as many other Biblical
scholars do. In this chapter we shall consider this and other important
elements in the Hebrew Bible to which the roots of the Logos in John 1.1
can be traced and which together contributed to its meaning. We shall
begin by examining the term “Word” in those places where its meaning
must surely have a bearing on our understanding of the Word in John 1.

Word = Logos = Dabar = Memra

What is “Logos” (Word) in the Hebrew Bible?

I
n both the United Bible Societies Hebrew NT (1976) and Salkinson-
Ginsberg Hebrew NT, “Logos” (Word) in John 1.1 is correctly trans-
lated by the Hebrew word dabar.
Dabar (word) refers to any kind of verbal communication; so the verb
can mean “to speak, declare, converse, command, promise, warn, threat-
en, sing, etc.”; and as a noun it means, “word, speaking, speech, thing,
etc.” As in every language, it is a common word: “These two words [verb
and noun] occur more than 2500 times in the OT, the noun more than
1400 times and the verb more than 1100” (TWOT).
It was mentioned at the end of Chapter 5 that loving-kindness is
central to Yahweh’s character. This being the case, it is to be expected
that His Word would be the chief means of expressing Himself verbally;
it is therefore the means of His self-revelation. That is where the signi-
ficance of the word lies. Yahweh in His kindness desires above all to
bring blessing to everyone on earth through His Word. Rain is one of the
ways Yahweh’s blessings are poured out upon the earth, watering the
plants which provide food for both man and animals. So, rain was an
appropriate and potent symbol of His word.

Dabar—“Word” in Isaiah 55

T
he gift of rain from heaven, so vital for life on earth, portrays
God’s word:
410 The Only True God

“As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not
return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and
flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the
eater, so is my word (‫ דָּ בָר‬dabar) that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I
desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah
55.10,11; NIV).

There are several important points of parallel with the Word

(Logos/Memra) in John 1. In the Isaiah passage we note that:

(1) It comes down from heaven, it “waters” (ravah, ‫ ָרוָה‬, to “saturate,

water,” Hebrew and English Lexicon, BDB) the earth.
(2) It brings life to the plants (and the animals that feed on them)
which provide food for mankind.
(3) The word is “sent” and then returns.
(4) It will not return to God empty, but will accomplish the purpose
for which it was sent. This is emphasized by the parallel state-
ments, “will accomplish what I desire” and “achieve the purpose
for which I sent it.”
(5) When its work is accomplished it will return to God, just as rain
water rises again to the skies as vapor, thus depicting its “resurrect-
ion”.
It is surely no coincidence that all these points are key elements in John’s
Gospel, thus providing a strong indication of the OT root of Logos in
John 1. The counterpart of these five points in John can be set forth
concisely as follows:
(1) “I am from above” (Jo.8.23)
(2) “I am the life” (Jo.11.25; 14.6)
(3) The Father sent the Son (Jo.10.36)
(4) “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you
gave me to do” (John 17.4); “It is finished” (Jo.19.30)
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 411

(5) “I go to the Father” (Jo.16.10); “I am ascending to my Father and

your Father, to my God and your God” (Jo.20.17)
The picture of rain is interesting for another reason: Rain is not some-
thing that comes only once, it is “sent” from heaven and then “returns” to
heaven, and then comes again. This portrays the Word as having come
from above, having been sent by the Father. The Word brings life to
those who dwell on earth, and thereby glorifies the Father on earth. It
then returns to the Father, but will come again. This point recurs
repeatedly in Jesus’ teaching in John’s Gospel, and not only in the five
points just mentioned as examples, but frequently and especially in his
final discourses in John chapters 14 to 17. Here it becomes very clear that
it is the Word (Logos/Memra) that is speaking in the person of Jesus,
precisely because the Word is “embodied” in Jesus. Already in John
13.33,36 the incarnate Word speaks about his departure, and this extends
into the following chapters (14.3,4,18,19,28; 15.22; 16.5,7,10,16,17,22,28;
17.3,8,11,13,18,23). 34

The Word and the Spirit

J esus, in whom the Word was incarnate, promises his disciples that he
will return to them after his departure, “I will not leave you as
orphans; I will come to you” (Jo.14.18). This does not just refer to his
appearances to them during the relatively short time after his resurrect-
ion and before his ascension, for would he not again leave them as
“orphans” when he leaves them at the ascension? How then would he

34
Footnote on Isa.55.10f: The reason why this important OT root of the
Logos has generally been overlooked is almost certainly because the LXX
translator of this passage in Isaiah used the word rhēma (ῥῆμα) instead of logos
to translate the Hebrew dabar. Rhēma and logos are synonymous; both words are
used to translate dabar, but logos is used more frequently (to give a relative idea
of the frequency in LXX (including apocrypha): logos, 1239 times; rhēma, 546
times). But the fact that this LXX translator used rhēma instead of logos in this
verse has served to conceal the significance of this verse for the understanding of
the Logos in John 1. Had expositors taken note of the Hebrew text, this oversight
could have been avoided.
412 The Only True God

come to them in such a way as not to leave them as orphans? He had

anticipated this point in the previous sentence, “I will ask the Father, and
he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of
truth” (Jo.14.16,17). To understand the connection between the Word
and the Spirit we must return to the OT, for example, “By the word of the
LORD (Yahweh) the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth
all their host” (Ps.33.6). Those unable to read the original texts will be
unaware of the connection of “word” and “spirit” in this verse. In the
Greek OT, the “word” here is logos as in John 1.1,14, and “spirit” is
pneuma which is the word used of the Holy Spirit throughout John and
the NT. In the Hebrew, “word” here is dabar; and “spirit” is ruach, which
is the usual word used to refer to God’s Spirit.
“Word” and “Spirit” parallel each other in the Scriptures; that is why
Jesus could make such a simple transition from his departure to the
coming of the Spirit in such a way that the disciples are not left “as
orphans”. This is also why the Spirit can be spoken of as the “spirit of
Christ” (Ro.8.9; 1Pt.1.11) or the “Spirit of Jesus” (Ac.16.7; Phil.1.19), and
thus “I am with you always” (Mt.28.20). All this is intelligible only if we
understand that the Word “became flesh” (Jo.1.14) in Jesus; for the Word
of Yahweh and the Spirit of Yahweh are, in the Scriptures, different forms
of Yahweh’s operations, they are not two different persons. Thus he who is
“born of the Spirit (pneuma)” (Jo.3.5,6,8) is “born again through the
living and abiding Word (logos) of God” (1Pt.1.23); he has experienced
“birth through the word (logos) of truth” (Jas.1.18). Here again it is
evident that Word and the Spirit are not two different entities or persons
but two aspects of the one spiritual reality.
In contrast to this, trinitarianism has considerable difficulty explain-
ing the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit. It is also a point of
dissension between the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic
church. Their conflict is over the issue of the “Filioque,” which means
“and from the Son,” that is, whether the Spirit came only from the Father
or also from the Son. The Orthodox church firmly rejects the “Filioque”
while the Catholic church insists on it. The relationship between these
two churches was officially broken in the 11th century (1054 AD) mainly
over this dispute. Thus the Spirit of unity and oneness (Eph.4.3) is made
the cause of division and discord.
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 413

There are many other problems which arise because of the trinitarian
distinction of “the second person” (Christ) and “the third person” (the
Spirit) as different divine persons. One example is the fact that though
the church is called “the body of Christ” (Ro.7.4; 1Cor.10.16, etc) and
Christ is its head (Eph.5.23; Col.1.18, etc), yet the functional operations
within the body are directed by another person, the Spirit (1Cor.12.11,
and vv.7-10). Does this not reduce Jesus to a “figure head” of the church?
Are we not left with the rather strange situation in which the head does
not direct its body, but has to do it through another person? This,
frankly, makes little sense, and hence the difficulty of coming up with any
plausible explanation.

Rain as a dynamic symbol of the Word

10
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and
do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth
and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so
shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not
return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I
purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
(Isa.55.10,11)

L
ike the Word in John 1, the rain comes down from heaven to
bring life to the earth. Without the life-giving water of rain to
drench the land and fill the rivers and lakes, there would be
drought, and drought brings death. Rain brings life by giving itself to be
absorbed into the thirsty ground and drunk by needy plants, animals,
and human beings. It is well known that human beings can survive for
weeks without food, but cannot survive without water for more than a
few days. Rain can be compared to the seed that is sown upon the ground
by the hand of the sower (Mark 4.26); “seed” like “rain” portrays “the
Word,” Lk.8.11; 1Pt.1.23; cf. Mt.13.19ff). It is also significant that, in the
OT passage quoted above, the rain is spoken of as “giving seed to the
sower and bread to the eater” (Isa.55.10). Also like the seed, which after it
“falls into the earth and dies” it “bears much fruit” (Jo.12.24), the rain
414 The Only True God

“dies” in the sense of being absorbed by the ground and the plants that
live in it; it is soaked into the ground and “buried”. But in due time, when
it has served its purpose, having fulfilled its function of bringing life and
thereby “bears much fruit,” it evaporates and rises to heaven in the
invisible form of water vapor and, as such, it portrays the water returning
to the clouds of heaven in this “spiritual” form; it will then return again
as rain.
It is significant that the term “poured out,” used of the Holy Spirit
given to the church at Pentecost in Acts 2.33, is also used of rain: “The
clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder” (Psalm 77.17). The
same Greek word as used in Acts 2.33 is also used of wine which is
poured out or spilled in Luke 5.37. Again, the word is used when Jesus
said at the Last Supper, where the wine represented his life-giving blood,
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark
14.24; Lk.22.20). All this beautifully confirms the function of the Word so
vividly and effectively symbolized by the rain.35
The Word “enfleshed” or incarnate in Jesus is, like the rain, the water
of life for the world (Jo.4.14). He is also the “bread of life” (Jo.6.33,35),
portrayed by the manna which, like rain, descended from heaven and fed
the hungry Israelites for forty years in the wilderness. But water does not
benefit us unless we drink it, and bread does not nourish us unless we eat
it; that is why, speaking metaphorically and spiritually, “Jesus said to
them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’” (Jo.6.53, also 54-
56,63). The point is that the Word does not give life until it is “eaten” or
internalized, that is, until it is received into the heart, or as Paul put it,
“Let the word (logos) of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col.3.16).
The coming down of the Logos/Word can thus be compared to God’s
gift of life-giving rain, bringing the blessing of life to the whole world.

35
The picture of God’s Word as rain (Isaiah 55.10) which comes down from
heaven is also, not coincidentally, used with reference to the Spirit of God.
Compare Joel 2.23 with 2.28,29. In the NT, of the Spirit “poured out,” besides
Acts 2.33 also 10.45; Titus 3.6. Cf. 1Peter 1.12: “the Holy Spirit sent from
heaven”.
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 415

Psalm 107
“The word,” Heb: dabar, is used in the following important passage; here
the Greek (LXX) for dabar is logos:

Psalm 107: 19 Then they cried to the LORD (Yahweh) in their

trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. 20 He sent
out his word (logos) and healed them, and delivered them from
their destruction (Heb. the “pit”; LXX, “corruption,” meaning:
death and the grave).

Verse 20 has enormous significance for the understanding of the Logos

in John and for NT soteriology generally. “Delivered them from their
destruction” is translated as “He rescued them from the grave” in the
NIV. The miracles of physical healing which Jesus performed underlined
the fact that Yahweh had “sent forth his word and healed them,” which in
turn provided evidence that He was delivering them from their destruct-
ion through His saving work in Christ.36
Yahweh, through His Logos embodied in Jesus, fulfilled the words of
Psalm 107.20: “He sent out his word (LXX: Logos) and healed them, and
delivered them from their destruction (LXX: corruption)”. From this it is
clear that His saving Word accomplishes our salvation in and through
the person of Jesus the Messiah; it is equally clear that His Word is not a
being who is independent or separate from Yahweh.
Yahweh cannot be separated from His Word because it is integral to
His Person, any more than His truth or His salvation can be received
apart from Him. In the case of human beings it is conceivable that once
their word is spoken or written and sent forth, it has a certain existence
of its own, but this is not possible in God’s case because He is omni-
present.
Moreover, the Word was embodied or “enfleshed” in Jesus; but the
very fact of its embodiment in Jesus indicates that it is not one and the
same entity with Jesus. Yahweh functions in Jesus as Word, but Yahweh
God and Jesus are not to be confused as one and the same being or
person.

36
For further exegetical details on Ps.107 see Appendix 9.
416 The Only True God

Interestingly, the Qur’an (4.171) speaks of Jesus as both “Spirit from

God (Allah)” and “God’s Word”; is this an insight that came from the
human mind or a revelation of God? But the Qur’an does not elevate
these elements or realities (Word and Spirit) within the Being of God
into independent beings or persons distinct from God, which is the error
of trinitarianism. Thus the Qur’an affirms that these vital realties within
God’s Being are sent forth by Him and incorporated in the person of
Jesus Christ. This is entirely in accordance with the NT revelation.

“The Word of the LORD (Yahweh)”

his term occurs 242 times37 in the OT where it means a message,

T declaration, or command from Yahweh. At times this message

came by way of a vision (e.g. 1Sam.3.1), usually given to a
prophet, and then delivered by the prophet to the person(s) for whom it
was intended. There is no instance in which it is hypostasized, that is,
spoken of as a person.
The same is true in the NT where it appears 12 times (including
1Th.4.15), 9 of which are in Acts. In no instance in the NT is it applied to
Jesus as a title.
“The word of the Lord” occurs in Psalm 33.6, “By the word of the
LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their
host.” This verse has some relevance for John 1.3, although it speaks only
of the creation of the heavens by Yahweh’s word; but it is of no value to
trinitarianism because it provides no hint of the “word” as a distinct
person from Yahweh, much less one who is His equal.

“Logos” in the Greek OT (LXX)

As for the word “logos,” it occurs 1,239 times in the Greek OT and
generally means nothing more than words used in speech or conver-

37
TWOT (‫( דָּ בָר‬dabar) word): ‘Gerleman notes that the singular construct
chain debar YHWH “The word of the LORD” occurs 242 times and almost
always (225 times) the expression appears as a technical form for the prophetic
revelation’.
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 417

sation. The term “the word of the LORD (Yahweh)” or the “word of
God” means the message which God communicates to and/or through
His servants. Unlike Wisdom, there is no clear instance of it being
personified. This is the kind of problem that the interpretation of logos as
person must face up to.
Given the fact that there is virtually nothing that trinitarianism can
use in the OT, most Christian theologians (followed by trinitarian NT
commentators) are obliged to argue that the Johannine Logos concept
derives not primarily from the OT, but from Greek philosophy (the
Stoics, Plato, etc.) modified by the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo
and then adapted by John for his own purposes. This is to say that John
borrowed his “Logos” from pagan (Gentile) sources, not from the Word
of God, the OT. This amounts to saying that the “Word” (Jo.1.1) of God
is not derived from the Word of God! Is it not strange that this trinitarian
“Logos” or “Word” of God comes not from the Word of God, but from
Gentile philosophical teaching? Yet (as perhaps should be expected) the
Gentile church sees nothing incongruous or unacceptable about this
incongruity!
Of course, the average Christian probably doesn’t have any idea where
this trinitarian Logos concept came from. They are simply told that
Logos is the name of the Son, the 2nd person in the Trinity. They don’t
know that Logos is nowhere in John’s gospel itself applied to Jesus, or the
Son, as a title. In fact, it is not explicitly applied to Jesus anywhere in the
NT, not even in the Apocalypse, where the title appears only once in
19.13, but almost certainly refers to the Lord of Hosts, as seen by His
armies following Him (described in the next verse). This is consistent
with the “Word,” or Memra, as a metonym of Yahweh, who is described
as “the King of kings and Lord of lords” three verses later (19.16 and
cf.1Tim.6.15).

The origins of the “Logos”?

I
f we are finally to understand the Johannine Logos, we must first be
clear about one important fact: when surveying the enormous
amount of Christian (trinitarian) literature on the subject of the
Logos in John 1, one fact emerges with complete clarity, namely, the
418 The Only True God

failure to find a satisfactory explanation of its origin outside the Bible.

Trinitarianism is likewise unable to find anything within the Bible to
support their interpretation of the Word as “God the Son”.
(1) Those who suggest a source in Greek philosophy seem to presume
that John was writing for people versed in that philosophy and fail to
observe the fact that most people, even today, know next to nothing
about philosophy, so any supposed philosophical allusion would have
been lost on the general reader.
(2) The same is true for those who would assume some connection of the
Logos idea with the Jewish philosopher Philo. First of all, we can be quite
sure that the average man on the street in Israel in NT times had never
even heard of Philo, the Jewish religious philosopher living in Egypt.
Aramaic was the language spoken in Israel at that time, but Philo wrote
in Greek, a language not many people would have been familiar with in
Israel, not to mention the fact that the level of education was low, as was
the level of literacy in the general population, which was true for the
whole world at that time, including the Greek speaking world. So, if John
himself knew about Philo, which is doubtful, it would have been useless
for him to use a Logos concept that the people generally knew nothing
about. Even today, few theologians know much about Philo’s ideas.
Secondly, although Philo did write about the Logos, his Logos was not a
distinct person from Yahweh, but was personified somewhat like
Wisdom in Proverbs. Philo’s Logos was never a person coequal with
God, so his Logos is not of any real use to trinitarians.
(3) There are only two or three verses in the OT which speak of God’s
“Word” that can be pointed to as a possible source of “the Word,” and
this really is too slender a foundation on which to base a trinitarian
“Logos Christology”. Moreover, as we have seen, none of these suggested
sources speaks of the Logos as a personal divine being, much less one
who is coequal with Yahweh.
(4) Given this situation, some trinitarians have gone so far as to suggest
that John had himself invented the Logos idea by means of a “synthesis”
of elements derived from Greek philosophy and Philo’s adaptation of it.
This should be discerned for what it really is: a piece of baseless specu-
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 419

lation motivated by the determination to read trinitarian dogma into the

Logos by whatever means available.
(5) The only really viable understanding of Logos (Word) in John 1.1 is to
realize that it is the Greek word for “Memra,” a word well known during
the time of the Jewish church because of its frequent occurrence in the
Jewish Targums that were used in the synagogues at that time. But this
understanding of Logos was rejected out of hand by trinitarians for no
other reason than that it is a metonym for “Yahweh” and therefore does
not serve the trinitarian purpose! How this kind of reasoning can pass for
“biblical scholarship” truly boggles the mind! Truth is accepted or
rejected depending on whether or not it is acceptable to trinitarianism.
They make dogma determine the understanding of the Bible, not vice
versa. The final spiritual consequences for so doing are hard to imagine.

The Old Testament roots of the Logos

A
nd why were we led to suppose that Logos has its origin in Greek
thought when the Prologue states absolutely unambiguously that
the reference derives from the OT, and specifically from the first
chapter of Genesis, by means of the words “In the beginning”—the open-
ing words of the Bible? These very words “in the beginning” appear again
in 1John 1.1 with reference to the “logos of life”. So what is the excuse for
attempting to find its origin outside the Scriptures?
We could paraphrase John 1.1 in this way: “The Word that was ‘In the
beginning’ (i.e. Genesis 1.1), was the Word that was with God (i.e. the
Word that is constantly associated with God in our Jewish Targums as
“the Word of the Lord,” the Memra), and this Word (as you know from
the Targums) was in fact none other than God Himself.”
The Hebrew Bible did not have chapter and verse numbers (these
were put into the Bible at a much later date), so a particular book was
referred to by its opening words. Thus to refer to Genesis, or specifically
to the first chapter, one would use its opening words “In the beginning,”
just as in John 1.1,2.
Anyone who reads (not to mention studies) the Scriptures should
have been perfectly aware of the fact that the God who reveals Himself in
420 The Only True God

those Scriptures is One who has manifold faculties within Himself: His
spirit, mind, wisdom, power, etc. Why then do we assume that the Word
that was “with” Him in the beginning, and by or with which He brought
all creation into being, has to be understood as another divine being
distinct from Him and not as the expression of an essential faculty within
His own Being? Why is “with” to be understood in terms of separation or
distinction rather than in terms of participation or oneness? What else
but Gentile polytheistic tendencies would have inclined the Gentile mind
to take the “with” as implying a distinction of being, and thereby
claiming the existence of another being coexistent and coequal with
Yahweh Himself, an idea totally foreign and contrary to the Bible and
utterly repugnant to the Biblical monotheist.
But the reason for the trinitarian interpretation of John 1.1 is even
more complex than the facts mentioned in the previous paragraphs. For
with the emergence of a Gentile church with leaders who had little or no
knowledge of the church’s Jewish roots, the Christian church soon lost its
connection with its Jewish origins. For example, many or most of the
leaders of the Latin speaking churches, including their leading theologian
Augustine, had scarcely any knowledge of New Testament Greek, let
alone Hebrew. Even the fact that Jesus was a Jew was lost sight of, and the
fact that the NT, with the exception of Luke, was written by Jews was
forgotten. So the NT was interpreted as though it were a Gentile work.
And, when speaking of God, it was virtually forgotten that in the Bible
this refers above all to Yahweh. God was spoken of as though He were
some universal Gentile God. Certainly “God is the King of all the earth;
God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne” (Ps.47.7,8). But
“let them [the Gentiles] know that you, whose name is the LORD
(Yahweh)—that you alone are the Most High over all the earth” (Psalm
83.18, NIV). Note, however, the inappropriateness of the translation
“whose name is the LORD,” for it should be obvious that “the LORD” is
not a name but a title; the Hebrew, of course, reads “whose name is
Yahweh”.
But the problem is more complex even than that: incipient anti-
Jewish feeling (it would be going too far to speak of a full-fledged anti-
Semitism) had already begun to take root in the church. For was it not
the Jews who were the first persecutors of the church, having first of all
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 421

rejected Jesus, and then turned their hostilities upon the infant church?
Did not even Paul (Saul) help to implement these hostilities before his
encounter with Christ on the Damascus road (1Cor.15.9; Gal.1.13)?
These perceptions would have served to increase the distance between
Christian and Jew. (Cf. also Dunn, “The Question of the Anti-semitic in
the New Testament Writings of the Period” in J.D.G. Dunn, Jews and
Christians, the Parting of the Ways, p.177ff)

The Word and the Law

T
he message of Jesus (and Paul) was seen by the Jews to decentral-
ize the position of the Law (Torah). Given the place of the Torah
in the religion, life, and practice of the Jews, the leading rabbis
worked to rally the Jewish people around the Torah after the destruction
of the Temple in 70 AD, and the collapse of the Jewish nation. (See J.D.G.
Dunn, Jews and Christians, the Parting of the Ways, p.199, parag.3)
John wrote around this time, and one important fact that we have
overlooked so far is that the Torah or Law of God is frequently spoken of
as the Word of God in the OT (cf. e.g. the very long Psalm 119). So it is
likely that at the very time when the rabbinic council at Javneh 38 was in
the process of establishing the centrality of the Torah, the Word, for
Israel, the message was being declared through John that God’s Word
had become incarnate in the person of Messiah Jesus. In the circum-
stances in which the Jewish nation found itself at that time, this would
have been a very relevant and striking message.
The Jews believed that the Torah, God’s Word as Law, existed at the
time of the creation and even before it. So while John may not have
meant the logos to be the Torah exclusively, it was included within the
wider meaning of the logos.
Professor C.K. Barrett (who was professor of New Testament at the
University of Durham at the time of writing his commentary) recognized
the significance of Torah for the understanding of the meaning of Logos.
He also noted that in rabbinic teaching “Torah is said to be pre-existent,

38
Or Jabneh, Greek: Jamnia; an ancient city of Palestine, in modern Israel
called Yibna, it is about 15 miles south of Tel Aviv.
422 The Only True God

creative, and divine” from which he went on to make the perceptive

observation that “such notions are the root of John’s statement” (on “the
Word was with God,” The Gospel According to John, p.129, italics mine).
In the subsequent sections of his commentary Barrett repeatedly refers to
the Torah and Wisdom to support and elucidate his points.

The Word (Logos) and the Law (Torah)

Psalm 119.89, “Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the
heavens.” (NIV) In this verse the “word” is specifically the Law (Torah)
of Yahweh. This, the longest Psalm (176 verses), has the Law (also
referred to as “commandments,” “statutes,” etc) as its central theme; and
the Law is repeatedly described as “Your word”.
One way to help us further is to recall Yahweh’s giving of the Law as
summed up in the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 31.18, “When the LORD finished speaking to Moses

on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony,
the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God” (NIV).

Deuteronomy 9.10, “And the LORD (Yahweh) gave me the

two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on
them were all the words (LXX logoi, pl. of logos) that the LORD
(Yahweh) had spoken with you on the mountain out of the
midst of the fire on the day of the assembly.”

On Sinai the Word of Yahweh came to Israel written in stone; in Christ

the Word of Yahweh came to the world “written” in flesh, in a human
life.
The comparison and contrast of the Law and the gospel is something
that is frequent in the NT. This is seen even within the Johannine
Prologue, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ” (John 1.17). The matter of the relationship between
the Law and Christ is referred to frequently in Romans (3.21-22; 5.20-21;
7.4,25; 8.3; 10.4), and is a central topic in Galatians (e.g., 2.16,19,21;
3.13,24; 5.4). Comparison and contrast between Moses and Christ is also
made (2Cor.3.13,14; Heb.3.5,6; 8.5,6; 11.24-26). All this means that what
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 423

Moses and the Law were to Israel, Christ and the gospel are to the world,
but on a scale that far exceeds the former both in terms of saving power
and life-giving effect.
The connection of Law and Word can be seen in the OT:

Proverbs 6.23: “For the commandment is a lamp and the teach-

ing (torah; nomos) a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the
way of life.”

From the English translation of this verse no reference to the Law is evi-
dent except to the person who knows that the word “torah” also means
“teaching” or “instruction”. In this context “torah” is better translated as
“law” because it stands in parallel with “the commandment”. Notice, too,
that in this verse three things are linked together: Law (nomos), light
(phōs), and life (zōē). The connection with John 1.4 can easily be dis-
cerned, “the life (zōē) was the light (phōs) of men”.
Logos is linked to light also in the following verse: “Your word (logos,
here referring primarily to the law) is a lamp to my feet and a light (phōs)
to my path” (Ps.119.105); for “you are my lamp, O LORD, and my God
lightens my darkness” (2Sa.22.29).

Logos and Torah, further observations

What non-Jews generally do not grasp is the pivotal significance of the
Law for the Jewish people. The Torah is that around which the life of the
Jewish people revolves, defining every facet of their daily lives. This was
true for the Jews in Palestine in the time of Jesus and his apostles, and for
the Jews of the diaspora (i.e. the Jews who were dispersed to other parts
of the world).
It must be understood that the policy that generally governed the
preaching of the gospel in the early church, and especially for Paul, was
“to the Jew first” (Ro.1.16; cf.2.9,10) and then also to the Gentiles. There
can be no doubt that this was the object of John’s Gospel, because in John
20.31 he states the purpose of writing the Gospel as being “that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you
may have life in his name.” “The Christ,” of course, is the Greek form of
424 The Only True God

“the Messiah,” a term that was rich in meaning for the Jews, but not for
Gentiles. This makes it clear that John’s Gospel was written in the first
instance for Jews.
This being the case, it should be evident that “the Logos (Word)”
must also have been a term which was familiar to the Jews. So we should
make it our aim to discover with as much clarity as possible what it
meant to the Jews to whom John wrote. The fact is that the Jews were act-
ually familiar with the idea of “the word” of the Lord because it referred:
(1) to the Law, as we have just noted;
(2) it could refer to Wisdom, which Jesus speaks of as embodied in him
(Mt.11.19; Lk.7.35; 11.49);
(3) The “word of the LORD” which spoke to Israel through the many
prophets of the OT (Isa.1.10, etc), was also the word He sent forth to
accomplish His purposes in the world (Isa.55.10f);
(4) Yahweh’s creative word, as in Ps.33.6; and
(5) above all, the Memra (Word) was familiar to them from their
Targums, which we shall consider in greater detail below.
Given these expressions of “the Word” in the Hebrew Bible, it should be
clear that references to it in the first verses of John would not have been
something unheard of to the Jews who first read (or heard) it. But what
would surely have been astonishing to them is the assertion that this
Word has now taken on a body of flesh—in the person of Jesus the
Messiah. This would have been for them a mind-boggling declaration.
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 425

The identification of ‘word’ and ‘law (torah)’ in Jewish

thought and teaching
Most Christians have little or no knowledge of how the Jews in John’s
time (and subsequently) viewed the Law as God’s Word. Consider the
following excerpts from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

“Preexistence of the Torah.

“The Torah is older than the world, for it existed either 947
generations (Zeb. 116a, and parallels) or 2,000 years (Gen. R.
viii., and parallels; Weber, ‘Jüdische Theologie,’ p.15) before the
Creation. The original Pentateuch, therefore, like everything
celestial, consisted of fire, being written in black letters of flame
upon a white ground of fire (Yer. Shek. 49a, and parallels; Blau,
‘Althebräisches Buchwesen,’ p. 156).

“God held counsel with it at the creation of the world, since it

was wisdom itself (Tan., Bereshit, passim), and it was God’s
first revelation, in which He Himself took part. It was given in
completeness for all time and for all mankind, so that no fur-
ther revelation can be expected. It was given in the languages of
all peoples; for the voice of the divine revelation was seventy-
fold (Weber, l.c. pp. 16-20; Blau, ‘Zur Einleitung in die Heilige
Schrift,’ pp. 84-100).

“It shines forever, and was transcribed by the scribes of the

seventy peoples (Bacher, ‘Ag. Tan.’ ii. 203, 416), while every-
thing found in the Prophets and the Hagiographa was already
contained in the Torah (Ta’an. 9a), so that, if the Israelites had
not sinned, only the five books of Moses would have been given
them (Ned. 22b). As a matter of fact, the Prophets and the
Hagiographa will be abrogated; but the Torah will remain
forever (Yer. Meg. 70d). ‘Every letter of it is a living creature…
not one letter of the Torah shall be destroyed’ (Lev. R. xix.; Yer.
Sanh. 20c; Cant. R. 5, 11; comp. Bacher, l.c. ii. 123, note 5). The
single letters were hypostatized, and were active even at the
creation of the world (Bacher, l.c. i. 347),
426 The Only True God

“Israel received this treasure only through suffering (Ber. 5a,

and parallels), for the book and the sword came together from
heaven, and Israel was obliged to choose between them (Sifre,
Deut. 40, end; Bacher, l.c. ii. 402, note 5); and whosoever denies
the heavenly origin of the Torah will lose the future life (Sanh.
x. 1).” (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Torah”)

Torah as Word of God

I
t can easily be seen that if the logos is identified as the Word of God,
which to the Jews was above all the Torah, then the idea of the
preexistent Torah as having become flesh in the person of Messiah
Jesus would have been to the Jews truly something astonishing.
When we look at the passages in the Jewish Encyclopedia quoted
above we can see a remarkable parallel with John 1.1. Note the following
parallels:

In the beginning was the word—“The Torah is older than the

world, for it existed… before the Creation.”

The word was with God—“God held counsel with it at the

creation of the world, since it was wisdom itself (Tan., Bereshit,
passim)”

The word was God—“and it was God’s first revelation, in

which He Himself took part.” (i.e. it was a revelation of
Himself)

The parallels are the more striking when we realize that the Jewish
Encyclopedia was, of course, not written by Christians but by Jews, who
are here simply giving an account of what the Jews firmly believed from
early times. An adequate understanding of the Jewish faith in general,
and their belief in the Torah in particular, is obviously of great import-
ance for understanding the way the gospel was preached to the Jews both
in John’s gospel and in the NT as a whole. These Jewish beliefs are not in
themselves always stated in Biblical terms, but were considered to be
legitimate extrapolations from the Biblical revelation.
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 427

But the parallels do not end there; here are several more points of
comparison:

(1) “It (the Torah) was given in completeness for all time and
for all mankind, so that no further revelation can be expected.
It was given in the languages of all peoples; for the voice of the
divine revelation was seventyfold (Weber, l.c. pp. 16-20; Blau,
‘Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift,’ pp. 84-100). It shines
forever…” (Jewish Encyclopedia, italics added)

John: The logos was the light (of divine revelation), and in
Messiah Jesus it is “the light of the world” (Jo.8.12; 9.5).

(2) “The Torah will remain forever… Every letter of it is a

living creature [i.e. the Torah has life in itself]… The single
letters were hypostatized, and were active even at the creation
of the world” (Jewish Encyclopedia).

John: The Father “gave to the son to have life in himself”

(Jo.5.26). Compare also Matthew 5.18, “For truly, I say to you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will
pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

(3) (a) The Torah came “from heaven…and whosoever denies

the heavenly origin of the Torah will lose the future life (Sanh. x.
1).”

(b) “Whoever separates himself from the Torah dies forthwith

(’Ab. Zarah 3b); for fire consumes him, and he falls into hell (B.
B. 79a);

(c) “From the earliest times the Synagogue has proclaimed the
divine origin of the Pentateuch, and has held that Moses wrote
it down from dictation.” (a-c, Jewish Encyclopedia, italics
added)

John: The Son was “from heaven” (Jo.3.13,31; 6.38).

428 The Only True God

In Judaism, faith in the Torah was considered essential for eternal life or
“the future life”. Likewise, faith in Christ is necessary for eternal life in
John and in the NT generally.

Romans 10.6-9
We find further confirmation of this identification of the Torah with
Christ also within the NT, in Romans 10.6-9:
6
But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say
in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring
Christ down)
7
or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ
up from the dead).
8
But what does it say? “The word is near you, on your lips and
in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
9
because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
will be saved. (NRSV)
Verses 6 and 8 are quotations from Deuteronomy 30.11-14 which reads:
11
For this commandment which I command you today is not
too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 It is not in heaven,
that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it
for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13 Nor is it
beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for
us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’
14
But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your
heart, that you may observe it. (NASB)

A comparison of the text in Romans with that in Deuteronomy shows

how Paul identifies the Law with Christ. Even more remarkable is the fact
that the words spoken by Moses (the “I” in Deut.30.11) Paul declares as
being spoken by “the righteousness that comes from faith” (Ro.10.6).
Moses is thus the spokesman for faith-righteousness! And this is factually
correct because Moses was both a man of faith (Heb.11.24-29, where
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 429

“faith” occurs 4 times) and a model of righteousness for all time. Far
from rejecting Moses, Paul claims him as speaking for Christ.
Some Christian scholars portray Paul as the adversary of the Law,
regardless of his declarations to the contrary, “Do we then nullify the Law
through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law”
(Romans 3:31, NASB). “Love is the fulfilling of the Law” (Ro.13.8,10;
Gal.5.14). If the Law had been nullified or abolished, why would Paul
concern himself with fulfilling it?39

What is the relevance of studying the relation of “the

Word” to “the Law”?
In the book Christianity in Jewish Terms (Westview Press, 2000), in an
essay entitled “Judaism and Incarnation,” the Jewish scholar E.R.
Wolfson (Professor of Hebrew Studies and Director of Religious Studies
at New York University), shows that the notion of incarnation (such as
that concerning the Word in John 1.14) is not something strange or
unknown in Judaism. The following are some of his instructive obser-
vations:

“God as Torah

“In my view, there is much evidence in the rabbinic corpus of

an incarnational theology, all be it modified in light of Juda-
ism’s official aniconism [the prohibition of images]. Of course,
I do not wish to ignore the fact that within rabbinic literature
itself one finds statements that unequivocally reject the Christ-
ological doctrine of incarnation. Does that mean, however, that
there is no justification for using the word ‘incarnation’ to
characterize ideas espoused by the rabbis themselves? I do not
think so, and, as the cluster of motifs to be discussed below will
illustrate, incarnational theology is vital to the rabbinic world-
view.” (p.246, explanation in square brackets added)

39
On Christ and the Law, see also Appendix 3.
430 The Only True God

“Just as early Christian exegetes saw in Christ, God made flesh,

so the rabbis conceived of the Torah as the incarnation of the
image of God.” (p.247)

“I would like to concentrate on an incarnational tendency

discernible in the rabbinic view that the study of Torah is the
means by which one lives in the immediate presence of God.
Far from being merely rhetorical in nature, these pronounce-
ments are predicated on the presumption that Torah embodies
the divine glory.” (p.247)

Wolfson also points out that in rabbinic thought there is the idea that
“the name of God is symbolically interchangeable with the Torah,” that
“the name is identical with the Torah,” and that “the name is implied in
the rabbinic claim that the Torah is the instrument through which God
created the world” (all quotes are from p.248).
What is striking about the quotations in the previous paragraph is
that “the Torah,” if replaced by “the Word” in each of the three state-
ments quoted, would make perfect sense in understanding “the Word” in
John 1: It will become clear when we study “the Word” in its Aramaic
equivalent “the Memra,” that “the Name of God is symbolically inter-
changeable with the Word,” that “the Name is identical with the Word,”
and that “the Name is implied in the Johannine claim that the Word is
the instrument through which God created the world”. None of these
paraphrases of Prof. Wolfson’s statements would be objectionable to
rabbinic Judaism provided that they are not understood in terms of
trinitarian Christology, as he has pointed out.
On the next page of his essay (p.249), Wolfson again mentions “the
equation of Torah and YHVH” in rabbinic thought which can “speak of
the Torah as the name,” as also “the archaic belief that heaven and earth
were created by means of the name of God, an idea attested in apocry-
phal, rabbinic, and mystical sources as well, specifically in terms of yod
and he, the first two letters of the Tetragrammaton used to signify the
complete name.” This last quotation in particular throws light on the
repeated references in the Johannine Prologue that all things were
created by means of the Word Jo.1.3,10 (dia with gen.: “through, by
means of”).
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 431

Metonyms in Biblical language

I
f we wish to avoid falling into confusion and error we must under-
stand that a term like “the Word” is a metonym; the only question
then is: a metonym for what? Closer attention should be paid to
metonymy or synecdoche in Biblical language, that is, figures of speech
in which a part represents the whole. A common example is “bread” as a
synecdoche for “food” or sustenance generally (e.g. “give us this day our
daily bread,” Mt.6.11; Lk.11.3). Thus in English a “hired hand” is a
workman and a “deck hand” is a sailor; so “hand” serves as a metonym
for “person”. There is also the phrase “the long arm of the law” by which
is meant that the power of the agencies of law and order can reach out
and seize evildoers even if they seek to hide in remote places. “Arm” is
here a metaphor for action and power, very similar to its use in the Bible.
Thus “the arm of the Lord” speaks of His powerful actions. There are
several metonymic figures of speech in the OT such as “the hand of the
Lord,” or His Wisdom, His light, His Spirit, etc. where, in each case, the
part stands for, or represents the whole.
The failure to understand Biblical metonymy results in the kind of
notion about the Logos seen in trinitarianism. The following are exam-
ples of this important form of speech in the Scriptures:

The Logos and the Arm of the Lord (Yahweh)

The “word” (dabar; logos) of the Lord is no more an independent person
from God than is His “arm”. For a fuller picture of the “arm of the Lord”
we can consider the following verses:

Isaiah 51.9, “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the

LORD; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago.
Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the
dragon?”

Isaiah 40.10, “Behold, the Lord GOD (Yahweh) comes with

might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with
him, and his recompense before him.”
432 The Only True God

Isaiah 30.30, “And the LORD will cause his majestic voice to
be heard and the descending blow of his arm to be seen, in
furious anger and a flame of devouring fire, with a cloudburst
and storm and hailstones.”

Isaiah 48.14, “Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among

them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall
perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against
the Chaldeans.”

Luke 1.51, “He has shown strength with his arm; he has scat-
tered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.”

Also John 12.38, “so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be
fulfilled: ‘Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom
has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’” which quotes Isaiah 53:1 “Who
has believed what he heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the
LORD been revealed?”

The Lord’s arm spoken of in a personalized way

Isaiah 63.12, “who caused his glorious arm to go at the right
hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them to make for
himself an everlasting name.”

Yahweh’s “arm” appears here as though it were a distinct individual who

went at the right hand of Moses, divided the waters of the sea, and “made
for himself an everlasting name”!

The Hand of the Lord

Consider the parallel between Yahweh’s “hand” and His “word (LXX,
logos)”:

Isaiah 48.13a, “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and
my right hand spread out the heavens.”
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 433

Psalm 33.6, “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
and by the breath of his mouth all their host.”

Is it right, then, for us to conclude from Isaiah 48.13 that God’s “hand,”
by which He created heaven and earth, is another person distinct from
Him? If not, then should we conclude that “the word” of Yahweh in
Ps.33.6, by which He created the heavens, is an OT basis of John 1.1 and
is to be understood as a person distinct from Yahweh, as trinitarianism
insists? But if this “word” of the LORD in the OT is not a basis for the
trinitarian interpretation of John 1.1, then it should be frankly conceded
that this interpretation has no basis in the OT at all, since any other such
use of “word” in the OT is likewise synecdochic of Yahweh Himself, just
like the references to His “arm” or His “hand”.

John 1.1, “In the beginning”: the explicit link to Genesis

W
e noted earlier that the Hebrew Bible was not numbered in
the way that most Bibles now have chapter and verse num-
bers. Reference to a particular book was done by quoting the
first words of the book. Thus one referred to Genesis by its opening
words, “In the beginning”. In so doing, there may be more to these words
in Genesis 1 than referring only to its first verse or its first chapter; the
intention could be to include reference to the whole book and, specifi-
cally, to the remarkable and unique self-revelation of Yahweh in Genesis.
The message would then be: Yahweh who was so close to man, and so
caring of man as seen in Genesis, has now drawn so close to man that He
has become incarnate in Christ; in this way He “tabernacle among us”
(Jo.1.14).
We have also seen that Yahweh God frequently communicated with
people in Genesis; He spoke to them, so the notion of “word” is found
throughout Genesis both as God’s creative word as also His commu-
nicative word. The concept of “the word of God” is firmly rooted in
Genesis, and from there continues through the whole Bible. The import-
ance of “the word” does not lie in itself but in whose word it is, in this
case, it is God’s word. It is, therefore, God’s communication. And with
whom does He communicate in this world but with us, His creatures, His
434 The Only True God

people? Thus, in this sense, “the word” is the expression of God’s

immanence.
By His Logos God communicates both with us and to us. What He
communicates to us is the manifold contents of His word, whether that is
described as truth, light, or life. In so doing, God does not just commu-
nicate something to us, but thereby gives of Himself to us. We cannot
have life from Him without also having Him; this is because the life
which He gives is not something which can exist independently of Him.
In this regard, no living being exists independently of Him, whether or
not they are aware of it. That is why Jesus could say, “Are not two
sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground
apart from your Father” (Matthew 10:29). Accordingly, the Apostle Paul
could quote with approval the words of one of the Greek poets who
rightly perceived that “in him (God) we live and move and have our
being” (Acts 17:28).
So the Word in John 1.1ff is not something mysterious; but what may
properly be called a “mystery” is that “the Word became flesh” (Jo.1.14)
which is certainly the central element of John’s Prologue (1.1-18). This is
surely what is meant by “the mystery of Christ” (Eph.3.4; Col.4.3). We
shall consider this more fully in relation to the Memra.

The Word/Logos as the Memra

W
e have considered in some detail the OT roots of “the Word”
and we should now begin to realize that we cannot go much
deeper in our understanding of it on the OT basis alone. This
is precisely what trinitarian scholars perceived, and thus assumed that
there was no other way to go than to try to extract something they could
use from Greek philosophy. But here, too, they soon found that they
could not get very far, hence their rather desperate conclusion that the
idea of the Word was John’s own idea or invention. But this conclusion
ran on to the rocks of this scholarly finding: what constitutes John’s
Prologue is actually a poem which John incorporated into his gospel; in
other words, it was not composed by John. This shatters all meaningful
talk about the Word as John’s own idea. On the contrary, the evidence
seems indisputable that the Word was something familiar to the early
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 435

church, and was incorporated into this profound poem, song, or hymn
used by the church, which John then used as an appropriate and effective
introduction to his gospel.
It is true that the material that can be gathered from the OT alone
does not in itself provide an adequate basis for understanding the Word
in John’s Prologue. But up to now, when we talked about the OT, we
were mainly talking in terms of the Hebrew Bible. We have already
mentioned that in the time of Christ and the early church, Aramaic, not
Hebrew, was the primary language of the people. The failure to take this
crucial fact into account resulted in the discussion about the Word either
coming to a dead end or getting sidelined into the error of the Biblically
baseless trinitarian interpretation of it as “God the Son”.
In NT times the Jews who went to the weekly synagogue services
would hear the Hebrew Bible read aloud, but it had to be interpreted for
them in Aramaic. These interpretations were called “targums” (meaning
“translations”). It is these that constitute what scholars call “the Aramaic
Old Testament”. What can be learned about “the Word” (Aramaic:
Memra) in the Aramaic OT will clarify, strengthen, and confirm the
understanding of the Word gained from our study of the Hebrew OT.
This means that the OT roots of the Word in John 1.1 can ultimately be
traced to the Memra of the Aramaic Old Testament.40
The Memra was the Aramaic word for the Greek logos. Because
Aramaic was the language spoken in Israel (Palestine) at the time, Memra
was a word that they would have often heard in their synagogues, and
which they understood to be a well-known form of reference to the
Name of Yahweh, or simply to Yahweh Himself. The Jewish Encyclopedia
gives a concise and clear definition of Memra: “‘The Word,’ in the sense
of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power
in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a
substitute for ‘the Lord’”. We are on firm ground when we conclude that
John was undoubtedly familiar with the Aramaic OT (the Targums), as
indeed were the people in Israel generally in John’s day.
Why, then, is it that Gentile Christian theology did not stop to quest-
ion its own assumptions and ask: Why would the gospel written by the

40
On the Aramaic Targums of the OT see also Appendix 4.
436 The Only True God

Jewish Apostle John derive the central theme in its prologue, namely the
logos, from a Greek (Gentile) source when an obvious (or what would
have been obvious to a Jew in the first century AD) Jewish source (the
Aramaic OT) was at hand and well known to the Jews? The answer,
obviously, is: What was well known to the Jews was not well known to
the Gentiles. Gentiles think as Gentiles, and very few (if any) of them
were versed in Jewish life, literature, and language.
Few of the early “Fathers” of the Christian church could be shown to
have any knowledge of Judaica or Judaism. The same is generally true of
Christians and church leaders today. Judaism is not usually a subject
listed in the curriculums of Christian theological seminaries, and even
Biblical Hebrew is usually an optional subject. How many Christians
have heard of the Memra? So when we are constantly told that the logos
derives from Greek thought, who is in a position to know that there is a
better option which has its basis in the OT, especially the Aramaic
Targums?

Trinitarianism and the Old Testament

T
he solid and undeniable fact is that nowhere in the OT is there
even a single reference to the logos as person. In the LXX, logos
occurs 1239 times, yet not one of these so much as suggests that
logos had any personal traits or characteristics. This means that logos as a
personal being simply does not exist in the OT. Trinitarian scholars are,
of course, fully (and sorely) aware of this fact. The Expositor’s
Commentary (on Jo.1.1) manages only to quote Ps.33.6 (LXX 32.6) (“By
the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his
mouth all their host.”). But what exactly is its contribution to under-
standing John 1.1? In Psalm 33.6 “the logos of Yahweh” is equated (by
way of parallelism) with “the breath (pneuma)” of Yahweh, and while the
reference is to the Genesis 1 account of the creation, it is limited (unlike
John 1.3) to the creation of the heavens with its “starry host” (NIV). But
the point is: here, too, there is no indication whatever that the logos is a
personal being.
The evidence indubitably indicates that the trinitarian notion of the
Logos in John 1.1 as providing evidence for the second person of the
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 437

Trinity simply does not stand up to investigation. The OT does not

provide a single shred of concrete evidence for it. A survey of the learned
reference works shows that none is able to provide any OT basis for the
idea of a preexistent person called Logos. If, therefore, we want to
construct a doctrine of God the Son (without which there could be no
doctrine of the Trinity) by using the Logos as its foundation stone, we
simply cannot find any basis for it in the OT, either Hebrew or Aramaic.
Can any help be found in the OT concept of Wisdom?

The Logos as Wisdom: Wisdom Christology

W
isdom (the word is feminine in both Hebrew and Greek, not
masculine like Logos) is spoken of in personal terms in
Proverbs, yet everyone is aware of the fact that the language
there is poetic and metaphorical, and was therefore not meant to be
understood literally. In the Bible, Wisdom is never thought of as a
person, much less a person distinct from God, or another person in the
“Godhead”.
Continuing his discussion on the Johannine Prologue, Prof.
Witherington writes:

“There is in this hymn (a ‘wisdom hymn’, p.287) an obvious

drawing on material from Genesis 1. Both documents begin
with the words, ‘In the beginning.’ Then too the Genesis story
is about how God made a universe by means of his spoken
words. Here too creation happens by the Word. But whatever
debt the author of this hymn has to Genesis, Genesis 1 is not
about either a personified attribute, much less a person assisting
God in creation. It is the use of the Genesis material in the
hymnic material about Wisdom both in the Old Testament and
in later Jewish sapiential [wisdom] writings that provides the
font of ideas and forms used in creating this hymn. Not only
Prov.3 but also Proverbs 8:1-9.6 should be considered. There one
learns that personified Wisdom was present at creation, but also
that she called God’s people back to the right paths and offered
438 The Only True God

them life and favor from God (cf. 8.35).” (Jesus the Sage, p.284,
italics added)

It is evident from the above passage and from the title of his book (Jesus
the Sage) that Witherington interprets the Logos in terms of what is
called “Wisdom Christology”. That Wisdom in the OT is important for
the understanding of the Logos in John 1.1ff is undoubtedly true, and we
shall give this fact further consideration later in this work. But in his last
sentence (in the section quoted above) there appears to be insufficient
concern to draw attention to the fact that “the personified Wisdom” in
Proverbs was a hypostasized way of describing Wisdom and was certainly
not an actual person, but it may be that Witherington assumes that his
readers already know this. Trinitarians, of course, want to maintain that
the Logos is a divine person distinct from God, but who shares his nature
and is therefore coequal with Him. But none of this can be derived from
the Wisdom of Proverbs, and also not from Genesis 1 as Witherington
also affirms. The plain fact is that there is simply no personal Logos
mentioned in the OT.

The Word and the Spirit of God

I
t should be noted that in the following section where the “Spirit” is
capitalized, it is not because the spirit is a person, but is used where
the emphasis needs to be brought out clearly that the spirit being
referred to is not the human spirit, or “the spirit of man,” but to “the
Spirit of God,” Yahweh’s Spirit. Since “Holy Spirit” is considered a name
it is usually capitalized.
(1) References to the Spirit are remarkably few in the OT:

The “Spirit of Yahweh” (ruach Yahweh, ‫ )רוח יהוח‬26 times, of

which 7 are in Judges

The “Spirit of God” (ruach elohim, ‫)רוח אלהים‬ 16 times, of

which 8 are in 1Samuel
“My Spirit” 12 times
“His Spirit” 4 times
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 439

“The Spirit” once in 1Chronicles, 4 times in Numbers, 7 times in

Ezekiel, and once in Isaiah (32.15) = 13

This adds up to a total of only 71 times, which indicates that references to

the Spirit in the OT are few and that statistically, therefore, the Spirit is
not a figure of central importance in the OT revelation. Compare this, for
example, with “Abraham” who is mentioned 110 times in Genesis alone;
or David, to whom there are 1025 references in the OT.
(2) The Spirit is never conceived of as a person apart from Yahweh
More important than the relatively few references to the Spirit, the OT
provides no basis whatsoever for supposing that the Spirit is a person
distinct from Yahweh. This means that, certainly where the Spirit is
concerned, there is no basis in the OT for the doctrine of the Trinity.

“The holy spirit was God himself conceived of as speaking

with Israel” (McNamara)
“For Judaism the holy spirit (ruach haqqodes) is God conceived
of as communicating his mind and will to man.” (McNamara,
Targum and Testament, p.107)

“The holy spirit was God himself conceived of as speaking with

Israel. Rabbinic texts can express the same idea in other ways.
In some contexts ‘the holy spirit’ can be replaced by such terms
as ‘the Shekinah,’ ‘the Dibbera’ (Word) and ‘Bath Qol’ (Voice).
In point of fact, where in one text we find ‘holy spirit,’ in par-
allel texts we read one of the others, these being more or less
synonymous in certain contexts.” (McNamara, p.108)

“‘Spirit’ is generally not capitalized [in Rabbinic texts] to avoid

the Christian idea of the Spirit as a distinct or separate being
from God. From the following quotation it is again clearly
shown that the Word, like ‘the holy spirit’ (as mentioned in the
440 The Only True God

previous quotations), are identical in Judaism in that both

communicate God’s will to man:

“Dibbura (Neofiti: Dibbera), i.e. the Word, is, as we said, the

term generally used in the Palestinian Targum when reference
is made to God’s communicating his will to man.” (McNamara,
p.109)

The following is a fuller excerpt about the Spirit from the book
Christianity by the renowned German theologian Hans Küng:

“What is the Spirit?

“Here too we do best to approach from the Jewish tradition.

According to the Hebrew Bible and then also the New Testa-
ment, God is spirit, Hebrew feminine ruach, which originally
means breath, breathe, wind. Tangible yet intangible, invisible
yet powerful, as important to life as the air that one breathes,
laden with energy like the wind, the storm—that is the spirit.
What is meant is none other than the living force and power
emanating from God, which works invisibly in both the indivi-
dual and the people of Israel, in the church and in the world
generally. This spirit is holy in so far as it is distinguished from
the unholy spirit of human beings and their world: as the spirit
of God. The understanding of Christian faith is that it is the
driving force (dynamis, not law) in Christianity.

“But we should beware of misunderstandings: in the light of the

New Testament the Holy Spirit is not—as often in the history
of religions—some third element distinct from God which is
between God and human beings; it is not a magical, substantial,
mysterious-supernatural fluid of a dynamic kind (no spiritual
‘something’), nor is it a magic being of an animistic kind (some
spiritual being or ghost). Rather, the Holy Spirit is none other
than God himself. God himself, in so far as he is near to
human beings and the world, indeed works inwardly as the
power which grasps but cannot be grasped, as a life-giving but
also judging force, as a grace which gives but is not under our
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 441

control. So as God’s Spirit, the Spirit can no more be separated

from God than the sunbeam from the sun. Thus if we ask how
the invisible, intangible, incomprehensible God is near and
present to believers, the answer of the New Testament is
unanimous. God is near to us human beings in the Spirit:
present in the Spirit, through the Spirit, indeed as Spirit.” (H.
Küng, Christianity, p.42, all bold letters are his)

The Logos and the Spirit

T
he essence of the Word is the Spirit; these are inseparably related
in Scripture. “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6, NIV).
The word translated as “breath” is ruach in Hebrew and pneuma in
Greek and these are the words for “spirit” in both languages. Job 33:4
says “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives
me life.” (NIV)
The relationship of God’s word to His Spirit is seen also in
1Corinthians 2.12,13; John 3.34; 6.63. So, too, John 3.8 speaks of being
“born of the Spirit” while 1Peter 1.23 speaks of being born again
“through the living and abiding word of God.”
The relation of Word to Spirit could be stated in this way: the Word is
the form, and the Spirit is the substance. The word is compared to a
“seed” (Mat.13.19,20,22, etc) which carries within it the Spirit of life.
Hence, as we have just seen, the Apostle Peter could speak of it as “the
living word of God”. Thus, when “the Word became flesh and lived
among us” (Jo.1.14) in the person of Christ, God’s Presence as life, light,
truth, grace, salvation and, above all, His Spirit, was manifested in Christ;
for, as John says, it is “from this fullness (of God in the Logos) that we
have all received” (John 1.16).
Since life is embodied in the Word (Logos), it is “the word of life”
(1Jo.1.1). Life in Scripture is frequently associated with the Spirit; this is
true even on the level of the human spirit, James 2.26, “the body without
the spirit is dead”. The Apostle speaks in Romans 8.2 of “the Spirit of
life,” and in Romans 8.10: “the Spirit is life”. On the level of “the word,”
442 The Only True God

in 2Corinthians 3.6 Paul both compares and contrasts the Law (also
God’s word) with the Spirit, “the letter (of the Law) kills, but the Spirit
gives life” (cf.Ro.7.6b). In John 6:63, Jesus says, “It is the Spirit who gives
life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit
and life.” “The word of life” can also be described as “the word of truth”
(Col.1.5; 2Ti.2.15; etc), “the word of righteousness” (Heb.5.13), and “the
word of faith” (Rom.10.8)! This is fullness indeed—a fullness which,
according to John 1.16, all those in Christ have received.
That this refers to “the fullness” of Yahweh’s Memra/Logos/Word is
unmistakable because it is not until the following verse (v.17) is “Jesus
Christ” mentioned for the first time in John; it is “the fullness” which
filled the person of Christ. The word “fullness” (plērōma) is the same
word used in Colossians 2.9, “For in him the whole fullness of deity
dwells bodily”. Thus the fullness of the Word is, evidently, “the fullness
of deity”; see also Colossian 1.19, and Eph.3.19 “the fullness of God”.
From this we see that the Word in John’s Prologue functions as a
metonym for God, and points in particular to important aspects of His
Being, such as His life, His light, His truth, etc, which are highlighted in
John’s Gospel as a whole. But no demonstrable connection of the Word
to some supposed “second person in the godhead” can be found.
What is remarkable about Ephesians 3.19 (the last verse cited in the
previous paragraph) is that we learn that we, too, can be filled with God’s
fullness through Christ, for this verse exhorts us “to know the love of
Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the
fullness of God.”
Three paragraphs earlier we saw the association of life with the Spirit
in Scripture. What if we read “the Spirit” in place of “the Logos” in John
1.1? It would read like this, “In the beginning was the Spirit, the Spirit
was with God, and the Spirit was God.” We would not have much
problem with such a reading, especially because it would fit without diffi-
culty into what follows,
2
He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made
through him, and without him was not any thing made that
was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 443

If it be argued from verse 3 that the Spirit is not said to have been
involved in creation, then let us take note of Job 33.4, “The Spirit of God
has made (‫עשׂה‬, asah, just as in Genesis 1.26) me, and the breath of the
Almighty gives me life.”
The point of drawing attention to the parallel of the Logos with the
Spirit is that in the OT there is absolutely no suggestion of the Spirit
being a distinct person from Yahweh. Even so, the Spirit would fit
seamlessly into John 1. Even the incarnation as being applicable to the
Spirit would be unproblematic for the NT as can be demonstrated
without difficulty from the fact that the Spirit of God is also described as
“the Spirit of Christ” or “the Spirit of Jesus,” a fact that is otherwise with-
out satisfactory explanation. There is also the (for trinitarians) inexpli-
cable statement of Christ that “if I do not go away, the Helper [i.e. the
Spirit] will not come to you” (Jo.16.7). If the Spirit is a third person, why
should He be unable to come while Christ was on earth? As a trinitarian I
was unable to give or find any satisfactory answer to this question.
Though the Spirit is never referred to as a distinct person, yet the NT
enlightens us by revealing that he functions in relation to God in the
same way as the spirit of man functions in relation to man:

“For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For
who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person,
which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of
God except the Spirit of God” (1Cor.2.10,11).

So to the question, “Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has
been his counselor?” (Romans 11:34; also 1Cor.2.16; both quotations
from Isaiah 40.13), the Biblical answer is that the Spirit of God knows the
thoughts of God in the same way as the spirit of a man knows the
thoughts of the man. That is why a man can “examine himself”
(1Cor.11.28), for just as “the Spirit searches the depths of God”
(1Cor.2.10), so man’s spirit can search the depths of his own being.
This also helps us to understand the phrase in Genesis 1.26 “let us
make man” in a way not previously thought of because of our failure to
grasp the truth revealed about God and His Spirit as stated in
1Corinthians 2.10,11. In this light we can see that the “us” with whom
Yahweh took counsel was His own Spirit.
444 The Only True God

Similarly, how many people understand the relationship of a man’s

spirit to the man himself? Paul could speak of his spirit as being able to
experience things apart from his physical being as in 2Cor.12.2,3:
“whether in the body or out of it I don’t know”; or, “though absent in the
body, yet present in spirit” (1Cor.5.3,4). The spirit is understood as a
distinct reality within man, but obviously not as a separate person. The
same is true in God as shown in 1Corinthians 2.10,11. The Spirit (like the
Logos) is a reality within God, which like man’s spirit, has a definite
function within God and can sometimes even be spoken of as though it
functioned on its own (cf. too “the arm of the LORD,” Isa.51.9, etc), yet it
is not an independent or separate person.
If even the Spirit of God cannot be shown from Scripture to be a
distinct person from God, it is hard to imagine how trinitarianism could
have misled us into supposing that the Logos, a previously unknown
entity, is a separate person called “God the Son”. It does appear that it is
not, after all, very difficult for even “the elect” to be deceived (Mat.24.24;
Mk.13.22).41

The Holy Spirit and Yahweh’s Presence

Psalm 51.11, “Cast me not away from your presence, and take
not your Holy Spirit from me.”

The parallelism of Hebrew poetry indicates that these two sentences are
parallel to each other, the second rephrasing and complementing the
first. Thus “your presence” and “your Holy Spirit” are semantic parallels.
This means that the Spirit refers to Yahweh’s special presence, and to all
the divine qualities (such as His power, wisdom, word, etc) which His
presence brings. When this meaning of “His Spirit” is applied to other
verses where the term occurs, it fits in perfectly and, indeed, helps to
explicate more precisely what is meant.

41
This is not to suggest that these sayings of Jesus have already been com-
pletely fulfilled; a future fulfillment is possible because “false christs and false
prophets” would find the present spiritual state of the world favorable for their
activities and their teaching.
 Chapter 7 — The OT Root of “The Word” 445

This also helps to explain more specifically the connection between

the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost and the promise “I am with you
always” (Mat.28.20)—the promise of his abiding presence (the Spirit of
Christ is none other than the Spirit of God) for the fulfillment of the
great commission. The disciples received power at Pentecost so as to be
able to fulfill that commission; but there is no divine power independent
of the divine presence. The aspect of power which comes with God’s
special presence is mentioned specifically because the tiny infant church
had to be reassured, as well as empowered, to accomplish what was
entrusted to them.
As we saw in 1Corinthians 2.10,11 the Holy Spirit is to God what the
spirit of man is to man; He is not a separate person from God any more
than our human spirit is a separate person from us. To be filled with the
Spirit is not to be filled with a “third person” but to be filled with
Yahweh’s own presence. The problem of speaking of the Spirit as “he” is
that it gives the impression that the Spirit is a distinct person from
Yahweh; but the Scriptures teach us that the Spirit of God is integral to
God’s Person, just as our spirit is an integral part of us, yet a distin-
guishable element within us.
There are very many distinguishable elements (for lack of a better
term) within God’s Person mentioned in Scripture, such as His power
(“His arm,” or “His hand”), His wisdom, His holiness, His love, etc., and
all these find expression through His Word (Logos). But just as we would
not think of His love, etc, as a distinct being from Him, why do we think
of His Word as a distinct or separate being from Him?

The Spirit: Yahweh’s gift to believers

Even more important than the question: “What is the Spirit?” is the
question: What is the function of the Spirit in relation to us? Or, what is
the meaning of the Spirit for our lives? We understand the answer to
these questions better when we know:
(1) The Spirit of Yahweh is given to believers as His gift which, when
received, has transforming effect on the life of the believer.42

42
See the words “give” e.g. Ac.5.32; 10.45 (“gift”); 15.8; Ro.5.5; 1Thess.4.8;
446 The Only True God

(2) The Spirit as God’s seal upon us (the seal signifies that the believer
belongs to God and carries His authority to represent Him, to function as
His image) and as guarantee, or down payment, from God 2Cor.1.22;
2Cor.5.5 (guaranteeing the receiving of eternal life, and the fulfilling of all
God’s promises to us).
(3) The Spirit is the means by which we are joined or united with the
Lord, 1Cor.6.17.
(4) The Spirit is in us (Jo.14.17), which is what makes us the temple of
God: 1Cor.3.16; 6.19; 2Cor.6.16; Eph.2.22; 1Pet.2.5.
Because the Spirit is Yahweh God’s Spirit, in giving His Spirit to us He
has, in effect, given Himself to us, to be with us and to live in us. The
union and communion that this brings is the dynamic of all true
Christian life.

and “receive” e.g. Ac.2.38 (“gift”); 8.15,17; 10.47; Jo.7.38,39; Ro.8.15; 1Cor.2.12;
Gal.3.2, etc.
 Chapter 8

“The Word” is “the

Memra”

The Aramaic Old Testament, the Memra (the Word)

I
n the last chapter we considered the OT roots of the Word/Logos in
the Hebrew Bible. In this chapter we consider the roots of the Logos
in the Aramaic OT. Since most Christians know practically nothing
about the Aramaic background of the early church, we will here provide
a brief “intensive” introduction to this matter so important for properly
understanding the gospels and John 1 in particular.

Aramaic, the language of Palestine and the primary

language of Jesus
The learned Jewish scholar Rabbi Samuel Sandmel (who, unlike many
other rabbis, exercised a more understanding attitude towards the New
Testament) wrote,
448 The Only True God

“Christianity was born in Palestine, within Judaism. The

language spoken by Jesus and his immediate followers was
Aramaic, a language as closely related to Hebrew as one might
say, Portuguese is to Spanish.

“The New Testament itself attests to the knowledge that the

beginnings of the Christian movement were in a locale linguis-
tically Aramaic, for it preserves within its Greek text Aramaic
words in quotation. Somewhere in the line of development of
Christianity, probably while its accumulating tradition was still
being carried on orally, translation of some things from Aram-
aic into Greek took place.” (Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding
of the New Testament, p.13)

Rabbi Sandmel compared the relationship of Hebrew and Aramaic with

that of Portuguese and Spanish. The prolific (having written over 70
books) Catholic scholar Henri Daniel-Rops wrote that Aramaic was “in
no way at all a corrupt form of Hebrew, a kind of degenerate dialect that
the Jews brought back with them from Babylon. Aramaic was just as
much a true language as Hebrew: it was the language of those active,
stirring tribes which moved about the Fertile Crescent from the earliest
times—those tribes from which the Israelites claimed descent.” (H.
Daniel-Rops, Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, p.267.)
Geza Vermes, Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford, wrote
in his recent book The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, Penguin 2004: “Ideally
this analysis [of the gospel of Jesus] should be applied to the original
language of the teaching of Jesus, who spoke Aramaic; Aramaic was the
Semitic tongue used by most of his compatriots.” (A Note on the Sources,
p.x)
Here Prof. Vermes, one of the foremost authorities on Jewish studies,
states three things:
(1) The language which Jesus spoke was Aramaic, therefore
(2) Jesus’ original teaching was in Aramaic, because
(3) Most of the people of Palestine in his time spoke Aramaic.
However, the Gospels are now available to us only in Greek, so the task of
the scholar is to try to understand the underlying Aramaic forms of
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 449

expression, and even words (e.g. ‘Abba’, meaning ‘Father’), to attain a

clearer understanding of Jesus’ teaching. For this purpose, Vermes men-
tions three sources which provide extremely valuable material:

“The most important Bible commentaries are [1] the Tannaitic

Midrashim (plural of Midrash, works of Scripture exegesis) on
the Law of Moses…; [2] the Midrash Rabbah, the Large
Midrash…; and [3] the Targumim (plural of Targum, tran-
slation) covering a variety of popular Aramaic versions of the
Hebrew Bible classified as the Targum of Onkelos on the
Torah, various recensions of the Palestinian Targum on the
Torah, the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets, etc.” (p.xvi,
numbers in square brackets added).

But few Christian scholars are acquainted with this large body of
material. For those able to read German, a standard reference work in 4
volumes by H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, has long been available. For those
unable to read German, there is the much smaller and older work by
John Lightfoot, A Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud
and Hebraica, which was published by Oxford University Press in 1859.
Few people, however, perceive the importance of all this material for
understanding the NT, so references to it even in scholarly works are
sparse. To this can be added the fact that some of the most important
Aramaic material, notably Targum Neofiti, were discovered only 50 years
ago, and the Dead Sea scrolls (containing significant Aramaic writings)
just 60 years ago.

General Observations on Aramaic

The learned Catholic scholar and expert on the Aramaic Targums,
Martin McNamara, reminds us of the Jewish origin and character of the
gospel:

“Yet we can never lose sight of the fact that the preaching of the
gospel had its origins within Judaism. Christ and the Apostles
were Jews. The gospel tradition, too, was formed in a Jewish
450 The Only True God

atmosphere within Palestine during the early years of the

nascent Church. And this tradition was formed by men who for
the greater part were themselves Jews. And even when Christ-
ianity moved beyond Palestine to the Greek world, it was
brought there by Jews. They may preach to Greeks, but they
would naturally have thought as Hebrews.” (McNamara,
Targum and Testament, p.1f)

Elsewhere McNamara makes reference to “the early Aramaic-speaking

Church” and “the nascent Aramaic stage of the Church” (both p.130,
Targum and Testament); and again, “the language used by Christ and by
the Aramaic-speaking nascent church” (p.164).
To underscore these points, consider the following information
provided in the Encarta Reference Library on “The Aramaic Targums”:

In Judaism, when Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the language of

everyday life, translations became necessary, first accompany-
ing the oral reading of Scriptures in the synagogue and later set
down in writing. The Targums were not literal translations, but
rather paraphrases or interpretations of the original.

When, after the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century bc,

Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the generally spoken language, it
became necessary to explain the meaning of readings from the
Scriptures. These were the Targums; the word “targum” means
“interpretation”. (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005)

The names of people mentioned in the gospels commonly used the

Aramaic prefix “bar” (instead of the Hebrew “ben”) for the word “son”
(as in “son of”); this clearly shows that Aramaic was the language of the
common people. Consider, for example, these well-known names in the
NT: Barabbas; Bar-Jesus; Bar-Jonah; Barnabas; Barsabbas; Bartholomew;
Bartimeus, etc. Also words like Maranatha (1Cor.16.22), “Our Lord,
come,” a common prayer in the church.
Jesus’ hometown Nazareth was in Galilee, situated in the northern
part of the land of Israel. It was called “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Mat.4.15)
probably because it was that part of Israel which had the most contact
with the neighboring Gentile populations, namely, the Greek-speaking
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 451

cities of the Decapolis to the east and Scythopolis in the south. What
language(s) then did the Galileans speak? This question is important for
us because many of the twelve apostles were, like Jesus, from Galilee.
Freyne’s standard work on Galilee provides the following answer:

“While Greek was certainly widely used even among the lower,
uneducated classes, we have allowed, there seems little doubt
that Aramaic remained the most commonly spoken language of
the vast majority of the inhabitants of Galilee throughout the
whole period of this survey. There is a growing consensus that
Mishnaic Hebrew too was spoken in first century C.E.
Palestine, and in fact had developed from spoken Hebrew of
earlier times that had never been totally replaced. Given the
close affinity of Hebrew and Aramaic it is quite possible that a
situation of diglossia [simultaneous use of two languages]
existed, namely Aramaic as the ordinary language for everyday
speech and Hebrew for formal occasions, especially the cult [i.e.
worship].” (Sean Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to
Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E, p.144; italics and explanatory
words in square brackets mine. Freyne was Professor of New
Testament studies at Loyola University, New Orleans.)

Professor M. Black described it in this way:

“Four languages were to be found in first-century Palestine:

Greek was the speech of the educated ‘hellenized’ classes and
the medium of cultural and commercial intercourse between
Jew and foreigner; Latin was the language of the army of
occupation and, to judge from Latin borrowings in Aramaic,
appears also to some extent to have served the purposes of
commerce, as it no doubt also did of Roman law; Hebrew, the
sacred tongue of the Jewish Scriptures, continued to provide
the lettered Jew with an important means of literary expression
and was cultivated as a spoken tongue in the learned coteries of
the Rabbis; Aramaic was the language of the people of the land
and, together with Hebrew, provided the chief literary medium
of the Palestinian Jew of the first century; Josephus wrote his
452 The Only True God

Jewish War in Aramaic and later translated it into Greek.”

(Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts
(3rd edition), p.15f; italics added)

Aramaic still evident in the Greek (and English) Gospels

T
hose who read the gospels will often come across names and
other words without knowing that these are Aramaic. For the
reader’s convenience, the following material is extracted from the
detailed study in Wikipedia43:

— Start of Wikipedia article —

Talitha qoum (Ταλιθα κουμ)

Mark 5:41
And taking the hand of the child, he said to her, “Talitha
koum,” which is translated, “Little girl, I say to you, get up”.
The Aramaic is tlīthā qūm. The word tlīthā is the feminine form of the
word tlē, meaning “young”. Qūm is the Aramaic verb ‘to rise, stand, get
up’.

Ephphatha (Εφφαθα)
Mark 7:34
And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him,
“Ephphatha,” which is ‘be opened’.
Once again, the Aramaic word is given with an attempted transliteration,
only this time the word to be transliterated is more complicated. In

43
For further details see ‘Aramaic of Jesus’ in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus.
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 453

Greek, the Aramaic is written εφφαθα. This is from the Aramaic

‘ethpthaħ,’ the passive imperative of the verb ‘pthaħ,’ ‘to open’.

Abba (Αββα)
Mark 14:36
And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee;
take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but
what thou wilt.
Abba, an Aramaic word (written Αββα in Greek, and ’abbā in Aramaic),
is immediately followed by the Greek equivalent (Πατηρ) with no explicit
mention of it being a translation. The phrase Abba, Father is repeated in
Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6.

Note, the name Barabbas is a Hellenization of the Aramaic Bar Abba (‫בר‬
‫)אבא‬, literally, “Son of the Father”.

Raca (Ρακα)
Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and who-
soever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger
of hell fire.
Raca, or Raka, in the Aramaic of the Talmud means empty one, fool,
empty head.

Mammon (Μαμωνας)
Gospel of Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters: for either they will hate the one,
and love the other; or else they will hold to the one, and despise
the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
454 The Only True God

Luke 16:9-13
And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the
mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may
receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in
that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust
in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been
faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your
trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that
which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your
own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Rabboni (Ραββουνει)
John 20:16
Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto
him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. (KJV)
Also in Mark 10:51. Hebrew form rabbi used as title of Jesus in Matthew
26:25,49; Mark 9:5, 11:21, 14:45; John 1:49, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8. In
Aramaic, it could be (‫)רבוני‬.

Maranatha (μαρανα θα)

1 Corinthians 16:22
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema
Maranatha.

In Aramaic (‫מרנא‬ ‫ )תא‬it means Lord, come! or Our Lord, come!

Eli Eli lema sabachthani (Ηλει Ηλει λεμα σαβαχθανει)

Matthew 27:46
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 455

Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying

“Eli Eli lema sabachthani?” which is, “My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me?”
Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, “Eloi Eloi
lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, for
what have you forsaken me?”
This phrase, shouted by Jesus from the cross, is given to us in these two
versions. The Matthean version of the phrase is transliterated in Greek as
ηλει ηλει λεμα σαβαχθανει. The Markan version is similar, but begins
ελωι ελωι (elōi rather than ēlei).
The lines seem to be quoting the first line of Psalm 22. However, he is
not quoting the canonical Hebrew version (êlî êlî lâmâ `azabtânî), but is
using an Aramaic translation of it (targum).
In Aramaic, it could be (‫אלהי‬ ‫)שבקתני למא אלהי‬.

Jot and tittle (ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία)

Matthew 5:18
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one
jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law (that is, the
Torah) till all is fulfilled.
The quotation uses them as an example of extremely minor details. “Jot
and tittle” is iota and keraia in the Greek. Iota is the smallest letter of the
Greek alphabet (ι), but since only capitals were used at the time the Greek
New Testament, was written (Ι), it probably represents the Aramaic yodh
(‫ )י‬which is the smallest letter of the Aramaic alphabet.

Korbanas (κορβανας)
Matthew 27:6
But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, ‘It is not
lawful to put them into the treasury (Gk. text: korbana), since
they are blood money.’
456 The Only True God

In Aramaic (‫קרבנא‬, korbana) it refers to the treasury in the Temple in

Jerusalem, derived from the Hebrew Corban (‫)קרבן‬, found in Mark 7:11
and the Septuagint (in Greek transliteration), meaning religious gift.
Sikera (σικερα)
Luke 1:15
for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never
drink wine or strong drink (Gk. text: sikera); even before his
birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.

In Aramaic (‫שכרא‬, sikera) it means barley beer, from the Akkadian

shikaru.

Hosanna (ὡσαννά)
Mark 11:9
Then those who went ahead and those who followed were
shouting, Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name
of the Lord!
According to the Bauer lexicon, see references at end, this word is de-
rived from Aramaic (‫הושע‬ ‫)נא‬ from Hebrew (‫הושיעה‬ ‫)נא‬ (Psalm
118:25, ‫)נָּא הוֹשִׁיעָה‬, meaning “help” or “save, I pray”, “an appeal that
became a liturgical formula; as part of the Hallel… familiar to everyone
in Israel.”

Aramaic personal names in the New Testament

The most prominent feature in Aramaic names is “bar” (Greek trans-
literation βαρ, Aramaic bar), meaning ‘son of,’ a common patronym
prefix. Its Hebrew equivalent, ‘ben,’ is conspicuous by its absence. Some
examples are:

Matthew 10:3—Bartholomew (Βαρθολομαιος from bar-

Tôlmay, perhaps ‘son of furrows’ or ‘ploughman’).
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 457

Matthew 16:17—Simon bar-Jona (Σιμων Βαριωνας from

Šim`ôn bar-Yônâ, ‘Simon son of Jonah’).

John 1:42—Simon bar-Jochanan (‘Simon son of John’).

Matthew 27:16—Barabbas (Βαραββας from bar-Abbâ, ‘son of

the father’).

Mark 10:46—Bartimaeus (Βαρτιμαιος from bar-Tim'ay, per-

haps ‘son of defilement’ or ‘son of a whore’).

Acts 1:23—Barsabbas (Βαρσαββας from bar-Šabbâ, ‘son of the

Sabbath’).

Acts 4:36—Joseph who is called Barnabas (Βαρναβας from bar-

Navâ meaning ‘son of prophecy, the prophet,’ but given the
Greek translation υιος παρακλησεως; usually translated as ‘son
of consolation/encouragement’).

Acts 13:6—Bar-Jesus (Βαριησους from bar-Yêšû`, ‘son of

Jesus/Joshua’).

Mark 3:17—Boanerges (Βοανηργες)

And James, the son of Zebedee, and John, the brother of James,
and he gave them the name Boanerges, which is Sons of
Thunder.

Jesus surnames the brothers James and John to reflect their impetuosity.
The Greek rendition of their name is Βοανηργες (Boanērges). Given the
Greek translation that comes with it (‘Sons of Thunder’), it seems that the
first element of the name is ‘bnê’, ‘sons of’ (the plural of ‘bar’), Aramaic
(‫)בני‬. The second part of the name is often reckoned to be ‘rğaš’
(‘tumult’) Aramaic (‫)רניש‬, or ‘rğaz’ (‘anger’) Aramaic (‫)רנז‬. The Peshitta
reads ‘bnay rğešy’.

Cephas (Κηφας)
John 1:42
458 The Only True God

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You

are Simon son of John, you shall be called Cephas,” which is
translated ‘Peter’. (New International Version)
1 Corinthians 1:12
But I say that each of you says “I am of Paul,” or “I am of
Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ”.
Galatians 1:18 NRSV
Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas
and stayed with him for fifteen days;
In these passages, ‘Cephas’ is given as the nickname of the apostle better
known as Simon Peter. The Greek word is transliterated Κηφᾶς
(Kēphâs).
The apostle’s given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the
Aramaic nickname, kêfâ, meaning ‘rock’. The final sigma (s) is added in
Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine.

Thomas (Θωμας)
John 11:16
Then Thomas, who was called Didymus, said to his co-
disciples, “Now let us go that we might die with him!”
Thomas (Θωμᾶς) is listed among the disciples of Jesus in all four gospels
and the Acts of the Apostles. However, it is only in John’s Gospel that
more information is given. In three places (John 11:16, 20:24 and 21:2) he
is given the name Didymus (Δίδυμος), the Greek word for a twin. In fact,
“the Twin” is not just a surname, it is a translation of “Thomas”. The
Greek Θωμᾶς—Thōmâs—comes from the Aramaic tômâ, “twin”.

Tabitha (Ταβειθα)
Acts 9:36
In Joppa, there was a disciple named Tabitha, which is trans-
lated Dorcas.
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 459

The disciple’s name is given both in Aramaic (Ταβειθα) and Greek

(Δορκας). The Aramaic name is a transliteration of Tvîthâ the female
form of ‫( טביא‬Tavyâ). Both names mean ‘gazelle’.

Aramaic place names in the New Testament

Gethsemane (Γεθσημανει)
Matthew 26:36
Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane.
Mark 14:32
And they went to a place that has the name Gethsemane.
The place where Jesus takes his disciples to pray before his arrest is given
the Greek transliteration Γεθσημανει (Gethsēmani). It represents the
Aramaic ‘Gath-Šmânê’, meaning ‘the oil press’ or ‘oil vat’ (referring to
olive oil).

Golgotha (Γολγοθα)
Mark 15:22
And they took him up to the place Golgotha, which is trans-
lated Place of the Skull.
John 19:17
And carrying his cross by himself, he went out to the so-called
Place of the Skull, which is called in ‘Hebrew’ Golgotha.
This is clearly Aramaic rather than Hebrew. ‘Gûlgaltâ’ is the Aramaic for
‘skull’. The name appears in all of the gospels except Luke, which calls the
place simply Kranion ‘the Skull,’ with no Aramaic. The name ‘Calvary’ is
taken from the Latin Vulgate translation, Calvaria.

Gabbatha (Γαββαθα)
John 19:13
460 The Only True God

When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and

sat on the judge’s bench at a place called The Stone Pavement,
or in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
The place name appears to be Aramaic. According to Josephus, War,
V.ii.1, #51, the word Gabath means high place, or elevated place, so
perhaps a raised flat area near the temple.

— End of Wikipedia article —

The Aramaic OT: the Targums

T
he following explanation is from Encyclopedia Britannica 2003,
art. “Targum”:

“The earliest Targums date from the time after the Babylon-
ian Exile when Aramaic had superseded Hebrew as the spoken
language of the Jews in Palestine. It is impossible to give more
than a rough estimate as to the period in which Hebrew was
displaced by Aramaic as a spoken language. It is certain, how-
ever, that Aramaic was firmly established in Palestine by the 1st
century AD, although Hebrew still remained the learned and
sacred language. Thus the Targums were designed to meet the
needs of unlearned Jews [i.e. the great majority] to whom the
Hebrew of the Old Testament was unintelligible.” (italics added)

Further observations about the Targums

McNamara, one of the foremost experts on the Targums, provides the
following explanation:

“A targum is an Aramaic translation of a book or books of the

Old Testament, Aramaic being the language spoken rather gen-
erally in Palestine in the time of Christ, and indeed for some
centuries preceding it. In the regular synagogue service, sect-
ions of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets were read out in
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 461

Hebrew and were immediately translated into Aramaic. It is for

this reason that we refer to these translations as liturgical ren-
derings.

“There are still extant two distinct Jewish targums of the

Pentateuch. The first is a rather literal rendering and is known
as the Targum of Onkelos. The other, an extremely paraphras-
tic version, is called the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch.
This Palestinian targum is now found in its entirety in Codex
Neofiti, and in part in the texts of Pseudo-Jonathan, the
Fragment Targum, and in Fragments from the Cairo Geniza.
Being a paraphrase rather than a translation proper, this tar-
gum contains much additional material and consequently gives
us a good idea of the religious concepts current when it was
composed. This latter targum is written in the language known
as Palestinian Aramaic….Targums, stand at the very heart of
Jewish religion.” (Targum and Testament, p.11f, italics added).

“The targumic tradition was a sacred tradition, originating in

the liturgy. The Palestinian Targum, being recited every Sab-
bath in the synagogues, would have been well known to Christ
and his Apostles [including John], as well as to the Jewish con-
verts to Christianity. That Christ should have made use of the
religious traditions of his people when addressing his message
to them is altogether natural. He came not to destroy the Law
but to fulfill it, to bring it to perfection… Jesus was a Jew of the
Jews. His language and mental make-up were theirs. It is, then,
not surprising that the manner in which he, and later the
Apostles [including John], presented the gospel to the Jews was
that already known to them.” (McNamara, p.167, italics and
square brackets added)
462 The Only True God

The Jewish background of the Word, the Glory, etc.

In order to help us better understand the Jewish background of such
terms as “the Word” (the Memra), “the Glory,” etc., I shall quote further
from McNamara:

“The expression of divine truths in human language will always

present a problem to mortals. The Yahwist [Bible writer(s) who
used the Tetragrammaton] has given us both a deep psychology
and a profound theology in anthropomorphic and mythical
dress. Yahweh fashions man from clay, converses with him,
walks in the Garden of Eden, descends from heaven to see the
tower of Babel. This manner of speaking about God must have
appeared to many as not entirely becoming.

“This led the targumists to remove anthropomorphisms,

substituting references to the ‘Word’ (Memra), ‘Glory’
(Yeqara, ’Iqar) or ‘Presence’ (Shekinah; Aramaic: Shekinta) of
the Lord when speaking of his relations with the world. In
communicating his will to man we read of ‘the Holy Spirit’ or
the Dibbera (Word) rather than the Lord himself. For a Jew, of
course, these were merely other ways of saying ‘the Lord’. They
were reverential ways of speaking about the God of Israel.”
(Targum and Testament, p.98)

“In some texts of [Targum] Neofiti ‘Glory of the Lord’ is a

metonym for God and one which could equally well be re-
placed by ‘the Word (Memra) of the Lord’. Thus, for example,
in Genesis:

“‘The Word of the Lord created the two large luminaries…

(1:16)… and the Glory of the Lord set them in the firmament
(1:17)… the Word of the Lord created the son of man [i.e.
man]… (1:27)… And the Glory of the Lord blessed them and
the Word of the Lord said to them: ‘be strong and multiply’
(1:28)… And on the seventh day the Word of the Lord com-
pleted the work which he had created… (2:2)… and the Glory
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 463

of the Lord blessed the seventh day (2:3).’” (Targum and

Testament, p.99)

“In the Palestinian Targum the usual expression is not ‘the

Glory of God’ but ‘the Glory of the Shekinah of God’, or ‘the
Glory of the Shekinah of the Lord’. The insertion of ‘Shekinah’
may be a further attempt to remove any trace of anthropo-
morphism…. ‘Shekinah,’ i.e. presence, dwelling, calls to mind
‘Glory of the Lord,’ or his dwelling presence with Israel.”
(McNamara, p.100)

All this makes it perfectly clear that “Word” (Memra), “Glory,” and
“Shekinah” were “reverential ways of speaking about the God of Israel”.
The Word was never thought of as a personal being distinct from
Yahweh, the God of Israel. The Logos in Greek philosophy was also not a
personal being, and the same is true for the Jewish philosopher Philo.
The Word as a person distinct from Yahweh simply did not exist any-
where. This proves beyond any doubt that the trinitarian interpretation
of the Word in John 1 as a divine person distinct from Yahweh God is
without any foundation whatsoever; it is the result of a serious mis-
interpretation of Scripture. This will be considered in greater detail in the
following chapters.

Trinitarianism and the Memra

With regard to the question of what John meant by “the Word,” John
Lightfoot, the learned 19th century British scholar wrote:

“There is no great necessity for us to make any curious inquiry,

whence our evangelist should borrow this title, when in the
history of creation we find it so oft repeated, ‫וַיּא ֶמר אְ ֶ הִים‬
And God said. It is observed almost by all that have of late un-
dertaken a commentary upon this evangelist, that ‫מימרא דיי‬,
the Word of the Lord, doth very frequently occur amongst the
Targumists, which may something enlighten the matter now
before us,” (A Commentary on the New Testament from the
Talmud and Hebraica, an old but sometimes still useful work,
464 The Only True God

first published in 1859 by Oxford University Press, republished

by Baker Book House in 1979.)

With these words Lightfoot brushes aside the idea that the Logos in John
1.1 derives from Greek philosophy. He sees the Logos as the Greek equi-
valent of the Memra (‫)מימרא‬, which occurs frequently in the Targums.
Lightfoot evidently understood that Memra refers to “The Lord himself,”
as he says, but like so many trinitarians, his ambivalent concept of “Lord”
(Yahweh or Jesus?) seemed to have confused him to the extent that at
least at one point he seemed to write as if Christ was the trinitarian Logos
and that “the second person of the holy Trinity” was meant (Vol.3,
p.237)! As a scholar he knew very well that Memra was a metonym for
“the LORD (Yahweh) himself,” yet he allowed himself, at least in this
instance, to be confused into thinking that it was “the Lord (Jesus)
himself”. Memra absolutely never referred to another person distinct
from Yahweh, yet such is the “bewitching” power of error, as the Apostle
Paul aptly described it in Galatians 3.1, that the capacity to distinguish
between truth and error becomes gravely blurred.

The Memra (Word) rejected because it does not support

trinitarian dogma!

C
.K. Barrett, however, rejects Lightfoot’s identification of the
Logos with the Memra on the grounds that the Memra is not a
divine hypostasis but a substitute for the divine Name. Barrett
writes:

“In the Targums of the Old Testament frequent use is made of

the Aramaic word ‫( מימרא‬memra, word). It has sometimes
been supposed that this ‫ מימרא‬is a divine hypostasis capable of
furnishing a true parallel to John’s thought of a personal Logos
incarnate in Jesus. ‫[ מימרא‬memra] however was not truly a
hypostasis but a means of speaking about God without using his
name, and thus a means of avoiding the numerous anthropo-
morphisms of the Old Testament. One example will show both
the true meaning of ‫[ מימרא‬memra], and also the way in which
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 465

it might erroneously be taken as a hypostasis: Gen.3.8: for, They

heard the voice of the Lord God, Targ. Onkelos reads, They
heard the voice of the memra of the Lord God. Memra is a
blind alley in the study of the biblical background of John’s
logos doctrine.” (The Gospel According to St. John, p.128. In this
quotation from Barrett, I have left out the Hebrew of the phrase
he quotes from Gen.3.8 and the Aramaic of the Targum of
Onkelos, which are in his text, but the rest of the quotation is
exactly as it is in his text; italics added).

I quote this passage from Barrett both to show that he correctly under-
stood the meaning of Memra and to illustrate how completely dogma
determined his exegesis. Regarding the latter point, it is determined in
advance by trinitarianism that John’s thought about the Logos is, speci-
fically, “John’s thought of a personal Logos incarnate in Jesus.” Following
this reasoning, it means that we do not need to find out through careful
exegesis whether indeed John’s thought of the Logos is to be understood
in personal terms, this has already been determined in advance by our
dogma; and because the Memra cannot be shown to be personal, it is
irrelevant for our purpose, it is “a blind alley in the study of the biblical
background of John’s logos doctrine.” Why is it a “blind alley”? Because
it will not lead to the trinitarian dogma which Barrett wants to get to. But
is it not our responsibility to discover how Logos in John 1 was meant to
be understood rather than to look for a meaning which may help to get
us to the meaning which we want to get to, namely, trinitarianism?
Barrett understands that the Memra was “not truly a hypostasis,” and
illustrates this with an example from Targum Onkelos, by which he
wants to show how the Memra “might erroneously be taken as a hypo-
stasis.” Yet he shows no concern about falling into precisely the same
error by assuming without further ado that the Logos in John must be
understood as a divine hypostasis.
Having in this rather cavalier fashion thrown out the possibility of the
Memra as providing a background to our understanding of the Logos in
John 1, Barrett considers what options are left. He looks more favorably
on Wisdom (as in Proverbs 8.22), ignoring the fact that Wisdom is
feminine in both Hebrew and Greek while Logos is masculine. He also
466 The Only True God

ignores the fact that the language of Proverbs 8 is metaphorical, as is

common knowledge, which means in Barrett’s words that Wisdom, like
Memra, “was not truly a hypostasis” or person. How exactly, then, does
Wisdom provide a better support for his hypostasized Logos than
Memra? To this question he provides no answer.
Apart from Wisdom, Barrett like other trinitarian scholars, pointed to
Philo’s Judaized Stoic-Platonic Logos and the hypostatic language used of
the Torah [the Law] in rabbinic Judaism (but whose language he
considered “fanciful”); but the main point about these ideas is that none
of them, as in the case of Memra, can be shown to be divine hypostases.
So he proceeded to the conclusion that John had manufactured his own
synthesis of these ideas in the form of a divine hypostasis, the Logos. This is
what Barrett called the “Johannine synthesis”—a synthesis of ideas drawn
from Wisdom literature, “Sophia and Torah speculations,” and Philo’s
interpretations—producing an “amalgam” which John applied to Christ
as “the Johannine Logos” as Barrett called it (The Gospel According to St.
John, p.129). But this is pure conjecture; or stated more accurately, even
if more sternly, this alleged synthesis is Barrett’s fabrication, not John’s.
We can only wonder which is the more “fanciful”: some of the Rabbinic
language about the Torah or Barrett’s “Johannine synthesis”? Yet this is
the foundation of the trinitarian interpretation (we cannot call this
exegesis) of John 1.1ff. This is basically the same kind of interpretation
found (even when the term “Johannine synthesis” is not used) in most
trinitarian commentaries on John’s Gospel. After all, trinitarianism has
no other alternative but to take this path of interpretation.
Barrett does not, however, make Lightfoot’s mistake of identifying the
Memra with “the second person of the Trinity”; he rejects it on the
grounds that the Memra is not a person but “a means of speaking about
God without using his name (i.e. YHWH).” (John, p.128)
Barrett was entirely correct on this last point concerning the meaning
of Memra, as can also be confirmed by consulting M. Jastrow’s
authoritative work Dictionary of the Talmud, where the definition of
Memra given is:

“1) word, command Targ. Gen.XLI.44. Targ. Ps.XIX.4;—2)

(hypostatized) the Word, i.e. the Lord (used in Targum to
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 467

obviate anthropomorphism). Targ. Gen. III.10. Targ. Y. ib. 9”

(p.775). “‘The Word’ or ‘the Word of the Lord’ in the Targums is
thus a respectful circumlocution for ‘Yahweh’.” (italics added
only in the last sentence)

Looking at the definition of Memra, it is clear that there is one point on

which Lightfoot is unquestionably correct: the identification of Logos
with Memra. Both these words mean exactly the same thing: word.
Barrett cannot, and does not deny, this fact; he just does not want to
accept it because it cannot lead to trinitarianism. It is, therefore, for him a
dead end road, or a “blind alley,” as he put it. Unable to find any road
forward that could lead to the trinitarian objective he was trying to reach,
he put forward the idea of a “Johannine synthesis,” a road constructed
out of pure speculation! 44
Here is another example from the well-known German commentary
by Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und
Midrash [A Commentary on the NT using the Talmud and Midrash]. I
will quote from Martin McNamara’s work Targum and Testament, in
which he provides an English translation of the relevant section. Under
the heading Memra of Targums and Logos of John, McNamara writes:

“At the end of a very long excursus on ‘The Memra of Yahweh’

(Jn 1:1), P. Billerbeck concludes: ‘The inference that follows
from the foregoing statement with regard to the Logos of John
can be in no doubt: the expression ‘Memra of Adonai’ was an
empty, purely formal substitution for the Tetragrammaton and
is consequently unsuitable to serve as a starting-point for the
Logos of John.’” (Targum and Testament, p.101, quoting from
Strack-Billerbeck, II, p.333).

Billerbeck’s statement defies logic and understanding—except, of course,

for the trinitarian. Let us look at that statement again: “the expression
‘Memra of Adonai’ was a… substitution for the Tetragrammaton and is

44
Should not this way of mishandling and misinterpreting Scripture justi-
fiably call forth stern condemnation? After all, if this way of handling Scripture
is acceptable, what kind of error and falsehood cannot find support by means of
this kind of speculative “interpretation”?
468 The Only True God

consequently [!] unsuitable…” (italics and exclamation mark added).

Why is it “unsuitable”? Because it is not the hypostasis that the trinitarian
dogma requires and therefore does not suit its purpose, so throw it out!
Interestingly, McNamara (a noted Catholic priest and scholar) does
not agree with the kind of views expressed by Barrett and Billerbeck,
which he considers “unfortunate”. He does not accept their rejection of
Memra even though he confirms that it was a standard way of referring
to “the LORD (Yahweh)”. On the latter point he writes: “That the Memra
of the Lord is merely a reverent circumlocution for ‘the Lord,’ another
way of expressing the same thing and in no way a hypostasis [i.e. one
different from ‘the Lord’], is now generally held by students of Judaism.
As H.A. Wolfson says: ‘No scholar nowadays will entertain the view that
it is either a real being or an intermediary’.” (Targum and Testament,
p.101)45
McNamara then continues:

“Present-day scholars tend to reject the targumic Memra as a

background to, or contributing factor towards, John’s doctrine
of the Logos. This they prefer to see prepared in the prophetic
word (dabar) and in the Wisdom literature. This neglect of tar-
gumic evidence is unfortunate. Granted that the Memra of God
and the Lord is but another way of saying ‘God’ or ‘the Lord,’ it
by no means follows that John was not influenced by targumic
usage in his choice of Logos as a designation for Christ. For
John too, ‘the Word was God’ (Jn 1:1).” (p.102f.)

Certainly, the Memra was not a divine hypostasis in the sense Barrett
required, namely, a second person coequal with Yahweh. But is Yahweh
(whose Name is represented by “Memra,” “Logos,” or “Word”) not

45
McNamara provides two examples from Targum Neofiti of “the Word of
the Lord” as being “a reverent circumlocution of ‘the Lord’ (i.e. Yahweh)”: “And
the Word of the Lord said: ‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living
creatures…’ And the Lord created… every living creature which the waters
swarmed forth (Gen 1:20f, Neofiti). And the Lord said: ‘Let us create man…’
And the Word of the Lord created the son of man [=man] … and the Glory of the
Lord blessed them… (Gen 1:26f, Neofiti).” (p.101)
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 469

“divine hypostasis” par excellence? Certainly, a name (or, in the case of

Memra, a substitute or circumlocution of that name) is not a person; it
designates a person. “Memra” is a metonym not a person, but it design-
ates the Person of Yahweh. This may be stating the obvious but, where
the Memra is concerned, it will help to be able to grasp the obvious!

Memra

T
he Memra, as we have seen, is the Aramaic word for “word” or
logos. Closer attention must be given to the meaning of the
Memra in the thought world of Jesus’ and John’s time if we are to
gain a proper understanding of what the important message is in
the Prologue of John. A convenient and extensive source of information
is the Jewish Encyclopedia. In the following section, I shall quote exten-
sively from its article on the Memra. The fundamental point which is
made at the beginning of its study is this:

“In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the mani-

festation of the divine power” (italics added).

It is essential to keep this point in mind because the Gentile mind, with
its tendency to polytheism, is easily misled by the hypostasizing language
used when referring to the Memra and quickly starts assuming that it is a
hypostasis independent of Yahweh. From the Jewish Encyclopedia we
learn the following:

“MEMRA: ‘The Word,’ in the sense of the creative or directive

word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of
matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a
substitute for “the Lord” when an anthropomorphic express-
ion is to be avoided. [Bold lettering added]

“—Biblical Data:

“In Scripture ‘the word of the Lord’ commonly denotes the

speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii.
6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes
470 The Only True God

also the creative word: “By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made” (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. “For He spake, and it was
done”; “He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]”; “Fire
and hail; snow and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word”; Ps.
xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, “For ever,
O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Ps. cxix. 89). [Bold
lettering added]

“‘The Word,’ heard and announced by the prophet, often be-

came, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart
from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: ‘The Lord
sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel’ (Isa. ix.
7 [A.V. 8], lv. 11); ‘He sent his word, and healed them’ (Ps. cvii.
20); and comp. ‘his word runneth very swiftly’ (Ps. cxlvii. 15).

“Personification of the Word—In Apocryphal and Rabbinical

Literature:

“While in the Book of Jubilees, xii. 22, the word of God is sent
through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more
and more a personified agency: ‘By the word of God exist His
works’ (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlii. 15); ‘The Holy One, blessed be He,
created the world by the “Ma’amar” [speech]’ (Mek., Beshallah,
10, with reference to Ps. xxxiii. 6).”

The repeated references in Jewish literature to the involvement of the

Word in creation, just as in John 1.3,10, are seen in the following in
Jewish Encyclopedia:

Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, ‘Thou

who hast made the universe with Thy word and ordained man
through Thy wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee’
(Wisdom ix. 1; comp. ‘Who by Thy words causest the evenings
to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy
wisdom’; … ‘who by His speech created the heavens, and by the
breath of His mouth all their hosts’; through whose ‘words all
things were created’; see Singer’s ‘Daily Prayer-Book,’ pp. 96,
290, 292). So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 (‘Lord, Thou spakest on
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 471

the first day of Creation: “Let there be heaven and earth,” and
Thy word hath accomplished the work’).

The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (ch.

i.) beginning with ‘And God said,’ speaks of the ten ‘ma’amarot’
(= ‘speeches’) by which the world was created (Abot v. 1; comp.
Gen. R. iv. 2: ‘The upper heavens are held in suspense by the
creative Ma’amar’).

Out of every speech [“dibbur”] which emanated from God an

angel was created (Hag. 14a). ‘The Word [“dibbur”] called
none but Moses’ (Lev. R. i. 4, 5). ‘The Word [“dibbur”] went
forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the
camp of Israel’ (Cant. R. i. 13).

‘Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things’ (Wisdom xvi. 12); ‘Thy
word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee’ (l.c. xvi. 26).
Especially strong is the personification of the word in Wisdom
xviii. 15: ‘Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out
of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of war.’

Comment: The words, “Thy word, O Lord, heals all things” (Wisdom
16.12) would have helped the Jews to understand that Yahweh’s word
was embodied in Jesus such that in and through him all manner of sick
people were healed; healing was a prominent part of his ministry. The
following words from Psalm 107 could well be applied to Jesus’ healing
ministry:
17
Some were sick through their sinful ways, and because of
their iniquities suffered affliction;
18
they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the
gates of death.
19
Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he deli-
vered them from their distress;
20
he sent forth his word, and healed them, and delivered them
from destruction.
21
Let them thank the LORD for his steadfast love, for his
wonderful works to the sons of men! (RSV)
472 The Only True God

See also Matthew 8.16:

“That evening they brought to him many who were possessed

with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and
healed all who were sick.” (cf. also Mt.8.8; Lk.7.7, RSV)

A thorough understanding of the Memra, the key to

understanding the Logos in John 1

T
he root of the problem of the Gentile’s failure to understand John
1.1 in particular, and NT Christology as a whole, stems from the
failure to understand Jewish literature and thought as a whole.
Another fact of great importance emerged after the Babylonian exile:
Israel for the first time truly and wholeheartedly embraced monotheism,
specifically the worship of Yahweh. From the 6th century BC onwards one
could say that Israel had become fiercely monotheistic, in sharp contrast
to their spiritual waywardness prior to the Exile. But now they had such a
sense of awe and reverence for God that they would not speak His Name
or refer to His Person directly, but only by way of circumlocution such as
HaShem (the Name), or more frequently Adonai, which is the plural
form (i.e. of majesty) of “Lord” (Adoni), etc. But Memra (Word) is the
one of particular importance for us because it corresponds exactly to the
Logos of John 1.
The Jewish Encyclopedia provides a large section illustrating the use of
Memra in the Targum; we would be wise to go through it patiently if we
wish to grasp the fact that the Memra and the Logos are precisely the
same both in word and concept, though in different languages.
The following material is given as one continuous section in the
Jewish Encyclopedia but I have broken it down into its individual compo-
nents to make it somewhat easier to read and to comment on (within
square brackets) where needed:

The Jewish Encyclopedia:

“—In the Targum:

 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 473

“Instead of the Scriptural ‘You have not believed in the Lord

[Yahweh],’ Targ. Deut. i. 32 has ‘You have not believed in the
word of the Lord’; [i.e. “the word of the Lord” instead of “the
Lord”]

“Instead of ‘I shall require it [vengeance] from him,’ Targ.

Deut. xviii. 19 has ‘My word shall require it.’ [“My word”
instead of “I”]

“The Memra,” instead of “the Lord [Yahweh],” is “the consum-

ing fire” (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27).

The Memra “plagued the people” (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35).
“The Memra smote him” (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings
xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). [In both these instances “the
Memra” stands for “Yahweh” in the Hebrew text]

Not “God,” but “the Memra,” is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17
(Targ. Yer. “the Shekinah”; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: “I will
order My Memra to be there”).

“I will cover thee with My Memra,” instead of “My hand”

(Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22).

Instead of “My soul,” “My Memra shall reject you” (Targ. Lev.
xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). [It is
significant that “My Memra” in the Targum stands for “My
soul” in the Hebrew text.]

“The voice of the Memra,” instead of “God,” is heard (Gen. iii.

8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.).

Where Moses says, “I stood between the Lord and you” (Deut.
v. 5), the Targum has, “between the Memra of the Lord and
you”; and the “sign between Me and you” becomes a “sign
between My Memra and you” (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev.
xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12).
474 The Only True God

Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3),

and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4).

His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders

for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa.
lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 (comp. xi. 3, “the messenger-
angel”). [“His Memra” refers to Yahweh, as e.g. in Deut.1.30f.
etc]

The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). [The reference
here should be Isa.45.1,2; the Hebrew text refers to Yahweh]

The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3;
Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is
His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv.
11,35). [Gen.22.16f: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD,
because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your
son, your only son—blessing I will bless you…” Comp. Targ.
Ps. Jon.: “By My Word have I sworn, saith the Lord, forasmuch
as thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thy
only begotten, that in blessing I will bless thee…”]

Not His “hand,” but His “Memra has laid the foundation of the
earth” (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); [Cf. again John 1.3,10]

For His Memra’s or Name’s sake does He act (l.cxlviii. 11; II

Kings xix. 34). [Targ. Isa.48.11 “for my own sake,” so also
2Ki.19.34]

Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi.
90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv.
1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12,15) and with Israel
(Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14).

It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends

(Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2,
16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut.
v. 11); [The statement “It is the Memra, not God Himself,
against whom man offends” is somewhat misleading, for in
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 475

offending against the Memra one offends against God, for the
word “Memra” merely stands in for the words “the LORD”.
This is clearly seen already in the first example which is sup-
plied in the text: “the LORD has heard your grumbling that you
grumble against him—what are we? Your grumbling is not
against us but against the LORD.” The Targum has: “against
the Memra” (Ex.16.8)]

Through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25);
(Isa.45.25: “In the LORD all the descendants of Israel shall be
justified, and shall glory.”) (NKJB)

With the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii.

24, 27);

In the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer.
to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11). [Gen.15.6: “he believed in
the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” Targ.
Gen. 15.6: “he believed in the Lord, and had faith in the Word
(Memra) of the Lord, and He reckoned it to him for righteous-
ness”. “Believe in the Lord” and “faith in the Memra of the
Lord” are synonymous parallels.]

— End of quotation from Jewish Encyclopedia —

This is how Genesis 1.27 reads in the Jerusalem Targum: “And the Word
of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of
the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them.”
The Targums, being in the language of the Jews of Palestine, were the
versions of the Bible which they would have been familiar with. So
whether the Lord created all things through His Word, or did so directly,
either way would have been unproblematic for them.
476 The Only True God

Conclusion
In these many references cited in Jewish Encyclopedia (a few of the refs.
appear to be wrong, probably due to typing errors), we have seen that
where the Targum has the “Memra,” in the Hebrew text we see “the
LORD (YHWH)”. It is useful to check the Biblical references quoted in
each instance above to ascertain this for oneself. This should make it
perfectly clear that in by far the most instances, the word “Memra” is
used as a reference to or metonym for the Name “Yahweh”. In a few
instances Yahweh’s Memra stands for “His soul,” or “His hand”.
It must be borne in mind, however, that the references given in the
Jewish Encyclopedia represents a very small proportion of the large
number of occurrences of Memra in the Targums where Yahweh
(YHWH) appears in the Hebrew text. Charts at the end of this book
provide a convenient and comprehensive overview of all the occurrences
of Memra in the Pentateuch. (These are found in Appendix 12.)

The question of “personification”

T
hough occasionally the Memra as a special manifestation of
Yahweh or His power appears to be personified, it most certainly
was not intended to imply that it is a person apart from Him.
Instead, it directs attention to a particular aspect of Yahweh’s
Person and work.
On this matter of personification, Jewish Encyclopedia provides a
whole section to illustrate this type of use of “Memra” in the Targum. But
before we consider it, we need to first be very clear what the word
“personification” means. It basically means speaking of something as
though it were an actual person; thus in Proverbs, Wisdom is often
described as if it is a living person. Here is a definition of personification
from Britannica (2003):

Figure of speech in which human characteristics are attributed

to an abstract quality, animal, or inanimate object. An example
is ‘The Moon doth with delight / Look round her when the
heavens are bare’ (William Wordsworth, ‘Ode: Intimations of
Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood,’ 1807).
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 477

Another is ‘Death lays his icy hand on kings’ (James Shirley,

‘The Glories of Our Blood and State,’ 1659).

Personification is something found frequently in poetic language; it is a

characteristic of the vivid language of poetry. Here are some examples
from the Scriptures:

Psalm 147.15: He (Yahweh) sends out his command to the

earth; his word runs swiftly. (Notice that this verse speaks
about the Word of God.)

Psalm 85: 10 Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness

and peace kiss each other. 11 Faithfulness springs up from the
ground, and righteousness looks down from the sky. 12 Yes, the
LORD will give what is good, and our land will yield its
increase. 13 Righteousness will go before him and make his
footsteps a way.

Psalm 107.42: The upright see it and are glad, and all wicked-
ness shuts its mouth.

Job 5.16: So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts her mouth.

Job 11.14: If you repudiate the sin which you have doubtless
committed and do not allow wickedness to live on in your
tents… 17 Then begins an existence more radiant than noon,
and the very darkness will be bright as morning. (NJB)

Regarding the personification of the Word

Under the general heading “Personification of the Word,” the Jewish
Encyclopedia has the following:

“Mediatorship.
“Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is
accordingly the manifestation of God.” [Bold italics added].
How exactly is this statement to be understood? How does a manifest-
ation function in a mediatorial way? This manifestation of God must
478 The Only True God

stand in some way between God and men, both revealing and concealing
at the same time. It would thus be something like the glory of the
Shekinah which reveals Yahweh’s glory yet also conceals His Person.
But though we could speak in this carefully defined sense of the
Memra functioning in a kind of mediatorial way, it is misleading (to
polytheistic Gentiles) to speak of its role in terms of a “mediator” or
“mediatorship” without giving the impression that one is speaking about
an actual person. The Jew knows that there is no such person as the
“Memra,” but not the Gentile.
The same is true of such a statement as, “The Memra is the agent of
God,” for though “agent” does not necessarily refer to a human being
such as an “estate agent” or a “travel agent” and could also refer to a
chemical “cleansing agent” such as a detergent, this ambiguity in “agent”
leaves the Gentile mind free to select the meaning of his choice, namely,
the reference to a person. It is, therefore, important to bear in mind (if we
would avoid misleading ourselves and others) that Jewish literature never
thinks of the Memra as an actual person distinct from God but as “the
manifestation of God,” as stated at the beginning of this section.
The Memra is “mediatorial” in the sense of being a “mediatorial
word,” that is, a word that serves to refer to Yahweh without directly
mentioning his Name. It is thus a word that “stands between” Yahweh
and the speaker or hearer, and in this sense “mediates” between them.
This was done out of reverence for Yahweh by avoiding direct reference
to Him. Such mediatorial words and terms are probably found in most
languages as a means of avoiding the pronunciation of the name of the
person, out of reverence or respect for that person. Examples of this in
English are “Your Majesty” (or “His majesty”), “Your Excellency,” “Your
Honor”, etc. Similar forms of address are also common in classical
Chinese. For example, out of courtesy even to people of not particularly
high status, people could be addressed by the term “zu xia” which, trans-
lated literally, would mean “below your feet” or “to (or, at) your feet”,
thus respectfully addressing the feet of the person as a “mediatorial” or
indirect way of saying “you”.
If, however, the Word is not thought of as an entity or a being distinct
from God, then it can be said correctly that the Word was an “agent” in
creation in that it was by, or through, His Word that God created all
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 479

things “in the beginning”. This fact is stated in John 1.3: “Through (dia)
him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been
made.” All things owe their origin to God: all things are from (ek) God
(1Co.11.12); and He accomplishes His eternal purposes through (dia) His
Word, His Wisdom, and His power.

The Targums were apparently less concerned about

“anthropomorphism” than with direct references to God
It is often asserted that the use of such terms as Memra and Shekinah was
to avoid anthropomorphism, but this is not necessarily supported by the
evidence. For example the “anthropomorphic” reference to God’s “hand”
in Deut.32.41 is still translated as “hand” in the Targums, both in this
verse and elsewhere. Yet references to His “face” are consistently changed
to His “Shekinah”. So it seems clear that the concern was not primarily
with anthropomorphisms but with direct references to God, which were
considered irreverent.
The following are a few examples of Memra as a form of indirect
reference to Yahweh in the Targums as given in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

“‘The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His
throne receiving the prayers of Israel’ (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv.
7).” [This kind of “mediatorial” language could give the
impression that the Memra is an actual person, but when one
looks at the second part of the verse—the Memra “sits on His
throne receiving the prayers of Israel”—one realizes that to the
monotheistic Jew only God can sit on God’s throne, and to
Him alone Israel prayed. So the first part of the verse means:
God’s Word brings Israel near to God. Moreover, only Yahweh
is mentioned in Deut.4.7.]

“It [the Memra] shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to
Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy
nations (l.c. xi. 8)”;

“It is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of

Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in
480 The Only True God

Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii.
15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1);
blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people
(Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3).”

“As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of
God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation
of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ.
Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4).” [Notice here the words which I have
put in bold italics because of its special relevance for John
1.3,10.]

“So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa.
lxvi. 13): [Cf. the use of this word “comforter” in John 14-16]
“My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto
you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a
holy people” (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

“‘My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes
off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen’; ‘the Memra will
roar to gather the exiled’ (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10).”

“The Memra is ‘the witness’ (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to

Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and ‘will rejoice over them to do
them good’ (l.c. xxxii. 41).”

“‘In the Memra the redemption will be found’ (Targ. Zech. xii.
5). ‘The holy Word’ was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test.
of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).”

When these texts from the Targums are compared with the Hebrew texts
it will be readily evident that Memra functions as “mediatorial” word in
each instance to avoid a direct reference to Yahweh. For example, in
Isa.66.13 Yahweh speaks of Himself as the comforter; the Targum avoids
the reference to Yahweh and replaces His Name by “Memra”. Again, in
Hosea 11.10 it is Yahweh Himself who “will roar like a lion,” but also
here His Name is replaced in the Targum by “the Memra”.
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 481

The final portion of the article on the Memra in the Jewish

Encyclopedia considers the relationship of Memra with its Greek
equivalent Logos:

“The Logos.
“It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the
Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom
and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the
influence of the Greek term “Logos,” which denotes both word
and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological no-
tions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of
Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-con-
structive and world-permeating intelligence.”

We will take note in particular of two points in the above excerpt:

1) The Memra, Wisdom, and the Shekinah were seen as parallel concepts.
2) The philosophical systems of Greek thought, under Egyptian influ-
ence, conceived of the Logos in terms of a “world-constructive and
world-permeating intelligence” but not in personal terms as God. There-
fore, the deification of the Logos as a personal God was the work of
Gentile Christians, perhaps beginning already in the middle of the 2nd
century AD.
The article continues:

“The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-

stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy.
Philo’s ‘divine thought,’ ‘the image’ and ‘first-born son’ of God,
‘the archpriest,’ ‘intercessor,’ and ‘paraclete’ of humanity, the
‘arch type of man’, paved the way for the Christian conceptions
of the Incarnation (‘the Word become flesh’) and the Trinity.”

From this it becomes clear that Philo’s Logos was itself built upon the idea
of the Memra as its “corner-stone,” even though he borrowed Greek
elements so that his philosophy is described here as “semi-Jewish” (Philo
himself was a Jew). It is, therefore, rather pointless to speak of John hav-
482 The Only True God

ing borrowed the Logos idea from Philo seeing that Philo himself based
his ideas on the Memra, and John needed only draw directly on the idea
of the Memra well-known to the Jews from the Targums without any
recourse to Philo.
The article on the Memra continues:

“In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it

is especially interesting to notice how often the term ‘Logos,’ in
the sense of ‘the Word by which God made the world, or made
His Law or Himself known to man,’ was changed into ‘Christ’
(see ‘Apostolic Constitutions,’ vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.).”

From this excerpt the following points are worth noting:

1) The ancient church adopted and adapted its liturgy from that of the
Synagogue; this fact reflects a time when the church had been predomi-
nantly Jewish, that is, during the time of the apostolic church of the 1st
century.
2) From the early church’s adaptation of the Jewish liturgy, the Logos
understood as being “the Word by which God made the world, or made
His Law or Himself known to man,” was applied to Christ as the one in
whom the Word became incarnate. But the Jewish Encyclopedia indicates
that by the time of the Apostolic Constitutions, about AD 380, the Logos
“was changed into ‘Christ’”, which is to say that Christ and the Logos had
become equated.
With “the parting of the ways” between Jews and Gentiles some time
before the middle of the 2nd Century, and the Gentile deification of the
Word as a person equal to Yahweh God resulting in the emergence of
trinitarianism, the Jewish response was to cease referring to the Memra:

“Possibly on account of the Christian dogma [i.e. the Trinity],

rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little
use of the term ‘Memra.’” (Jewish Encyclopedia, art. ‘Memra’)
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 483

Memra as rooted in Psalm 33.6

We should also take note of the following statement in the Jewish
Encyclopedia (art. “God”) which points to Ps.33.6 as the root of the use of
Memra in the Targums:

“The Old Testament idiom, according to which ‘by the word of

Yhwh were the heavens made’ (Ps. xxxiii. [xxxii.] 6)—which
passage is at the root of the Targumic use of Memra,”

Note also the following important statement in that same article:

“The Memra (“Word”; “Logos”) and the Shekinah, the divine

effulgent indwelling of God ... are not hypostases” [that is,
they are not persons in the sense in which Christ is said to be a
person in the Trinity” (bold italics mine)]

The following observations are also relevant for understanding the way
Memra is used in the Targums; these are quoted from the Jewish
Encyclopedia, art. ‘Anthropomorphism’:

“They [the older Targums] always speak of the Memra (“word”

of God) if in the Hebrew text God is represented as speaking.”

“Ginsburger is accordingly right when he deduces the following

rule for the employment of memra in the older Targumim
[Targums]: ‘Whenever a relation is predicated of God, through
which His spiritual presence in an earthly being must be
assumed, the paraphrase with memra is employed.’” (italics
added)

It is clear from these statements that wherever in the Hebrew text there
are references to God relating to human beings in some way (e.g. speak-
ing to him, etc), the Targums would replace the word “God” with
“Memra.”
484 The Only True God

A few examples of the Memra or the Word in the Targums

which are particularly relevant to the Word or Logos in
John 1

The Wisdom and the Word of the Lord Created the Universe
1
By Wisdom the LORD created and perfected heaven and
earth.
2
And the earth was waste and void,
a desert without the sons of men or any cultivation at all.
And darkness was spread on the face of the deep,
And the Spirit of mercy from before the LORD blew
on the face of the waters.
3
And the Word [Memra] of the LORD said:
—“Let there be light!”
And there was light in his Word [cf. Ps 119:105]
4
And it was revealed before the LORD that the light was good;
and the Word of the LORD divided the light from the darkness.
—Targum, Fragment on Gen 1:1-4

The Word as Light

The first night was when the LORD was revealed above the
earth to create it:
the earth was void and empty
and darkness was spread over the face of the deep.
And the Word (Memra) of the LORD was the light and it
shone;
and he called it the first night.
—Targum Neofiti on Exod 12:42

The Word created the Son of Man (=man) in His

own Divine Image
26
And the Word of the LORD said:
—“Let us create the son of man [bar nash] in an image like us
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 485

and let them have dominion over (all creatures)...

27
And the Word (Memra) of the LORD created Adam in his
own image,
in the image from before the LORD he created them:
he created them the male and his mate.”
—Targum, Fragment on Gen 1:26-27

The following passage finds fulfillment in crucial elements in the gospels:

39
When the Word [Memra] of the LORD (Yahweh) will be
revealed to release his people
he will say to all the peoples:
—“Now see that I (am) he [ani hu] who is and was
and I (am) he who is destined to be.
There is no other god beside me!
With my Word I make dead and I make live!
I humbled the people of the house of Israel
and I will heal them in the end [suq] of days.
And there is none to rescue from the hands of Gog and his
army [Ezek 38],
when they come to order the ranks for battle against them.”
—Targum Neofiti on Deut 32:39

The main elements in this passage are found in the gospels:

(1) The Memra of Yahweh embodied in Jesus was “revealed to release
His (Yahweh’s) people,” that is, to save them; the purpose of his coming
is thereby declared.

(2) “Now see that I (am) he [ani hu] who is and was”: There is an echo of
some of the occurrences of “I am” in John.
(3) “There is no other god beside me!” A declaration of monotheism such
as that found in Mark 12.29; John 5.44 and 17.3.
(4) “With my Word I make dead and I make live!” The Memra in Jesus
not only healed the sick but raised the dead on a number of occasions;
these words may also imply Jesus’ own death and resurrection.
486 The Only True God

(5) The words “I humbled the people of the house of Israel” would seem
to be a reference to their rejection of Jesus as Messiah and what happened
to Israel not long afterwards, especially the destruction of the Temple;
but this does not result in Yahweh’s rejection of them because,

(6) “I will heal them in the end [suq] of days,” and this lovingkindness of
Yahweh is absolutely vital because,
(7) “there is none to rescue from the hands of Gog and his army,” which
is precisely what Jesus referred to about “the end of days,” the end time
and the horrors that the tribulation of those days would bring (Matt.24;
Mark 13; Luke 21.5ff).
From this exposition of the Targum on Deuteronomy 32.39 by correlat-
ing it with the gospels, it is evident that there is much of spiritual value in
the Targums.

The Shekinah and its relevance for understanding John

1.14

V
ery closely related to the Memra is the term “Shekinah” which,
functionally, is its equivalent because both words are used to
designate God; but whereas Memra is used in the Targum,
Shekinah also appears in the Talmud and Midrash. Since the word
“Shekinah” (lit. “the dwelling”) comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to
dwell,” this has significance for understanding John 1.14: “The Word
became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (NIV). The following
quotations are from the article “Shekinah” in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

‘Shekinah—In the Targumim.

‘The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has des-
cended to “dwell” among men. Like Memra (= “word”; “logos”)
and “Yekara” (i.e., “Kabod” = “glory”), the term was used by
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 487

the Rabbis in place of “God” where the anthropomorphic ex-

pressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper [sic].’
‘The term “Shekinah,” which is Hebrew, whereas “Memra” and
“Yekara” are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in
Talmud and Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which
they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur.
Nevertheless the word “Shekinah” occurs most frequently in
the Aramaic versions, since they were intended for the people
and were actually read to them.’
‘In the great majority of cases “Shekinah” designates “God”; but
the frequent use of the word has caused other ideas to be
associated with it [e.g. His light or power?]’
“Shekinah” is spelt “Shekhina” in Encyclopedia Britannica 2003. For
convenience of reference, that article is here attached:

‘Shekhina also spelled Shekhinah, Shechina, or Schechina

(Hebrew: “Dwelling,” or “Presence”), in Jewish theology, the
presence of God in the world. The designation was first used in
the Aramaic form, shekinta, in the interpretive Aramaic trans-
lations of the Old Testament known as Targums, and it was
frequently used in the Talmud, Midrash, and other postbiblical
Jewish writings. In the Targums it is used as a substitute for
“God” in passages where the anthropomorphism of the original
Hebrew seemed likely to mislead. Thus, belief in the transcen-
dence of God was safeguarded. In many passages Shekhina is a
reverential substitute for the divine name.

‘In rabbinic literature the Shekhina is associated with several

other religious and theological terms. It is said that the
Shekhina descended on the tabernacle and on Solomon’s
Temple, though it is also said that it was one of the five things
lacking in the Second Temple. The glory of God that filled the
tabernacle (Exodus 40:34) was thought of as a bright radiance,
and the Shekhina is sometimes similarly conceived.
488 The Only True God

‘There is also an affinity between the Shekhina and the Holy

Spirit, though the two are not identical. Both signify some
forms of divine immanence, both are associated with prophecy,
both may be lost because of sin, and both are connected with
the study of the Torah. Certain medieval theologians viewed
the Shekhina as a created entity distinct from God (the divine
“light,” or “glory”).’

In Wikipedia it is spelt “Shekhinah”; an extensive discussion can be

found there. Wikipedia explains the origin and meaning of the word:
“The Greek word σκήνη [skēnē]—dwelling—is thought to be derived
from ‫[ שכינה‬noun ‘shekinah’] and ‫[ שכן‬verb ‘shakan’].”
The Tabernacle and, later, the Temple as Yahweh’s dwelling place:
Wikipedia: “The Shekhinah is referred to as manifest in the Tabernacle
and the Temple in Jerusalem throughout Rabbinic literature.” Hence
John 2.19, where Jesus’ own body is spoken of as Yahweh’s temple; he is
the one in whom Yahweh dwells bodily, Col.2.9. Cf. Jer.17.12.
The verb skēnoō (σκηνόω, ‘live, settle, take up residence,’ BDAG) is the
word used for the Word dwelling among us in John 1.14. The noun skēnē
(σκηνή, ‘tent, dwelling,’ ‘Yahweh’s tabernacle,’ BDAG) occurs 20 times in
the NT of which 10 times are in Hebrews. Most of these instances refer to
“the tent of meeting” or “tabernacle” where God’s presence “dwelt”
(cf.Jo.1.14).
Whether or not these Greek words were actually derived from the
Hebrew (there is indeed a striking similarity between the Greek and
Hebrew words that may be more than coincidental), more relevant for
our purpose is the fact that the two words are identical in meaning. That
“dwelt” (skēnoō, the verb of skēnē, σκήνη) in John 1.14 refers to the
Shekinah appears to be confirmed by the words which immediately
follow it: “we have beheld his glory”; the glory of the Shekinah mani-
fested the glory of God’s presence.
This same truth about the Shekinah is reflected again in Hebrews 1.3,
“He is the radiance of the glory of God,” and again in the phrases “the
Lord of glory” or “our glorious Lord”: 1Corinthians 2.8, “None of the
rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 489

crucified the Lord of glory,” and James 2.1, “My brothers, show no
partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.”
In this connection, there is also the glory described in the gospel
accounts of Christ’s transfiguration: “And he was transfigured before
them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as
light.” (Matthew 17.2); “he was transfigured before them, and his clothes
became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them”
(Mark 9.2,3).

The Shekinah as the manifestation of Yahweh’s presence

and glory, as seen in the Targums:
“And He [Yahweh] cast out Adam, and made the glory of His
Shekina to dwell at the front of the east of the garden of Eden,
above the two Kerubaia [cherubim].” (Pseudo-Jonathan and
Jerusalem Targums on Genesis 3.24.)

“And she [Hagar] gave thanks before the Lord whose Word
spake to her, and thus said, Thou art He who livest and art
eternal; who seest, but art not seen! for she said, For, behold,
here is revealed the glory of the Shekina of the Lord after a
vision.” (PsJon. Gen.16.13)

“And immediately the Glory of the Shekina of the Lord was

revealed to him, and Israel [Jacob] worshipped upon the pillow
of the bed.” (Ps.Jon. Gen.47.31)

“(Of BENJAMIN) I will liken him to a ravening wolf. In his

limits will the sanctuary be builded, and in his inheritance the
glory of the Shekina of the Lord will dwell.” (Jerusalem Targ.
Gen.49.17 [27]; so also Targum Onkelos, “shekinah”
Gen.49.18.)

All the above examples are taken from the Targums on Genesis, but
Shekinah also occurs frequently elsewhere in the Pentateuch; for
example, Shekinah occurs 22 times in Deuteronomy in Targum Onkelos.
490 The Only True God

In all cases the term indicates Yahweh’s unique immanent presence; a

comparison with the Hebrew text makes this clear.

God’s manifest Presence is constantly linked with “Glory”

in the Old Testament
The following paragraphs from Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament (TWOT, art. ‫ ָכּבוֹד‬, “glory”) are instructive:

“Over against the transience of human and earthly glory stands

the unchanging beauty of the manifest God (Psa 145:5). In this
sense the noun kabôd [glory] takes on its most unusual and
distinctive meaning. Forty-five times this form of the root
relates to a visible manifestation of God and whenever ‘the glory
of God’ is mentioned this usage must be taken account of. Its
force is so compelling that it remolds the meaning of doxa from
an opinion of men in the Greek classics to something absolutely
objective in the LXX and NT.

“The bulk of occurrences where God’s glory is a visible mani-

festation have to do with the tabernacle (Exo 16:10; Exo 40:34;
etc.) and with the temple in Ezekiel’s vision of the exile and
restoration (Ezek 9:3, etc.). These manifestations are directly
related to God’s self-disclosure and his intent to dwell among
men. As such they are commonly associated with his holiness.
God wishes to dwell with men, to have his reality and his
splendor known to them.

“The several references which speak of God’s glory filling the

earth and/or becoming evident are instructive. On the one
hand they quite legitimately refer to that reputation for great-
ness which God alone deserves, not only because of his natural
position as king, but because of his unsurpassed activity as
deliverer and saviour. However, as the preceding discussion
indicates, something more is intended here. It is not merely
God’s reputation which fills the earth, but it is the very reality of
his presence. And his desire is that all persons may gladly recog-
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 491

nize and own this. His first step toward the achievement of
these goals was to fill the tabernacle with his presence and then
the temple.

“But nowhere is the reality and the splendor of his presence and
his character seen as in his son (Isa 4:2). Here the near blinding
quality of his glory is fully portrayed, ‘We beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only son of the Father, full of grace and truth’ (Jn
1:14; cf. Jn 17:1-5).” (TWOT, italics added)

From this it can be seen that both the idea and the reality of Yahweh’s
dwelling among men is deeply woven into the fabric of the Old Test-
ament. It then came to its final fulfillment when “the Word/Memra
became flesh and made His dwelling among us” (Jo.1.14, NIV).
As we have seen, both “Shekinah” and “Memra” are important words
in the Aramaic Targums. It is interesting that even though “Shekinah” is
Hebrew (from the root ‫שׁכַן‬ ָ (shākan) dwell, tabernacle; see also Jastrow,
Dict. of the Talmud), not Aramaic, the Targums incorporate this word
into their Aramaic translation. This draws attention to the fact that in the
Hebrew Bible the truth expressed by the word “Shekinah” is a vitally
important aspect of Yahweh’s relationship with His people: Yahweh does
not just visit His people from time to time, but He chooses to live with
them (e.g. Exodus 25:8, “And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may
dwell in their midst.”)
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament has this interesting
observation about the tabernacle:

“Something of the cruciality of the tabernacle can be gauged by

observing how many chapters the Bible devotes to the original
event. Here it is thirteen chapters, Exo 25-31, 35-40, in contrast
to, say, creation and the fall which merit a total of three skeletal
chapters in Gen. If the tabernacle is the place where God and
man meet for worship, the latter to worship the former, it is
imperative that this institution be spelled out intricately.”
(TWOT, ‫שׁכָּן‬
ְ ‫( ִמ‬mishkān) tabernacle)
492 The Only True God

The Hebrew word for “tabernacle” (mishkān) is related to “Shekinah” by

the fact that both words are from the root shākan. Yet the idea of
“Shekinah” goes further than speaking of the glory of God abiding in a
particular place; it refers to Yahweh’s special presence.

The Memra
“Memra” (“Word”) on the other hand is an Aramaic word, and a link to
Hebrew cannot be established. It is often used in a way that is different
from “the word of the Lord” in the Hebrew Bible. It is in fact used in a
way so similar to Shekinah that it is replaced by Shekinah in the Talmud.
The following shows how it is used in Targum Ps-Jonathan (or “the
Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel; in the translation by J. W. Etheridge, the
remaining fragments of the Jerusalem Targum are incorporated). These
verses are selected because they are instructive for our understanding of
the Logos (Word) in the Johannine Prologue:

Gen.1.27: “And the Lord created man in His Likeness:

[JERUSALEM: And the Word (Memra) of the Lord created
man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord
He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created
them.]”

Notice how instead of “the Lord created man” the Jerusalem Targum has
“the Word (Memra) of the Lord created man”. This corresponds to the
role in creation of the Logos in John 1.3. “The presence of the Lord” in
the preceding quotation seems to be a reference to the Shekinah.

Gen.2.8: “And a garden from the Eden of the just was planted
by the Word [Memra] of the Lord God before the creation of
the world, and He made there to dwell the man when He had
created him.”

Here the Word or Memra of God is none other than God Himself as we
can see by comparing it with the Biblical text: “And the LORD (Yahweh)
God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man
whom he had formed.” It is exactly as in John 1.1, “the Word was God”.
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 493

Gen.3.8-9: “And they heard the voice of the word [memra] of

the Lord God walking in the garden in the repose of the day;
and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord
God among the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called to
Adam, and said to him, Is not all the world which I have made
manifest before Me; the darkness as the light? and how hast
thou thought in thine heart to hide from before Me?”

What is interesting about this passage is that “they heard the voice of the
word (memra) of the Lord God walking in the garden,” yet in the
following sentence it is “the Lord God” himself who “called to Adam”
and spoke to him. Again the identification of “the Word of the Lord”
with “the Lord God” is clear within the Targum itself, and this is all the
more so when we compare it with the Biblical text: “And they heard the
sound of the LORD (Yahweh) God walking in the garden”. And instead
of the words, “The Lord God called to Adam” in Ps-Jonathan, the
Jerusalem Targum reads: “The Word of the Lord God called to Adam”.
The Hebrew has, “Yahweh God called to Adam (or ‘the man’)”.

Gen.3.22: The Jerusalem Targum has, “And the Word

[Memra] of the Lord God said, Behold, Adam whom I have
created…” Again it is the Word or Memra that is said to have
created Adam.

Gen.4.26: Where the Biblical text has “the Name of Yahweh”,

the Targum reads, “the name of the Word of the Lord”.

Gen.6.3: Bible: “And Yahweh said”; Jerusalem Targum: “And

the Word [Memra] of the Lord said”.

These first six occurrences of “the Word of the Lord” in the Targums
provide us with a clear perception that this term is used as an indirect
form of referring to Yahweh, yet implying the idea that His interaction
with man are mediated through His Word.
It should now be perfectly clear that the Jews in NT times were very
familiar with idea of “the Word of God”. B.D. Alexander (in
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article ‘Logos’) wrote the
following perceptive observations:
494 The Only True God

“It would be inconceivable that the apostle [John] lighted upon

this word [Logos] by chance or that he selected it without any
previous knowledge of its history and value. It may be assumed
that when he speaks of the “Word” in relation to God and the
world, he employs a mode of speech which was already familiar
to those for whom he wrote and of whose general import he
himself was well aware.

“The truth that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ was borne in
upon John. The problem which confronted him was how he
could make that truth real to his contemporaries. This he
sought to do by using the language of the highest religious
thought of his day.” (ISBE, ‘Logos’)

Why, then, would we suppose that the Logos in John was derived from
Greek philosophy? I now realize how foolish it was to have assumed that
the monotheistic Jew, John, who (on the basis of what we learn about
him in the gospels) grew up in Aramaic-speaking Galilee, would have
derived the Logos idea from Greek philosophy (including Philo’s ver-
sion), which almost certainly neither he nor the people for whom he
wrote would have had any knowledge of. How many people today (even
well educated people) know anything about philosophy, Greek or other-
wise, even if they were educated in the arts rather than the sciences?

Is the term ‘pre-incarnation Jesus’ Scripturally correct?

I
s it Scripturally correct to speak of “Jesus’ preexistence” in the way
that trinitarians do? Can this phrase be justified in view of John 1.14?
For this phrase assumes, of course, that Jesus existed as Jesus or
Christ, and not just as Logos, before the incarnation of the Logos. But
according to John 1.14, Jesus came into being at the incarnation; he did
not exist as Jesus or Christ before that; it was the eternal Logos who
“became flesh” in Christ. It was the Logos that was preexistent.
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 495

The meaning of John 1.14, is the message “veiled”?

In view of the foregoing evidence it should now be clear that the Logos in
John 1 is the Memra so familiar to the Jews; John was certainly not refer-
ring to some philosophical concept foreign to his readers. It is true that
the Memra was “a means of speaking about God without using his name”
(Barrett). By observing the way Memra is used in the Targums we can see
that it referred specifically to His self-revelation as expressed by His
creative Word, and to His immanent Presence in relation to mankind as
expressed by word and deed. If so, then something truly astonishing is
stated in John 1, namely, that Yahweh Himself came into the world,
embodied in the person of Jesus the Messiah. A mind-boggling event is
revealed in John 1. Could it be that it is for this reason that it appears to
us (if not to the Jews of John’s time) that the event is stated in somewhat
veiled language?
Yet the language in Col.1.19 does not appear to be veiled at all, it
states explicitly: “For in him (Christ) all the fullness of God was pleased
to dwell”. In case we did not get the message, it is repeated shortly
afterwards in Col.2.9: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells
bodily.” The very same words and ideas are used here as in John 1.14,
“dwell” or “live,” and John 1.16, “fullness”. By now it should be clear that
when John and Paul speak of “God” in these verses, consistent with
Biblical monotheism, they do not refer to some other deity besides
Yahweh God. That God “dwelt among us” (Jo.1.14) through His
Word/Memra is explained in Colossians in terms of “all the fullness” or
“the whole fullness” of God dwelling in “bodily form” in Christ. Is that
not precisely what Jesus himself was also saying when he said that neither
his words nor his actions were his own, but those of his indwelling
Father, Yahweh (John 14.10)?
But is it correct to suppose that the message of John 1 is veiled? Or is
it veiled only to those who are perishing, as the apostle Paul says
(2Co.4.3)? The fact is that John evidently tried to make the point as clear
as possible by twice quoting the opening words of Genesis, “In the
beginning” (Ἐν ἀρχη, en archē, John 1.1,2):

Genesis 1.1: “In the beginning God created…”

496 The Only True God

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς

‫בּ ְֵראשִׁית בּ ָָרא ֱא הִים‬

John 1.1: “In the beginning was the Logos…”

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
‫בּראשִׁיח ָהי ָה הַדָּ בָר‬
ֵ

What is being equated is evidently “in the beginning God” and “in the
beginning the Logos”; this is even clearer in the Greek: ὁ θεὸς (the God)
and ὁ λόγος (the Logos), both with the definite article.
Now this surely raises the question: Why did John replace “God” with
“Logos,” when by “Logos” he meant God, which he explicitly states: “the
Logos was God” (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). And who is this “God” that is being
referred to? In a world where there were “Gods many, and Lords many”
(1Cor.8.5f), the answer to this question was not as self-evident as it may
be to most of us. The Hebrew word elohim (‫“ )אְ ֶ הִים‬God” could refer
not only to “the one true God” of whom Jesus spoke (John 17.3) but also
to the gods of Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, etc.; it could even refer to angels
(e.g. Ps.8.5, cf. Heb.2.7) and to men (“I said, you are gods”, Ps.82.6;
Jo.10.34). The Greeks and Romans also had their many gods.
It was, therefore, essential to state with absolute clarity who exactly
was the one who came into the world in Christ. If it were simply stated
that it was the one who created heaven and earth, which is implied by the
parallelism with Genesis 1 and stated explicitly in John 1.3, it might still
leave open the possibility that a hypostatic agent who was said to have
been involved in the creation, such as Wisdom (an idea which Barrett
and others looked upon favorably), could be meant as that which became
incarnate in Christ. Wisdom was not usually used as a metonym for
Yahweh, so it would not have served John’s purpose if his message was
that Yahweh had come in Christ to dwell with His people. Even so, if the
Logos is interpreted in terms of OT Wisdom (and that of intertesta-
mental literature), then it must be remembered that Wisdom in the
Scriptures is an attribute of Yahweh and, as such, could serve as a
metonym of Yahweh. This means that interpreting Logos in terms of
Wisdom or Memra would come to exactly the same result.
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 497

But if John 1.1 intended to say that it was Yahweh Himself who came
into the world, how exactly could that be stated other than the way in
which it is stated in that verse? John could not use the Tetragrammaton
(YHWH) because that would be offensive to the Jews and unintelligible
to the Greeks or to Gentiles generally. Could anything else be done other
than to use “the Word,” namely, the unspoken Tetragrammaton? His
readers knew very well that “the Word” was the metonym for the Name
“Yahweh”. Moreover, in the Targums “the Word” usually appears as “the
Word of the Lord (Yahweh),” so “the Word” is an abbreviation of the
longer phrase. Even so, the Word or Memra, like Wisdom in Proverbs,
could be spoken of in a personalized way, as in the examples we saw
earlier, such as: “the Word of the Lord said…” and “the Word of the Lord
created…” But it must always be borne in mind that the “personality” of
the Word or Memra derives from the personality of the Lord (Yahweh)
whose Word it is.
How are we to understand the statement that “the Logos became
flesh” (Jo.1.14)? It certainly does not mean that the Logos ceased to be the
Logos and changed into “flesh” (the “flesh” was a way of referring to
human existence or, specifically, to a human being, e.g. Isa.40.5 “all flesh,
i.e. all human beings, shall see it [the glory of Yahweh] together”). How
then is it to be understood? What it means is surely that the Word
became embodied in a human being. This does not mean Word = human
being, i.e. Jesus, but that the Word is embodied in Jesus. The Word of
God became “incarnate” “in Christ,” in “the man Christ Jesus”
(1Tim.2.5).
“The Word became flesh”; “flesh” translates the Greek word sarx
(σάρξ), for which the definitions in BDAG Greek-English Lexicon
specially relevant to this verse are: “the physical body as functioning
entity, body, physical body” and “one who is or becomes a physical being,
living being with flesh,” specifically, “of humans: person, human being”. So
the meaning of John 1.14 is clear: the Word entered into the world in a
human being, a person with a physical body of flesh, namely, the Messiah
Jesus.
BDAG also states “In Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body
constitute a totality known as σάρξ [sarx] or flesh, which is dominated by
sin”. Jesus also declared that “everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (Jo.8.34;
498 The Only True God

cf. Ro.6.16; 7.14). Since Jesus did not sin, his flesh was not dominated by
sin. But sin could also operate in his flesh and be a cause of temptation.
Sexual desires are a part of life in the flesh; BDAG states: “The σάρξ [sarx,
flesh] is the source of the sexual urge, without any suggestion of sinful-
ness connected with it”.
In so far as Jesus had a true body of flesh like ours, he would have
experienced the same temptations that all human beings experience. And
it is explicitly declared he “has been tempted in every respect as we are,
yet without sin” (Heb.4.15). His having been without sin was something
he accomplished in the face of temptations. If he had not had to face
temptations then he was not truly human; and if he was God he could
not even have been tempted (James 1.13), let alone sin. Trinitarianism
has tacitly sacrificed the humanity of Christ in order to establish his
deity. And by sacrificing the humanity of Christ in reality, though paying
lip service to it, it has therewith effectively sacrificed the salvation which
God accomplished for mankind “through the one man Jesus Christ”
(Rom.5.17).
The “became” in “became flesh” (Jo.1.14) is ginomai (γίνομαι), which
here serves to “indicate entry into a new condition” (BDAG, Greek-
English Lexicon). The Word entered into a new state of being in Christ,
that of human life.

The uniqueness of Yahweh’s indwelling Christ

N
owhere prior to the NT did Yahweh (or His Spirit) indwell any
person. We must grasp this fact clearly if we are to understand
the remarkable significance of what took place in Christ. The
Spirit “rested on” people (Num.11.25, the 70 elders; Isa.11.2, a
messianic prophecy), or “came upon” persons (e.g. Gideon, Judg.6.34;
Samson, Judg.15.14); and in Micah 3:8 the prophet says, “I am filled with
power, with the Spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might,” stating
that this power was given him to fulfill his specific mission “to declare to
Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin.”
That Yahweh actually indwells a person as His dwelling place, His
temple, is not found in the OT. The closest it comes to this is the promise
in Leviticus 26.11,12 in which Yahweh says that if Israel obeys Him, “I
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 499

will put my dwelling place {Or my tabernacle} among you, and I will not
abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my
people” (NIV). That the “dwelling place” referred to in this promise is
not the tabernacle in the wilderness which existed at that time is clear
from Ezekiel 37.27 where the promised “tabernacle” is in the future: “My
dwelling place [same word in Hebrew as in Lev.26.11] shall be with them,
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (NRSV)
These promises are fulfilled in Christ who, as Yahweh’s temple (John
2.19ff), is His dwelling place; and after Pentecost the church as Christ’s
body has also become God’s temple. That is why Paul quotes those verses
mentioned in the previous paragraph as having been fulfilled also in the
church. They are referred to in 2Corinthians 6.16, “we are the temple of
the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and
walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’.”
But this translation (ESV; and others) has missed something important
about this verse: the word translated as “among” is en, which has the
basic meaning “in” (though it can sometimes also mean “among”). Thus
RSV, NRSV, NKJV, etc, have, correctly, “I will live in them”. After all,
since Paul states that we are God’s temple, God does not dwell “among”
His temple, but in it.
But even “I will live in them” is unable to reflect strongly enough what
Paul has written in 2Corinthians 6.16: enoikēsō en autois (ἐνοικήσω ἐν
αὐτοῖς). This quotation is evidently Paul’s own inspired rendering of the
message in Lev.26.11 and Ezekiel 37.27. The spiritual point that he wants
to emphasize here is that something new has happened: God “indwells
in” His people. This is emphasized by using en (ἐν, in) twice, as can be
seen in the three Greek words quoted above, including the “en” in
enoikēsō. The word oikeō (οἰκέω) by itself already means to “live, or
dwell,” but the stronger form enoikeō (ἐνοικέω) is used instead. Enoikeō
is the word used in Ro.8.11 and 2Tim.1.14, where not only this same
word “indwell” is used but also the same emphatic structure “indwell in”.
The message in both these verses is that God by His Spirit now actually
lives within His people. No good translation would render these verses as
“the Holy Spirit who dwells among us”.
Of course, the translation “indwells in us” may not sound like good
conventional English, but then it probably did not sound like good
500 The Only True God

conventional Greek either, but that very fact could serve to draw
attention to the point that was being made. Paul is evidently strongly
concerned to make the point that God indwells in us, as He did in Christ.
Paul was filled with wonder by the fact that Yahweh had done
something in Christ that He had never done before, namely, to indwell a
person—the person of Christ—“and through him to reconcile to himself
all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of
his cross” (Colossians 1.20). In this way, Yahweh in His mercy accom-
plished His eternal plan “to purify for himself a people for his own
possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2.14). All this was so
amazing that the Apostle burst forth into praise and adoration, “Oh, the
depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearch-
able are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways” (Romans 11:33).

God’s Spirit indwells “the body of Christ”

The term “the body of Christ” refers to both Christ’s physical body
(Ro.7.4) as also to the church (1Cor.12.27; Eph.4.12), in particular to the
physical body of its members (1Cor.6.19,20). Does this mean that there is
some vital similarity in the way that God indwelt Christ bodily (Col.2.9)
and how He indwells the body of believers so that it constitutes His
temple (1Cor.3.16; 6.19)? We remember that Jesus also spoke of his own
body as God’s temple (John 2.19-21).

Further observations on the significance of “dwelt” in

John 1.14
“The Word (Logos, Memra) became flesh and dwelt (skēnoō) among us”
(Jo.1.14). The word “dwelt” does not bring out the idea of the “tent” or
“tabernacle” inherent in the Greek word. The reference to the “taberna-
cle” (skēnē) is definitely intentional. If not, the ordinary or general word
for “dwell” or “live” (oikeō) could have been used instead of skēnoō,
which is the verb form of skēnē, a tent or tabernacle. The significant point
about the reference to the “tent” or “tabernacle” is that this was the place
where Yahweh “dwelt”. It is this vitally important point which is lost in
the translation, but which is unfortunately practically impossible to bring
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 501

out in any translation. Yet the use of this word would not have been lost
on a Jewish reader or one familiar with the OT.
The word “tabernacle” is familiar to us from the OT where it referred
to the tent in which God’s presence dwelt. For convenience we can refer
to International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

“The account (of the tabernacle) is given in Ex 25 through 27;

30 through 31; 35 through 40, with additional details in Nu 3:25
ff; 4:4 ff; 7:1 ff. The central idea of the structure is given in the
words, ‘Make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them’
(Ex 25:8) [“make a Sanctuary to My Name, that My Shekinah
may dwell among them”. Targ. Ps-Jon.]. It was the dwelling-
place of the holy Yahweh in the midst of His people; also the
place of His meeting with them (Ex 25:22).” (Italics added)

The last sentence finds a fuller explanation in the following passage:

Exodus 33: “7 Now Moses used to take the tent (skēnē, σκηνή)
and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp, and he
called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the
LORD (Yahweh) would go out to the tent of meeting, which
was outside the camp [cf. Heb.13].
8
Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would
rise up, and each would stand at his tent door, and watch
Moses until he had gone into the tent.
9
When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would
descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the LORD
(Yahweh) would speak with Moses.
10
And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at
the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise up and wor-
ship, each at his tent door.
11
Thus the LORD (Yahweh) used to speak to Moses face to
face, as a man speaks to his friend.”

Numbers 35.34: “You shall not defile the land in which you
live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the LORD (Yahweh)
dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”
502 The Only True God

Another instance of Yahweh “dwelling” among His people is seen in

Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the newly built temple, “But I have
built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever” (2
Chronicles 6.2; cf. Acts 7.44-47). The temple was modeled on the taber-
nacle or tent.
From all this, the message of John 1.14 should be perfectly clear: The
Word (Memra, metonym for Yahweh) came in a human body in the
person of Christ and “tabernacled” or “tented” among us. It is significant
that in 2Corinthians the Apostle twice speaks of the human body as a
“tent”: “For we know that if the tent (skēnos), which is our earthly home,
is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens.” (5.1; also v.4). This “tent” is also the temple of
God (1Cor.3.16; 6.19). The powerful and astonishing message of John
1.14 is that it was into such a “tent” as this that Yahweh came to
“tabernacle among us”.

Conclusion
In view of all that we have discussed, the truth as stated in terms of the
monotheism of the Bible can be declared powerfully, simply, and yet
profoundly in this way: Yahweh in all His “fullness” (plērōma, Jo.1.16;
Col.1.19; 2.9), which in Scripture was expressed through His Word from
creation to revelation, chose in His divine mercy and wisdom to come
into the world by indwelling the man Christ Jesus, and in him to “be with
us” (Immanuel) and in this way to accomplish our eternal salvation.
This stands in sharp and clear contrast to trinitarian dogma which
declares that a hitherto unheard of person called “God the Son” (and one
who had no prior connection to the Word or Wisdom) was incarnate in
Jesus, who thereby became “God-man,” “true God, true man”. The
relationship of “God” and man in Jesus is described as a “hypostatic
union,” a union of a personal kind, and is “explained” by the impressive
Latin term “communicatio idiomatum,” meaning that his “human and
divine attributes and experiences, etc. might properly be interchanged”
(Kelly, Doctrines, p.143, etc). Actually, this kind of “explanation” pro-
duces more questions than answers for the thinking person. But it is
often useful for stifling further questions and for talking vaguely about
 Chapter 8 — “The Word” is the Memra 503

“mysteries”. The truth is that the real “mystery” is: who is “God the Son,”
seeing that he is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures? It is now evident
that he was brought into existence by the misinterpretation of “the
Word” in John 1.1, which we shall examine in even greater depth and
detail in the next chapter.
Suffice it to say here that the difference between the Biblical teaching
and trinitarianism is as clear as day and night.
 Chapter 9

A Closer Look at
John 1.1

The vital need for “the renewing of the mind”

H
aving considered in some detail the roots of “the Word” in the
Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles, we are now in a better position to
consider “the Word” in John 1. In this chapter we shall study
John 1.1 in three sections corresponding to the three phrases in this
verse: (I) “In the beginning was the Word,” (II) “and the Word was with
God,” (III) “and the Word was God”. In each section the standard
trinitarian interpretations will be given as presented by some of their best
scholars in the past. These interpretations will be examined and consi-
dered in the light of the OT Word and the Memra of the Aramaic Bible.
But what it is necessary to understand, first and foremost, is that this is
not merely a question of interpretation; if we think merely along this
level we will have missed the spiritual roots of the whole matter. It is a
matter which has to do with the fundamental difference between two
totally different ways of thinking represented by trinitarian polytheism
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 505

(three persons who are all equally God) on the one hand, and Biblical
monotheism on the other. (The term “Biblical monotheism” is used to
stress the fact that we are not concerned about whether there are, or have
been, other religions who profess faith in only one God.)
It is most essential for us to bear in mind that the fundamental dif-
ference of the way of thinking, the mindset, between polytheism and
monotheism makes them totally incompatible and irreconcilable.
Regardless of trinitarian attempts to formulate a distorted “monotheism”
to suit their dogma—and they do this because even the most determined
or “dyed in the wool” trinitarian is uncomfortably aware of the fact that
the Bible is undeniably monotheistic—Biblical monotheism and trinita-
rianism have absolutely nothing in common. This means that unless our
minds are renewed (Ro.12.2) we shall not find it easy to make the
transition from trinitarian polytheism to Biblical monotheism, because
this is not a simple matter of learning to change our way of thinking at
the rational or intellectual level, but a change of outlook at the spiritual
level, for it ultimately concerns our relationship with Yahweh God.
These two fundamentally different ways of thinking and of under-
standing the word of God can be conveniently illustrated by taking John
20.28 as a well-known example. Only someone with a polytheistic men-
tality can suppose that Thomas’ words “My Lord and my God” could be
addressed to the man Christ (Messiah) Jesus. To a Jewish monotheist, as
Thomas certainly was, this is utterly unthinkable. The only possible way
in which Thomas could have uttered those words as directed to Jesus is if
he recognized that it was none other than Yahweh who was personally
embodied within the flesh or body of the man Jesus standing before him.
In view of John 1.14, this is quite certainly the case. The decision, on the
spiritual level, that each person individually must eventually make in
regard to John 1.1,14 is: From which perspective, trinitarian polytheism
or Biblical monotheism, am I going to understand these verses? Each
person will then have to live with the consequences of that decision
before “the Lord and His Christ” (Rev.11.15), or “God and His Christ”
(Rev.12.10; cf. Acts 3.18).
506 The Only True God

(I) In the beginning was the Word (Logos)

W
e have already considered the Memra/Logos/Word in some
detail. We now need to apply it to John 1.1, while also exam-
ining the trinitarian interpretations as we proceed. But
before we do this, there is an important aspect of Memra which we have
not yet touched upon. The Memra is a metonym for Yahweh, as we have
seen, but the metonym is not a simple substitute for “Yahweh,” such that
we could simply read “Yahweh” in place of Memra/Logos. Each
metonym (such as Wisdom or Shekinah) denotes a specific characteristic
of Yahweh special to that metonym. Failing to see this will result in
missing an essential element in the intended message.
What is the special characteristic of Memra? Even a fairly cursory look
at the way Word or Memra is used in the Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles
shows that it represents the dynamic activity of Yahweh as expressive of
His creative wisdom and power. Both wisdom and power are realities
within Yahweh, but they remain “latent” in Him until they come into
action in Yahweh’s “works,” whether in the form of creation or revela-
tion, or in whatever activity He undertakes. Wisdom is that attribute in
Yahweh which can be described in terms of his eternal plans or counsels,
His understanding of all things, His insight into the hearts and thoughts
of man; it is that quality which governs and characterizes His
“omniscience”. The Word or Memra is, by comparison, not an attribute
of Yahweh but is the dynamic and powerful expression of Yahweh’s
Wisdom when He chooses to express it in action. Power is another
“latent” attribute of Yahweh which, in theological terms, is described as
His “omnipotence”. This, too, comes into action through the Memra.
The Memra can, therefore, be metaphorically described as the expressive
“agent” of Yahweh’s wisdom and power.
Life and love can also be considered as essential attributes of Yahweh
since these are inalienable and fundamental aspects of His Person and
character. These, too, find vigorous and vital expression through His
Memra/Word. So it is evident that Memra is the concrete way of des-
cribing Yahweh in action, His self-expressive action. Hebrews 4.12 sums
this up neatly by means of the vivid metaphorical description, “The word
of God is living and active”; mentioning also that its work is penetrating
in its depth and thoroughness, “it penetrates even to dividing soul and
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 507

spirit, joints and marrow”. God’s work is never shallow or superficial; we

have already noted, for example, how He pays attention even to exquisite
details in His creative work of forming man.
Equipped with a clearer understanding of Memra, we are better able
to understand the words, “In the beginning was the Word/ Memra,” for
in Genesis 1 we see Yahweh’s dynamic creative Word in action bringing
the universe and man into being. What also emerges from the fact that
“in the beginning” is twice quoted in John 1 (vv.1,2) is that it is clearly
intended to make a statement to the effect that through the Word/Memra
Yahweh is bringing a new creation into being, which means a whole new
way of life for mankind in Christ.
But the trinitarian church, having lost its connection to its Jewish
roots and their Hebrew and Aramaic concepts, was trying to find an
explanation for the Johannine Logos in the world of Greek ideas in which
polytheism was endemic and practically inescapable.

The Logos derived from Greek philosophy?

F
or the benefit of those who have been immersed in trinitarian
teaching, we shall examine this and other questions more closely
than we have done previously.
As for Greek philosophy, while the idea of logos was known, it is
important to understand that logos was not thought of as an hypostasis or
person. This fact is stated concisely by Prof. Witherington III,

“It is interesting that in the Greek-speaking world there was

among the Stoics some speculation about a logos as well, but
they understood it to refer to a sort of divine rational principle
or moral structure to all of the universe, not to a personal being.
One can argue that the evangelist has chosen terminology fam-
iliar to both Jews and Greeks, but he does not use it in a Stoic
way.” (Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Sage, p.285, footnote
136, italics mine.)

Accordingly, Witherington states, “It is quite unnecessary to posit a Stoic

background for the material in John 1” (p.285). This means that there
exists no direct link to Greek thought where the idea of the logos is
508 The Only True God

concerned. The article on ‘Logos’ in International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia (ISBE) confirms Witherington’s observations.

Was the Logos idea borrowed or adapted from Philo?

Concerning Philo’s ideas about the Logos, ISBE (art. ‘Logos’) concludes:
“After all has been said, his [Philo’s] Logos really resolves itself into a
group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct person, but as
the thought of God which is expressed in the rational order of the visible
universe.” (Italics added)
In any case, there is little, if any, basis for assuming that John knew
Greek philosophy, or that he was acquainted with the writings of the
Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria in Egypt, who used Greek philoso-
phical ideas to interpret the Logos. We simply have no reason to assume
that John was a scholar who might have been acquainted with prevailing
philosophies. As ISBE (art. ‘Logos’) puts it, “It is hardly probable that
John was directly acquainted with the writings of Philo.” The article goes
on, moreover, to state: “Far from the apostle being a disciple of the
Alexandrian [Philo] or a borrower of his ideas, it would be more correct
to say that there is clearly a conscious rejection of the Philonic concept-
ion, and that the logos (λογος) of John is a deliberate protest against what
he must have regarded as the inadequate and misleading philosophy of
Greece.” The article then goes on to delineate the fundamental differ-
ences between the Johannine Logos and Philo’s notions of it.
But because there are simply no references to “the Word” as an actual
person in the OT, trinitarians are obliged to look elsewhere for the idea
of a Word or Logos that is both a person distinct from God and yet also
co-equal with Him. Such an idea could not be found within monotheistic
Judaism, not even in the Hellenistic-Jewish religious philosophy of the
Alexandrian Jew Philo who, though he used the Greek idea of the Logos
to introduce Jewish ideas to the Greek speaking world, was not prepared
to surrender his monotheism—much to the disappointment of trinitar-
ians. Yet, astonishingly, some are still prepared to assert that John did
what his fellow-Jew Philo refused to do! These trinitarian scholars have
decided that John had ceased to be a monotheist and had become a
trinitarian, even though John acknowledges that his own Lord and
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 509

Master Jesus Christ was a monotheist who spoke of the Father as “the
only true God” (John 17.3).
The trinitarian interpretation of Logos in John 1.1 is left without
support because of the fact that the Logos was not conceived of as being a
person either in Greek philosophy or in Philo. Moreover, even assuming
that the Logos was essentially a Greek philosophical idea, it would be
extremely strange that John would have resorted to a philosophical term
to describe Jesus. Moreover, how many of his readers would have been
conversant with Greek philosophy and/or with Philo? How many people
today, including educated people, know anything about philosophy? But
what is decisive is the fact that the Logos in Greek philosophy was never
conceived of as a person, so it is useless for trinitarianism.
The point is simply this: Even assuming that John had somehow
become acquainted with Philo’s religious philosophy, and even if Philo’s
Logos was a personal being, would that provide any basis for supposing
that John derived his Logos from Philo? Surely not. Then how do the
discussions in trinitarian writings about Philo have any substantial rele-
vance for our understanding of the Johannine Logos? Such discussions
are often a measure of the desperation of trinitarians to clutch at any
straw that might lend some credibility to their interpretation, even if it is
no more than to suggest that perhaps John’s Logos was an adaptation of
Philo’s. This is hardly a solid basis for constructing a dogma which the
church has decreed to be foundational for the Christian faith!

Was John’s Logos of Gnostic origin?

Such a question might make early church historians frown because they
know that Gnosticism was regarded as a mortal threat by the early
church. We consider the question for the sake of the completeness of our
inquiry into the origins of the Johannine Logos, and to show that even in
early Gnosticism the Logos was not regarded as a personal divine being.
Some scholars have raised the question whether John may have
derived the idea of Logos from what B.D. Alexander called “incipient
Gnosticism” (ISBE art. ‘Logos’). Early Gnosticism is thought to have been
current already at the time of the writing of John’s gospel (cf. the anti-
docetic pronouncements in 1Jo.4.2; 2Jo.1.7). Docetism maintained that
510 The Only True God

the body of Jesus was not really flesh and blood, but only appeared to be
so (Gk: doketai, to seem or appear to be). That was why Jesus, according
to them, could not actually have been crucified—it only appeared as
though he was (this idea is still used today in Islamic teaching about
Jesus’ crucifixion). Alexander did not think that John’s use of the Logos
was influenced by early Gnosticism, and most scholars would agree with
him.
In any case, this suggestion would be of no use to trinitarianism
because also in Gnosticism the Logos was not a personal being. Kurt
Rudolf wrote:

“The manner in which the redeeming function of the Logos is

seen to operate without assuming any personal figure is shown
by the Hermetic texts already mentioned (where however the
‘understanding’ [Gk: nous] has the same function), but also
very impressively by the Nag Hammadi document ‘The
Original Teaching’ [Gnostic texts].” In these, the non-personal
Logos functions “like a medicament” for “the truly sick” soul.
(K. Rudolf, Gnosis, p.144; italics mine)

Gnosticism was a mixture or synthesis of Eastern (mainly Iranian) and

Western (Greek) philosophical and religious ideas. Salvation was by
means of a special “knowledge” (Greek: gnosis) which Gnosticism
claimed to impart.
This system of teaching became popular and influential during the
2nd and 3rd centuries AD in the form of “Christian Gnosticism” as
taught by able teachers such as Basilides, Valentinus, Theodotus, and
Bardesanes. At one time it became so widespread that some church
leaders, notably Irenaeus, saw it as a serious threat. Though “Christian
Gnosticism” did not teach that Christ was equal to God, it did teach that
he was a preexistent being (Rudolf, Gnosis, p.154, etc). Though the
leaders of the Nicene church rejected the Christian Gnostics on some
main issues (e.g. Docetism, mentioned above), they did at least agree
with them on this last point. But it is quite certain that no trinitarian
scholar would care to acknowledge that the trinitarian interpretation of
the Logos owes anything to Gnosticism.
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 511

Is Jesus “The Word of God” in the New Testament?

C
hristians frequently speak of Jesus as “the Word of God,” having
all along been taught that Jesus is the Logos, the Word. It came to
me as something of a shock to discover that the title “the Word
of God” is not applied to Jesus in any of the gospels (not even in John 1)
nor in any of the epistles, because as a trinitarian I had always assumed it
to be a title of his. The only place where it appears as a name or title in
the NT is in Rev.19.13, where it refers to the rider on a white horse (cf.
Rev.6.2), who trinitarians want to assume to be Jesus, even though he is
not mentioned in the immediate context; but if the earlier riders were
symbols of famine, plagues, and death, it is most likely that here too “the
Word of God” refers to the message of the gospel, which is what the term
usually means in the NT.46
The term “the word of God” occurs 43 times in the Bible, 39 of which
are in the NT, none of which is applied to Christ as a title. Even in
Revelation where the term occurs 5 times, 4 of these definitely have the
meaning “the message of the gospel” as in the rest of the NT. There is,
therefore, no NT basis for assuming that Rev.19.13 is a lone exception
and refers to Christ. The only way we could make it refer to Christ in this
verse would be to interpret the term “Word of God” as the message of the
gospel embodied in Christ. But that would admittedly be interpretation,
not exegesis. This interpretation is questioned by Dr. R.H. Charles in his
authoritative two-volume commentary on Revelation in the International
Critical Commentary series.
What all this means is that trinitarianism has no viable explanation
for the Logos/Word in John 1.1; a meaningful exegesis consistent with
the context is conspicuous by its absence. The use of Ps.33.6 is exegetical-
ly acceptable, but it does not provide any support whatsoever for inter-
preting the Word as “God the Son”. We shall now study the meaning of
the Word within the NT itself.

46
On Rev.19.13 see the fuller discussion in Appendix 6.
512 The Only True God

The parallel wording in 1John 1.1f

I
n the commentaries, I have not noticed in their discussion of the
meaning of the Logos in John 1.1 that proper account is taken of
1John 1.1,2 which, on closer inspection, provides both a parallel to,
and a commentary on, John 1.1. Let us look at it more carefully:

1John 1:1 “That which was from the beginning, which we have
heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked
upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word
(logos) of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen
it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which
was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

The parallel with John 1.1 is obvious from the reference to “the
beginning,” while the Logos, significantly, is explained as being the “logos
of life”. Thus the Logos is linked to or identified with life (“living and
active” Heb.4.12), for in the next verse it is simply called “the life,” which
is then further described as “the eternal life,” i.e. God’s life.
Moreover, when we compare 1John 1.1,2 where the word of life “was
with the Father” with John 1.1 “the Word was with God” (“was with,” ἦν
πρὸς, are exactly the same words in both verses), it emerges clearly that
the “God” being referred to is “the Father”. How then can it be assumed
that though “God” in John 1.1 refers to the Father in the statement “and
the Word was with God (the Father)” yet in the very next statement, “the
Word was God,” “God” is no longer the Father but “God the Son”—a
concept which simply does not exist in Scripture? To acknowledge that
“God” means the Father, as 1John 1.2 makes perfectly clear, and then to
insist that the very next reference to “God” in the same verse no longer
refers to the Father, is undoubtedly to do violence to Scripture. Yet this
is, sadly, the unscrupulous way in which trinitarianism treats Scripture.
The same phrase “the word of life” (ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς), exactly as in
1John 1.1, appears also in Philippians 2.16 where there is no suggestion
whatever that the reference is to a person. As is the case with “the logos of
God” in the NT generally, it means “the message of life”; and here again
we see that “God” and “life” are in parallel in these two phrases: “the
word of God”= “the word of life”.
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 513

But if it is indeed the case that the correct understanding of John 1.1 is
that the Logos has to do with the Father (Yahweh), then what else can
John 1.14 mean other than that it was Yahweh Himself in the form of the
Word (Logos) who came into the world in Christ? Thus the astonishing
(yet possible, in view of Yahweh’s appearances in the OT, esp. Genesis)
conclusion emerges that it was the Father who came into the world in the
man Christ Jesus to accomplish the salvation of mankind. The error of
trinitarianism is that it replaced the Father with an unknown (in
Scripture) “God the Son”. By this means they sidelined Yahweh from the
center of mankind’s salvation, relegating Him to a relatively peripheral
role, while Christ as “God the Son” (who they claim is His equal in every
respect) takes center stage. If this is not heresy where Scripture is
concerned, then what is?
It now becomes clearer why trinitarian commentators would have a
problem with 1John 1.1 in regard to the question of the identity of the
Logos; for if we rephrase John 1.1 to read “In the beginning was the Life
(or eternal life),” it is hardly conceivable that Life could be thought of as
something or someone distinct from God as an independent person. Life,
after all, is something integral to the very Being of God—just as Word is
the expression of His innermost being and character. “Life” is constantly
connected with God in the Scriptures. “Life of God” is a term used in
Ephesians 4.18. Psalm 36:9 sums up beautifully the Biblical teaching that
God is life and the source of all life, “For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light do we see light.”
We have seen that in 1John1.1 the Logos is “the logos of life” which, in
the next verse, is simply spoken of as “the life” and then explained more
fully as “the eternal life”. It thus becomes clear that the Logos is the
expression and the conveyor of eternal life. But what now also becomes
evident is that, because this “life” in the NT is closely associated with
many other important spiritual realities such as light, truth, grace (both
within John 1 and also in the rest of the NT), the phrase “the word of life”
can just as correctly be read as “the word of truth” (Ps.119.43; Col.1.5,
“the word of the truth, the gospel”: “the word of truth” = the message of
the gospel; Eph.1.13, “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation”=
the word, or message, of salvation), “the word of grace” (Acts 14.3; 20.32
“the word of His grace”).
514 The Only True God

From this we can see that life, truth, gospel, salvation, and grace all
come to expression through the Word/Logos; this is important for our
understanding of the Logos in John 1.1. For it is precisely God’s saving
grace that is manifested to mankind in Christ: “his (God’s) own purpose
and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and
which (“His purpose/grace”) now has been manifested through the
appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus” (2Tim.1.9,10).47
2Timothy 1.10 says that God’s purpose/grace has now been
“manifested”. This is exactly the same word which appears twice in 1John
1.2 where it is stated that life has been “manifested,” and this eternal life
“was with the Father”—notice again the exact correspondence in the
Greek of the “was with (pros)” here to the same words in John 1.1. Thus,
the manifesting of eternal life in 1John 1.2 corresponds precisely with the
manifesting of God’s purpose/grace in 2Timothy 1.9,10.
Within the Prologue of John 1 the association of life with light is seen
in v.4, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” In v.14 “the
Logos became flesh” in Christ, that is, life and light were made tangible
and visible (1Jo.1.1) in the person of Christ, in whom Yahweh’s glory is
revealed (“made manifest”, 1Jo.1.2) and seen as being “full of grace and
truth” (Jo.1.14). Grace and truth are characteristics of the Logos. But it
must be carefully noticed that Christ is not himself “grace and truth,” but
that “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (v.17) in the same way
as “the Law was given through Moses” in the same verse. Moses was not
the Law, but it came through him. However, Moses was not the embodi-
ment of the Law, but the one who delivered it to Israel; in contrast to this,
the Memra/Logos was embodied in Christ.

47
God’s “purpose and grace” are both feminine in Greek; the word “which”
occurs twice in this verse and translates words in the Greek which are in the
feminine singular, thus corresponding to the feminine of “purpose and grace”;
the singular points either to purpose or to grace, or to both understood as one
single concept.
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 515

(II) “The Word was with God”

The Trinitarian interpretation of the “with” (pros) in John

1.1

W
hat evidence is there that the Logos can be considered a div-
ine person distinct from God? Well, the trinitarian argument
hangs on the one little word pros (“with”) or rather how it is
translated and interpreted by them. It is absolutely essential for trinita-
rian dogma that pros must be translated as “with” in the specific sense of
“to be with”. For trinitarianism insists that “with God” must mean that
the Word is thereby shown to be a person distinct from Him so as to be
“with” Him. But does “with Him” necessarily mean that another distinct
person is implied? Then what about Wisdom being with (para) God in
Proverbs 8.30, where para is equivalent to pros when speaking in person-
alized terms? That pros with accusative (as in Jo.1.1) is equivalent to para
is not something uncommon in the NT, as the following reference
confirms:

“pros with accusative: taking the place of παρά [para] after εἰμι
[eimi] etc.: e.g. Mt 13.56 πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰσιν [pros humas eisin],
26.18, 55 vl, Mk.6.3; Jn 1.1, etc.” (A Grammar of New
Testament Greek, J.H. Moulton, Vol. III, N. Turner, p.274;
underlining added).

This means that we cannot make more of the “with (pros) God” in John
1.1 than Wisdom being “with (para) God” in Proverbs 8.30. What
coherent response can (and should) trinitarianism make to this solid
exegetical fact other than to acknowledge its error? Their whole dogma
hangs essentially on a pros! Though there is far more evidence of trinit-
arianism’s error than the erroneous interpretation of pros, in this section
we shall concentrate chiefly on this word so crucial to their dogma.
If the personal, individualized interpretation of pros cannot be sus-
tained, then neither can the trinitarian argument based on John 1.1 be
kept intact. But if someone is determined to disregard all the facts, what
can be done but to leave him to his errors? I certainly would not want to
build my faith on sinking sand. The tragedy was, however, that we did
not realize that we were building on interpretative sand; the ground
516 The Only True God

appeared to us to be solid enough at the time, and there were no lack of

“expositions” reinforcing this serious misconception.
A fairly typical example of a trinitarian “exposition” of “with” (pros)
can be found in Expositor’s Commentary. On pros in Jo.1.1 it says, “The
preposition ‘with’ in the phrase ‘the Word was with God’ indicates both
equality and distinction of identity along with association. The phrase
can be rendered ‘face to face with.’” Here it is baldly stated that pros
“indicates… equality” without a shred of evidence given to support such
a weighty statement. Trinitarianism is simply read into the text without
any regard for factual accuracy. Disregard for truth results in falsehood
being spread from generation to generation and from place to place.
Trinitarian dogma overrides concern for what the text is actually say-
ing. Even a glance at any of the major Greek-English lexicons will show
that none of them suggests that pros “indicates equality,” nor even the
idea of “face to face”. Moreover, “face to face” does not indicate equality
either. Can a servant not stand before his master face to face, or a soldier
before his commanding officer? Can it be that adherence to trinitarian-
ism can result in the loss of both common sense and basic logic?
Furthermore, the phrase pros ton theon (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) is not unique
to Jo.1.1 in the NT. Had this commentator in Expositor’s Commentary
made the necessary effort to check the use of this phrase, he would have
found that it occurs no less than 20 times in the NT (John 1:1,2; 13:3;
Acts 4:24; 12:5; 24:16; Rom.5:1; 10:1; 15:17,30; 2Cor.3:4; 13:7; Phil.4:6;
1Thess.1:8f; Heb.2:17; 5:1; 1John 3:21; Rev.12:5; 13:6) and not one
instance of these “indicates equality” or the idea of being “face to face”.
Most of these references speak of praying to (pros) God, while Ro.5.1
speaks of “peace with (pros) God”. What can be said regarding all these
references is that they speak of an act or action (prayer) or a new state of
life (peace) relating to God.

Pros—Are dictionaries always objective?

L
et us take the following example. BDAG takes pros (πρὸς) in John
1.1 as meaning to “be (in company) with” someone. But it must be
borne in mind that “with” is not the only possible translation of
pros. It is not even its primary meaning, as a look into any Greek
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 517

dictionary (including BDAG) or grammar will show. If we refer to

BDAG, it is interesting to note that the definition of pros is given under
three sections, the last being the longest one; and only in a subsection at
the end of this long section, in the last of many subsections, is the
definition “be with” given—and specifically applied to John 1.1. This
shows that “with” is definitely not the primary meaning of pros. So the
inquiring mind cannot help but ask: Why should only the definition
“with” apply to pros in John 1.1—to the exclusion of all other possible
meanings of the word? It seems hard to escape the conclusion that the
choice of this particular definition is likely to be doctrinally motivated. It
must be kept in mind that the editors of most, and perhaps all, diction-
aries and lexicons of the NT are (like myself) from trinitarian back-
grounds.
Pros in John 1.1 can, in fact, be understood in one of its other mean-
ings (as we shall see, for the sake of the completeness of our study of this
verse), but there is exegetically no problem accepting the definition of
pros as “be with,” because the monotheistic exposition of John 1.1 (in
contrast to trinitarianism) is not absolutely bound to one particular
definition of pros.
But accepting the meaning “be with” actually proves nothing for trini-
tarianism. Wisdom in Proverbs is the most important example of this. It
is well known that a close parallel to Jo.1.1 is found in Prov.8.30, “I was
beside (LXX, para) him, like a master workman, and I was daily his
delight, rejoicing before him always.” Para is closer to the idea of “be
with” than is pros. We saw that the definition of pros as “be with” is
found only in the last subsection of a series of sections in BDAG; in
contrast to this a major definition of para in BDAG is given as: “marker
of nearness in space, at/by (the side of), beside, near, with, according to
the standpoint from which the relationship is viewed.”
Wisdom in Proverbs is described in terms of a personal being, though
the language is meant metaphorically. C.K. Barrett recognized the
importance which Prov.8.30 has for the understanding of John 1.1. He
sees that Wisdom and Torah are identified in rabbinic teaching, and
thought that “such notions are the root of John’s statement” (The Gospel
According to John, p.129f).
518 The Only True God

Since Meyer affirms the “strict monotheism of the N.T.” (Critical and
Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of John, p.68) what does he mean by
the Logos “as a divine being”? He maintains that by the Logos (ὁ λόγος)
is meant “the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time imman-
ent in God, but for the act of creation proceeding hypostatically from
Him—which divine self-revelation appeared bodily in the man Jesus, and
accomplished the work of the redemption of the world” (Critical and
Exegetical Commentary of the NT, John, p.66f; italics his). How can “the
self-revelation of the divine essence” be “a divine being” distinct from
Yahweh? It is often difficult to make much sense of trinitarian speech.
By translating kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν
θεόν) as “and the Word was with God,” only one of the relevant mean-
ings of pros has been selected, obviously because this accords best with
trinitarianism which, of course, is the doctrinal position of the trans-
lators. But John was certainly no trinitarian, so how can we be sure that
this correctly represents what he intended to say? What would the words
mean if we took that aspect of pros which BDAG describes as “with
reference/regard to”? It would read, “And the Word had reference to God
(i.e. Yahweh)”; this would mean “‘the Word’ referred to ‘God’
(Yahweh),” thus providing an explanation of who “the Word” is, who is
here being referred to, namely, “Yahweh”.
Meyer recognized this meaning as a valid possibility but, as might be
expected from a trinitarian, rejected it because he rightly perceived that
this would mean that the Logos/Word is “a periphrasis for God” as he
put it. Commenting on the phrase “And the Word was God” (kai theos
ēn ho logos) Meyer writes,

“This θεός [theos] can only be the predicate, not the subject,
which would contradict the preceding ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν [ēn
pros ton theon, was with God], because the conception of the
λόγος [logos/word] would be only a periphrasis for God” (the
quotation is given exactly as it stands in Meyer; the words in
square brackets and italics in the last phrase are mine).
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 519

If theos is a predicate in relation to the Logos in this phrase,48 Meyer sees

that the Word would be a periphrasis for God. For example, if instead of
“the Word was God” it reads, “the Good was God,” then “the Good” is
(indirectly) another name for God. He sees this as contradicting the
previous phrase which he assumes means “the Word was with God” in
the trinitarian sense. But it would contradict that phrase only if it is first
given a trinitarian interpretation. Understood in the light of monotheism
there would be no contradiction at all.
Thus, if pros in the phrase “the Word was pros God (Yahweh)” is
taken as meaning “with reference or regard to” (i.e. “the Word referred to
God”) then it functions in an explanatory way, with the result that “the
Word” (the Memra) is indeed “a periphrasis for God” (as Meyer rightly
observed), and the next phrase “the Word was God” would serve to con-
firm and emphasize this to be the case. Even so, let it again be affirmed
that the monotheistic understanding of John 1.1 is not dependent on this
particular definition of pros. Defining pros as “with” gives monotheism
no problems at all because this would be to understand the Word in the
same hypostatized way as Wisdom in Proverbs, particularly Proverbs
8.30. Unlike trinitarianism, monotheism is not at the mercy of one
particular definition of this preposition.
As for Meyer’s argument, he thought he had resolved the supposed
“contradiction” by interpreting the two phrases as, “He was with God,
and possessed of a divine nature” (italics his), which is the standard
trinitarian interpretation. But notice carefully that “God” in John’s text is
thereby reduced to meaning “a divine nature,” a nature or “substance” in
which three persons are said to participate according to trinitarianism. So
the price paid for interpreting “with” in such a way as to extract an
argument for a distinct divine person who is thus said to be “with God”
as “God the Son” is the depersonalizing of the very concept of God itself,
which is now spoken of in terms of a “nature”.

48
Barrett also wrote, “θεὸς [theos], being without the article, is predicative
and describes the nature of the Word”.
520 The Only True God

Another trinitarian argument based on pros

A
nother typical trinitarian explanation of “the Word was with
God” is that given in The Expositor’s Greek Testament by Marcus
Dods: “πρὸς [pros] implies not merely existence alongside of but
personal intercourse. It means more than μετά [meta] or παρά [para],
and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with
another. Thus in classical Greek, τὴν πρὸς Σωκράτην συνουσίαν [tēn pros
Sōkratēn sunousian], and in the N.T. Mk.6.3, Mt.13.56, Mk.9.19, Gal.1.18,
2 John 12. This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate
personality.”
This is, sadly, the kind of “exposition” (Note the title: “Expositor’s
Greek Testament”) on which trinitarianism is built: the whole argument
here is again built on the word pros. Let us examine the evidence
presented. Dods quotes a phrase from classical Greek, but he evidently
fails to see that it is actually the word συνουσία [sunousia], not πρὸς
[pros], which accounts for “expressing the presence of one person with
another” in this phrase. This is clear from a look at Liddell and Scott,
Greek-English Lexicon: “συνουσία [sunousia], ἡ, (συνών, συνοῦσα, part.
of σύνειμι) a being with, social intercourse, society, conversation, commun-
ion”. The abridged Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon has, “being
with or together; a living together, social intercourse” etc. Interestingly,
Liddell and Scott (unabridged ed.) also quote an example from Sophocles
about Socrates (which appears to be the same one quoted by Dods)
which they translate as “their intercourse with him”. What all this means
is that Dods claimed for pros the meaning which is actually already in
sunousia! Another sadly erroneous argument.
Dods claimed that pros “means more than μετά [meta] or παρα
[para]” yet does not provide a single piece of evidence to support this
exaggerated claim. Then he goes on to make the further claim that pros
“is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with
another,” apparently suggesting that the idea of “persons” is implied in
pros. Regularly? Yet he manages to give only five examples from the NT,
of which two are Synoptic parallels: Mk.6.3 par. Mt.13.56:

Mark 6.3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and bro-
ther of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 521

sisters here with (pros) us?" And they took offense at him.”
(ESV)

A look at this verse should immediately make it clear that the reference to
persons is in the text, not in the preposition pros. Jesus’ sisters were
present in the town of Nazareth where this event took place, and in this
sense they were present among the people who were speaking in this
verse. But nothing whatever can be demonstrated from this verse regard-
ing the alleged “personal intercourse” said to be implied in the preposi-
tion pros. So it would be fallacious to assume from this verse that the
speaker(s) had any personal acquaintance with Jesus’ sisters. All that can
be reasonably deduced is that they knew that the sisters lived in their
neighborhood.
The situation is the same in all the remaining three NT examples
given by Dods: The persons are, in each case, in the text itself, not in the
preposition. The last example, 2 John 12, demonstrates this point graph-
ically: “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper
and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to (pros) face, so that
our joy may be complete.” (ESV) “Face to face” is not implied in pros, but
are the actual words of this particular verse. As in all the previous examp-
les, the context itself has to do with persons, here made the more specific
by “face to (pros) face” (not face with face), which in the Greek is literally
“mouth to mouth”.
Quite apart from these examples, the fact, put in more general terms,
is that prepositions cannot in and of themselves imply personal relations,
because they can just as readily be used of impersonal matters.
Trinitarians would have benefited from taking note of the basic defin-
ition of a preposition: “Words that combine with a noun or pronoun to
form a phrase are termed prepositions” (Microsoft Encarta Reference
Library 2005). Given the nature and function of prepositions, it should be
clear that the noun or pronoun with which the preposition is combined is
not necessarily one that refers to a person, but can just as readily refer to a
thing or an event. Herein lies the fundamental error of the trinitarian
argument from John 1.1,2 based on the preposition pros.
For the sake of completeness, consider the fact that pros appears 700
times in the NT (of which nearly 300 times are in Luke-Acts, and 102
522 The Only True God

times in John’s gospel), yet Dods manages to find only 5 examples to

support his case, none of which actually supports it, as we have seen. To
base the case for the existence of a second person in the Divinity on this
sort of argument is truly pathetic in the extreme. Worse than that, how is
the average person (even including those sufficiently equipped in basic
Greek to be able to use such a work as The Expositor’s Greek New Testa-
ment) able to discern the errors of this kind of “exposition”?
Pros is, as we have noted, a very common preposition not only in the
Greek NT, but also in the Greek OT (LXX, including apocrypha) where it
occurs 4381 times. Given these facts, what exactly is the excuse for
making the fallacious claims for pros which Dods and others make in
support of trinitarian dogma? We claim the Scriptures to be the word of
God, yet we dare to treat it in this kind of contemptible manner for the
sake of a creed. Does this not remind us of what Jesus said, “Thus you
nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.
And you do many things like that” (Mk.7.13, NIV)?
Even the phrase pros ton theon (as in Jo.1.1,2) occurs fairly frequently
in the Greek Bible: about 70 times in the LXX and 20 times in the NT,
and is usually translated as “to God”. By far the most frequent use of this
term has to do with prayer or supplication to God, that is, it has mainly to
do with a person or persons addressing God; sometimes, though rarely, it
refers to a particular relationship with God (e.g. Ro.5.1, “peace with
God”). As previously noted, the personal element is in the phrase and its
context, not in the preposition itself.

“Theos” as divine nature?

B
ut where in the NT does “God” ever mean “divine nature” or
“substance”? The Greek-English lexicons do not provide any in-
stance in the NT where theos (θέος), God, means “divine nature”.
“Divine nature” represents a different concept in Greek, such as
expressed by theiotēs (θειότης), defined by Liddell and Scott, Greek-
English Lexicon, as “divine nature, divinity,” or Thayer, Greek-English
Lexicon of the NT, “divinity, as essence”. The attempt by trinitarians to
dissolve God’s Being and Person into theiotēs can properly be considered
as dishonest handling of the word of God. Whether trinitarians like it or
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 523

not, it is intellectually and morally fraudulent to read theiotēs (θειότης)

into the text where theos (θέος) stands. Just how bad can misinterpret-
ation and eisegesis get?
There are those who argue that the word “God” in the last phrase of
Jo.1.1 (“the Word was God”) is anarthrous (without the article “the”) and
may therefore be understood not as the person but as the nature of God.
This, too, is without basis in the NT. BDAG (θέος, section 3) substan-
tiates the fact that in the NT God is referred to both with or without the
definite article; it reads: “3. God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic per-
spective, God the predom. use, sometimes with, sometimes without the
article”. Of the many examples given, John 1.18a (“no one has ever seen
God”) is an example within the Johannine Prologue itself of “God”
without the definite article, and no scholar is likely to want to suggest that
it is to be understood here as “divine nature”, so why should it be under-
stood in this way in John 1.1?

Pros as a Semitism

W
hat has rarely, if ever, been noticed in Bible commentaries is
the Semitic (Hebrew), and possibly Aramaic, origin of pros in
John 1. Dr. Nigel Turner wrote: “πρὸς [pros] with accusative
meaning with, Jn 1.1; 1Jn 1.2, is a Semitism and it may be due to the
Aramaic lewath.” (N. Turner, in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by
J.H. Moulton, Vol.4, p.71 and reaffirmed on pp.13 and 93; this is in a
section on “Aramaisms” in a chapter (ch.5) on “The Style of John”.)
The importance of this observation about pros as a Semitism (and
Turner mentions many others in John) is that it points strongly in the
direction that, not only the Logos, but possibly the whole hymn in the
Johannine Prologue is also to be understood as having a Semitic or
Aramaic origin.
Turner also described the phrase “full of grace and truth” in John 1.14
as a Hebraism (Moulton, Grammar, Vol.4, p.68). “Glory” in the same
verse is another Hebraism: “Glory ([Jo] 1.14 and 16 times [in John]) is
one of those terms which radically changed meaning through Hebrew
influence; originally doxa was good repute, but it became also visible
splendour because in the LXX it rendered kabhodh (honour, glory) and
524 The Only True God

such words as hodh (splendour)” (Moulton, Grammar, Vol.4, p.69). This

also serves to confirm the identification of the Word/Memra with the
Shekinah glory in John 1.14.
These observations together go to show that the origins of the
meanings of key words in the Johannine Prologue (i.e. Jo.1.1-18) are not
to be sought in some Hellenistic (Greek) source but in the Hebrew and
Aramaic sources which were close to hand for John.
We have earlier noted that pros can have a referential meaning or it
can also mean “with” in the sense of being “together with”. The latter is
the only one acceptable in the trinitarian interpretation. In view of the
Dr. Turner’s observation that pros in John 1.1 is likely to be a Semitism,
and also in view of the generally accepted affirmations of scholars that
the Johannine Prologue is or contains a hymn, we can, for these two
reasons, accept the understanding of pros as meaning “with,” especially
because in a hymn or poem the Word is most likely to be hypostasized,
that is, described in terms of being a person, just like Wisdom in
Proverbs.
If, however, the view of the Johannine Prologue as being a hymn or
poem is rejected, that does not at all affect the monotheistic understand-
ing of John 1.1, because then pros can be understood in its referential
sense. What this means is that there is a “built-in” safeguard in this verse
such that it does not depend on one particular view of the Prologue to
establish its meaning.

Further detailed examination of pros in view of the

trinitarian dependence upon it

T
he pros in John 1.1 is the key to the trinitarian argument for the
Logos as a “divine hypostasis” as Barrett calls it. In a context
where people are the subject, pros can indeed mean “with”; but it
must first be established that John 1.1 is about different persons,
rather than assuming that in advance. For whether or not different per-
sons (in this case, whether the Logos and God are two different persons)
are the subject in John 1.1 is precisely what has first to be determined,
rather than presumed. Where different persons are not the subject, the
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 525

meaning of pros (here with the accusative) has to be determined by its

context.
The phrase “with God” (pros ton theon), like the phrase “in the begin-
ning,” occurs twice in the first two verses of John’s Gospel. How is it to be
understood? As noted earlier, there are 20 occurrences (or 18 excluding
Jo.1.1,2) of this phrase in the NT:
(1) In many instances it speaks of praying “to God” (e.g. Ac.4.24; 12.5;
Ro.10.1; 15.30; 2Cor.13.7; Phil.4.6).
(2) Of good conscience towards God, Ac.24.16;
(3) Peace with God, Ro.5.1;
(4) Confidence toward God through Christ, 2Cor.3.4; 1John 3.21;
(5) Faith in God, 1Th.1.8;
(6) Things pertaining to God, Heb.2.17; 5.1.
The general context of the 18 statements in which the phrase pros ton
theon occurs consistently has to do with man’s personal relationship with
God, but an examination of each of their sentence structures shows that
the word pros itself does not have to do directly with persons as such, but
rather with aspects of their spiritual and emotional life, specifically, with
their prayers (1, above), good conscience (2), peace (3), confidence (4),
and faith (5) with reference to God. This again confirms the fact that the
idea of “person” cannot be extracted from the preposition pros but is
found in the context in which pros stands.
Furthermore, in none of the 18 instances does the phrase pros ton
theon have the meaning to “be with God”. When Paul, for example,
speaks of his desire to depart and “be with Christ” (Phil.1.23), he uses sun
(σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι), not pros. These words of Paul are particularly
relevant to Jo.1.1,2 because in both instances the verb “to be” is used; in
Phil.1.23 it is in the present tense (einai, εἶναι) and in Jo.1.1 in the
imperfect tense (ēn, ἦν).
What all this means is that if pros ton theon is to be understood as
being “with God” in John 1.1, then it is not used in its usual sense, and
there seems to be only one explanation for this, namely, that “the Word”
is also not used in its usual sense in the NT as being a “message (the
526 The Only True God

Gospel)” or simply something spoken, but in a unique sense which is that

here “the Word” is used in the same hypostatized or personified way like
Wisdom in Proverbs and in Jesus’ sayings (Mat.11.19; Lk.7.35; 11.49).
There does not appear to be any other way to explain the use of both
Word and pros in John 1.1 that is consistent with the use of these words
in the New Testament as a whole. That the Word in John 1.1,2 is poet-
ically portrayed (like Wisdom) as a person who was “with God” “in the
beginning” is Scripturally unproblematic. The problem only arises when
trinitarianism insists on interpreting the poetical description in a literal
way. It would be equally disastrous if Proverbs were interpreted in this
way.
We read in Matthew 1.23: ‘“The virgin will be with child and will give
birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” {Isaiah 7:14}—which
means, “God with us”’ (NIV); here “with” is not pros but meta.

The referential aspect of pros

For the sake of completeness and thoroughness in examining this central
argument on which trinitarianism is based and, so to speak “leave no
stone unturned,” I will also mention that there are other occurrences of
pros with the accusative where the meaning is clearly referential, for
example,

Ro.10.21: “But concerning (pros) Israel he says, ‘All day long I

have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate peo-
ple.’” {Isaiah 65:2; NIV}

Heb.1.7-8 (x2): “In speaking of (pros) the angels he says … But

about (pros) the Son he says, ….”

Mt.27.14: “But he gave him no answer, not even to a single

charge (pros oude), so that the governor was greatly amazed.”

Lk.14.6: “And they could not reply to these things (pros

tauta).”

For the referential use of pros with accusative, see also A Concise
Exegetical Grammar of NT Greek, by J. Harold Greenlee, Eerdmans, p.43,
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 527

where under the meaning “Pertaining to,” Greenlee cites Heb.1.7, “In
speaking of (pros) the angels he says, ‘He makes his angels winds, his
servants flames of fire’ {Psalm 104:4}” (NIV) and Heb. 5.1, “Every high
priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in
matters related to God (pros ton theon—exactly as in John 1.1!), to offer
gifts and sacrifices for sins.” The exact correspondence of the phrase pros
ton theon in Hebrews 5.1 with John 1.1 can be considered to settle once
and for all the meaning of the phrase in favor of its being referential.
Even so, it may not be reasonable to shut out the possibility that pros in
John 1.1 could have the meaning “with” in the sense in which it is applied
to Wisdom in Proverbs 8.30 although, admittedly, this possibility is
considerably weakened in view of Hebrews 5.1. 49
Understood in the referential sense, the phrase “the Word was pros
God” would mean “the Word had reference to God”, i.e. the Word was a
way of referring to, or speaking about, God. This is in fact the case with
the Memra (the Word), as we have seen, so it would confirm to the
reader of John that by “the Word” the “Memra” is meant. This would
also make it clear that the words “in the beginning was the Word” was
not a reference to some other divine being called “Word” (of whose exist-
ence there is no evidence), but referred to the one true God in terms of
His creative and self-revelatory Word and, as such, served as a metonym
for Yahweh God.
Even so, I have earlier indicated that the monotheistic understanding
of John 1.1. is not exclusively dependent on one specific meaning of pros.
Monotheism is equally comfortable with pros as meaning “with,” thereby
understanding Word (Logos, Memra) as being “with God” just as
Wisdom was with Him in the beginning (Prov.8.30). And just as Wisdom
could serve as a metonym for God (cf. Lk.11.49), the Word as a metonym
for Yahweh God can also be described in personalized language.

49
In the 18 occurrences (mentioned above) of the phrase pros ton theon
(excluding for the moment Jo.1.1,2 ), it is the referential meaning of pros with the
accusative which appears. This referential aspect of pros is, of course, well docu-
mented in all the standard Greek-English lexicons. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, for
example, describes this aspect as that “of relation or reference to any person or
thing”; BADG Greek-English Lexicon: “to indicate a connection by marking a
point of reference, with reference/regard to” (italics theirs).
528 The Only True God

The situation is completely different for trinitarianism. It depends on

one particular interpretation of pros. Now we can clearly understand why
translation involves interpretation, and often depends entirely upon it to
make a particular case. When pros is translated as “with” (with the intent-
ion of implying reference to an second person), it has already been
interpreted in a specific sense, because one of several possible meanings
has been selected and the other meanings rejected. This also means that
no translation gives the meaning of the original without having inter-
preted it. A word or phrase can have a variety of possible meanings and
nuances; which of these are chosen by the translator is to a great extent
determined by the doctrinal preferences of that translator. As might be
expected, he chooses the meanings which accord with his dogmatic
inclinations; he would hardly choose those which run counter to those
inclinations even if they would be equally correct as a translation. We can
better appreciate why Muslims have always maintained that only the
Arabic Qur’an is authoritative, and translations are not.

The Logos in Ps.119.89 and the idea of “with God”

Psalm 119.89: “Forever, O LORD (Yahweh), your word is
firmly fixed in the heavens.” NIV translates this verse as: “Your
word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.”

There are some important points of contact of this verse with John 1.1:
(a) The “word” here is logos in the LXX (Greek OT).
(b) The “word” must certainly have been “in the beginning” seeing that it
is “forever” or “eternal”.
(c) Since it “stands firm in the heavens” from eternity, the word (logos)
was certainly “with God” in the beginning.
The word in Ps.119.89 which is translated as “stands firm” (NIV) is
diamenō (LXX), which in Psalm 102.26 (LXX Ps 101.27; quoted in
Hebrews 1.11) is the word for “continue” or “remain: “They will perish,
but you (Yahweh) will remain; they will all wear out like a garment.” If,
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 529

then, Yahweh’s word “remains” or “continues” eternally in the heavens,

then it is eternally with God.
Interestingly, diamenō can actually mean being or staying with some-
one, as in Galatians 2.5, where it is used together with pros (the word
used in Jo.1.1). Gal.2.5 reads, “We did not give in to them for a moment,
so that the truth of the gospel might remain with (diameinē pros) you.”
(Diameinē is 3rd pers. sing. of diamenō.) What this verse shows is that
neither diamenō nor pros, even when used in combination, prove that
only persons are in question, because what remains with them here is not
a particular person but “the truth of the gospel” which elsewhere is also
spoken of as “the word of God” (e.g. Ac.13.5; 17.13), “the word of truth”
(2Tim.2.15). This demolishes the trinitarian argument that the pros in
John 1.1 necessarily implies two persons.

(III) “The Word (Memra) was God”

N
ow we must get to grips with these important words. We shall
first evaluate the standard trinitarian arguments. Since our
purpose is to get to the truth and not to cross swords with any
particular individual or scholar, I generally quote from authoritative trin-
itarian writers who are no longer with us, well known scholars of an
earlier generation whose writings are fully representative of trinitarian
thinking, and who put their case better than most others could do, even
today.
Marcus Dods (formerly professor of theology, New College,
Edinburgh) wrote:

“The Word is distinguishable from God and yet θεὸς ἦν ὁ

λόγος [theos ēn ho logos], the Word was God, of Divine nature;
not ‘a God,’ which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable,
nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the
article would have been inserted (cf. 1John 3.4). The Christian
doctrine of the Trinity was perhaps before anything else an
effort to express how Jesus Christ was God (θεὸς) and yet in
another sense was not God (ὁ θεὸς), that is to say, was not the
530 The Only True God

whole Godhead.” (M. Dods, The Expositor’s Greek Testament,

TEGT).

What this boils down to is: Jesus is not the whole “Godhead” but a part of
it; on the trinitarian view, God is composed of three parts—the three
parts together form the “the whole Godhead”. On the trinitarian view
there is no Being called “God” but only a “Godhead” made up of three
persons; “God” is a “substance”—the substance of the Godhead. Did
Dods really suppose that this kind of doctrine was any less “abominable”
“to a Jewish ear”?!
Dods, like H.A.W. Meyer before him, interprets the meaning of “the
Word was God” as meaning that the Word was “of divine nature”.
According to 2Peter 1.4 we, too, have been granted to “participate in the
divine nature”; on Dods’s argument this would mean that we too
participate in the Godhead; this is indeed abominable to a Jewish ear, and
the ear of any Biblical monotheist. But notice what Dods has to do to the
Biblical text to achieve his trinitarian goal: the words “the Word was
God” is in effect paraphrased as “the Word was of Divine nature”, i.e.
“God” (theos) is reduced to mean “of Divine nature”; this definition of
theos cannot be found in Greek-English lexicons, but that is evidently not
of any concern to trinitarians.
Moreover, does it not occur to anyone to ask: If “the Word was God”
is supposed to mean “the Word was of divine nature,” why did John not
simply write that in the text since the Greek language is perfectly capable
of making that statement? Why does the text not say “divine nature” (as
in 2Peter 1.4) instead of “God” if that was the intended meaning, for the
author of the text undoubtedly knew (as “scholars” deserving of that
name also ought to know) that “God” in Greek does not mean merely
“divine nature”?
H.A.W. Meyer was an outstanding German scholar whose 20 volume
commentary on the Greek New Testament was first published more than
a century ago and is still available in fairly recent reprints, indicating that
his work has not been made obsolete by more recent writings. How then
does he interpret the words “the Word was God”? We have already seen
earlier that Meyer wrote, “This θεὸς [theos, God] can only be the
predicate, not the subject (as Roehricht takes it), which would contradict
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 531

the preceding ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν [was with God], because the concept of
the λόγος [logos, word] would be only a periphrasis for God” (The Gospel
of John, p.67, italics his, translations in square brackets mine). Now let us
unpack this interesting statement:
(1) Meyer says that the word “God” can only be the predicate, not
because it cannot legitimately be taken as subject (which was how the
scholar Roehricht took it, as Meyer points out), but because it would
contradict the preceding “was with God”. Actually it does not contradict
“was with God” at all but only contradicts Meyer’s trinitarian interpreta-
tion of those words as meaning that the Logos was another person besides
God.
(2) But now look at his sentence again, “This θεὸς [theos, God] can only
be the predicate… because the concept of the λόγος [logos, word] would
be only a periphrasis for God”. The alternatives for him are either to take
“God” as the predicate or the Logos can “only” be “a periphrasis for
God”. Great Greek scholar as Meyer was, he did not appear to have much
grasp of the Judaic foundations of the New Testament, as is the case with
many Western Bible scholars whose training is often based on an educa-
tion in the Greek classics. He does not appear to show any awareness of
the important concept of the Memra, the Judaic equivalent of the Logos,
or of the fact that the Memra is precisely “a periphrasis for God”.
C.K. Barrett, on the other hand, appears to have been conversant with
Judaic literature. How does he interpret “the Word was God”? He writes,
“θεὸς (God) being without the article, is predicative and describes the
nature of the Word” (The Gospel According to St. John, SPCK, 1962).
Unfortunately, this statement is not true to the facts so, not surprisingly,
Barrett does not present any Scriptural evidence to support it. Notice that
Meyer made no such statement. The fact is that theos is used in the NT
with or without the article as a look at the word theos in BDAG’s Greek-
English Lexicon will quickly show (see below). Moreover, theos is used
without the article even within the Prologue of John: “No one has seen
ever God (theos)” (John 1.18). That a scholar of Barrett’s stature should
overlook something like this and make the kind of statement he made is a
sad commentary of how trinitarianism blurs mental clarity.
532 The Only True God

The rest of Barrett’s comment on “the Word was God” reads, “The
absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only
being of whom this is true; if ὁ θεὸς [ho theos] had been written it would
have been implied that no divine being existed outside the second person
of the Trinity.” Still drawing on his assertion about the predicative
character of theos without the article [ho], he now goes on to his next
statement that the presence of the article would have “implied that no
divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity”. Now we
see how his argument depends heavily upon “the absence of the article”;
so what happens to his argument when we see the Scriptural fact that the
presence or absence of the article does not affect the meaning of the word
“God” in the way that Barrett claims? His argument collapses.
As for Barrett’s reference to the existence of “the second person of the
Trinity,” it can be clearly seen from a consideration of this matter in the
previous section that this notion was extracted by means of the trinita-
rian interpretation of “the Word was God”. The notion of a “second
person of the Trinity,” stated simply, exists nowhere in the Bible.
For the sake of clarity let the following facts be reaffirmed: (1) it
cannot be demonstrated from the NT that the anarthrous (without the
article) theos is predicative, nor even that theos can properly be used
predicatively. (2) The NT refers to God (theos) in the Greek text with or
without the definite article without any evident difference. BDAG Greek-
English Lexicon of the NT, provides many examples of this, see under
theos section 3, where it states that theos is “sometimes with, sometimes
without the article”; it then provides a list where it occurs without the
article: “without the art. Mt 6:24; Lk 2:14; 20:38; Jo 1:18a; Ro 8:8, 33b; 2
Cor 1:21; 5:19; Gal 2:19; 4:8f; 2 Th 1:8; Tit 1:16; 3:8; Hb 3:4”.
Let us now consider more closely the statements, “the Word was with
God, and the Word was God” (ho logos ēn pros ton theon kai theos ēn ho
logos, ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). For those
unacquainted with Greek it helps to get an idea of these important words
by means of a literal word for word translation of the Greek text which
reads: “the logos was with the God and God was the logos.” Notice how in
the Greek sentence structure “God” in the first phrase and “God” in the
next phrase are joined by an “and”. This is something which is obliter-
ated in the translations. It should also be remembered that in the original
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 533

Greek texts there were no commas or full stops, etc, all of which were
added much later. Looking at the syntax of the Greek, i.e. its wording, the
fact that the two occurrences of “God” are linked together by the “and”
would point to the author’s idea that the word “God” refers to one and
the same Person, the one God, rather than to two different “divine
beings”.
Are the translations correct which change the order of the Greek and
make it read “the Word was God” instead of “God was the Word”?
Grammatically speaking, this can be done, it is not incorrect; but the
syntactical structure of the sentence is obviously changed by this
translation. Moreover, “was” functions somewhat like an equal (=) sign,
such that both sides of the equation have essentially the same meaning:
“God = the Word” or “the Word = God”, provided we understand that
“=” does not speak of a strict equation but an equation of meaning, such
that “the Word” means “God”. This equation of meaning is what Meyer
meant when he mentioned that it is possible to understand “the Word” as
“a periphrasis for God”.

John 1.1 and 4.24, a parallel

An instructive parallel with John 1.1 is seen in John 4.24, all the more so
since both occur in the same Gospel:

John 4.24:
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
pneuma ho theos
literally: Spirit (is) God

John 1.1c:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
theos ēn ho logos
literally: God was the Word
The order of the words in the Greek of John 4.24 is: “Spirit (pneuma)
God (ho theos)”. Since God is the subject and “Spirit” is predicate, it is
correctly translated as “God is Spirit,” but unfortunately, the English
reader misses the significance of the predicate being placed before the
534 The Only True God

subject in the Greek text. This syntax is not to be taken for granted
because the words in the Greek text do not necessarily have to be in this
order; it is put in this order for a reason. For example, the structure of the
Greek sentence here is not parallel to “God is love” in 1John 4.8,16 which
is ho theos agapē estin (ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν) which is in the same word
sequence as in the English translation. The same is true of “God is light”
in 1John 1.5, ho theos phōs estin (ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν), which also has the
same word order as the English. But as we have seen, the order of the
words “God is Spirit” is inverted in the Greek. Why?
An extended answer is given in an old, very large (over 1000 pages),
but useful work by Dr. E.W. Bullinger entitled Figures of Speech Used in
the Bible:

“John iv.24.—‘A Spirit is God.’ The true emphasis is to be

placed on the word ‘Spirit,’ through its being placed (in the
Greek) at the beginning of the sentence. In the ordinary order,
it would be placed after the subject. The two words are trans-
posed to call our attention to this great fact; as being the basis
of the Great Rubric which emphasizes the absolute necessity of
our worship being truly spiritual.” (p.695, bold lettering his)

This helps us to understand the significance of the same kind of word

structure in John 1.1c where the word “God” is in the same position as
“Spirit” in John 4.24, namely, at the beginning of the sentence in the
Greek. This means that “the true emphasis” is placed on the word “God”;
the words are “transposed to call our attention to this great fact”
(Bullinger). What great fact is our attention called to in John 1.1 but that
it is God, and none other, that is the Word (=Logos=Memra)? Only a
polytheistic mentality could suggest that when John places strong
emphasis on “God” he could be referring to some other God (or person)
than Yahweh, the God of Israel; or that he was referring to a “divine
nature”.50

50
See, further, Appendix 7.
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 535

The essence of the trinitarian argument: “The Word was

God” = Jesus is God

T
his, in essence, is the basis of trinitarianism. First, they make the
fundamental error of interpreting “the Word was God” as mean-
ing “Jesus is God”, which produces the erroneous equations:
Word=Jesus and Jesus=God (“divine nature”). Concerning the first of
these, the indisputable fact of the matter is that the identification of
Word=Jesus or Jesus=Word is never made in John. Also, Jesus is never
once called the “Word of God” either in John’s Gospel or the Johannine
epistles. ‘Logos’ occurs 40 times in 36 verses in John’s Gospel; apart from
the 2 occurrences in the Prologue (vv.1,14), it carries the usual meaning
of ‘something spoken (or written).’ It is never applied to the person of
Jesus. This means that there is not a shred of evidence to support the
identification of Word/Logos with Jesus. The Word is not Jesus; it is
incarnate in Jesus (Jo.1.14).
Regarding the second trinitarian equation mentioned above
(Jesus=God): The word “God” (theos) occurs 83 times in John’s Gospel.
An examination of the way it is used in this gospel shows that, when it
refers to God (not to “gods,” Jo.10.34,35), it consistently and without any
exception refers to God, the Father, namely, Yahweh. Yet the trinitarian
argument ignores this fact and insists, contrary to the plain evidence, that
the word “God” in the phrase “the Word was God” is an exception. Their
argument maintains that the Word was not Yahweh God, but another
person who shared Yahweh’s nature. To the Jews, to Jesus, and in the
Bible as a whole, there is simply no other God besides Yahweh, “the only
true God”. Yet the trinitarians arbitrarily reduce “God” to “divine nature”
and then make Jesus, who they have equally arbitrarily equated with the
Word, participate in this “nature” as a “second person in the Godhead”.
By this two-step process of misinterpretation trinitarianism attains its
dogma of the Trinity. The arbitrariness, unreasonableness, and falsity of
this kind of argumentation should now be evident.

One more look at John 1.1

We began by indicating that what is at stake is not merely a question of
interpretation but the very foundation of our faith, for what is being
536 The Only True God

determined is whether our faith is monotheistic or polytheistic in its

essential character. We are familiar with the fact that the trinitarian
dogma is the belief of three equal persons who together constitute the
one “Godhead” called “the Trinity”. There is, therefore, no “one God” in
trinitarianism, only one “divine nature” (the “Godhead”) shared by three
divine persons all of whom are God: “God the Father,” “God the Son,”
and “God the Spirit,” which is to say nothing more or less than that there
are actually three co-equal “Gods” in trinitarianism. This is also to say
that the word “God” in trinitarian language means “the Trinity”. The
very word “Trinity” (Latin trinitas, from trinus, trini, “three”) is the
acknowledgement that this is a faith in a divine triad of three divine
persons.
What is important for our present purpose of understanding John 1.1
is that the trinitarian reading of this verse is fundamentally different from
that of Biblical monotheism. This is inevitable because in trinitarianism,
“God” (or rather “Godhead”) = “the Trinity”. The result of this
trinitarian interpretation is that the words “the Word was with God, and
the Word was God” mean “the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word
was the Trinity”. What sense can be made of this is a matter for the
trinitarian to unravel. That the Word (“God the Son,” according to
trinitarianism) was with the Trinity is presumably self-evident, since
“God the Son” is a part of the Trinity. That “the Word was the Trinity” is
either a mere repetition of the previous statement (the Trinity being
understood as predicative of the Son), or “the Son” is the real essence of
the Trinity, whatever this means. This latter alternative is surely unac-
ceptable to trinitarianism as it would reduce the Trinity to being a kind of
shadow of “the Son” instead of there being three co-equal persons in it.
So only the first alternative remains, which reduces the trinitarian inter-
pretation of the text to a tautology, i.e. a redundant repetition. This is the
sort of interpretative dilemma that trinitarianism is confronted with
when trying to interpret the Scriptures on its terms.
But who really is “God” in John 1.1? The Scriptures know of only one
God, the one true God whose Name is Yahweh, and there is none besides
Him (1Sam.2.2; Isa.45.6,21; etc). As far as the Bible is concerned, to ask
the question is already to answer it, for the Bible recognizes no alternative
to the One whom Jesus called “the only God” (Jo.5.44). So when John 1.1
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 537

is understood in the proper Biblical terms, it would read, “In the begin-
ning was the Word/Memra, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the
Word was Yahweh”; it makes perfect sense.
Since “God” stands grammatically in a predicative position in relation
to “Word” in the words “the Word was God,” the identity of the Word is
clearly thereby revealed as being a manifestation (like Wisdom or Spirit)
of Yahweh God. For, what is predicated of the Logos is not stated in
terms of an adjective (much less a “divine nature” or “substance”), but a
Person, namely, Yahweh.
What this means is that even if someone chooses to dispute the
interpretation of the Word as being the Memra, or that the Gentile
church no longer knew of the Word’s origin in the Memra, that does not
change the outcome of the monotheistic understanding of John 1.1
because:
(1) As was shown in the previous paragraph, in the phrase “the Word
was God (Yahweh),” “God” explains what the “the Word” was, that is,
“the Word” is to be understood as referring to “God”; this is to say that
“the Word” is a metonym for “God,” namely, Yahweh. This is precisely
what the Memra as metonym signifies.
(2) The trinitarian interpretation of “God” as “divine nature” is a travesty
of Scripture, and no Biblical evidence for it can be produced.
(3) Even if we do not draw upon the Memra as the basis for the Word,
trinitarianism has no other basis to draw upon except the Word in the
OT, primarily Psalm 33.6, which we have studied in an earlier section. In
a poetic context like the Prologue of John, the Word of Psalm 33.6 would,
like Memra, serve as a metonym for “Yahweh”; so the result is exactly the
same whether we use “the Word” in OT texts or the Memra of the OT
Targums.
The point of all this is that here, too, there is a built-in safeguard against
misinterpretation. Is this not something we would expect from the
Scriptures as the word of God, namely, that God had long ago foreseen
man’s attempts at misinterpreting His word and had installed safeguards
against it? For those concerned for the truth, these safeguards will serve
to expose error.
538 The Only True God

A summary of the foregoing observations on John 1.1

(1) The Logos is identified with or as Yahweh, who in the NT is consist-
ently spoken of as “God” and, for believers generally, as “God our Father”
(not “God the Father” of trinitarianism).
(2) The word “God” never means “divine nature (or, essence, substance)”
in Scripture. The term “divine nature” occurs only in 2Peter 1.4, “He
(God) has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that
through them you may become partakers of the divine nature”. The word
“divine” translates theios (θεῖος, an adjective), and the word “nature” is
fusis (φύσις); as in English, two words are needed to speak of the “divine
nature”. Trinitarianism plays much too close to the fire of blasphemy
when it dares to reduce “God” to “divine nature”.
(3) In the NT, God is referred to either with or without the definite article,
as BDAG states. It is completely false to claim that when used without the
definite article, theos (God) can be made to mean “divine nature”. The
extent to which trinitarianism is prepared to go in support of their
dogma by misinterpreting Scripture is hardly less than shocking.
(4) The term “the Word of God” does not appear in John 1, nor is it
specifically applied to Jesus anywhere in John’s Gospel or in any of the
Johannine writings. In fact, nowhere in the NT (including Revelation
19.13) is “the Word (Logos)” identified with the name “Jesus” or
“Christ”. Hence it is evident that the application of the title “Word of
God” to Jesus is the result of trinitarian misinterpretation.
(5) From the foregoing points it becomes clear that the question of Jesus’
preexistence, as distinct from that of the Word, cannot find any exeget-
ical support in John 1 because Jesus is not the Word; but the Word
“became flesh” (incarnate) in him. Trinitarians also forget that if Jesus
preexisted as a person, he would not really be a true human being like
Adam or, for that matter, like any of us; that would negate God’s plan for
mankind’s salvation. Notice, too, that the argument for Jesus’ preexist-
ence cannot be supported by those verses in which he speaks of having
been sent from God. John 1.6 (significantly, embedded in the Prologue
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 539

itself) says, “There was a man sent from God, his name was John”. No one
is likely to use this verse to argue for John’s preexistence!

Monotheists and polytheists are bound to read John 1

totally differently

O
nly when Christians from polytheistic backgrounds dominated
the church from about the middle of the second century did the
trinitarian idea begin to emerge, and later to flourish, in the
non-Jewish church. Polytheists would tend to read John 1 very differently
from the way the monotheist John meant it.
John 1.1 actually has a triple “built-in” safeguard against polytheism
(which trinitarianism tried to by-pass, resulting in interpretative confus-
ion and serious error):
(1) The explicit identification of Yahweh and His Word which could
hardly have been made more obvious: “In the beginning was the Logos”
stands in direct and explicit parallel with “In the beginning God” in
Genesis 1.1, thereby clearly identifying Logos with God. This explicit
juxtaposing of “in the beginning” with the phrase in Genesis should have
been sufficient in itself to establish what the Word was meant to refer to
in John 1.1.
(2) Already “in the beginning” the Logos was pros God; the Logos had
specific reference to God at the time of creation; or put in another way,
the Logos was (like Wisdom) with God at the creation. The same God
who brought the physical creation into being by His word “in the
beginning” was now about to bring a whole new spiritual creation into
being by means of that same creative Logos. And as He manifests Himself
through the physical creation (Romans 1.20), so He will yet more fully
reveal Himself through His new creation. His Logos is the instrument or
“agent” of His self-revelation in both cases.
(3) “The Logos was God”; it is hard to understand how John could have
been any more specific than that!
Finally, we have observed something truly remarkable in John 1.1,
namely, the fact that there are three built-in safeguards in every part of
540 The Only True God

the three phrases of this verse. This serves to demonstrate that Yahweh
foresaw (as we would expect) that, once the gospel reached out into the
polytheistic world, the attempt would be made to interpret the Scriptures
in polytheistic terms. The built-in safeguards would make this impossible
without have to twist and distort the meaning of the inspired words,
which is precisely what trinitarians have done, to their own eternal peril.
But the Lord God Yahweh will not be defeated in His eternal purposes;
He will bring those who love Him into His light and truth.

The befuddling of the mind by trinitarianism

It is remarkable (as we now know from experience) how trinitarianism
can teach people (even intelligent and learned ones) to accept two totally
contradictory and mutually exclusive items as both true! We engaged in
double-talk because we had learned to “double-think,” without even
being aware of it, while being led to suppose that some divine “mystery”
was involved.
We thought that what was divine had to be, in the nature of the case,
mysterious and therefore not amenable to rational understanding or
explanation, and was therefore to be simply accepted by “faith”. But this
notion of alleged “divine mystery” opened the door to the acceptance of
irrational and even nonsensical ideas. Thus polytheism, which is totally
incompatible with Biblical monotheism, has been fashioned into some-
thing called “trinitarian monotheism”—and we did not even perceive the
self-contrary character of the term.
But we as trinitarians did try to make some sense of it, especially when
speaking to unbelievers, by means of such illustrations as water, ice, and
steam as being three forms or modes of the one substance. The problem
with this illustration is that it actually serves as an illustration of what the
trinitarians condemned as the heresy of “modalism” (that the one God
appeared in three different forms or modes: Father, Son, and Spirit), also
called Sabellianism or Monarchianism. Sabellius (early 3rd century)
attempted to avoid the polytheism into which the church was falling by
proposing that the one God manifested Himself in three forms; but he
was rewarded for his efforts by being branded a heretic by the trinit-
arians.
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 541

Other popular illustrations don’t fare much better because though

they narrowly avoid modalism they also assume three manifestations as
persons within the one substance, thereby reducing God to a “substance”.
Thus, for example, the illustrations of the three petals of the clover leaf
(attributed to St. Patrick of Ireland), or three tree-trunks growing out of
the one stem, or Augustine’s three aspects of the human mind are well-
known. All these, of course, necessarily ignore the fact that Yahweh was
always known as a Person, and never as a “substance” or “essence”. For
this reason, describing God in terms of “essence” can, Biblically speaking,
be quite properly considered as blasphemous.
The notion of God as “substance” derives from Gentile polytheism
(“gods many,” 1Cor.8.5) in which many gods share the “substance” of
divinity; otherwise they could not be considered “gods,” just as we would
not be considered human beings unless we shared the “substance” of
being human. Such a notion of God is foreign to monotheism and,
indeed, absolutely incompatible with it. Confronted with such poly-
theism it needs to be constantly reaffirmed that in the Biblical revelation
there is absolutely no other God besides Yahweh (Isa.45.21,22, etc), “the
only true God” (Jo.17.3).

John 1.1 and 1.14

As we have seen, “the Word” is used in John 1.1 and 1.14 in a way that is
totally unique as compared to the way it is used elsewhere in the NT.
There is a parallel in 1John 1.1,2, but the parallel is partial, and “the
Word” is not used in precisely the same way as in John 1.1, although it is
possible that “the Word of Life” could also be used as a kind of metonym
for “God”.
In view of the evidence, it is beyond any doubt that in John 1.1 “the
Word” is a metonym or circumlocution for “Yahweh,” and the only other
verse in which “the Word” occurs in this unique sense is in the first part
of John 1.14: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”
(NIV) Here the message in John 1.1 reaches its purpose, namely, the
“enfleshment” of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ who, for that
reason is unique (monogenēs, variously translated as “only begotten” or
542 The Only True God

simply as “unique,” cf. BDAG), and through whom Yahweh’s glory is

manifested for the salvation of mankind.
What now begins to emerge with crystal clarity is that the author of
the poem in the Johannine Prologue used “the Word/ Memra” as the
metonym for “Yahweh” so well-known in his time; he had in fact no
other way available to him to make specific reference to Yahweh. He also
wanted to make absolutely sure that his readers will have no doubt
whatever that his reference was to Yahweh, the only God, hence the first
statement in John 1.1 about the Word/Memra is followed up by two
statements, “the Word was pros God, and the Word was God,” excluding
any ambiguity.
For though Memra was certainly a metonym for Yahweh, yet exactly
like “Word” or “Logos,” it could be simply understood as “word” in the
ordinary sense, rather like the “word of God” in Psalm 33.6, where
“word” is not a metonym for “Yahweh”. The explicatory safeguards for
the poem’s intended meaning was all the more necessary once it was
translated into Greek (Logos) which made the connection to Memra less
obvious. Only after explicitly ensuring the unmistakable link of
Memra/Word to the one true God by means of those two statements was
the poem’s author ready to go on to the central purpose of John 1.1
expressed in the earth-shaking revelatory statement in John 1.14 that “the
Memra/Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. Rarely in the history of
human language has anything so astonishingly profound been stated
within the compass of so few words.

Yahweh dwells among His people

W
hat does it mean to say that Yahweh’s presence and glory
indwelt Jesus? Or that Yahweh God’s “fullness” dwelt in him
bodily? The word “fullness” (plērōma) is the noun derived
from the verb “to fill” (plēroō). The words “dwell” and “fill” are precisely
the words associated in the OT with the coming of Yahweh to dwell
among His people in the structure or building prepared for Him, either
as tent (tabernacle) or temple. The presence and glory of Yahweh became
visible as a great shining cloud when it filled the tabernacle or the
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 543

Temple; this is something mentioned many times in the OT. The

Targums and the Talmud described this as the “Shekinah,” a term which
was synonymous with the Memra (Word) as speaking of Yahweh and His
glorious presence. The following are some of the references to “filling”:

Exodus 40
34
Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of
the LORD (Yahweh) filled the tabernacle.
35
And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because
the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the LORD (Yahweh)
filled the tabernacle.

1Kings 8
10
And when the priests came out of the Holy Place, a cloud
filled the house of the LORD (Yahweh),
11
so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the
cloud, for the glory of the LORD (Yahweh) filled the house of
the LORD (Yahweh). (So also 2Chron.5.13,14).

2 Chronicles 7
1
As soon as Solomon finished his prayer, fire came down from
heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and
the glory of the LORD filled the temple.
2
And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD,
because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house.
3
When all the people of Israel saw the fire come down and the
glory of the LORD on the temple, they bowed down with their
faces to the ground on the pavement and worshiped and gave
thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast
love endures forever.”

Isaiah 6
3
And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the
LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
4
And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of
him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.

Ezekiel 10
544 The Only True God
3
Now the cherubim were standing on the south side of the
house, when the man went in, and a cloud filled the inner court.
4
And the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub to the
threshold of the house, and the house was filled with the cloud,
and the court was filled with the brightness of the glory of the
LORD.
An echo of the foregoing verses, in the form of wind and fire at the
coming of Yahweh’s Spirit, is seen in Acts 2, where what is filled is not
just the house but the church, the body of Christ, which is God’s temple
to be filled with God’s fullness (plērōma), as in Ephesians 3.19, “that you
may be filled with all the fullness of God.”

Acts 2
2
And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty
rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were
sitting.
3
And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested
on each one of them.
4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to
speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 51
J. Rutherfurd, in ISBE, provides an elaborate and imaginative theological
description of what he considers to be the meaning of the “fullness” of
God: “The fullness of the Godhead is the totality of the Divine powers
and attributes, all the wealth of the being and of the nature of God—
eternal, infinite, unchangeable in existence, in knowledge, in wisdom, in
power, in holiness, in goodness, in truth, in love. This is the fullness of
the nature of God—life, light, love; and this has its permanent, its settled
abode in Christ.”

51
For the word “filled” in the OT texts, it is the Hebrew rather than the Greek
that matter. The Hebrew word was translated in the LXX by both plēroō and
pimplēmi, but the latter was used more frequently. In contrast to this, pimplēmi
is much less frequent in the NT than plēroō, and in fact does not occur after
Acts. So the evidence appears to indicate that pimplēmi was being replaced in
general use by its synonym plēroō. Unlike plēroō, pimplēmi does not have a noun
form, so plērōma would serve both verbs.
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 545

The word “abode” in the last sentence fits in precisely with the Greek
word for “dwell” in John 1.14. The amazing revelation made in this verse
is that Yahweh’s presence and glory came to dwell among men in the
person of Jesus Christ:

John 1.14a: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”

Colossians 2.9: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells

bodily.”

When we compare John 1.14 with Colossians 2.9, the parallels are
striking:
(1) The Word/Memra is reflected in the phrase “the whole fullness of the
deity”;
(2) “Became flesh” has its parallel in “bodily”;
`

(3) “Dwelt” or “dwells” are in both verses; the idea of the human body as
a “tent” in which man dwells at the present time is seen in 2Cor.5.4. The
idea of Yahweh dwelling among human beings is a crowning idea in the
book of Revelation: “I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold,
the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell (the same word in
Greek as in Jo.1.14) with (meta) them, and they will be his people, and
God himself will be with (meta) them as their God’” (Rev.21.3). The
“with” (meta) in “with them” is the same word as in Matthew 1.23,
“Immanuel” {Isaiah 7:14}—which means, “God with (meta) us” (NIV),
the One who dwells with us.
“Deity” in Colossians 2.9 is theotēs, a rare word that occurs only in this
verse in the NT. This word is not to be confused with the synonymous
theiotēs in Romans 1.20. Thayer’s Lexicon suggests the following differ-
ence between the two words, “θεότης [theotēs] deity differs from θειότης
[theiotēs] divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute” (Thayer,
Greek-English Lexicon).
The significance of this for our understanding of both Colossians 2.9
and John 1.14 is that the coming of the Word/Memra in the person of
Christ was not just an external manifestation of Yahweh’s glorious pre-
sence, but that the whole essence of His Person came to dwell in Christ
546 The Only True God

bodily. This is emphasized not only by the word “deity,” but also by the
words “the whole fullness”. This is something amazing and wonderful.
What is stated in Colossians 2.9 is also affirmed in Colossians 1.19 in an
abbreviated form: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in
him.”
When it says that the whole fullness of God came to dwell in Christ
bodily, the Scripture is certainly not indicating that God had ceased to be
omnipresent and that now He was wholly contained in Christ. Such a
notion would be, Biblically speaking, unthinkable. Yahweh’s omnipre-
sence is one of His inalienable attributes, just like His omnipotence and
omniscience. But what is here clearly being affirmed is that the very
essence of His being came to indwell Christ.
“In the beginning,” in Genesis, Yahweh walked in the Garden of Eden
and communicated on evidently intimate terms with Adam and Eve; this
intimate communication reached its apex in the OT in His “face to face”
relationship with Moses (Deut.34.10). But with Israel’s persistent decline
into idolatry and polytheism, the distance between Yahweh and His
people increased accordingly, until the national cataclysm of the Exile
ended its existence as a nation. Even when the people were permitted to
return to their deserted and impoverished land some seventy years later,
when they began to return initially as a small trickle of rather disorient-
ated people under Ezra and Nehemiah, only a few prophets of Yahweh
spoke to them at that time, and the people’s response appears to have
been generally poor.
Not long afterwards the prophetic voice ceased altogether, and would
not be heard again for four centuries. It appeared as though Yahweh had
broken off communications with Israel but for the fact that the last of the
OT prophets, Malachi, before God’s “spiritual radio transmissions were
switched off” so to speak, proclaimed a final declaration from Yahweh,
which said, “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way
before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his
temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold,
he is coming, says the LORD (Yahweh) of hosts” (Mal.3.1).
Here Yahweh declared that He would in due time resume communi-
cation with His people. His messenger (who Jesus identified as John the
Baptist, cf. Matt.11.14 with Mal.4.5 etc, and who is mentioned in John
 Chapter 9 — A Closer Look at John 1.1 547

1.6) would “prepare the way before me,” and what else can this mean but
that Yahweh Himself was coming? This is made even more plain, if
possible, by the statement that the Lord “will suddenly (i.e. unexpectedly)
come to His temple,” to dwell among His people as in John 1.14. “The
messenger of the covenant” (apparently not the same person as the first
mentioned messenger) would then be a reference to Christ through
whom Yahweh would establish a new covenant. The Good News, indeed,
the wonderful news, was that Yahweh would break through all the
barriers hitherto standing between God and man—He would “rend the
heavens and come down” (Isa.64.1) as those who sought Him, who
delighted in Him, had pleaded for.
 Chapter 10

Yahweh “came down”

and “dwelt among us”
in Christ

1
“Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down, that
the mountains might quake at your presence—
2
as when fire kindles brushwood and the fire causes water to
boil—to make your name known to your adversaries, and that
the nations might tremble at your presence!
3
When you did awesome things that we did not look for, you
came down, the mountains quaked at your presence.”
(Isaiah 64.1-3)

N
otice that “Your presence” appears in every one of these three
verses. The longing expressed here is that just as Yahweh had
come down in an earth-shaking manifestation of His glory in
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 549

full view of all the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, so may He manifest
Himself once again in such a way that the nations may know His pre-
sence. This longing and plea would find an amazing fulfillment in Christ.

The Word/Memra descended from above and “became

flesh”
The Word is the subject of the Johannine Prologue (1.1-18), after which
it is not referred to again in the Gospel account; yet it cannot be denied
that the idea of the Word/Memra permeates the subject of the entire
Gospel. The Prologue and the Gospel are not independent of each other.
It is in the rest of the Gospel that the Word (Logos) of the Prologue is
seen in “flesh and blood” in the person of Jesus. Some of Jesus’ sayings in
John can hardly be explained except as the Logos speaking through him,
and it is evident that Jesus knowingly spoke as the one in whom the
Word “became flesh,” as the poetic language of the Prologue expresses it.
This expression certainly does not mean that the Word changed into
“flesh,” but that in Christ the Word entered into a body of flesh and
blood, into human life, and “dwelt among us”. Jesus, for his part, was
fully aware that his body was the temple of God (John 2.21), and that the
Father, Yahweh, has come into the world in the Word which indwelt
him.
It is not possible to properly understand the language and imagery of
John’s Gospel unless we grasp the fundamental message of the OT about
Yahweh’s coming down to earth—as so often in Genesis, or at Mount
Sinai, or in one form or another: such as His “word” in Isaiah 55.11, or as
the special “angel of Yahweh,” or in the Targums as the Memra (Word)
and the Shekinah. The last two are given expression in the poetic context
of John 1.1 (Word/Memra) and John 1.14 (dwell/Shekinah) respectively.
It will help us to understand the powerful message of John’s Gospel
better if we compare the OT message of Yahweh’s coming down to earth
with the Word/Memra’s coming into the world in the person of Jesus
Christ. Here is a summary of some of the OT references:
550 The Only True God

The idea of Yahweh’s coming down

T
he idea of Yahweh’s coming down to earth is something that is
seen throughout Scripture; even the words “came down” or
“come down” are specifically used:

Genesis 11.5: “Yahweh came down” – to inspect the tower of

Babel

Exodus 19.20 (cf. v11): “Yahweh came down” – on Mt. Sinai

Numbers 11.25: “Yahweh came down” – and spoke to Moses

Numbers 12.5: “Yahweh came down” – and spoke to Aaron

and Miriam

Psalm 144.5: “Bow your heaven, O Yahweh, and come down!”

Isaiah 31.4: “Yahweh of hosts will come down to fight on Mt.

Zion”

Micah 1.3: “Yahweh is coming out of His place, and will come
down”

These are some of the many references (see other instances below) which
make it evident that Yahweh’s coming down to earth is no newfangled
idea; it was something He did already from the beginning. The prophet
Isaiah proclaimed that Yahweh would come in such a manner that “the
glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for
the mouth of the LORD has spoken” (Isa.40.5). These words show that
this was to be an event of universal proportions. The God who came
down to save a people enslaved in Egypt in ancient times, will He not
come again in “the last days” to save mankind from sin? Is not this the
message of the Bible?

Isaiah 64.1 “Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down”. The
word “rend” means to tear something open or apart like a cloth or a
garment and is, therefore, a forceful expression. Interestingly, a corres-
ponding expression is found in Mark 1.10, “As Jesus was coming up out
of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 551

him like a dove” (NIV). The Greek word translated as “torn open” is the
same word used in Matthew 27.51 of the curtain in the temple being torn
in two and of the rocks of nearby tombs being split apart (cf.v.52) at the
moment of Christ’s death on the cross. Thus the coming down of the
Spirit of Yahweh upon Jesus at the commencement of his ministry is
revealed as being another vital step in the fulfillment of Yahweh’s
response to the plea to “rend the heavens and come down” and bring
salvation to Israel and to mankind.

Psalm 18.9 “He bowed the heavens also, and came down” (so also
2Sam.22.10). Here the vivid poetic picture is that of making the high and
inaccessible heights of the heavens bow down so low that it touches the
earth, such that Yahweh could step down upon the earth. A similar
picture is painted in Psalm 144.5, “Bow your heavens, O LORD, and
come down! Touch the mountains so that they smoke!” The same
Hebrew word translated as “bow down” in these verses appears also in
Job 9.8, but most translation choose to translate the word here as “stretch
out”: “who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the
sea,” but this translation makes it difficult to see any connection between
stretching out the heavens and His coming down to tread upon the
waves. There would be no such difficulty if He “bowed down the heavens
and trampled the waves of the sea”. The picture of His treading upon the
waves, and thereby subduing them, is another of the many descriptions
in the OT of Yahweh’s concern about the turmoil in the world and His
coming down to deal with it. This fact was memorably portrayed by the
calming of the storm on the Lake of Galilee (Mt.8.24-27; cf. Ps.107.29,30).

T
he saving of the Israelites out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership,
and the events of the Exodus as a whole are, typologically, the
model of salvation in John’s Gospel. Just as Yahweh was person-
ally involved throughout the process of the Exodus, so also He was
personally involved throughout the whole process of mankind’s salvation
through Christ in this Gospel. This is why references to the Exodus
events occupy an important place in John’s Gospel. For example,
Yahweh’s provision of manna in the wilderness is the theme for the
whole of John chapter 6, a very long chapter in which Jesus evidently
552 The Only True God

speaks as the incarnate Word, the life-giving Word which, like the
manna, is to be internalized or (metaphorically speaking) “eaten”.
Jesus described the saving character of his ministry by referring to the
instruction Yahweh had given to Moses to lift up a bronze serpent in the
desert so that all who looked at it by faith would be saved from the deadly
poison of the serpents that had bitten them (Jo.3.14,15; Num.21.7-9).
The Feast of the Passover is mentioned more frequently in John than
in any other gospel. The importance of this feast lay in the fact that the
Jews who obeyed Yahweh’s instructions to put the blood of a lamb on the
lintel of their doors immediately before the impending judgment against
Egypt, were spared from the plague which killed all the firstborn in Egypt
(Ex.12.13,21ff).
Without understanding Yahweh’s direct personal involvement in the
processes of salvation, whether that of the Exodus or that in Christ, no
correct understanding of the NT revelation of salvation can be attained.
This is clearly seen in the following verses in regard to the Exodus, where
again they speak of His having “come down”:

Exodus 3.7,8: Then the LORD said, “I have surely seen the
affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their
cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, and I
have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egypt-
ians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad
land, a land flowing with milk and honey.”

Exodus 19.10,11: The LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people

and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash
their garments and be ready for the third day. For on the third
day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all
the people.”

Yahweh is even portrayed as personally marching at the head of the

armies of Israel, leading them forward to the land of promise. The Bible
(unlike the scholars) is certainly not afraid of “anthropomorphism”:

Judges 5.3-5: “Listen, you kings! Give ear, you princes! From
me, from me comes a song for Yahweh. I shall glorify Yahweh,
God of Israel. Yahweh, when you set out from Seir, when you
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 553

marched from the field of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens
pelted, the clouds pelted down water. The mountains melted
before Yahweh of Sinai, before Yahweh, God of Israel.” (NJB)

Psalm 68.7,8: “O God, when you went out before your people,
when you marched through the wilderness, the earth quaked,
the heavens poured down rain, before God, the One of Sinai,
before God, the God of Israel.”

Yahweh’s having “come down to deliver” (Exodus 3.8) His people is

strikingly reflected in Jesus’ use of precisely this kind of expression. In
Exodus 3.8 “come down” in the LXX is katabainō, so also in Exodus
19.11 quoted above. This is also the word used in John 6 where Jesus
describes himself in terms of the manna, the bread of life, which “came
down” from heaven; in this connection katabainō, “to come down from
above, to descend,” occurs 7 times in Jesus’ discourse on the bread from
heaven in John 6:

6.33: For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven
and gives life to the world.

6.38: For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own

will but the will of him who sent me.

6.41: So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am

the bread that came down from heaven.”

6.42: They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have
come down from heaven’?”

6.50: This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that
one may eat of it and not die.

6.51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If

anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread
that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.
554 The Only True God

6.58: This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like
the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread
will live forever.

Like the “bread,” the Holy Spirit is also described as having descended
(katabainō) from heaven (John 1.32,33; Mat.3.16; Mk.1.10; Lk.3.22).
Jesus did not descend physically from heaven; he was born in
Bethlehem. It was the Word/Memra of Yahweh that “descended” into the
world in him. From this it becomes clear that it is the Memra that is
speaking in and through Jesus, and Jesus himself is perfectly aware of this
fact. This is one vital aspect of the Father’s speaking through him, “The
words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the
Father who dwells in me does his works” (Jo.14.10). “For he whom God
has sent utters the words of God” (Jo.3.34).
The aptness of comparing the Word with “bread” (the word “bread”
also means “food”) is something familiar to the reader of the OT. In
Ezekiel the word of God is given to the prophet in the form of a scroll
and he was instructed to eat it (Ezek.3.1-3); similarly in Jeremiah: “When
your words (pl. of logos, LXX) came, I devoured them: your word (logos,
LXX) was my delight and the joy of my heart; for I was called by your
Name, Yahweh, God Sabaoth [LORD God of Hosts]” (Jer.15.16, NJB)
(cp. Revelation 10.9; also Job 23.12).
Directly related to the word “descend” in John 6 is the word “ascend”:

3.13, “No one has ascended (anabainō) into heaven except him who
descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” In these words of Jesus, as in
John 6, the word for “descend” is katabainō. The antonym of katabainō
is, of course, anabainō “to ascend”. Both these words appear in this verse.
Anabainō is found also in 6.62, which is related in meaning to the
foregoing verses.

6.62, “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where
he was before?” The descent of the Word/Memra embodied in “the man
Christ Jesus” (1Tim.2.5), the Son of Man, will climax in the ascent
following his resurrection. Again, “ascending to where he was before”
can only apply to the Word, not to “the man Christ Jesus,” otherwise
Jesus would not be a human being as we are. This is not to deny the
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 555

ascension of Jesus as reported in Acts 1.9-11, but to point out that Jesus’
words “where he was before” refers specifically to the Word/Memra, who
having dwelt in Christ “bodily” (Col.2.9), returned to heaven in Christ at
his ascension.
Also semantically related are the following:

John 8.23, “He said to them, ‘You are from below; I am from above
(anō). You are of this world; I am not of this world.’” What “from above”
(the related word anōthen “from above” occurs 5 times in John, 13 times
in NT, hence it is a key word in John) means in this context must be
determined by what “from below” means. “From below” is explained in
this verse as “of this world”; and this is explained in John 3.31 as meaning
“belongs to the earth” in contrast to the one who is “from above,” who is
not “earthly” but spiritual: “He who comes from above (anōthen) is above
all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly
way. He who comes from heaven is above all.” (Jo.3.31) These are not
Jesus’ words; they are likely to be those of John the Baptist, who is
certainly speaking in the previous verse. “He who comes from above” can
hardly be any other in John’s Gospel than the Memra.
Regarding “above all” in Jo.3.31, this is beautifully ascribed to Yahweh
in this doxology: “Yours, O LORD (Yahweh), is the greatness and the
power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the
heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD
(Yahweh), and you are exalted as head above all” (1 Chronicles 29.11);
and in the Levitical song of praise, “Stand up and bless the LORD your
God from everlasting to everlasting. Blessed be your glorious name,
which is exalted above all blessing and praise” (Neh.9.5); this suggests
that He is exalted beyond all praise that man can give, “blessed be your
glorious name, surpassing all blessing and praise!” (NJB). The same
theme is heard in Psalm 89.6,7; 95.3; 96.4; 97.9; etc. This is summed up in
Psalm 113.4, “The LORD is high above all nations, and his glory above
the heavens!”
But also important for our understanding of “above all” is the fact that
Yahweh, as the one who is “above all,” exalts those who are faithful to
Him to a position of being “above all” relative to those around them. The
OT provides a number of examples: Deuteronomy 7.14, “You shall be
556 The Only True God

blessed above all peoples”; so also Deut.10.15; 26.19; 28.1; of individuals

2Sam.6.21; Dan.6.3. This is applied to Christ in the following magnificent
passage in Ephesians 1:
19
and what is the immeasurable greatness of his (God’s) power
toward us who believe, according to the working of his great
might 20 that he (God) worked in Christ when he raised him
from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly
places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and domin-
ion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age
but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his
feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.

This is neatly epitomized in the words in Acts 10.36, “he is Lord of all”.

The significance of ‘exerchomai’ in John: The

Word/Memra came into the world in Christ and dwelt
among us

I
nseparably related to the above are the following verses where the
same theme is expressed through the word exerchomai (ἐξέρχομαι).
This word is of great significance for understanding the
Word/Memra as having come into the world from God. In its use with
reference to the incarnate Word/Memra, it is unique to John’s Gospel;
here are some of its occurrences:

Interestingly, in John 8.42 Jesus uses 3 different words for

“come”: “I came from God (lit. I came out of God, ek tou theou
exēlthon, aor. act. exerchomai) and I am here (hēkō). I came
(elēlutha, the perfect of erchomai) not of my own accord, but he
sent me.”

13.3, “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into
his hands, and that he had come (exerchomai) from God and
was going back to God”

16.27,28, “for the Father himself loves you, because you have
loved me and have believed that I came (exerchomai) from
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 557

God. I came (exerchomai) from the Father and have come

(erchomai) into the world, and now I am leaving the world and
going to the Father.” (cf.v.30)

17.8, “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 (exerchomai) from you; and they have believed that you
sent me.”

Would anyone wish to suggest that Jesus is saying in the foregoing verses
that he descended physically from heaven52? Surely not! That would be to
ignore his statement that his words are “spirit and life” (Jo.6.63); it would
also deny John 1.14 since it makes the incarnation (his birth) redundant
and meaningless if Jesus actually came to earth in a physical body. But if
these sayings do not refer to a physical descent of Jesus into the world, is
it not perfectly plain then that he is speaking of himself in terms of the
Word/Memra incarnate? Therefore, in John the Word constitutes the
central element in the life of “the son of man,” Jesus the Christ. All
through John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks and acts as the Word incarnate. Jesus
was fully conscious of the incarnate Word/Memra working powerfully in
him, while he himself lived in complete unity with the Word. Not to
understand this central fact is not to understand John at all.
It is precisely these statements about Jesus’ having come from God
which those from a trinitarian background have become accustomed to
take as meaning that he is speaking as “God the Son,” since these could
not refer to his having physically come from God. It may still not be easy
for them to grasp the fact that it was the Word that came into the world,
that it was the Word that “became flesh”; and the Word is not “God the
Son” in the Scriptures. The Word is a metonym for Yahweh; it represents
His “fullness” as Paul calls it (Col.1.19; 2.9) which dwelt “bodily” in
Christ. So it was Yahweh’s Presence and power that was “in Christ recon-
ciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19). The moment we lose our grip
on these essential Biblical truths, we slip back into the error of trinita-

52
That is, descended in the way the manna was thought to have descended—
although apparently no one actually saw the manna descend: it appeared on the
ground in the early morning, Ex.16.14.
558 The Only True God

rianism and lose sight of the glorious reality revealed in the NT that, in
Christ, Yahweh came down and dwelt among us, and in Christ accom-
plished our salvation.

“I came (exerchomai) from God”

Exerchomai (“come forth from”) could also tell us something about the
nature of Yahweh’s Word such as in Psalm 33.6: “By the word of Yahweh
the heavens were made, by the breath of his mouth all their array” (NJB).
Does this not tell us something important about the Word? The Word
not only came from the Father into the world, but he came out of the
Father as His expressed Word (cf. Num.16.35, “fire came out from
(exerchomai) the LORD”). The Word came forth from the inner being of
the Father as His self-expression, self-revelation, just as His breath or
Spirit proceeds from His inmost being to accomplish His eternal pur-
poses.
All these many verses about “coming” or “coming down” reflect what
was stated about the Word/Logos in the Prologue: the Word has come, or
descended, into the world where “he became flesh and dwelt among us”
(Jo.1.14) in “the man Christ Jesus” (1Ti.2.5; etc). In all four gospels,
Christ’s preferred way of referring to himself was as “the son of man” (in
John cf. 1.51; 3.13,14, etc). In John’s Gospel there is specific emphasis on
Jesus being “the Christ,” the Messiah; yet Jesus never applied the title to
himself.
To properly understand all this is also to understand that trinitarian
Christology, which came into its full development and expression in the
Gentile church in the 4th and 5th centuries (and with it the doctrine of the
Trinity), cannot find any legitimate support in John. For nowhere in John
is the Word/Logos ever thought of as a person independent of God and
equal with Him, as is taught in the doctrine of the Trinity. There is
nothing in the Johannine Word/Logos that could properly be developed
into such a doctrine.
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 559

Let us remember: Memra is a metonym of Yahweh, not of

Jesus!
John’s Gospel begins in its very first verse with a three-fold reference to
the Word; this in itself should have made it perfectly clear what the
central theme of this gospel is about; but blinded by trinitarianism we
missed even what is clear as day. The Word/Memra was a metonym for
Yahweh, with special reference to His creative and self-revelatory work, as
every Jew of John’s day knew. So it would have been absolutely clear to
the first Jewish readers of the gospel that it speaks of Yahweh’s saving
work through Christ. That Yahweh is the center of this work in Christ is
confirmed statistically by the fact that “the Father” is mentioned 120
times in Jesus’ teaching in John’s gospel, far more than in any other
gospel; so the Father is clearly the central theme. In contrast, “the son”
(ho huios) occurs 44 times in John, but only 35 of these refer to Christ.
He spoke of himself as “the son of man”.
Word/Memra is not a metonym of Christ, yet trinitarian interpret-
ation forcibly treats it as such. In fact, if a metonym is involved, the text
already itself explains it in the words “the Word was pros God”. As we
have seen above, if pros is understood referentially, then it would be say-
ing that the Word was a way of referring to Yahweh, indicating that it is
here being used as a metonym for Him; in this way the reader is being
explicitly informed of this fact even if he did not know it before. But
trinitarianism insists on translating the pros as “with,” with the fixed
purpose of making “the Word” a person distinct and independent from
God, and then to elevate this “person” to equality with God as “God the
Son”.

The four ‘must’s of trinitarianism in John 1.1

L
et us rehearse again, even at the risk of repetition, for the sake of
attaining as great a level of clarity as possible on this important
matter, the several steps which trinitarianism took to achieve its
objective of deifying Jesus: (1) pros must be taken as meaning “with” and
nothing else; the average reader is not given any idea from the trans-
lations that there is any other option; (2) it is possible to accept pros as
meaning “with” without affecting the monotheistic understanding of it,
560 The Only True God

because it would mean that the Word is thus being spoken about in
metaphorical terms common in the OT both in regard to the “Word”
(e.g. Ps.33.6) and also with regard to Wisdom, as in Proverbs; but trinita-
rianism has to turn what is metaphorical into the literal: the Word must
be interpreted as meaning that it is an actual person; (3) this “person” is
elevated to equality with God in substance, or as the Nicene Creed puts it,
“of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father”; to achieve this, theos
(God) in the third clause of John 1.1 must be reduced to mean “divine
nature” or “substance,” for a second “God” is not necessarily equal to the
first in “substance” and would, therefore, be an inferior “God”; (4) this
“person,” the Word, must be equated with Jesus Christ—trinitarianism
has, in effect, made the Word a metonym of Jesus instead of Yahweh
(!)—even though Jesus is not mentioned by name until John 1.17! This is
indeed to read a whole series of ideas into the text which do not exist in
the text at all. In short, it is the product of pure fabrication!
The trinitarian dogma can only survive within the narrow limits of
these four ‘must’s; and if even just one of these fails under careful Biblical
scrutiny, the whole case collapses. Yet, in the light of Scripture, not even
one of these ‘must’s can stand up to exegetical examination, as we have
seen earlier. The whole trinitarian dogmatic structure is thus found to be
built on the sand of the misinterpretation of Scripture.

John’s two main themes: the Word/Memra and the

Shekinah

A
t the time of the early church, the Jews who read John’s Gospel
would quickly have recognized its two main themes: the Memra
and the Shekinah. How the two are related in the gospel is stated
in John 1.14: “The Word (Memra) became flesh and dwelt among us
(Shekinah)”. The whole Gospel expounds these two central themes. We
have given an outline of the Word or Memra of Yahweh having “come”
or “come down” and was embodied or “enfleshed” in the person of Jesus
Christ; in him Yahweh dwelt among us. We remember that in the OT,
the “tent of meeting,” and later the Temple, was where Yahweh’s
Shekinah or presence “rested” (Shakan, “settle down, abide, dwell” (BDB
Hebrew-English Lexicon), the verbal root of Shekinah; its Greek equiva-
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 561

lent menō appears 40 times in John’s Gospel, cp. Mat: 3 times; Mk:2;
Lk:7). The amazing message of the NT, expressed succinctly in John 1.14,
is that Yahweh came to dwell among us in Christ. The body of Christ was
Yahweh’s Temple.

Jesus, God’s Temple: John 2.19

John 2.19, ‘Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up.”
20
The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this
temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
21
But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
22
When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples
remembered that he had said this, and they believed the
Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.’
This public statement to the Jews is of great importance both in what is
said (namely, that his body is God’s temple, v.21, cp. 1Cor.6.19) and in its
consequence (it was brought against him at his trial and condemnation
before the Sanhedrin, Mat.26.61; Mark 14.58).
The temple in Jerusalem was known to the Jews as the temple of
Yahweh. Therefore, for Jesus to claim that he is God’s temple is to claim
that Yahweh indwells him. This is consistent with his teaching in John,
where it is the Father who is at work in him in all that he does and says.
In saying that he is Yahweh’s temple, he is not claiming that he himself is
Yahweh (or the Jews would have stoned him for blasphemy long before
he got to the Sanhedrin) but that Yahweh indwells him as, for example,
in John 14.10, “the Father who dwells in me”.
There is, however, a major problem in John 2.19. Jesus is quoted as
saying, “I will raise it (Greek: active) up”. This is in contradiction both to
the immediate context and to the whole teaching of the NT. Even in the
immediate context, only three verses further on, it is stated that “he was
raised (Greek: passive) from the dead” (Jo.2.22) i.e. God raised him. The
latter corresponds to the message of the NT as a whole which consist-
ently declares that it was God who raised him from the dead; nowhere
does it say that he raised himself.
562 The Only True God

That God raised him from the dead is proclaimed throughout the NT:
Ac.2.24,32; 3.15,26; 13.30; Ro.4.24; 6.4 (note the unusual: “raised through
the glory of the Father”); 8.11; 1Co.15.4,12 (the “divine passive” in both,
just as in Jo.2.22); Gal.1.1; Eph.1.20; Col.2.12; 1Pt.1.21.
The evidence, therefore, is overwhelming that it was God the Father
who raised Jesus from the dead. How then are the words “I will raise it
up” to be understood? Do John 10.17,18 provide some explanation?

John 10.17,18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I
lay down my life that I may take it up (lambanō, λαμβάνω)
again. 18 No one takes (airō) it from me, but I lay it down of my
own accord. I have authority (exousia, “freedom of choice,
right”) to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up
(lambanō) again. This charge I have received (lambanō) from
my Father.”

To “take it up again” seems to imply that he would raise himself from the
dead. But is this the proper translation? Notice that lambanō occurs three
times in these two verses, but the translators have chosen, for reasons
best known to themselves, to translate the first two as “take it up” and the
last as “receive”. What problem do they see in translating “I lay down my
life that I may receive it again (from the Father)”? The word lambanō can
mean either “receive” or “take,” the choice being decided by the context.
Of the three occurrences in John 10.17,18, the last of them, in its context,
can only be translated as “receive”. But what is there in the context of the
first two occurrences that requires the translation “take”? It is clear that it
is not the context but the translators’ preference that caused them to
translate it in this way.
Moreover, lambanō is used 46 times (in 41 verses) in John, and in less
than one quarter of these does it have the meaning “take”. In the other
more than 30 instances it has the meaning “receive”. In view of this
evidence, it seems clear that what Jesus says in John 10.17,18 is that he
freely lays down his life and, because his life is one that is pleasing to the
Father, he knows that he will receive it again from the Father.
But we are still left with the problem as to how Jesus’ words “I will
raise it up (i.e. his body)” (Jo.2.19) can be reconciled with the unanimous
message of the NT, including John 2.22, that the Father raised him up. Is
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 563

an answer to be found in 14.24, “the word that you hear is not mine but
the Father’s who sent me”? Could it be that it is the Father who is speak-
ing in and through Jesus? But how can it be said that the “body” (2.21) is
the Father’s body? If the body is God’s temple (2.19), and temple=body,
then God’s temple is God’s “body”. Colossians 2.9 may also be relevant
here, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”; hence Jesus’
body is, in this significant sense, the Father’s body.
We, specifically our bodies, are also described as being the temple of
God or of the Spirit of God (1Cor.6.19); does that not mean that we, too,
constitute God’s “body” in the world today, the place where He dwells
and manifests Himself to the world?
While Jesus is never said to raise himself up, he has been given the
authority from the Father to raise the dead on the day of resurrection
(Jo.6.39,40, etc). Could “his body” refer to the church (in the way Paul
described it later) being raised on that Day? This interpretation is
unworkable because of the reference to the “three days” in John 2.19,
which would not fit in with the resurrection of believers at the Lord’s
coming in the future. If this alternative cannot be established exegetically,
we are left only with the previous one, namely, that it is the Father who
(speaking through Christ) said “I will raise it up”.
But if this is correct, then we must ask: Where else in Jesus’ words is it
actually the Father who is speaking and not Jesus himself? Thus, it could
be that it is the Father who is speaking in some of the “I am” sayings (e.g.
“before Abraham was, I am,” Jo.8.58), not because of a supposed con-
nection to Exodus 3 but because of the content of these sayings in John.

The Shekinah
The Shekinah concept is woven into Jesus’ teaching in John in other ways
related to the concept of his body being the dwelling place of Yahweh.
Inseparably connected, too, is the teaching of “abiding” and “oneness”
with God, which are central elements in it. Menō “stay, live, dwell, lodge,
abide” is, as we have seen, a key word in John’s Gospel (40 times). A look
at the meaning of menō immediately shows its affinity to the meaning of
“Shekinah,” which is explained in Wikipedia:
564 The Only True God

“In Biblical Hebrew the word means literally to settle, inhabit,

or dwell, and is used frequently in the Hebrew Bible. See
Exodus 40:35—‘Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, for
the cloud rested [shakhan] upon it, and the glory of the Lord
filled the Tabernacle’… In classic Jewish thought, the Shekhina
refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or
settling of divine presence.” (art. Shekhina, an alternative spell-
ing of Shekinah).

What needs to be noticed is the introduction of a new and utterly unique

concept into the understanding of the Shekinah, namely, the equation of
temple and body: “the temple of his body” (Jo.2.21). The temple (and the
tabernacle before it) was a structure made by human hands but the body,
of course, is not (Mk.14.58, which is parallel to Jo.2.19). More important
than this, the body is a living entity in contrast to the temple. As a living
entity, the body can grow; this means that it is not something static but
dynamic, something filled with life. It is interesting how Paul uses mixed
metaphors of a building and a body when speaking of its growth: “in
whom (Christ) the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a
holy temple in the Lord” (Eph.2.21); compare this with Colossians 2.19:
“the Head (Christ), from whom the whole body, nourished and knit
together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is
from God”; the Ephesian verse emphasizes the structure of the temple,
while the latter portrays it as a body.
This also means that the Johannine concept of menō must, according-
ly, also be understood as something dynamic, not static. This means that
it cannot be taken as merely meaning “stay, remain” but as “dwell, live”.
Moreover, it soon becomes evident that it refers to a dynamic mutual
indwelling involving Christ and believers. This is stated clearly in the
well-known metaphor of the vine: “I am the vine; you are the branches.
Whoever abides in (menō en) me and I in him, he it is that bears much
fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (Jo.15.5). “Bearing fruit” is
the evidence of both life and growth as a result of this mutual “living in”
(menō en) or indwelling. The Apostle Paul says the same thing, but again
by means of the picture of the body: “For as in one body we have many
members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we,
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 565

though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of
another” (Ro.12.4,5). The interrelatedness of the body and its members is
self-evident; its dynamic character is brought out by the word “function”
(praxis, deed, action, practice, function), and as Paul pointed out in
Colossians 2.19 (quoted above) the body “grows with a growth that is
from God (Yahweh).”
Yahweh lives in this body as His temple (1Cor.3.16; 2Cor.6.16). This
mutual indwelling functions on the same basis as the mutual indwelling
of Jesus and the Father, Yahweh: “Do you not believe that I am in the
Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak
on my own authority, but the Father who dwells (menō) in (en) me does
his works” (Jo.14.10). This mutual indwelling is precisely what is meant
by Jesus and the Father being “one,” a oneness that is not exclusive, but is
meant to bring believers into participation in it:

“ 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I
in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe
that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I
have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I
in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so
that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even
as you loved me” (Jo.17.21-23).

As more believers are included into this oneness, it functions as a dynam-

ic, growing structure or body, the whole being empowered by Yahweh’s
indwelling Shekinah presence. Inclusion into this body by faith is what
salvation, or receiving eternal life, means in John’s Gospel, where faith is
not just “believing in” something but “believing into” someone (Christ)
and is thus also dynamic in quality, for life is characterized by motion.

Believing into
elieve into” (pisteuō eis) is another central and foundational

“B concept in John’s Gospel; the statistics speak for themselves:

John’s Gospel, 34 times; Mat: 1; Mark: 1; Acts: 1; Rom: 3; 1Jo:
3. “Eis” does not just mean “in” but more specifically “into,
toward, to” (cf. Greek-English Lexicon, BDAG). There are too many refer-
566 The Only True God

ences to consider in detail here, but one verse that most Christians are
familiar with is: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”
(Jo.3.16), but most Christians are not aware of the fact that “believe in”
here is pisteuō eis, “believe into”. What is the point of emphasizing the
word “into”? The whole point is that in John it is through “believing
into” Christ that we are “in Christ” and he in us, and it is only “in him”
that there is eternal life. Salvation is not a matter of standing at some dis-
tance away from Christ and “believing in” him. Believing means becom-
ing a branch in the vine or a member of his living body. Salvation is not
in the believing or faith as such, but it is found in the person who is the
object of that faith; therefore, only the believing that moves a person
“into” Christ results in participating in eternal life.
The same truth is put in a contrasting, but complementary, way such
that instead of speaking of our entering into Christ we receive Christ into
our inner being by “eating” him—another way of portraying the act of
believing. This is the picture that Jesus paints in John 6 (esp.vv.54,56,57,
58). The result is that Jesus can speak both of being in us and also of us as
being in him; this mutual indwelling, this sharing of life, is central to
John’s Gospel. The “internalizing,” or receiving into our innermost
being, by way of the metaphorical “eating his flesh” and “drinking his
blood,” is something symbolized by the Lord’s Supper; but the symbol is
empty and meaningless without the reality of the shared life in mutual
indwelling.

Spiritual union
Mutual indwelling is the dynamic of the spiritual union and oneness
between the Father (Yahweh) and Jesus: “I and the Father are one”
(Jo.10.30). This living union extends outwards to embrace the disciples of
Jesus, and all believers who have a faith that “internalizes” (“eats”) Jesus,
as is seen in the following verses.

John 17:
11
“that they may be one, even as we are one.”
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 567

21
“that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I
in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may
believe that you have sent me.
22
The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that
they may be one even as we are one,
23
I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly
one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved
them even as you loved me.”
Yahweh is the center of this union which radiates outwards to include all
believers, uniting them to Him in a vital spiritual bond through which
His life, which is eternal life, is infused into our lives and steadily trans-
forms us into new persons. This union is, therefore, a spiritual reality of
great importance to the Apostle Paul: “He who is joined to the Lord be-
comes one spirit with him” (1Cor.6.17). It is important to understand, as
most Christians apparently do not, that for Paul salvation is the result of
reconciliation (2Cor.5.18-20; Eph.2.16; Col.1.20), and reconciliation
results in union (Ro.6.5). This union will eventually have cosmic pro-
portions: Ephesians 1.10, “as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all
things in him, things in heaven and things on earth”; Colossians 1.20,
“and through him (Christ) to reconcile to himself (Yahweh God) all
things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his
cross.”

Conclusion: “God was in Christ”

T
here are basically three factors that need to be kept in view if we
are to grasp this matter clearly:
(1) Jesus is true man. But this fact in itself is insufficient to
accomplish the salvation of mankind; nor, indeed, can it account for the
person, life, and work of Jesus as presented in John’s Gospel and in the
Pauline writings. The magnitude of the work of salvation could never
have been accomplished by man alone, no matter how great the man. It
had to be God’s work, but God’s work accomplished through a man. But
only a perfect man could offer the perfect and acceptable sacrifice for sin.
How could any man attain perfection in this world? Hebrews says that he
568 The Only True God

was “perfected through suffering” and that “he learnt obedience through
suffering” (Heb.2.10; 5.8). “Learnt” indicates effort on Jesus’ part; being
perfected was not something passively attained.
Yet suffering is something common to much of human experience;
multitudes of people suffer in this world in one way or another, and often
in the most intense ways. Paul himself suffered for the sake of the gospel
far beyond what most people have ever had to endure as we can see from
the outline of it which he provides (2Cor.11.23-30); yet in spite of all this
suffering, he acknowledged that he had not yet attained perfection, nor
did he expect to until the resurrection (Phil.3.11-13). What this clearly
means is that perfection is unattainable in this life which, then, also
means that Jesus’ perfection is not something that can be credited simply
to suffering, necessary as it is in the process of perfection, but that it was
something which he attained above all by Yahweh’s indwelling presence
and empowerment. In other words, Jesus’ attainment of perfection is a
miracle which Yahweh accomplished in him. Put in another way, Jesus is
himself Yahweh’s miracle.
While Jesus is truly and entirely man, we do not really begin to
comprehend his humanity at all until we perceive his uniqueness as the
perfect man, and that his uniqueness is characterized by Yahweh’s
unique indwelling presence in him. To speak of Jesus as “only human” is
to fail to understand the marvel of Yahweh’s presence and work in him
resulting in his being Yahweh’s miracle.
The error of the various kinds of teaching labeled in theology as
“Arianism,” “Adoptionism,” and “Unitarianism” (of which there are,
apparently, many varieties) lies, among other things, in the failure to
perceive the nature of Yahweh’s union with Jesus which transformed him
into a human being of the kind that had never existed before—the
miracle of the perfect man. This is also fundamentally different from
trinitarianism which makes Jesus perfect by, in effect, deification through
a kind of quasi-physical union with a Biblically unknown person they call
“God the Son”.
(2) The trinitarian view is well-known, so I shall keep this outline brief.
This view is that “God the Son” came into the world incarnate in Jesus in
order to save mankind. He was united to Jesus in such a way that he can
be called the “God-man,” a union of a kind that resulted in a being who is
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 569

both “true God and true man”. The fundamental problem of this view is
that there is simply no such person as “God the Son” in the Bible, no
matter how high or how low one searches. It derives primarily from the
misinterpretation of Scripture, especially John 1.1. And the problem with
the idea of a “true God and true man” is that it ends up with a being who
is neither truly man nor truly God.
But the most serious erroneous consequence of this misinterpretation
is the use of the Biblically nonexistent entity named “God the Son” to
displace Yahweh as the one who, both by prophetic promise and expect-
ation, was to “come down” for the salvation of Israel and the world.
Trinitarians identified “God the Son” with Jesus Christ as being one and
the same person, the former being incarnate as the latter, and all this
without any valid Biblical justification. They daringly replaced the “First
Person” (who presumably represents Yahweh in trinitarian dogma) by
means of the “Second Person” as the one who came into the world to
save mankind. So the glory goes to the “Second” person, who by his
central role marginalizes the “First” person. I shudder to think what the
consequences of all this will be at the Judgment.
(3) All the Biblical evidence is done justice to when we see that the glor-
ious NT message is that Yahweh has personally come into the world in
the human person of Jesus Christ. Yahweh’s special presence uniquely
lived in him. This indwelling is the basis for a profound spiritual union
with Jesus—a union fundamentally different from the quasi-physical
union of the “second person” of the trinitarian “Godhead” with the man
Jesus to constitute the trinitarian Christ; by “quasi-physical” (for lack of a
better term) is meant the kind of union of flesh and spirit in the person of
Jesus which, according to trinitarianism, must have taken place at the
incarnation of “God the Son”. But in the Biblical teaching, the process of
indwelling began at Jesus’ birth, which explains the meaning and signifi-
cance of the Virgin Birth.
This is not to say that Yahweh’s being was wholly encompassed in
Christ without remainder. Yahweh being omnipresent, whom “heaven
and the highest heaven cannot contain” (1Ki.8.27; 2Chron.2.6; 6.18),
could not be embodied in Christ in this way. What the NT does say is
that His “fullness” (plērōma), “the full measure of deity” (Greek-English
Lexicon, BDAG re. Col.2.9; 1.19), or what might be described as
570 The Only True God

Yahweh’s “essential being” as represented by His Word, dwelt in Jesus

bodily. To speak of “measure” in relation to “deity” is to speak in highly
metaphorical terms, but metaphorical of what? “Measure” indicates a
limit, whereas Yahweh is limitless. The limitation, then, is not on the part
of Yahweh but on the part of the recipient of His fullness. Any other
person besides Yahweh must, in the nature of the case, be limited in
comparison to Him. So what this must of necessity mean is that to say
that “the fullness of God dwelt in him (Jesus) bodily” (Col.2.9) is to say
that the essential being (not the entire being, which would not have been
possible) of Yahweh filled him completely.
It was this indwelling in Christ that made it possible for God to be in
Christ reconciling the world to Himself; and it was this that made the
salvation of mankind possible, because it made it possible for Christ to
attain perfection in this world, which was not possible for any other
human being. Jesus, consumed with (“consume,” Jo.2.17; Ps.69.9) love
and obedience to Yahweh, could thus become the Lamb without blemish
which took away the sins of the world, and Yahweh could raise him up
from the dead also for that very reason (Ac.2.27,31; 13.35,37). 53

“The Word”—a final observation

Because of the importance of the meaning of the “Word” for trinitarian-
ism, a considerable part of this study has been concentrated on this point.
We have noted the fact that none of the sources, whether Greek, Jewish-
Greek (Philo), or the OT (whether Hebrew or Aramaic) provides any
basis for the trinitarian notion of the Word as an independent, much less
co-equal, being in relation to Yahweh who they call “God the Son”.
Support for this notion is simply nonexistent in any of the sources; it was
produced by the misinterpretation of John and some other NT writings.
Thus trinitarianism is without any support from any of the sources men-
tioned above.

53
The relationship of perfection to holiness in Scripture can be seen, for
example, by comparing “be perfect” (Mt.5.48; Dt.18.13) with “be holy” (1Pt.1.16;
Lev.20.26). So Jesus as the perfect man is also “the holy one of God” (Jo.6.69;
Mk.1.24; Lk.4.34).
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 571

In contrast to this, we arrived at a completely different conclusion in

this study, namely, that “the Word” in Scripture is a metonym of Yahweh
God, who came into the world in the form of His self-revelatory and
creative Word by which He indwelt Jesus Christ in a way He had never
done before in relation to any human being. Significantly, when the
Word is understood in this Scriptural way, even the Greek (Stoic) idea of
the Word (Logos) as the rational principle by which the universe oper-
ates could find an echo within the Biblical concept of the Word which
sustains all things (Heb.1.3); many of Philo’s interpretations of the Logos
could also serve to illustrate points of interest and even of importance for
the understanding of Jesus’ ministry. The OT references to the Word,
though relatively few, are nonetheless important, while the large number
of occurrences of the Memra in the Aramaic Targums provide further
elucidation for the Johannine Word. Thus all the sources provide useful
and, indeed, valuable support for the understanding of the Word in the
light of Biblical monotheism; this wide scope available to the meaning of
the Biblical “Word” may well have been an important reason for its use
in John’s Gospel.

A summary

I
f we could sum up the wonderful Biblical revelation of Yahweh, we
might adumbrate or sketch it as follows:
The Bible account opens with a glimpse of Yahweh fellowshipping
(what else should one call it?) with the man and the woman in the garden
He had Himself prepared (“planted,” Gen.2.8) for them after He had
created them. Even after Adam and Eve had sinned, there were those
(like Enoch) who “walked” with Yahweh. Yahweh even talked with Cain
and protected him from being killed; and what would this indicate but
His patience and mercy towards sinners? But sin kept on multiplying on
earth and showed no sign of abating, going from bad to worse to the
point that only one righteous man (Noah) was left. Yahweh in His
holiness could tolerate this no longer; hence the great Flood.
After this catastrophic event, Yahweh again sought a righteous man
and found one in Abraham with whom He communed intimately, to the
572 The Only True God

remarkable extent that Abraham felt bold enough to bargain with Him in
his intercession for Sodom! This incident also showed that Yahweh had
no desire to destroy the city if only a few relatively righteous people could
be found in its populace, but again there was only one: Lot.
The close communion that Yahweh had with Moses is also well
known. But the disobedience and rebelliousness of the Israelites, both in
the wilderness and subsequently, evidently wearied Yahweh. As usual,
people of the quality of Abraham and Moses were very scarce. So what
we begin to see in the Biblical account is that the God who was immanent
to the extent of being described by scholars as “anthropomorphic,”
appears to withdraw Himself after the time of Moses, there being very
few He could communicate with during the remainder of Israel’s history
apart from a few prophets who, as Jesus pointed out, were persecuted and
killed (Lk.11.47-51, etc).
So the God who was at first “immanent” appeared to have become
remote or “transcendent,” “hiding” (Isa.45.15) from man in heaven. But
He only appeared to be remote; remoteness was not in His character, it
was caused by man’s obstinate persistence in sin. Thus, the talk about
God’s “transcendence,” in so far as His alleged innate remoteness from
man is meant, is a mistaken concept as far as the Bible is concerned.
Yahweh is transcendent in the sense that He is, in His greatness, far
above everything and everyone, but not in the sense that He is inaccess-
ible. Yahweh’s “immanence” and “transcendence,” therefore, are terms
which indicate man’s perception of His nearness or remoteness according
to his own relationship with Him.
In Noah’s day Yahweh promised not again to destroy the world by
flood. Why would He bind Himself with this pledge when there was no
need for Him to do so? We now realize that in His love for mankind He
had long ago planned for man’s salvation. How He purposed to carry out
this plan was already hinted at in the Garden, when He Himself slaught-
ered an animal so as to use its skin to cover the nakedness of Adam and
Eve. The Hebrew word for “atone” comes from the word to “cover”.
Yahweh Himself will provide for the atonement of man’s sin. What
amazing good news (gospel) that is! The psalmist rejoiced in this: “When
iniquities prevail against me, you (Yahweh) atone for our transgressions.”
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 573

(Psalm 65.3). Why does He do this? Because “I have loved you with an
everlasting love” (Jer.31.3).
What becomes truly mind-boggling appears in the good news of the
NT: Yahweh Himself came into the world, His whole fullness dwelling
bodily in the man Jesus the Messiah, the one He had prepared and
anointed for this purpose: Yahweh came in Christ to reconcile the world
to Himself. This does not mean that Jesus is Yahweh, but that Yahweh
dwelt in him in such a way that Jesus could speak of his body as Yahweh’s
temple (John 2.21). Jesus was, therefore, united with the Father (Yahweh)
in such a way that he could speak of the Father being in him, and he in
the Father (cp. our being in Christ and Christ in us through our union
with him). In this union, Jesus was indeed one with Yahweh, but not in
some metaphysical union of essences (if there is any such thing) but in
the deepest form of union possible: spiritual union.
The purpose of this union was so that Yahweh could accomplish
man’s salvation in Christ. Precisely for this purpose “God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself” (2Cor.5.19). The way this was accom-
plished is spelt out very clearly in Colossians 2:
13
And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircum-
cision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having
forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond
which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside,
nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and
powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over
them in him (en autō, ἐν αὐτῷ).

In view of the context and the syntax of the passage, “in him” is certainly
the correct translation (as in NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV margin, etc). A few
translations have “in it,” i.e. the cross, but this is incorrect because it was
not by the cross itself that the “principalities and powers” were disarmed,
much less were they made “a public example” by it—all this was possible
only through the death of Christ and his resurrection by the power of the
Father (1Cor.6.14; etc); for only through the resurrection was Christ
“declared to be the Son of God with power” (Romans 1.4).
From the important passage in Colossians (2.13-15, quoted above) we
can see what Yahweh did in Christ to save us:
574 The Only True God

(1) He made us alive together with Christ,

(2) Forgave us all our sins,
(3) By the cross He freed us from the legal demands which still stood
against us,
(4) He disarmed (through the cross and the resurrection of Christ) the
hostile spiritual powers who had oppressed us,
(5) In Christ, He triumphed over all the enemies of righteousness.
Jesus was a man specially prepared by Yahweh for His unique and amaz-
ing manifestation in the world in order to save it; this is the significance
of the Virgin Birth 54. So also the Biblical meaning of “the Word” is that it
sums up Yahweh’s self-manifestation: the manifestation of His presence,
His truth, His power, His life, and His love—indeed, it is the expression
of all His attributes, His “fullness” which came to dwell in “a temple not
made with (human) hands” (Mk.14.58; cf. Ac.7.48; Heb.9.11); this temple
was the body of Jesus (John 2:21).

Finally

W
e can conclude this study by asking the crucial question once
more: Did Yahweh come into the world in the person of
Jesus Christ or not? If not, then the message and the specific
prophecies of the Old Testament remain unfulfilled, while an enormous
question mark hangs over the gospels and the New Testament as a whole:
Is Jesus Christ just an ordinary man—a prophet, even the Messiah, but
just an ordinary man nonetheless? Or was Jesus a man in whom God
chose to live and to work in a way He had never done before—a man
with whom God lived in union in such a way that He experienced human
life and what it is to be a human being, that is to say, that in Christ God
experienced what it is to “become flesh”.
This study leads us to the conclusion that Yahweh Himself came into
the world in the man Jesus Christ in whom He “tabernacled” or dwelt as

54
For a fuller discussion, see Appendix 10.
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 575

He formerly did in the Temple at Jerusalem, but now in a “temple not

made with (human) hands”—the living body of the Messiah Jesus. The
error of trinitarianism was to invent a second divine being whom they
called “God the Son” and claim that this being came into the world to
save us. In this way Yahweh, who is honored as “God our Savior” in the
NT, was sidelined or marginalized while the deified Jesus was made to
take center stage. With the deification of Jesus, Biblical monotheism was
displaced and violated by means of a doctrine proclaiming the divinely
coequal persons of the Trinity in place of the “one true God” (John 17.3)
to whom Jesus prayed, and who, in Jesus’ teaching, is to be loved above
all else (Mark 12.29f, and pars.).
The gospel proclaims that, in Christ, Yahweh God has done an amaz-
ing new thing for the sake of mankind’s salvation. This new thing was
something He had planned and promised long ago, and finally “at the
end of the ages” (Heb.9.26; 1Cor.10.11) brought it to fulfillment in
Christ.

Yahweh does a New Thing

Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs
forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilder-
ness and rivers in the desert.

Isaiah 42:9 Behold, the former things have come to pass, and
new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of
them.

Isaiah 48.6 You have heard; now see all this; and will you not
declare it? From this time forward I make you hear new things,
hidden things that you have not known. 7 They are created
now, not long ago; before today you have never heard of them,
so that you could not say, “I already knew them.” (NRSV)

2 Corinthians 5:17 So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new

creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has
become new! (NRSV)
576 The Only True God
18
All this is from God (Yahweh), who reconciled us to himself
through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
(NIV)
19
that is, that God (Yahweh) was in Christ reconciling the
world to Himself. (NKJV)
These verses concisely yet comprehensively sum up not only the Pauline
but also the New Testament message of the gospel. Likewise, the four
words “God was in Christ” encapsulates the truth which we have studied
in this book, provided that we have now grasped the fact that “God”
always refers to Yahweh in the Bible. It was precisely the failure to hold
on to this truth that resulted in the slide into trinitarianism. The slide
into error was a gradual process beginning around the middle of the 2nd
century AD when the church became increasingly dominated by Gentiles
and was losing contact with its Jewish roots. Under the leadership of the
Greek-speaking, Greek-educated “Fathers” or leaders of the Gentile
church who had grown up in the polytheistic environment of the Hellen-
istic world, there was little sense of commitment to monotheism of the
kind found among the Jews and in the early Jewish church. So within a
little more than 100 years from the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, the
Western Gentile church had begun the process of deifying Jesus, climax-
ing at Nicaea (AD325) and then at Constantinople (AD381) with the
proclamation of a thinly veiled polytheism later called “trinitarianism”.
This whole process was no doubt facilitated by the fact that the Greek
translation of the Old Testament used by the Greek speaking church did
not transliterate the Name of God, Yahweh, but followed the post-exilic
Jewish practice of replacing it with the word “Lord” (kurios) which
translated the Hebrew word Adonai (Lord). The essential difference was
that the Jewish reader always understood that Adonai was a substitute for
“Yahweh”; the word “Yahweh” was always clearly visible in the Hebrew
text even though the reader read it out as Adonai. But “Yahweh” is
nowhere to be seen in the Greek Old Testament translations used in the
Gentile churches, and thus the 6828 references to Yahweh were in effect
obliterated. Moreover, Jesus was also given the title “Lord,” exactly the
same word used of Yahweh in the Old Testament, so now the title “Lord”
was used indifferently of God and of Christ. The deification of Christ was
thus practically accomplished by the failure to distinguish Yahweh from
 Chapter 10 — Yahweh Came Down 577

Christ, and the leaders of the church took no steps to maintain this
important distinction. Modern English translations make the distinction
by means of the capitalized “LORD” when referring to Yahweh and the
lower case “Lord” when referring to Jesus, but the difference remains
indistinguishable in speech, and Christian books do not in general use
“LORD” when writing about God.
The net result of all this is that Yahweh has effectively been eliminated
from the church. He has for all practical purposes been replaced by Jesus.
It may be that He retains a little niche in trinitarian doctrine as “the
Father” who in trinitarian faith and worship has a relatively peripheral
role as compared to Jesus, who is given center stage. Moreover, even the
title “Father” is sometimes used with reference to Jesus, so that “the
Father” is robbed even of this little niche. Add to this the remarkable
ignorance even of church leaders in their apparent inability to distinguish
between Jesus and Yahweh in both thought and speech, and the elimin-
ation of Yahweh from the church is complete. It is, for example, quite
common for preachers and writers to point to the “I am” sayings of Jesus
in John’s Gospel as evidence for Jesus’ deity, completely failing to grasp
the fact that “I am” had specifically to do with Yahweh and not with the
idea of God in some general sense. They even appear to fail to under-
stand that such use of the “I am” would only “prove” that Jesus is
Yahweh, and this is not something that even trinitarianism accepts. That
an untaught Christian might stumble into this sort of error might per-
haps be excusable, but that church leaders and teachers should blunder in
this way is surely inexcusable.
Yahweh has been eliminated from almost all versions of the Bible
used in Christian churches. The only major translation that does have the
word “Yahweh,” the New Jerusalem Bible, is rarely used in any non-
Catholic church. But much worse than this, the church has for the most
part so fully abandoned Biblical monotheism—regardless of the fact that
Jesus himself upheld absolutely the truth that Yahweh is “the only true
God” (John 17.3; 5.44)—that they would brazenly dare to call someone a
“heretic” who takes his stand on this undeniable truth; they thereby show
themselves to be the real heretics as far as Scripture is concerned.
It is urgent that in these “last days” (2Ti.3.1) Yahweh is given His pro-
per place in the church—His church—if it is still His church. There are
578 The Only True God

still many in the churches who are open to the truth in God’s Word;
these are the ones who are “the called according to His purpose”
(Ro.8.28). These are the ones who will respond to the call, “Who is on
Yahweh’s side? Come to me” (Ex.32.26). This, as we well remember, was
Moses’ call to the Israelites when they were about to collapse into idolatry
and apostasy. This call must once more resound with the utmost urgen-
cy: Who is for Yahweh? Who is on Yahweh’s side? Let them come to
Him. Those who rally to this call will discover that it comes from none
other than Jesus, in and through whom Yahweh speaks, “Come to me all
you who are tired and burdened—I will give you rest” (Mat.11.28), for
Yahweh in Christ calls to all mankind, “Turn to me and be saved, all the
ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa.45.22).

— End —
 Appendix 1

The great importance

of Psalm 2, and its
Messianic promise, for
understanding the
title of Christ “the
Son of God”

T
he association of “Son of God” with the Davidic, Messianic “King
of Israel” was, of course, well-known from the Scriptures, as we
have seen, and is rooted in particular with an important Messian-
ic psalm:

Psalm 2:
2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take
counsel together, against the LORD and against his anointed
580 The Only True God

[Heb: Mashiach, Eng: “Messiah”; Gk: ho Christos, Eng:

“Christ”], saying,
6
“As for me (i.e. the Lord, v.4), I have set my King on Zion
[hence “King of Israel”], my holy hill.”
7
I will tell of the decree: The LORD (Yahweh) said to me, “You
are my Son; today I have begotten you.
8
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the
ends of the earth your possession.
12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for
his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in
him.

Here we see the three terms so important in the NT: “Christ” (God’s
anointed one, v.2); the Davidic “King,” the King appointed by God (“my
King”, v.6); and God’s “Son” (“my Son”, vv.7,12) or “Son of God” as the
more generally used term in the NT, all linked together to refer to the
same person. In v.12, “the Son” means safety or salvation for all who take
refuge in him. Thus this psalm speaks of God’s Messiah, God’s King, and
God’s Son all with reference to the same person. Why this psalm is so
important should now be apparent.
The proclamations from heaven at Jesus’ baptism, at the commence-
ment of his public ministry, and then also at his transfiguration, are
precisely in fulfillment of Psalm 2.7:

Mat.3.17: and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This

is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (NASB)

Mat.17.5: and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying,

“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear
Him!” (NKJV)

Note that it is precisely in Matthew (the most Jewish of the gospels and
accordingly the most concerned that God’s word in the OT be shown to
have been fulfilled in Christ) that God’s well-known declaration in Psalm
2 was literally fulfilled in Christ at these two pivotal points in his
ministry.
 Appendixes 581

It is of interest to note that in one important Greek manuscript (D)

the words spoken at Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3.22 were, “You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”. The textual scholar B.D. Ehrman, in his
recent work Misquoting Jesus (2005), maintains that this is the original
reading which was changed by antiadoptionist (the later trinitarians)
scribes in order to remove the verse from its use by the adoptionists who
maintained that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism. Prof.
Ehrman points out that the antiadoptionists need not have worried about
this argument because Jesus was already mentioned as being the Son of
God by reason of his virgin birth in Luke 1.35.
Luke 3.22 is discussed at length in Misquoting Jesus pp.158-161, where
Ehrman gives the reasons for his conviction that “today I have begotten
you” was the original reading. One important fact which Ehrman points
out as evidence of its authenticity is the fact that many of the early church
fathers (including Justin, Origen, and Augustine) quote this verse as
reading “today I have begotten you” (see the textual apparatus in The
Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies). “It is quoted in the second
and third centuries (which is before most of our manuscripts were
produced) everywhere from Rome, to Alexandria, to North Africa, to
Palestine, to Gaul, to Spain” (Misquoting Jesus, p.159).
Now when we look again at Nathanael’s confession in John and
Peter’s confession in Matthew, we can clearly see their OT foundation:

John 1.49: Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of
God! You are the King of Israel!”

Matthew 16.16: Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God.”

In both these confessions Jesus is spoken of as “the Son of God” as in

Psalm 2. Nathanael also confesses Jesus as the promised “King,” while
Peter confesses him as the ‘Messiah/Christ’. In Psalm 2 “Son” occurs
twice, which suggests that of the three titles, “Son” is the predominant
one, a fact which also appears by comparing the two confessions (of
Nathanael and Peter) and seeing that it appears in both.
Not only are these terms in this psalm important for the NT, but the
twice repeated “Son” is of especial importance. Ps.2.7 is quoted in several
582 The Only True God

places in the NT. Even where it is not quoted, God’s declaration in Ps.2
underlies the use of the term “Son” or “Son of God” in the NT and
defines its meaning. One cannot, therefore, decide to use the title “Son of
God” as though it had no basis in the OT and then give it such meaning
as our own dogma decides for it, and even go so far as to take the liberty
to invert it and making it into “God the Son”—something totally foreign
to both the OT and the NT.
Psalm 2.7 is quoted in the early apostolic preaching in Acts 13; here
the apostle Paul declares:

We bring you the good news that what God promised to the
fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus,
as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today
I have begotten you’ (Ac.13.32.33).

Interestingly, the apostle sees the words in Psalm 2.7 as fulfilled by God’s
raising of Jesus from the dead. That is, he sees a connection between
“begotten” and “resurrection”. He makes this connection again in
Romans 1.4, “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the
Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our
Lord.”
Ps.2.7 is also quoted in Hebrews 5.5:

Hebrews 5.5 “So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a
high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, ‘You
are my Son, today I have begotten you.’”

Matthew 16.16 “Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God.’”

Hebrews 1.5a: “For to which of the angels did God ever say,
‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?”

Hebrews 1.5b: “Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall

be to me a son’ [2Sam.7.14; 1Chr.17.13]?”

The first part of this verse (Heb.1.5a) quotes Ps.2.7, as we have just seen.
The quotation in the second part of the verse (Heb.1.5b), is historically
 Appendixes 583

closely related to Ps.2.7 and, like that verse, its importance for our
understanding of the title “son of God” in the NT is that it shows that this
title is rooted in the OT, and is semantically different from the way the
title is used in the Western (Gentile) church in its trinitarian teaching as
officially established some 2½ centuries later at the Council of Nicaea
(AD 325).
Hebrews 1.5b is a quotation of God’s promise to David concerning his
son Solomon, who would become king of Israel after him and who would
build the first temple in Jerusalem. This promise of a Father-son relation-
ship with Solomon is unique in the OT. The promise is repeated no less
than 4 times in the OT historical books, once in 2Samuel and three times
in 1Chronicles:

2 Samuel 7.13: He (Solomon) shall build a house for my name,

and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will
be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.

1 Chronicles 17.12: He shall build a house for me, and I will

establish his throne forever. 13 I will be to him a father, and he
shall be to me a son. I will not take my steadfast love from him,
as I took it from him (Saul) who was before you.

1 Chronicles 22.10: He shall build a house for my name. He

shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his
royal throne in Israel forever.

1 Chronicles 28.6: He said to me, “It is Solomon your son who

shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to
be my son, and I will be his father.”

What connection is there between the two quotations in

Hebrews 1.5?
It can be affirmed with considerable certainty that Psalm 2 was a coron-
ation psalm sung at Solomon’s enthronement as king of Israel after
David’s death. This conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the fact that
it was only concerning Solomon that God made the promise quoted in
584 The Only True God

Heb.1.5 above and there applied to Christ, who was “greater than
Solomon” (Mt.12.42; Lk.11.31) and therefore stood in a closer Father-son
relationship than Solomon ever could.

The “only begotten son”

John 3.16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and
only Son [monogenēs] {Or his only begotten Son}, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (NIV)

How is the word (monogenēs) in John to be understood? The word is

translated variously as “only Son” (RSV), “only begotten Son” (KJV), or
“one and only Son” (NIV). This word is used of Jesus only this once in
the NT; it is therefore not a common description of him. What then is its
significance in John 3.16? There are at least two verses that can help us:
(1) The same word appears in Heb.11.17, “By faith Abraham, when he
was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in
the act of offering up his only son (monogenēs).” (Cf. also Hebrew and
LXX) Not only is the sole occurrence of the word in John significant, so
also is the comparison and contrast of “gave His monogenēs” in Jo.3.16.
Abraham eventually did not have to offer Isaac, but God did actually give
His Son out of His love for the world and in order to save it.
The Jews gave the name “Aqedah” (“binding”) to Abraham’s offering
of Isaac—a truly significant spiritual event. In so far as that event was a
kind of foreshadowing of God’s giving His Son for the salvation of the
world, the parallel between Christ and Isaac should not be overlooked,
otherwise an important element in its spiritual significance is missed.
The account of the Aqedah in Genesis informs us that Isaac, when he
heard from Abraham that his being offered up was the will of Yahweh,
willingly offered himself without compulsion from Abraham. He sub-
mitted voluntarily and totally to God’s will. This foreshadows Christ’s
subordination and total obedience to the Father.
Abraham’s own complete submission to Yahweh, and his absolute
trust in Him, should also not be overlooked. Trust (or faith) and sub-
mission are inherently linked, and Paul points to Abraham’s trusting
 Appendixes 585

faith, as seen by the fact that he trusted God to raise Isaac from the dead
if that was necessary to fulfill His promise to him (cf. Ro.4.17). This
means that not only Isaac, but also his father Abraham, in their unquest-
ioning submission and obedience to God, were both types of the life
quality of Jesus.
It should not be forgotten that Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of
the Father was God’s response to Christ’s obedience—something that
trinitarianism obscures by suggesting that the exaltation was Christ’s by
right as the Son, rather than something that the Father conferred upon
him. In this way fundamental Scriptural truths are obscured.
(2) The uniqueness of Christ as “only” Son lies also in this: that his
sonship is of a kind that was not given even to the most exalted of angelic
beings: Hebrews 1.5a, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You
are my Son, today I have begotten you’?”
Even Moses, that great servant of God, was never called a “son of
God,” even though he had a uniquely intimate relationship with Him:
Hebrews 3:
5
Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to
testify to the things that were to be spoken later, 6 but Christ is
faithful over God’s house as a son.
Solomon was certainly not of Moses’ spiritual stature, so why should God
publicly name him His “son”? The reason is not found in Solomon
himself, but in that he was a “type” (a foreshadowing) of Christ, “the one
who is to come” (Mt.11.3), the Messiah, the Savior of the world. Solomon
built the first temple, but Christ is the builder of the temple of God not
made with hands; Christ is the true king of the “Israel of God” (Gal.6.16)
and God “will establish his throne forever” (1Chr.17.12).
586 The Only True God

Appendix 2

On John 8.58

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham

was, I am.” (John 8.58)

I
n this verse it is evident that “I am” is in an emphatic position. Could
“I am (emphatically) before Abraham” be an equivalent reading?
There are two verses which correspond to it:

John 1.15

John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of
whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because
he was before me.’”

Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων, Οὗτος ἦν ὃν

εἶπον, Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι
πρῶτός μου ἦν.

These words of John (the Baptizer) are repeated verbatim in 1.30. The
explanation as to why he (the Messiah Jesus) “ranks before me” is
“because he was before (πρῶτος, prōtos) me”. Prōtos here can certainly
have reference to time, just as “before” (prin) does in Jo.8.58. John (like
Abraham) was born before Jesus, so how could Jesus have been before
him in time? This would seem to point to John’s perception of Jesus as
the embodiment of the Logos/Memra, the Word of God. We can be
certain that John, as a monotheistic Jew, would never have thought or
spoken of Jesus as God.
In any case, what John 1.15,30 certainly means is that the Baptizer
acknowledges that Jesus is greater than he. Likewise, what is stated in
 Appendixes 587

John 8.58 means, at the least, that Jesus is greater even than Abraham, the
father of nations and the “friend of God”. That this understanding is
correct is confirmed by the fact that Jo.8.58 is in answer to the question
posed in Jo.8:53, “Are you greater than our father Abraham?”
It has often been pointed out that there is little similarity of substance
between John and the Synoptic gospels, and many scholars doubt or
reject the historical validity of John for that very reason, namely, that
these gospels cannot readily be reconciled and both cannot be right. But
if the basic meaning of John 8.58 is that great though Abraham was, Jesus
the Messiah is greater, then this can be readily reconciled with a good
number of passages in the Synoptics where Jesus’ greatness in stressed:
Greater than the temple, Matthew 12.6; greater than Jonah, Mt.12.41;
Lk.11.32; greater than Solomon, Mt.12.42; Lk.11.31.
588 The Only True God

Appendix 3

Did Paul reject the

Law and its
righteousness?

6
But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say
in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring
Christ down)
7
or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ
up from the dead).
8
But what does it say? “The word is near you, on your lips and
in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
9
because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
will be saved. (Romans 10.6-9, NRSV)

D
oes not our discussion of Rom.10.6-9 (in chapter 7) contradict
what Paul said in the previous verse? Romans 10.5:

“Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by

the law: ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’
{Lev. 18:5}” (NIV)

What does it mean to say, “The man who does these things will live by
them” (Ro.10.5)? If “doing these things” means “living by these things”
then this is a mere tautology, a repetitious statement, because obviously if
he is not living by them then he is not doing them. But that is hardly
 Appendixes 589

what Moses was saying. What does not come out clearly in the English is
that the word “will” is not here expressive of intention, as it often is, but
here “will live” (ζήσεται) is in the future tense. Among English transla-
tions, only the New Jerusalem Bible’s (NJB) translation of this verse
brings this out more clearly, “Moses writes of the saving justice that
comes by the Law and says that whoever complies with it will find life in
it.”
The translation “will find life in it” also comes closer to the meaning
of the Hebrew (‫בּהֶם‬ ָ , bahem): will live “in it” or “by it”. The NJB’s
translation gives the sense that one will find life though it or because of it.
That is, the Law is a means through which one finds life. This accords
with the use of the Hebrew beth (‫בּ‬ ִ ) as can be seen in the definitions
given in HALOT, “9. (beth) indicates the cause (personal or inanimate)
of an effect” and see also item 6: “(beth) introduces the means or the
instrument”.
Another problem for the reader of the English versions (including
NJB) is that the next verse (Rom.10.6 quoted above) begins with “but”
which is adversative in meaning, indicating something contrary to what
has just been stated. This is indicative of the theological predilection of
the translators, because the Greek particle de (δέ) is not necessarily
adversative in meaning. This is clearly seen in the definitions given, for
example, in BDAG:

1. a marker connecting a series of closely related data or lines of

narrative, and, as for. Freq. used in lists of similar things, with a
slight call of attention to the singularity of each item

2. a marker linking narrative segments, now, then, and, so, that

is

3. a marker with an additive relation, with possible suggestion

of contrast, at the same time Παῦλος δοῦλος θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος
δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Paul, God’s slave, and at the same time
apostle of Jesus Christ Tit 1:1.

4. marker of contrast, but, on the other hand,

590 The Only True God

5. marker of heightened emphasis, in combination w. καί but

also (a)… so also, similarly, likewise, too

For the reader’s convenience I have listed all five of the definitions given
in BDAG. This makes it clear that only one item (#4) of the five defin-
itions indicates contrast; but those who depend on the English transla-
tions would not know this and, consequently, suppose that Ro.10.6 states
something contrary to 10.5 though that is not the case.
Then there is another objection to seeing Paul’s identification of the
Law with Christ. That is the way Ro.10.4 is generally understood. The
verse reads, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every-
one who believes.” “The end” generally indicates the conclusion or
termination of something, and if that is the case in regard to the Law,
then what sense is there to speak of any identification of Christ with the
Law?
Again, the only translation to put the matter differently is NJB: “But
the Law has found its fulfilment in Christ so that all who have faith will
be justified.”
What accounts for this difference in the translations? The answer is
that the word translated as “end” or as “fulfillment” could have either of
these meanings; so the choice was, in most cases, determined by the
theological inclinations of the translators.
The word translated as “end” is telos (τέλος). This is one of the
definitions given in BDAG: “3. the goal toward which a movement is
being directed, end, goal, outcome.” Under this heading the BDAG makes
this observation: “Perh. this is the place for Ro 10:4, in the sense that
Christ is the goal and the termination of the law at the same time”. (Italics
mine)
It seems that NJB’s “fulfillment” is precisely such an attempt to
combine the two ideas of telos as goal and as end, thus indicating that in
Christ the Law has finally (“end”) reached its goal, attaining its “fulfill-
ment” in him. This expressed the idea that the Law, the “Word” (Dt.30.14
and Ro.10.8), has become embodied or incarnate in Christ, so that to
obey Christ is to obey the Law, thereby fulfilling it.
 Appendixes 591

Appendix 4

Some observations
about the Targums

I
f the oral and written Targums had originated some time after NT
times then, obviously, their relevance for the understanding of John’s
Prologue and the NT as a whole would be questionable. The follow-
ing are selected quotations from Targum and Testament by M.
McNamara, in the chapter Origin and Transmission of the Palestinian
Targum, which provide a clear understanding on this matter:

“In any case, it is generally granted that by the first century BC

Aramaic translations of the Torah, and probably of other books
of the Bible as well, were being made among the Jews.

“Our main concern here is with the Targum to the Pentateuch.

This was certainly the first targum to be formed. How it came
into being, whether all at once or gradually over a long period,
is difficult to determine. It is only natural to see its origin in the
synagogue service, as a rendering of those sections of the Torah
read in public.” (p.80)

“Josephus can boast: ‘For our people, if anyone do but ask any
of them about our laws, he will more readily tell them all than
he will tell them his own name, and this in consequence of our
having learned them immediately as soon as we became sensi-
ble of anything, and of our having them as it were engraven on
our souls (Contra Apionem II, 17 [18] sec 178).’
592 The Only True God

“This knowledge of the Law of Moses the majority of the Israel-

ites would have got from the synagogue rendering of the tar-
gums. It was already Ezra’s mandate and intention to bring
them this knowledge of the Law of Moses, and the principle
must have led the religious leaders of Judaism long before the
Christian era to provide an Aramaic rendering of the entire
Law.” (p.81)

“The indications, then, are that the synagogue targumic trad-

ition originated at an early date in pre-Christian times.” (p.82)

“In conclusion we can say that there is a good likelihood that

the present texts of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
transmit substantially the paraphrase of the Pentateuch formed
in pre-Christian times and known to Palestinian Judaism of the
early Christian period. Used in accord with strict scientific
principles, this paraphrase is of immense importance in recon-
structing the beliefs of those to whom Christ and his apostles
preached.” (p.85)
 Appendixes 593

Appendix 5

A few notes on the

exegesis of John 12.41

40
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they
see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.” 41 Isaiah said these things because he
saw his glory and spoke of him. (John 12.40-41)

W
hat follows can be described as an extended exegetical exer-
cise. The purpose is, on the one hand to bring out in detail
the meaning and significance of this important verse and, on
the other, to give an example (for the benefit of those not familiar with it)
of how exegesis is done. Too often we are told the conclusion of a study
without being told exactly how that conclusion was arrived at (if indeed
any proper procedure was actually followed to arrive at the stated
conclusion).
John 12.41: “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and
spoke of him.” While this is essentially how virtually all translations,
rightly following the Greek, have translated it, the NIV takes the liberty
to render it, “Isaiah… saw Jesus’ glory…” It is possible that the “his” in
this verse does refer to Jesus; and most trinitarians will immediately con-
clude that this means that the vision of the Lord in Isaiah 6 was actually a
vision of Jesus, and we are therefore justified in equating Jesus with the
Lord, i.e. Yahweh, and thereby assume that it is a proof-text for
trinitarian doctrine.
But scholars (like C.K. Barrett, H.A.W. Meyer, and others) are more
cautious, knowing full well that such an equation cannot be justified
594 The Only True God

from the Scriptures as a whole. Why? Because, whether they like it or not,
they are mindful of the fact that the Scriptures are monotheistic and they
are, therefore, fully aware that any attempt to suggest that the Lord who
was seen by Isaiah was in fact Jesus would be a violation of any proper
attempt to interpret what Isaiah himself meant, not to mention that it
would fly in the face of the monotheism of both the Old and New
Testaments, including John’s Gospel itself (cf. e.g. Jo.17.3, “this is eternal
life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you
have sent.” Also Jo.5.44)
But there is another reason why a simple equation of the Lord and
Jesus based on Isaiah’s vision of the Lord cannot be sustained. That is
because it is a well-known fact that God is invisible to the human eye,
that is why “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18), and anyone who had
a direct unmediated spiritual vision of the Lord would not live to talk
about it. For example, the Lord said to Moses in Exodus 33.20, “you
cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” In the NT this is
likewise stated unequivocally, “God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King
of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in
unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor
and might for ever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:15,16) (Does all this contradict
Isaiah 6.1ff? No, precisely because John 12.41 explains that Isaiah “saw
His glory,” not His person.)
This being the case, what then did John mean by saying that Isaiah
saw his (Jesus’?) glory? “The Word” (Logos) is God’s self-revelation. The
Logos reveals God’s glory; therefore we see “the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2Co.4.6)—we know God’s
glory through Christ. This is precisely because “He is the radiance of the
glory of God” (Heb.1.3). “Radiance” (apaugasma) itself speaks of a
radiating brightness, so one could say that Jesus is the glory (a shining
out) of the glory of God. Thus, what Isaiah saw was not a direct or
unmediated vision of God (which, as we have noted above, Scripture
declares to be impossible), but “the radiance of the glory of God”—which
is Christ as the embodiment of the Word/Memra (cf.Jo.1.14, “we have
seen his (the Word’s) glory”).
With this exegesis the scholars concur. For example, M. Dods, (The
Expositor’s Greek Testament, John 12.41), “the Theophanies of the OT
 Appendixes 595

were mediated by the pre-existent Logos [Word].” Similarly, Barrett:

“The theophany as described in Isa.6 could well be termed the ‘glory of
God’” (St John, p.360). Barrett, like the others quoted above, assumes that
John meant that “Isaiah saw the glory of Christ and spoke of him” (italics
his).
There are however, problems with these notions of the scholars
mentioned above which, strangely, they don’t seem to be aware of—or
perhaps don’t wish to be aware of: One of these is that they simply
assume that Jesus=Logos or Logos=Jesus. But what is the Scriptural
justification for this assumption? In John there is no such simple
equation but rather, according to John 1.14, in Jesus “the Logos became
flesh” (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο). Therefore, it is not “the Logos=Jesus,” but
“the Logos was incarnate in Jesus”; this is a fundamental difference.
It is true that the Logos and Jesus were united through the incarnation,
but it was by way of the incarnation that they became one and not before
that, according to John 1.14. Once we have grasped this plain fact, we
should see that the interpretative statement made, for example, in the
NIV that Isaiah “saw Jesus’ glory” is incorrect. The most that can be said
is that he saw the glory of the Logos—but that is something which John
himself does not state in 12.41. The Logos had not yet become
“enfleshed” in Jesus, how then could Isaiah have seen the glory of Jesus
(except in a proleptic or prophetic way)? Is not such a statement as that
which Barrett made (see two paragraphs earlier) anachronistic?

An unjustified assumption regarding John 12.41

The reader who is careful in regard to the accurate exegesis of the Word
(and there are, alas, probably not many such readers) will have noticed
that I took a step a few paragraphs ago which I made no serious attempt
to justify. What was that step? It was this: I simply accepted the
trinitarian position that the “his” in the words “saw his glory” (John
12.41) referred to Jesus’ pre-incarnation glory (this phrase will be dis-
cussed below). This seems plausible in the context, but does its plaus-
ibility really require no further proof? Should it not be asked: If John
wanted to refer to Jesus by “his,” why did he not say so specifically, for it
596 The Only True God

does not take much longer in Greek to say or to write “Christ’s glory” as
to say or write “his glory” (the Greek word for “his” is autos)?
Can a matter of such importance be left to the undefined “his”? The
whole trinitarian argument is based on the assumption that this “his”
refers to Jesus. I went along with this assumption and was thereby able to
see how far the more responsible scholars could take it. As we have seen,
they took it as far as Jesus’ being the Logos of God.
But for the sake of faithfulness to the word of God, I feel obliged to
examine the validity of the assumption. If we are responsible before the
Lord, should we not ask: Is this really what John meant? If so, why did he
not say so, rather than leave it to his readers to assume that the reference
was to the Logos, or to Jesus? Moreover, everyone who has read Isa.6
knows that the “his” in the context of Isaiah refers to the “Lord” (Adon)
who is further specified in v.5 as Yahweh. Can we so lightly assume, as
trinitarians do, that John the monotheist (and the Jewish believers, who
constituted most of the first readers of John) would equally lightly refer
to Jesus in Jo.12.41 by an indeterminate “his”?
Should we not also ask: What exactly is the connection of the “his” in
v.41 to the totally different statement in v.40, in which there is no
mention whatever of “glory” (not even in the preceding verses)? Can
(and should) we decide on the “his” without even having considered
whether there is any internal logic which connects these two verses (i.e.
vv.40 and 41)? As for the connection between these verses, can we find
any other connection, whether in Isaiah or in John, other than this: Even
though Isaiah was granted a supernal vision of God’s glory, and even
though he was thereby an eyewitness of that glory, the hearts of people of
Israel were so hardened against the truth that they would not listen to
Isaiah.
Was this not precisely the same point made repeatedly in John in
regard to the attitude of the people of Israel to Jesus? Jesus as the Word
incarnate is repeatedly spoken of as the one who has seen the Father, who
knows the Father, and he reveals to us what he has seen; but just as they
rejected Isaiah, so now they reject Jesus in exactly the same way. (Note
the frequency of “see” in John.) If so, then the “his” in v.41 would have its
normal meaning, namely, that it refers to Yahweh just as Isaiah had
declared in Isa.6.1, and since this was known to all John’s (esp. Jewish)
 Appendixes 597

readers, he did not need to specify that it referred to Yahweh. Had he

intended it to refer to Jesus, is it not obvious that he would have had to
specify that to be the case and could not simply assume that his readers
would make that assumption?
Thus, is not the whole point of vv.40 and 41 (and context) that though
Isaiah saw Yahweh’s glory the people rejected his message, so too Jesus as
the one who saw the glory of God the Father in ways far beyond what
Isaiah could have seen, was none the less rejected by the Jews in the same
way (and indeed in a worse way because it ended on the cross) as they
rejected Isaiah?
598 The Only True God

Appendix 6

On “the Word of God”

in Rev.19.13

Revelation 19:11-16 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold,

a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True,
and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are
like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he
has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is
clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is
called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven,
arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on
white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with
which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a
rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath
of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a
name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

T
hough trinitarians generally want to assume that Rev.19.13 refers
to Christ, a better exegetical case can be made for it as referring to
Yahweh Himself as “the Lord of Hosts (armies),” as seen by His
armies in 19.14. Moreover, the full title “King of kings and Lord of lords”
(19.16) occurs elsewhere in the NT only in 1Timothy 6.15 where it refers
to “our only Sovereign,” God the Father. The context of 19.13 echoes
other OT prophesies which have reference to Yahweh.
It is true that in Revelation 17.14 the title in the reversed form “lord of
lords, and king of kings” is applied to the Lamb who was exalted by God.
But the term “the word of God” appears 5 times in Revelation apart from
 Appendixes 599

19.13 (in 17.17 as “the words of God”) and, as in the rest of the NT, it
means the message of God as given in the Gospel.
It is argued that “the Word of God” in 19.13 refers to Jesus because of
his being “clothed in a robe dipped in blood,” it being assumed that the
blood is his own blood. But he who “treads the winepress of the fury of
the wrath of God Almighty” (19.15) is more likely to have his garments
dipped in the blood of God’s enemies.
R.H. Charles, in his massive two volume Critical and Exegetical
Commentary of the Revelation of St. John, also rejects the notion that the
blood on the rider’s robe in Revelation 19.13 is his own blood, and writes:

A comparison with Isaiah 63.1-3—which passage is in the mind

of our author—confirms this conclusion: ‘Who is this that
cometh from Edom, with red garments from Bozrah?... 2.
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like
him that treadeth in the winefat? 3. I have trodden the wine-
press alone… yea, I trod them in my anger… and their life-
blood is sprinkled upon my garments.’

There is no doubt whatever that in this context the subject of this passage
is Yahweh. The result of Yahweh’s treading of the “winepress” of judg-
ment is seen in Rev.19.17f:
17
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud
voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come,
gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings,
the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of
horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and
slave, both small and great.”

This event is seen in the prophecy of Ezekiel 39.17f:

17
And as for you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Speak
to every sort of bird and to every beast of the field: “Assemble
yourselves and come; Gather together from all sides to My
sacrificial meal which I am sacrificing for you, A great sacrifi-
cial meal on the mountains of Israel, That you may eat flesh
and drink blood. 18 You shall eat the flesh of the mighty…”’
600 The Only True God

And the purpose of all this is set forth in the following verses in Ezekiel
39:
21
I will set My glory among the nations; all the nations shall see
My judgment which I have executed, and My hand which I
have laid on them. 22 So the house of Israel shall know that I am
the LORD (Yahweh) their God from that day forward.

The glory of Yahweh is proclaimed to all nations through His righteous

judgments against all evildoers.
Even so, Rev.19.13 could refer to Jesus, the Lamb, as Yahweh’s chosen
Messianic agent of His actions in the world. But it should be remembered
that the trinitarian argument based on the words “the Word was God”
cuts both ways: it could mean that “the Word” was actually God or
Yahweh Himself, that is, “Logos” could be a title of God as self-revealing
(which is what “word” does), as immanent. This self-revealing aspect of
God was always an essential aspect of God (as the whole of His Word, the
Bible, reveals); it was always “with Him” and, for us, it is undoubtedly the
most important aspect of God, for without it we could never know Him.
This also means that there is no reason why “the Word of God” as a
metonym for Yahweh could not also be used here as a title of Yahweh,
that is, as the One who is always revealing Himself whether in His saving
mercies in Christ or in Judgment as in 19.11ff. The picture of Yahweh
here would then be that of Yahweh as a “man of war” familiar from the
OT (Ex.15.3; Isa.42.13).
Thus, without being dogmatic or insistent, it can be shown that, on
the basis of exegesis, it is very likely that 19.13 refers to Yahweh rather
than to Jesus, and that its application to Jesus is based primarily on the
trinitarian interpretation of John 1.1. But did we not say that 19.13 could
also refer to Jesus? Yes, because 19.15, “he will rule them with a rod of
iron” seems clearly to reflect the Messianic verses Isa.11.4 and Psalm 2.9.
If so, how is the verse to be understood after all? It would evidently be
best to understand it in the same way as the “incarnation” of Yahweh “in
Christ” (2Cor.5.19, etc.) is understood in terms, for example, of
1Timothy 3.16, “He (God, mentioned twice in the previous verse) was
manifested in the flesh”. That is to say: Just as Yahweh came into the
world to save it, so also He will come at the end of this age to deal with all
 Appendixes 601

who in the hardness of their hearts reject His saving mercies and defy His
sovereignty as our Creator and Lord.
602 The Only True God

Appendix 7

The instructive
parallel of “the Word
was God” with
2Cor.3.17

2 Corinthians 3:17, Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

T
he parallel can be seen when the following two sentences are
placed side by side:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos ēn ho logos)

“God was the Word”
(Jo.1.1c)
ὁ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν (ho kurios to pneuma estin)
“the Lord is the Spirit”
(2Cor.3.17)
A comparison of these two verses shows that:
(a) “God” and “the Lord” are in same position in the two sentences.
(b) “The Word” and “the Spirit” are integrally related in Scripture.
 Appendixes 603

(c) In John 1.1 the past tense “was” occurs because the verse speaks about
“the beginning”; 2Corinthians speaks about the present, hence the “is”.
The very next phrase in 2Corinthians 3.17 makes it clear that “the Spirit”
is “the Spirit of the Lord,” who in the Scriptures is not another divine
being distinct from the Lord. Here I shall simply quote the Catholic
scholar Martin McNamara’s discussion of these words:

“‘The Lord is the Spirit.’ Having noted that ‘when a man turns
to the Lord the veil is removed,’ Paul goes on to state: ‘Now the
Lord is the Spirit [ho de kurios to pneuma estin] and where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom’. In the tent of meeting, to
which the repentant Israelite withdrew, God was enthroned.
From between the cherubim he spoke with Moses and Israel.
God so speaking with Israel is often referred to as Dibbera, ‘the
Word’. We have seen how he could equally well be referred to
as ‘the holy spirit’.

“For the paraphrase of Pseudo-Jonathan (Num.7:89), in the

tent of meeting, the spirit conversed with Moses and the indiv-
idual Israelite. And the Lord, i.e. Adonai, the God of Israel was
the spirit.

“In view of this it seems better to take ‘the Lord’ (kurios) of

2Corinthians 3.16f as ‘the God of Israel,’ and not as Jesus
Christ… As L. Cerfaux has put it: ‘The whole context [of
2Cor.3.17] is that of a midrash and Paul means that kurios in
Ex.34:34, upon which he is commenting, should be understood
as the Spirit, “the Spirit of the Lord,” who has revealed himself
in the Christian community’.

“We should also compare John 4:24: ‘God is Spirit’ (pneuma ho

theos), bearing in mind the manifold ways in which Paul’s
teaching parallels that of the Fourth Gospel… It may seem
strange that Paul should use such Jewish traditions in a letter
directed to mainly Gentile Christians. The explanation prob-
ably lies in the fact that the Apostle of the Gentiles never
succeeded in being anything in his mental make-up but a
604 The Only True God

Hebrew of the Hebrews.” (McNamara, Targum and Testament,

p.111ff.)

So just as 2Corinthians 3.17 identifies the “the Lord” as one and the same
person who functions as the life-giving Spirit in the church, so the
parallel sentence structure with the words “God was the Word” (or “the
Word was God”) in John 1.1 indicates that God functioned as the Word
in His self-revelation already “in the beginning” of His creation. It is just
as the Apostle describes it in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the
world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse.” God speaks to all men through His
creation but more fully and perfectly in Christ.
 Appendixes 605

Appendix 8

On Phil.2.6,7: More
evidence from the
Hebrew Bible

Philippians 2:6-7 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did

not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made
himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the
likeness of men.

M
uch as trinitarianism would wish, for obvious reasons, to
ignore or even to deny the identification of “the form of God”
with “the image of God”, the evidence overwhelmingly en-
dorses it. If we continue examining the use of the word “form” (morphē)
to see how it is used in the OT, we find two instances of particular
relevance in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) which we can compare with
the Hebrew text:
(1) Job 4.16, “It stood still, but I could not discern its appearance; A form
(morphē) was before my eyes; There was silence, then I heard a voice”.
The Hebrew of the word “form” here is tmunah for which BDB gives the
following definition, “likeness, representation, form, semblance,” and
provides the following information: tmunah is used with the Hebrew
word pesel (‘idol, image, as likeness of man or animal’), which is its
equivalent in ‘Ex 20:4 = Dt 5:8, cf. 4:16; 4:23; 4:25’; all these verses have to
do with the making of “carved images” or idols. This again shows the link
between “form,” “image,” and “likeness”.
606 The Only True God

(2) Isaiah 44.13, “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an
outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with
compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphē) of man, of man in all his
glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.” (NIV) Here “form” translates the
Hebrew word tabnit meaning ‘figure, image’ (BDB).
 Appendixes 607

Appendix 9

On Psalm 107.19,20

Psalm 107:19-20 19 Then they cried to the LORD in their trou-

ble, and he delivered them from their distress. 20 He sent out his
word and healed them, and delivered them from their
destruction.

T
he Hebrew (in verse 20), translated literally, has “delivered them
from the pit,” and the LXX has “rescued them from corruption
(diaphthora, i.e. of death and the grave).” The word “corruption”
(diaphthora) also occurs in Psalm 30:9, “What profit is there in my death
(lit. “blood”, referring to a violent death, cf. Col.1.20; Lk.22.20, etc), if I go
down to the pit (LXX diaphthora, ‘corruption’)? Will the dust praise you?
Will it tell of your faithfulness?” Here “death” and “corruption” are used
synonymously.
“Corruption” appears in another important verse: “For you will not
abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption” (Psalm
16.10). The importance of this verse lies in the fact that it is twice quoted
with reference to Jesus’ resurrection: Peter, preaching to the multitudes
on the day of Pentecost, quotes this verse and then goes on to say, “He
(the Psalmist) foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ,
that he was not abandoned to Hades (the Greek for Sheol), nor did his
flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are wit-
nesses” (Acts 2.31,32). Paul quotes this same verse and for the same
reason (Acts 13. 35ff).
It is striking that in the very next verse, Ps.16.11, there is reference to
God’s “right hand,” which is precisely where Jesus was granted to sit after
God had raised him from the dead: “You make known to me the path of
608 The Only True God

life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are
pleasures forevermore.”
Yahweh’s “right hand” is referred to twice in Peter’s message in Acts 2
immediately following the verses quoted above about Christ’s resurrect-
ion: “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having
received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured
out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing” (Acts 2.33; also v.34).
 Appendixes 609

Appendix 10

Some thoughts on
the Virgin Birth of
Jesus

T
he accounts of the Virgin Birth appear in Matthew and Luke.
What is its spiritual significance? This is not explicitly expounded
in the gospels or in the NT letters; but there is enough inform-
ation for us to draw some preliminary (non-dogmatic) conclusions: The
exclusion of Joseph from the birth process means, of course, that
contrary to the normal process of human birth, no human sperm was
involved. To argue that the human sperm was replaced by the preexistent
Word would mean that the result of such a union would be neither truly
human (since no true human being can result from such a union) nor
fully God (since he is at least partially man).
It seems that the proper Scriptural understanding is that the “over-
shadowing” of Mary by the Spirit was like the “hovering” of the Spirit
over the waters prior to creation in Genesis 1.2. The parallel serves to
indicate that God was bringing into being a new creation through Mary’s
womb. This means that the new creation would have required the
creation of a sperm within Mary’s womb. No human being is born with-
out sperm; but since, in this case, it was not derived from any male
descendent of Adam, then consequently a new Adam (a new man, cf.
Eph.2.15) came into being in Christ. This was for the purpose of bringing
a new creation into existence (2Cor.5.17).
The new Adam was not, however, to be totally disconnected from the
old Adam because as “the seed of the woman (Eve)” (Gen.3.15), he had to
undo, through his obedience, the consequences of sin and death brought
610 The Only True God

into the world through Adam’s disobedience (Ro.5.17-19). Moreover, in

order to fulfill the promise of God by being the coming Messianic king
descended from the Davidic line of kings, Jesus had to be of David’s
“seed” (σπέρμα sperma, whence “sperm”; Jo.7.42; Ro.1.3; 2Ti.2.8), which
indeed he was via his mother Mary.
The whole matter of Jesus’ birth as the point in time when the Word
“became flesh” is beautifully and appropriately stated in Hebrews 10.5:
“Consequently, when he came into the world, he said, ‘… a body have
you prepared for me’”. His body was specially “prepared” for him; it was,
so to speak, “made-to-order” or “custom-made” for him. He could thus
be connected to the old creation yet, at the same time, be the beginning
of a new creation. In this can be seen the wonder of divine wisdom.
Hebrew 10.5 speaks in the context of Christ being the sacrifice for sin,
“the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as described in
John 1.29. It is by this means that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new
creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come”
(2Cor.5.17).
The virgin birth was not something that originated in the NT; it was a
sign first given in the OT: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a
sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel [which means ‘God with us’]” (Isaiah 7.14). There is
also a remarkable prophecy in Jeremiah 31.22: “How long will you waver,
O faithless daughter? For the LORD (Yahweh) has created a new thing
on the earth: a woman encircles (or encompasses, surrounds) a man.”

The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge provides this

interesting commentary:
“A female (‘one who is only a woman, not a wife, namely a
virgin,’) shall encompass a man,” or a male child: which
together with the addition of a new creation, may well be
understood to denote the miraculous conception. Hence the
Jews have applied it determinately to the Messiah. In Berashith
Rabba it is said, that as God punished Israel in a virgin, so
would he also heal; and in Midrash Tillim, on Ps 2, R. Huna, in
 Appendixes 611

the name of R. Idi, speaking of the sufferings of the Messiah,

says, that when his hour is come, God shall say, “I must create
him with a new creation; and so he saith, This day I have
begotten thee.”
612 The Only True God

Appendix 11

Christological
conflict
among trinitarians

T
he mutually irreconcilable christological views of the Antiochenes
and the Alexandrians resulted in bitter conflict among the trinita-
rians in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Eventually the Alexandrians,
having gained the position of becoming the politically dominant party,
ousted the Antiochenes. One part of the church drove out the other by
labeling them heretics. The matter was not resolved through careful
exegesis of the Scriptures and through good will, but went from conflict
to schism.
Yet both sides (Alexandrians and Antiochenes) based their views on
the same basic assumption: that Jesus was both God and man in one
person because he possessed both divine and human “natures”. They
simply assumed that we can talk about God and man in terms of
“natures”. If we start from the wrong presuppositions, how can we reach
the right conclusions?
The debate was basically about whether Christ had a human spirit.
The Antiochene party said ‘yes,’ because without it Christ would not be
truly human; the Alexandrian party said ‘no,’ because otherwise Christ
would really be two persons: God the Son joined to a human being; this
would call into question the unity of his person. The Alexandrians pre-
ferred the view that, in the person of Christ, God the Son replaced the
spirit of the man. This established the deity of Christ, but at the cost of
sacrificing his humanity, because this would unavoidably mean that
 Appendixes 613

Christ was God with a human body—but, again, man is more than just
his body.
Clearly, neither position was satisfactory. But with the triumph of the
Alexandrian view, man’s salvation was placed in serious doubt because
Jesus was not truly the counterpart of Adam; he was constituted differ-
ently from Adam and from us. And even if it be acknowledged that man’s
spirit also derived from God, that is quite different from saying that in
Christ’s case God the Son has taken the place of man’s God-given spirit.
And if Jesus is not really human in the same sense that we are human,
then how can he legitimately be the representative man who died for all
men?
But the problem for the Antiochene School, in the opinion of its
adversaries, was that it could not satisfactorily explain how “the two
natures” could constitute one functional person. The Alexandrian school
established a functional unity, in their view, of Christology by
“denaturing” his human nature, so that his human nature had a body but
excluded the human spirit which would threaten that unity. If Christ’s
human “nature” had included both human spirit and body, then the
Alexandrian christological position would have been no different from
that of the Antiochenes.
What all this indicates is that the trinitarian doctrine of the two
natures created problems that could not be resolved in the light of the
Scriptures because of its being essentially unscriptural in its foundational
ideas. For those wishing to study the trinitarian problem in greater detail,
studies such as that by J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, are helpful.
 Appendix 12

The Memra in the

Targums

T
he following is an abridgment of a study by Agnes S.T. Lim and
Lee Sen Siow that examines how “Memra” (Aramaic for “Word,”
cf. John 1.1) in the Aramaic Targums is used as a metonym for
Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures. By placing two English translations
conveniently side by side—one being a translation of the Aramaic
Targums, the other of the Hebrew Scriptures—the study enables the
reader to quickly see how often “Memra” is used as a metonym for God
(Yahweh). The value of the study, for which I express my deep gratitude
to the authors, lies in the important fact, unknown to most Christians,
that Aramaic was the main language of Jesus, of the people in the land of
Israel of his day, and of the early Jewish church.
Whereas the original study covered the whole of the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Bible), the present abridgment covers only Genesis
and Exodus. The research methodology in the original study was, how-
ever, applied uniformly to all five books and led to near identical results
for each; therefore the results obtained from Genesis and Exodus by this
procedure are representative of those obtained from the Pentateuch as a
 615

whole. The original study is exhaustive in that every occurrence of

“Memra” in the Aramaic Pentateuch was examined and taken into
account.
The results are shown in the interlinear tables below. The text in the
second column is taken from an English translation of the well-known
“Targum Pseudo-Jonathan”. The text in the third column is taken from
the New Jerusalem Bible.
In these two columns, the words in boldface connect “Memra” in the
second column to its Hebrew parallel in the third column. (This allows us
to see, for example, that in the majority of cases, “Memra” is linked
directly to “Yahweh” or its pronouns.) The following explanatory sym-
bols are used in the first column:

● “Memra” is used as a metonym of Yahweh

 “Memra” points to something other than Yahweh
 Textual note

An Example: In the interlinear tables below, Exodus 4.15 is marked with

●, which means that Exodus 4.15 in the Aramaic Targums has three
occurrences of the word “Memra”. The first of these occurrences is
denoted by symbol ●, which means that it is used as a metonym of
Yahweh. By contrast, the second and the third occurrences of “Memra”
in this verse, indicated by a different symbol , refer to someone or
something other than Yahweh (in this case, Moses and Aaron, respect-
ively).

Conclusion of Study: A quick look through the interlinear tables shows

that the symbol ● outnumbers the symbol  by a wide margin, indicat-
ing that “Memra” is indeed used in the Aramaic Pentateuch predomi-
nantly as a metonym for Yahweh.

For Further Study: The original study by Agnes Lim and Lee Sen Siow,
which covers the whole Pentateuch, is available for downloading from
www.christiandiscipleschurch.org or christiandc.org. (A statistical survey
of the study is also available for downloading.) The original study in-
cludes a special column that displays the Aramaic text of the Targums,
but it is not included in the present abridgment due to space limitations
616

and because few people today read Aramaic. To give the reader a sample
of what has been omitted here (but retained in the original study), here is
the Aramaic text for the first entry of the table (with ‫מימר‬ “Memra” in
boldface):

Gen 2:8 ‫ואיתנציב במימרא דייי אלקים‬

‫גינוניתא מעדן לצדיקייא קדם בריית עלם‬
‫ואשרי תמן ית אדם כד ברייה‬
 617

“MEMRA” IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS

FROM TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Genesis 2:8 And a garden from the Eden of the Yahweh God planted a
● just was planted by the Word of garden in Eden, which is
the Lord God before the creation in the east, and there he
of the world, and He made there put the man he had
to dwell the man when He had fashioned.
created him.
Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the The man and his wife
● word of the Lord God walking in heard the sound of
the garden in the repose of the Yahweh God walking in
day; and Adam and his wife hid the garden in the cool of
themselves from before the Lord the day, and they hid
God among the trees of the from Yahweh God
garden. among the trees of the
garden.
Genesis 3:10 And he said, The voice of Thy “I heard the sound of
● Word heard I in the garden, and I you in the garden,” he
was afraid, because I am naked; replied. “I was afraid
and the commandment which because I was naked, so I
Thou didst teach me, I have hid.”
transgressed; therefore I hid
myself from shame.
Genesis 3:24 And He drave out the man from He banished the man,
● thence where He had made to and in front of the
dwell the glory of His Shekina at garden of Eden he posted
the first between the two Kerubaia. the great winged
Before He had created the world, creatures and the fiery
He created the law; He prepared flashing sword, to guard
the garden of Eden for the the way to the tree of life.
righteous, that they might eat and
delight themselves with the fruit of
the tree; because they would have
practised in their lives the doctrine
of the law in this world, and have
maintained the commandments:
(but) he prepared Gehinnam for
618

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
the wicked, which is like the sharp,
consuming sword of two edges; in
the midst of it He hath prepared
flakes of fire and burning coals for
the judgment of the wicked who
rebelled in their life against the
doctrine of the law. To serve the
law is better than (to eat of) the
fruit of the tree of life, (the law)
which the Word of the Lord pre-
pared, that man in keeping it
might continue, and walk in the
paths of the way of life in the
world to come.
Genesis 4:23 And Lemek said to his wives Ada Lamech said to his wives:
 and Zillah, Hear my voice, wives Adah and Zillah, hear
of Lemek, hearken to my words: my voice, wives of
for I have not killed a man, that I Lamech, listen to what I
should be slain for him; neither say: I killed a man for
have I destroyed a young man, on wounding me, a boy for
whose account my children should striking me.
perish.
Genesis 4:26 And to Sheth also was born a son, A son was also born to
● and he called his name Enosh. Seth, and he named him
That was the generation in whose Enosh. This man was the
days they began to err, and to first to invoke the name
make themselves idols, and Yahweh.
surnamed their idols by the name
of the Word of the Lord.
Genesis 5:2 Male and female He created them, Male and female he
● and blessed them in the name of created them. He blessed
His Word; and He called their them and gave them the
name Man in the day they were name Man, when they
created. were created.
Genesis 5:24 And Hanok served in the truth Enoch walked with God,
● before the Lord; and, behold, he then was no more,
was not with the sojourners of the because God took him.
earth; for he was withdrawn, and
he ascended to the firmament by
 619

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
the Word before the Lord, and his
name was called Metatron the
Great Saphra.
Genesis 6:3 And the Lord said by His Word, Yahweh said, “My spirit
● All the generations of the wicked cannot be indefinitely
which are to arise shall not be responsible for human
purged after the order of the beings, who are only
judgments of the generation of the flesh; let the time allowed
deluge, which shall be destroyed each be a hundred and
and exterminated from the midst twenty years.”
of the world. Have I not imparted
My Holy Spirit to them, (or,
placed My Holy Spirit in them,)
that they may work good works?
And, behold, their works are
wicked. Behold, I will give them a
prolongment of a hundred and
twenty years, that they may work
repentance, and not perish.
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord in His Yahweh regretted having
●● Word that He had made man made human beings on
upon the earth; and He passed earth and was grieved at
judgment upon them by His heart.
Word.
Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will abolish And Yahweh said, “I
● by My Word  man, whom I have shall rid the surface of
created upon the face of the earth, the earth of the human
 “by My from man to cattle, to the reptile, beings whom I created—
Word” in the and to the fowl of the heavens; human and animal, the
English PJT is because I have repented in My creeping things and the
not in the Word that I have made them. birds of heaven—for I
Aramaic PJT regret having made
them.”
Genesis 7:16 And they coming entered, male and those that went
● and female, of all flesh unto him, aboard were a male and
as the Lord had instructed him; female of all that was
and the Word of the Lord covered alive, as God had
over the door of the ark upon the commanded him. Then
face thereof. Yahweh shut him in.
620

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Genesis 8:1 And the Lord in His Word But God had Noah in
● remembered Noah, and all the mind, and all the wild
animals and the cattle which were animals and all the cattle
with him in the ark; and the Lord that were with him in the
caused the wind of mercies to pass ark. God sent a wind
over the earth, and the waters were across the earth and the
dried. waters began to subside.
Genesis 8:21 And the Lord accepted his Yahweh smelt the
● oblation with favour: and the Lord pleasing smell and said
said in His Word, I will not add to himself, “Never again
again to curse the earth on will I curse the earth
account of the sin of the children because of human
of men; for the imagination of the beings, because their
heart of man is evil from his heart contrives evil from
youth; neither will I add to destroy their infancy. Never
whatever liveth as I have done. again will I strike down
every living thing as I
have done.
Genesis 9:12 And the Lord said, This is the sign “And this”, God said, “is
● of the covenant which I establish the sign of the covenant
between My Word and between which I now make
you and every living soul that is between myself and you
with you, unto the generations of and every living creature
the world. with you for all ages to
come:
Genesis 9:13 I have set My Bow in the cloud, I now set my bow in the
● and it shall be for a token of the clouds and it will be the
covenant between My Word and sign of the covenant
the earth. between me and the
earth.
Genesis 9:15 And I will remember My covenant I shall recall the covenant
● which is between My Word and between myself and you
between you and every living soul and every living creature,
of all flesh, that there shall not be in a word all living
the waters of a flood to destroy all things, and never again
flesh. will the waters become a
flood to destroy all living
things.
Genesis 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud, When the bow is in the
 621

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
● and I will look upon it, to clouds I shall see it and
remember the everlasting call to mind the eternal
covenant between the Word of the covenant between God
Lord and every living soul of all and every living creature
flesh that is upon the earth. on earth, that is, all living
things.”
Genesis 9:17 And the Lord said to Noah, This is “That”, God told Noah,
● the sign of the covenant that I have “is the sign of the
covenanted between My Word covenant I have estab-
and between the word for all flesh lished between myself
that is upon the earth. and all living things on
earth.”
Genesis 11:8 And the Word of the Lord was Yahweh scattered them
● revealed against the city, and with thence all over the world,
Him seventy angels, having and they stopped
reference to seventy nations, each building the city.
having its own language, and
thence the writing of its own hand:
and He dispersed them from
thence upon the face of all the
earth into seventy languages. And
one knew not what his neighbour
would say: but one slew the other;
and they ceased from building the
city.
Genesis 12:17 And the Word of the Lord sent But Yahweh inflicted
● great plagues against Pharoh and severe plagues on
the men of his house, on account Pharaoh and his
of Sara, Abram’s wife. household because of
Abram’s wife Sarai.
Genesis 15:1 Thereupon was the word of the Some time later, the
● Lord with Abram in a vision, word of Yahweh came to
saying, Fear not; for if these men Abram in a vision: Do
should gather together in legions not be afraid, Abram! I
and come against thee, My Word am your shield and shall
will be thy shield: and also if these give you a very great
fall before thee in this world, the reward.
reward of thy good works shall be
kept, and be prepared before Me
622

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
in the world to come, great
exceedingly.
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the Lord, and Abram put his faith in
● had faith in the Word of the Lord, Yahweh and this was
and He reckoned it to him for reckoned to him as
righteousness, because he parleyed uprightness.
not before him with words.
Genesis 16:1 But Sara, the wife of Abram, had Abram’s wife Sarai had
● not borne to him. But he had a borne him no child, but
handmaid, a Mizreitha, and her she had an Egyptian
name was Hagar, a daughter of slave-girl called Hagar.
Pharoh, whom he gave to him as a
handmaid at the time that he
received her, being struck by the
word from before the Lord.
Genesis 16:13 And she gave thanks before the Hagar gave a name to
● Lord whose Word spake to her, Yahweh who had spoken
and thus said, Thou art He who to her, “You are El Roi,”
livest and art eternal; who seest, by which she meant,
but art not seen! · for she said, For, “Did I not go on seeing
behold, here is revealed the glory here, after him who sees
of the Shekina of the Lord after a me?”
vision.
Genesis 17:2 And I will set My covenant and I shall grant a cove-
● between My Word and thee, and nant between myself and
will multiply thee very greatly. you, and make you very
numerous.”
Genesis 17:7 And I have established My And I shall maintain my
● covenant between My Word and covenant between myself
thee, and thy sons after thee in and you, and your
their generations, for an ever- descendants after you,
lasting covenant, to be a God to generation after
thee and to thy sons after thee. generation, as a covenant
in perpetuity, to be your
God and the God of your
descendants after you.
Genesis 17:10 This is My covenant, that you shall This is my covenant
● observe between My Word and which you must keep
you, and your sons after you:— between myself and you,
 623

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Every male of you being and your descendants
circumcised, though he have not a after you: every one of
father to circumcise him. your males must be
circumcised.
Genesis 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh You must circumcise the
● of your foreskin, as a sign of the flesh of your foreskin,
covenant between My Word and and that will be the sign
you. of the covenant between
myself and you.
Genesis 18:5 And I will bring food of bread, Let me fetch a little bread
● that you may strengthen your and you can refresh
hearts, and give thanks in the yourselves before going
Name of the Word of the Lord, further, now that you
and afterwards pass on. For have come in your
therefore at the time of repast are servant’s direction.”
you come, and have turned aside They replied, “Do as you
to your servant to take food. And say.”
they said, Thou hast spoken well;
do according to thy word.
Genesis 18:17 And the Lord said, with His Now Yahweh had
● Word, I cannot hide from wondered, ‘shall I
Abraham that which I am about to conceal from Abraham
do; and it is right that before I do what I am going to do,
it, I should make it known to him.
Genesis 19:24 And the Word of the Lord had Then Yahweh rained
●● caused showers of favour to down on Sodom and
descend upon Sedom and Gomorrah brimstone
Amorah, to the intent that they and fire of his own
might work repentance, but they sending.
did it not: so that they said,
Wickedness is not manifest before
the Lord. Behold, then, there are
now sent down upon them
sulphur and fire from before the
Word of the Lord from Heaven.
Genesis 20:3 And a word came from before the But God visited
● Lord unto Abimelek, in a dream Abimelech in a dream
of the night, and said to him, one night. “You are to
Behold, thou diest, because of the die,” he told him,
624

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
woman whom thou hast carried “because of the woman
away, and she a man’s wife. you have taken, for she is
a married woman.”

Genesis 20:6 And the Word of the Lord said to “Yes, I know,” God
● him in a dream, Before Me also it replied in the dream,
is manifest that in the truthfulness “that you did this with a
of thy heart thou didst this, and so clear conscience and I
restrained I thee from sinning myself prevented you
before Me; therefore I would not from sinning against me.
permit thee to come near her. That was why I did not
let you touch her.

Genesis 20:18 For the Word of the Lord shutting for Yahweh had made all
● had shut in displeasure the wombs the women of
of all the women of Abimelek’s Abimelech’s household
house on account of Sarah the wife barren on account of
of Abraham. Sarah, Abraham’s wife.
Genesis 21:20 And the Word of the Lord was the God was with the boy.
● helper of the youth, and he grew He grew up and made his
and dwelt in the wilderness, and home in the desert, and
became a skilful master of the he became an archer.
bow.
Genesis 21:22 And it was at that time that About then, Abimelech
● Abimelek and Phikol, chief of his and Phicol, the com-
host, spake to Abraham, saying, mander of his army, said
The Word of the Lord is in thine to Abraham, ‘since God
aid in all whatsoever thou doest. is with you in everything
you do,
Genesis 21:23 And now, swear to me here, by the swear to me by God, here
● Word of the Lord, that thou wilt and now, that you will
not be false with me, nor with my not act treacherously
son, nor with the son of my son: towards me or my kith
according to the kindness which I and kin, but behave with
have done with thee, thou shalt do the same faithful love to
with me, and with the land in me and the land of which
which thou dwellest. you are a guest as I have
behaved to you.”
Genesis 21:33 And he planted a garden, (lit., “a And Abraham planted a
 625

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
● paradise,”) at the Well of the Seven tamarisk at Beersheba
Lambs, and prepared in the midst and there he invoked the
of it food and drink for them who name of Yahweh.
passed by and who returned; and
he preached to them there,
Confess ye, and believe in the
Name of the Word of the Lord,
the everlasting God.
Genesis 22:1 And it was after these things that It happened some time
● Izhak and Ishmael contended; and later that God put
Ishmael said, It is right that I Abraham to the test.
should inherit what is the father’s “Abraham, Abraham!”
because I am his firstborn son. he called. “Here I am,” he
And Izhak said, It is right that I replied.
should inherit what is the father’s,
because I am the son of Sarah his
wife, and thou art the son of Hagar
the handmaid of my mother.
Ishmael answered and said, I am
more righteous than thou, because
I was circumcised at thirteen
years; and if it had been my will to
hinder, they should not have
delivered me to be circumcised;
but thou wast circumcised a child
eight days; if thou hadst had
knowledge, perhaps they should
not have delivered thee to be
circumcised. Izhak responded and
said, Behold now, to-day I am
thirty and six years old; and if the
Holy One, blessed be He, were to
require all my members, I would
not delay. These words were heard
before the Lord of the world, and
the Word of the Lord at once
tried Abraham, and said to him,
Abraham! And he said, Behold
me.
626

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Genesis 22:16 and said, By My Word have I “I swear by my own self,
● sworn, saith the Lord, forasmuch Yahweh declares, that
as thou hast done this thing, and because you have done
hast not withheld thy son, thy only this, because you have
begotten, not refused me your own
beloved son,
Genesis 22:18 And all the peoples of the earth All nations on earth will
● shall be blessed through the bless themselves by your
righteousness of thy son, because descendants, because you
thou hast obeyed My word. have obeyed my
command.”
Genesis 24:1 And Abraham was old with days, By now Abraham was an
● and the Word of the Lord had old man, well on in
blessed Abraham with every kind years, and Yahweh had
of blessing. blessed Abraham in
every way.
Genesis 24:3 And swear to me in the name of I am going to make you
● the Word of the Lord God, whose swear by Yahweh, God
habitation is in heaven on high, of heaven and God of
the God whose dominion is over earth, that you will not
the earth, that thou wilt not take a choose a wife for my son
wife for my son from the from the daughters of the
daughters of the Kenaanites Canaanites among whom
among whom I dwell; I live
Genesis 26:3 sojourn in the land, and My Word Remain for the present
● shall be for thy help, and I will in that country; I shall be
bless thee; for to the end to thy with you and bless you,
sons will I give all these lands, and for I shall give all these
I will establish the covenant which countries to you and
I have covenanted with Abraham your descendants in
thy father. fulfilment of the oath I
swore to your father
Abraham.
Genesis 26:5 on account that Abraham obeyed in return for Abraham’s
●● My word, and kept the keeping of obedience; for he kept
My word, My statutes, My my charge, my
covenants, and My laws. commandments, my
statutes and my laws.”
Genesis 26:24 And the Lord appeared to him Yahweh appeared to him
 627

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
● that night, and said, I am the God the same night and said:
of Abraham thy father: fear not; I am the God of your
for My Word is for thy help, and I father Abraham. Do not
will bless thee, and multiply thy be afraid, for I am with
sons for the righteousness’ sake of you. I shall bless you and
Abraham My servant. multiply your offspring
for my servant
Abraham’s sake.
Genesis 26:28 And they answered, Seeing, we “It became clear to us
● have seen, that the Word of the that Yahweh was with
Lord is for thy help, and for thy you,” they replied, “and
righteousness’ sake all good hath so we thought, “It is time
been to us; but when thou wentest to have a treaty sworn
forth from our land the wells dried between us, between us
up, and our trees made no fruit; and you.” So let us make
then we said, We will cause him to a covenant with you:
return to us. And now let there be
an oath established between us,
and kindness between us and thee,
and we will enter into a covenant
with thee,
Genesis 27:28 Therefore the Word of the Lord May God give you dew
● give thee of the good dews which from heaven, and the
descend from the heavens, and of richness of the earth,
the good fountains that spring up, abundance of grain and
and make the herbage of the earth wine!
to grow from beneath, and plenty
of provision and wine.
Genesis 27:31 And the Word of the Lord had He too made an
● impeded him from taking clean appetising dish and
venison; but he had found a brought it to his father,
certain dog, and killed him, and “Father, please eat some
made food of him, and brought to of your son’s game and
his father, and said to his father, then give me your special
Arise, my father, and eat of my blessing.”
venison, that thy soul may bless
me.
Genesis 28:7 and that Jakob obeyed the word of and that, in obedience to
 his father, and the word of his his father and mother,
628

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
mother, and was gone to Padan Jacob had gone to
Aram: Paddan-Aram,
Genesis 28:15 And, behold, My Word is for thy Be sure, I am with you; I
● help, and will keep thee in every shall keep you safe
place where thou shalt go, and will wherever you go, and
bring thee (again) to this land; for bring you back to this
I will not leave thee until the time country, for I shall never
when I have performed all that I desert you until I have
have told thee. done what I have
promised you.”
Genesis 28:20 And Jakob vowed a vow, saying, If Jacob then made this
● the Word of the Lord will be my vow, “If God remains
Helper, and will keep me from with me and keeps me
shedding innocent blood, and safe on this journey I am
from strange worship, and from making, if he gives me
impure converse, in this way that I food to eat and clothes to
am going; and will give me bread wear,
to eat, and raiment to wear,
Genesis 29:12 And Jakob told unto Rahel, that he He told Rachel he was
● was come to be with her father to her father’s kinsman and
take one of his daughters. And Rebekah’s son, and she
Rahel answered him Thou canst ran to tell her father.
not dwell with him, for he is a man
of cunning. And Jakob said to her,
I am more cunning and wiser than
he; nor can he do me evil, because
the Word of the Lord is my
Helper. And when she knew that
he was the son of Rivekah, she ran
and made it known to her father.
Genesis 29:31 And it was revealed before the When Yahweh saw that
● Lord that Leah was not loved in Leah was unloved, he
the sight of Jakob; and He said in opened her womb, while
His Word that sons should be Rachel remained barren.
given her, and that Rahel should
be barren.
Genesis 30:22 And the remembrance of Rahel Then God remembered
● came before the Lord, and the Rachel; he heard her and
voice of her prayer was heard opened her womb.
 629

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
before Him; and He said in his
Word that He would give her
sons.
Genesis 31:3 And the Lord said to Jakob, Yahweh said to Jacob,
● Return to the land of thy fathers, “Go back to the land of
and to thy native place; and My your ancestors, where
Word shall be for thy help. you were born, and I
shall be with you.”
Genesis 31:5 And he said to them, I consider and he said to them, “I
● the looks of your father, and, can see that your father’s
 “Memra” in behold, they are not peaceful with manner towards me is
the Aramaic me as yesterday and as before it; not as it was in the past,
PJT is untrans- but the God of my father hath but the God of my father
lated in the been [the word] to my aid. has been with me.
English PJT
Genesis 31:24 And there came an angel with a But God appeared to
● word from before the Lord; and Laban the Aramaean in a
he drew the sword against Laban dream that night and
the deceitful in a dream of the said to him, “On no
night, and said to him, Beware lest account say anything
thou speak with Jakob from good whatever to Jacob.”
to evil.
Genesis 31:50 If thou shalt afflict my daughters, If you ill-treat my
● doing them injury, and if thou daughters or marry other
take upon my daughters, there is women besides my
no man to judge us, the Word of daughters, even though
the Lord seeing is the witness no one be with us,
between me and thee. remember: God is
witness between us.”
Genesis 35:3 And we will arise and go up to We must move on and
● Bethel, and I will make there an go to Bethel. There I
altar unto Eloha, who heard my shall make an altar for
prayer in the day when I was the God who heard me
afflicted, and whose Word was my when I was in distress,
helper in the way that I went. and gave me his help on
the journey I made.”
Genesis 35:9 And the Lord revealed Himself to God again appeared to
● Jakob again on his return from Jacob on his return from
Padan of Aram, and the Lord Paddan-Aram, and
630

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
blessed him by the name of His blessed him.
Word, after the death of his
mother.
Genesis 39:2 And the Word of the Lord was Yahweh was with Joseph,
● Joseph’s Helper, and he became a and everything he
prosperous man in the house of undertook was
his Mizraite master. successful. He lodged in
the house of his Egyptian
master,
Genesis 39:3 And his master saw that the Word and when his master saw
● of the Lord was his Helper, and how Yahweh was with
that the Lord prospered in his him and how Yahweh
hand all that he did; made everything he
undertook successful,
Genesis 39:21 And the Word of the Lord was But Yahweh was with
● Joseph’s Helper, and extended Joseph. He showed him
mercy to him, and gave him faithful love and made
favour in the eyes of the captain of him popular with the
the prison. chief gaoler.
Genesis 39:23 It was not needful for the captain The chief gaoler did not
● of the prison to watch Joseph, after bother about anything
the custom of all prisoners, put in his charge, since
because he saw that there was no Yahweh was with him,
fault in his hands; for the Word of and Yahweh made
the Lord was his Helper, and that everything he undertook
which he did the Lord made it to successful.
prosper.
Genesis 41:1 It was at the end of two years, that Two years later it
● the remembrance of Joseph came happened that Pharaoh
before the Word of the Lord. And had a dream: there he
Pharoh dreamed, and, behold, he was, standing by the
stood by the river, Nile,
Genesis 41:40 Thou shalt be superintendent over You shall be my
 my house, and by the decree [of chancellor, and all my
 “Memra” in the word] of thy mouth shall all people shall respect your
the Aramaic my people be armed only in the orders; only this throne
PJT is untrans- throne of the kingdom will I be shall set me above you.”
lated in the greater than thou.
English PJT
 631

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Genesis 41:44 And Pharoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh said to Joseph,
 Pharoh the king, and thou art “Although I am Pharaoh,
viceregent, and without thy word no one is to move hand
a man shall not lift up his hand to or foot without your per-
gird on arms, or his foot to mount mission throughout
a horse in all the land of Mizraim. Egypt.”
Genesis 43:7 And they said, The man They replied, “He kept
 demanding demanded (to know) questioning us about
about us, and about our family, ourselves and our family,
saying Is your father yet living? asking, “Is your father
Have you a brother? And we still alive?” and, “Have
informed him according to the you another brother?”
word of these things. Could we That is why we told him.
know that he would say, Bring How could we know he
your brother down? was going to say, “Bring
your brother down
here”?”
Genesis 45:21 And Joseph gave them waggons Israel’s sons did as they
 according to the word of Pharoh, were told. Joseph gave
and he furnished them with them waggons as
provision for the way. Pharaoh had ordered,
and he gave them
provisions for the
journey.
Genesis 46:4 I am He who in My Word will go I shall go down to Egypt
●● down with thee into Mizraim; I with you and I myself
will regard the affliction of thy shall bring you back
children, and My Word shall again, and Joseph’s hand
bring thee up from thence, and will close your eyes.”
cause thy children to come up; but
Joseph shall lay his hand upon
thine eyes.
Genesis 48:9 And Joseph answered his father, “They are my sons,
● They are my sons which the Word whom God has given me
of the Lord gave me according to here,” Joseph told his
this writing, according to which I father. “Then bring them
took Asenath the daughter of to me”, he said, ‘so that I
Dinah thy daughter to be my wife. may bless them.”
632

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
And he said, Bring them now near
to me, and I will bless them.
Genesis 48:21 And Israel said to Joseph, Behold, Then Israel said to
● my end cometh to die. But the Joseph, “Now I am about
Word of the Lord shall be your to die. But God will be
Helper, and restore you to the land with you and take you
of your fathers; back to the land of your
ancestors.
Genesis 49:25 From the Word of the Lord shall the God of your father
● be thy help; and He who is called who assists you, El
the All-Sufficient shall bless thee Shaddai who blesses you:
with the blessings which descend blessings of heaven
with the dew of heaven from above, blessings of the
above, and with the good blessing deep lying below,
of the fountains of the deep which blessings of the breasts
ascend and clothe the herbage and womb,
from beneath. The breasts are
blessed at which thou wast
suckled, and the womb in which
thou didst lie,
Genesis 50:20 You indeed imagined against me The evil you planned to
● evil thoughts, that when I did not do me has by God’s
recline with you to eat it was be- design been turned to
cause I retained enmity against good, to bring about the
you. But the Word of the Lord present result: the
thought on me for good; for my survival of a numerous
father hath caused me to sit at the people.
head, and on account of his
honour I received; but now not for
the sake of my (own) right-
eousness or merit was it given me
to work out for you deliverance
this day for the preservation of
much people of the house of
Jakob,
 633

“MEMRA” IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS

FROM TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Exodus 1:21 And forasmuch as the midwives and since the midwives
● feared before the Lord, they feared God, he gave
obtained for themselves a good them families of their
name unto the ages; and the own.
Word of the Lord up-builded
for them a royal house, even the
house of the high priesthood.
Exodus 2:5 And the Word of the Lord sent Now Pharaoh’s daughter
● forth a burning sore and went down to bathe in
inflammation of the flesh upon the river, while her maids
the land of Mizraim; and the walked along the
daughter of Pharoh came down riverside. Among the
to refresh herself at the river. reeds she noticed the
And her handmaids, walking basket, and she sent her
upon the bank of the river, saw maid to fetch it.
the ark among the reeds, and
put forth the arm and took it,
and were immediately healed of
the burning and inflammation.
Exodus 2:23 And it was after many of those During this long period
● days that the king of Mizraim the king of Egypt died.
was struck (with disease), and The Israelites, groaning
he commanded to kill the first- in their slavery, cried out
born of the sons of Israel, that for help and from the
he might bathe himself in their depths of their slavery
blood. And the sons of Israel their cry came up to
groaned with the labour that God.
was hard upon them; and they
cried, and their cry ascended to
the high heavens of the Lord.
And He spake in His Word to
deliver them from the travail.
Exodus 3:8 And I have revealed Myself to And I have come down
● thee this day, that by My Word to rescue them from the
they may be delivered from the clutches of the Egyptians
634

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
hand of the Mizraee, to bring and bring them up out of
them up out of the unclean that country, to a
land, unto a good land, and country rich and broad,
large in its boundaries, a land to a country flowing with
yielding milk and honey, unto milk and honey, to the
the place where dwell the home of the Canaanites,
Kenaanaee, and the Hittaee, and the Hittites, the
the Amoraee, and the Pherizaee, Amorites, the Perizzites,
and the Hivaee, and the the Hivites and the
Jebusaee. Jebusites.
Exodus 3:12 But He said, Therefore My “I shall be with you,”
● Word shall be for thy help; and God said, “and this is the
this shall be the sign to thee that sign by which you will
I have sent thee: when thou hast, know that I was the one
brought the people forth from who sent you. After you
Mizraim, ye shall worship have led the people out
before the Lord, because ye shall of Egypt, you will
have received the Law upon this worship God on this
mountain. mountain.”
Exodus 3:17 and I have said in My Word, I and has said: I shall bring
● will bring you up out from the you out of the misery of
oppression of the Mizraee into Egypt to the country of
the land of the Kenaanaee, and the Canaanites, the
Hittaee, and Amoraee, and Hittites, the Amorites,
Pherizaee, and Hivaee, and the Perizzites, the Hivites
Jebusaee, to the land that and the Jebusites, to a
yieldeth milk and honey. country flowing with
milk and honey.”
Exodus 3:19 But it is manifest before Me that I am well aware that the
● the king of Mizraim will not let king of Egypt will not let
you go, (no,) not from fear of you go unless he is
Him who is Mighty, until that compelled by a mighty
by My Word he shall have been hand;
punished with evil plagues.
Exodus 4:12 And now go, and I by My Word Now go, I shall help you
● will be with the speaking of thy speak and instruct you
mouth, and will teach thee what what to say.”
thou shalt say.
Exodus 4:15 And thou shalt speak with him, You will speak to him
 635

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
● and put the matter in his and tell him what
mouth, and My Word shall be message to give. I shall
with the word of thy mouth, help you speak, and him
and with the word of his too, and instruct you
mouth, and I will instruct you what to do.
what you are to do.
Exodus 5:2 And Pharoh said, The name of “Who is Yahweh,”
● the Lord is not made known to Pharaoh replied, “for me
me, that I should receive His to obey what he says and
word to release Israel. I have not let Israel go? I know
found written in the Book of the nothing of Yahweh, and I
Angels the name of the Lord. Of will not let Israel go.
Him I am not afraid, neither
will I release Israel.
Exodus 6:8 And I will bring you into the Then I shall lead you into
● land which I covenanted by My the country which I
Word to give unto Abraham, to swore I would give to
Izhak, and to Jakob; and I will Abraham, Isaac and
give it to you for an inheritance. Jacob, and shall give it to
I Am the Lord. you as your heritage, I,
Yahweh.” “
Exodus 7:25 And seven days were completed After Yahweh struck the
● after the Lord had smitten the River, seven days went
river, and the Word of the Lord by.
had afterward healed the river.
Exodus 10:10 And he said to them, So may the Pharaoh said, ‘so I must
● Word of the Lord be a help to let you go with your
you: (but) how can I release wives and children! May
(both) you and your children? Yahweh preserve you!
The evil offence is in the look of Plainly, you are up to no
your faces: (you think to go good!
onward) in the way that you
would walk, till the time that
you shall have come to the
house of the place of your
habitation.
Exodus 10:29 Mosheh said, Thou hast spoken Moses then said, “You
● fairly. While I was dwelling in yourself have said it. I
Midian, it was told me in a shall never see your face
636

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
word from before the Lord, again.”
that the men who had sought to
kill me had fallen from their
means, and were reckoned with
the dead. At the end there will
be no mercy upon thee; but I
will pray, and the plague shall be
restrained from thee. And now I
will see thy face no more.
Exodus 12:23 For the Glory of the Lord will be Then, when Yahweh
● manifested in striking the goes through Egypt to
Mizraee, and He will see the strike it, and sees the
blood upon the lintel and upon blood on the lintel and
the two posts, and the Word of on both door-posts, he
the Lord will spread His will pass over the door
protection over the door, and and not allow the
the destroying angel will not be Destroyer to enter your
permitted to enter your houses homes and strike.
to smite.
Exodus 12:27 you shall say, It is the sacrifice of you will tell them, “It is
● mercy before the Lord, who had the Passover sacrifice in
mercy in His Word upon the honour of Yahweh who
houses of the sons of Israel in passed over the houses of
Mizraim, when He destroyed the Israelites in Egypt,
the Mizraee, and spared our and struck Egypt but
houses. And when the house of spared our houses.”
Israel heard this word from the “ And the people bowed
mouth of Mosheh, they bowed in worship.
and worshipped.
Exodus 12:29 And it was in the dividing, of And at midnight
● the night of the fifteenth, that Yahweh struck down all
the Word of the Lord slew all the first-born in Egypt
the firstborn in the land of from the first-born of
Mizraim, from the firstborn son Pharaoh, heir to his
of Pharoh, who would have sat throne, to the first-born
upon the throne of his kingdom, of the prisoner in the
unto the firstborn sons of the dungeon, and the first-
kings who were captives in the born of all the livestock.
dungeon as hostages under
 637

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Pharoh’s hand; and who, for
having rejoiced at the servitude
of Israel, were punished as (the
Mizraee): and all the firstborn of
the cattle that did the work of
the Mizraee died also.
Exodus 13:5 And it shall be, when the Lord and when Yahweh has
● your God shall have brought brought you into the
you into the land of the country of the Canaan-
Kenaanaee, and Hittaee, and ites, the Hittites, the
Amoraee, and Hivaee, and Amorites, the Hivites
Jebusaee, which He sware by and the Jebusites,
His Word unto Abraham to flowing with milk and
give thee, a land producing milk honey, which he swore to
and honey, that thou shalt keep your ancestors that he
this service in this month. would give you, then you
must observe this rite in
the same month.
Exodus 13:8 And thou shalt instruct thy son And on that day you will
● on that day, saying, This precept explain to your son,
is on account of what the Word “This is because of what
of the Lord did for me in Yahweh did for me when
miracles and wonders, in I came out of Egypt.”
bringing me forth from
Mizraim.
Exodus 13:15 And when the Word of the When Pharaoh
● Lord had hardened the heart of stubbornly refused to let
Pharoh (that he would) not us go, Yahweh killed all
deliver us, he killed all the the first-born in Egypt,
firstborn in the land of Mizraim, of man and beast alike.
from the firstborn of man to the This is why I sacrifice
firstborn of cattle; therefore do I every male first issuing
sacrifice before the Lord every from the womb to
male that openeth the womb, Yahweh and redeem
and every firstborn of my sons I every first-born of my
redeem with silver. sons.”
Exodus 13:17 AND it was when Pharoh had When Pharaoh had let
●● released the people, that the the people go, God did
Lord did not conduct, them by not let them take the
638

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
the way of the land of the road to the Philistines’
Phelishtaee though that was the territory, although that
near one; for the Lord said, Lest was the shortest, “in
the people be affrighted in case”, God thought, “the
seeing their brethren who were prospect of fighting
killed in war, two hundred makes the people change
thousand men of strength of the their minds and turn
tribe of Ephraim, who took back to Egypt.”
shields, and lances, and
weapons of war, and went down
to Gath to carry off the flocks of
the Phelishtaee; and because
they transgressed against the
statute of the Word of the Lord,
and went forth from Mizraim
three years before the
(appointed) end of their
servitude, they were delivered
into the hand of the Phelishtaee,
who slew them. These are the
dry bones which the Word of
the Lord restored to life by the
ministry (hand) of Yechezekel
the prophet, in the vale of Dura;
but which, if they (now) saw
them, they would be afraid, and
return into Mizraim.
Exodus 14:25 and He brake (or, made rough) He so clogged their
● the wheels of Pharoh’s carriages, chariot wheels that they
so that they drave them with drove on only with
hardship, and that they went on difficulty, which made
and left them behind. And the the Egyptians say, “Let us
Mizraee said one to another, Let flee from Israel, for
us flee from the people of the Yahweh is fighting on
house of Israel; for this is the their side against the
Word of the Lord who fought Egyptians!”
for them in Mizraim.
Exodus 14:31 And Israel saw the power of the When Israel saw the
● mighty hand by which the Lord mighty deed that
 639

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
had wrought the miracles in Yahweh had performed
Mizraim; and the people feared against the Egyptians, the
before the Lord, and believed in people revered Yahweh
the Name of the Word of the and put their faith in
Lord, and in the prophecies of Yahweh and in Moses,
Mosheh His servant. his servant.
Exodus 15:1 Behold: then sang, Mosheh and It was then that Moses
● the sons of Israel this song of and the Israelites sang
praise before the Lord and this song in Yahweh’s
saying they said: Thanksgiving honour: I shall sing to
and praise we bring before the Yahweh, for he has
Lord Most High, who is covered himself in glory,
glorified above the glorious, and horse and rider he has
exalted above the exalted; who thrown into the sea.
punisheth by His Word
whomsoever glorifieth himself
before Him.

Therefore when Pharoh the

wicked bare himself proudly
before the Lord, and, being
uplifted in his heart, followed
after the people of the sons of
Israel, their horses and their
chariots He threw and buried in
the sea of Suph.
Exodus 15:2 The Lord is Mighty, and greatly Yah is my strength and
● to be feared over all the world. my song, to him I owe
He spake in His Word, and my deliverance. He is my
became to me a God of God and I shall praise
salvation. him, my father’s God
and I shall extol him.
From their mothers’ breasts
even the children have given
signs with their fingers to their
fathers, and said This is our
God, who nourished us with
honey from the rock, and with
oil from the stone of clay, at the
640

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
time when our mothers went
forth upon the face of the field
to give us birth, and leave us
there; and He sent an angel who
washed us and enwrapped us;
and now will we praise Him: He
is the God of our fathers, and we
will exalt Him.
Exodus 15:8 For by the Word from before A blast from your
● Thee the waters became heaps; nostrils and the waters
they stood, as if bound like skins piled high; the waves
that confine flowing water, and stood firm as a dyke; the
the depths were congealed in bed of the sea became
the flood of the great sea. firm ground.
Exodus 15:25 And he prayed before the Lord, Moses appealed to
● and the Lord showed him the Yahweh for help, and
bitter tree of Ardiphne; and he Yahweh showed him a
wrote upon it the great and piece of wood. When
glorious Name, and cast it into Moses threw it into the
the midst of the waters, and the water, the water became
waters were rendered sweet. sweet. There he laid
And there did the Word of the down a statute and law
Lord appoint to him the for them and there he
ordinance of the Sabbath, and put them to the test.
the statute of honouring father Then he said,
and mother, the judgments
concerning wounds and bruises,
and the punishments wherewith
offenders are punished; and
there he tried (them) with the
tenth trial,
Exodus 16:3 And the sons of Israel said to and said to them, “Why
● them, Would that we had died did we not die at
by the Word of the Lord in the Yahweh’s hand in Egypt,
land of Mizraim, when we sat by where we used to sit
the cisterns of meat, and ate round the flesh pots and
bread and had enough! Why could eat to our heart’s
hast thou brought us out into content! As it is, you
this wilderness to kill all this have led us into this
 641

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
congregation with hunger? desert to starve this
entire assembly to
death!”
Exodus 16:8 And Mosheh said, By this you Moses then said, “This
● shall know, when the Lord evening Yahweh will give
prepareth you at evening flesh you meat to eat, and
to eat, and in the morning bread tomorrow morning
to satisfy, that your bread to your heart’s
complainings wherewith you content, for Yahweh has
complain against Him are heard heard your complaints
before the Lord. And we, what about him. What do we
are we accounted? Your count for? Your
complaints are not against us, complaints are not
but against the Word of the against us, but against
Lord. Yahweh.”
Exodus 17:1 And all the congregation of the The whole community of
● sons of Israel journeyed from Israelites left the desert
the desert of Sin by their of Sin, travelling by
journeyings according to the stages as Yahweh
word of the Lord, and they ordered. They pitched
encamped in Rephidim, a place camp at Rephidim where
where their hands were idle in there was no water for
the commandments of the law, the people to drink.
and the fountains were dry, and
there was no water for the
people to drink.
Exodus 17:13 And Jehoshua shattered and Joshua defeated
● Amalek, and cut off the heads, Amalek, putting their
of the strong men of his people, people to the sword.
by the mouth of the Word of
the Lord, with the slaughter of
the sword.
Exodus 17:15 And Mosheh builded an altar, Moses then built an altar
● and called the name of it, The and named it Yahweh-
Word of the Lord is my banner; Nissi
for the sign which He hath
wrought (in this) place was on
my behalf.
Exodus 17:16 And he said, Because the Word meaning, “Lay hold of
642

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
●● of the Lord hath sworn by the Yahweh’s banner!
throne of His glory, that He by Yahweh will be at war
His Word will fight against with Amalek generation
those of the house of Amalek, after generation.”
and destroy them unto three
generations; from the
generation of this world, from
the generation of the Meshiha,
and from the generation of the
world to come.
Exodus 18:19 Now hearken to me and I will Now listen to the advice I
● advise thee; and may the Word am going to give you,
of the Lord be thy helper! When and God be with you!
thou art with the people who Your task is to represent
seek instruction from before the the people to God, to lay
Lord, thou shouldst take their their cases before God,
affair before the Lord,
Exodus 19:5 And now, if you will truly So now, if you are really
● hearken to My Word and keep prepared to obey me and
My covenant, you shall be more keep my covenant, you,
beloved before Me than all the out of all peoples, shall
peoples on the face of the earth. be my personal
possession, for the whole
world is mine.
Exodus 20:7 My people of the house of Israel, “You shall not misuse the
● Let no one of you swear by the name of Yahweh your
name of the Word of the Lord God, for Yahweh will not
your God in vain; for in the day leave unpunished anyone
of the great judgment the Lord who misuses his name.
will not hold guiltless any one
who sweareth by His name in
vain.
Exodus 21:22 If men when striving strike a “If people, when
 woman with child, and cause brawling, hurt a
 “Memra” in her to miscarry, but not to lose pregnant woman and she
the Aramaic PJT her life, the fine on account of suffers a miscarriage but
is translated as the infant which the husband of no further harm is done,
“sentence” in the the woman shall lay upon him, the person responsible
English PJT he shall pay according to the will pay compensation as
 643

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
sentence of the judges. fixed by the woman’s
master, paying as much
as the judges decide.
Exodus 23:21 Be circumspect before Him, and Revere him and obey
 obey His word, and be not what he says. Do not
rebellious against His words; for defy him: he will not
He will not forgive your sins, forgive any wrong-doing
because His word is in My on your part, for my
Name. name is in him.
Exodus 23:22 For if thou wilt indeed hearken If, however, you obey
 to His word, and do all that I what he says and do
speak by Him, I will be the whatever I order, I shall
enemy of thy enemy, and will be an enemy to your
trouble them who trouble thee. enemies and a foe to
your foes.
Exodus 25:22 And I will appoint My Word There I shall come to
● with thee there, and will speak meet you; from above the
with thee from above the mercy-seat, from
mercy-seat, between the two between the two winged
kerubaia that are over the ark of creatures which are on
the testament, concerning all the ark of the Testimony,
that I may command thee for I shall give you all my
the sons of Israel. orders for the Israelites.
Exodus 26:28 And the middle bar in the midst The middle bar must join
● of the boards passing from end the frames from one end
to end shall be from the tree to the other, halfway up.
which Abraham planted in
Beara of Sheba: for when Israel
had crossed the sea, the angels
cut down the tree and cast it
into the sea, and it floated on
the face of the waters. And an
angel proclaimed, and said, This
is the tree which Abraham
planted in Beara of Sheba, and
prayed there in the name of the
Word of the Lord. And the sons
of Israel shall take and make
thereof the middle bar, seventy
644

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
cubits in length, and with it shall
wondrous things be done: for
when they have reared up the
tabernacle, it shall go round it
like a serpent among the boards
of the tabernacle and when they
take it down, it shall become
straight as a rod.
Exodus 29:42 a perpetual holocaust for your a perpetual burnt
● generations at the door of the offering for all your
tabernacle of ordinance before generations to come, at
the Lord; where I will appoint the entrance to the Tent
My Word to (meet) thee there, of Meeting before
to speak with thee there. Yahweh, where I shall
meet you and speak to
you.
Exodus 29:43 And there I will appoint My “There I shall meet the
● Word (to meet) with the sons of Israelites in the place
Israel, and I will be sanctified in consecrated by my glory.
their rulers for My glory.
Exodus 30:6 And thou shalt place it before “You will put it in front
● the veil which is over the ark of of the curtain by the ark
the testimony, before the mercy of Testimony, in front of
seat that is upon the testimony, the mercy-seat which is
where I will appoint My Word on the Testimony, where
to be with thee. I shall meet you.
Exodus 30:36 And beat, and make it small, You will grind some of
● and of it some shalt thou put this up very fine and put
before the testimony in the it in front of the
tabernacle of ordinance, where I Testimony in the Tent of
will appoint My Word to be Meeting, where I shall
with thee. Most sacred shall it be meet you. You will
to you. regard it as especially
holy.
Exodus 31:13 Also, speak thou with the sons ‘speak to the Israelites
● of Israel, saying, Ye shall keep and say, “You will keep
the day of My Sabbaths indeed; my Sabbaths properly,
for it is a sign between My for this is a sign between
Word and you, that you may myself and you for all
 645

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
know that I am the Lord who your generations to
sanctify you. come, so that you will
know that it is I, Yahweh,
who sanctify you.
Exodus 31:17 between My Word and the sons Between myself and the
● of Israel it is a sign for ever. For Israelites, this is a sign
in six days the Lord created and for ever, for in six days
perfected the heavens and the Yahweh made heaven
earth; and in the seventh day He and earth, but on the
rested and refreshed. seventh day he rested
and drew breath.”
Exodus 32:13 Remember Abraham, and Remember your servants
● Izhak, and Israel, Thy servants, Abraham, Isaac and
to whom Thou didst swear in Jacob, to whom you
Thy Word and didst say to swore by your very self
them, I will multiply your and made this promise:
children as the stars of the “I shall make your
heavens, and all this land of offspring as numerous as
which I have told you will I give the stars of heaven, and
to your sons, and they shall this whole country of
inherit for ever. which I have spoken, I
shall give to your
descendants, and it will
be their heritage for
ever.” “
Exodus 32:35 And the Word of the Lord And Yahweh punished
● plagued the people, because they the people for having
had bowed themselves to the made the calf, the one
calf that Aharon had made. Aaron had made.
Exodus 33:9 And it came to pass when And whenever Moses
● Mosheh had gone into the went into the Tent, the
tabernacle, the column of the pillar of cloud would
glorious Cloud descended and come down and station
stood at the door of the itself at the entrance to
tabernacle; and the Word of the the Tent, while Yahweh
Lord spake with Mosheh. spoke with Moses.
Exodus 33:12 And Mosheh said before the Moses said to Yahweh,
● Lord, Lo, what hast Thou said to “Look, you say to me,
me, Take this people up? but “Make the people move
646

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
Thou hast not made me to know on,” but you have not
whom Thou wilt send with me. told me whom you are
By Thy Word Thou hast said, I going to send with me,
have ordained thee with a although you have said,
goodly name, and thou hast “I know you by name
found favour before Me. and you enjoy my
favour.”
Exodus 33:19 but He said, Behold, I will make Yahweh said, “I shall
● all the measure of My goodness make all my goodness
pass before thee, and I will give pass before you, and
utterance in the good name of before you I shall
the Word of the Lord before pronounce the name
thee; and I will have compassion Yahweh; and I am
upon whom I see it right to have gracious to those to
compassion, and will be whom I am gracious and
merciful to whom I see it right I take pity on those on
to have mercy. whom I take pity.
Exodus 33:22 And it shall be that when the and when my glory
● glory of My Shekinah passeth passes by, I shall put you
before thee, I will put thee in a in a cleft of the rock and
cavern of the rock, and will shield you with my hand
overshadow thee with My Word until I have gone past.
until the time that I have passed
by.
Exodus 34:5 And the Lord revealed Himself And Yahweh descended
● in the cloud of the glory of His in a cloud and stood with
Shekinah, and Mosheh stood him there and
with Him there; and Mosheh pronounced the name
called on the Name of the Word Yahweh.
of the Lord.
Exodus 34:27 And the Lord said to Mosheh, Yahweh then said to
 Write thou these words; for Moses, “Put these words
 “Memra” in upon the expression of these in writing, for they are
the Aramaic PJT words have I stricken My the terms of the
is translated as covenant with thee and with the covenant which I have
“expression” in people of Israel. made with you and with
the English PJT Israel.”
Exodus 36:33 And he made the middle bar to He made the middle bar,
● mortise in the midst of the to join the frames from
 647

REFERENCE TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

AND NOTES (ENGLISH)
boards from end to end, of the one end to the other,
tree which our father Abraham halfway up.
planted in Beara of Sheba,
praying there in the Name of the
Word of the Lord, the
everlasting, God.
Exodus 38:21 These are the sums, weights, These are the accounts
 and numbers of the Tabernacle for the Dwelling—the
of the Testimony, which were Dwelling of the
counted by the word of the Testimony—drawn up
mouth of Mosheh. But the by order of Moses, the
service of the Levites was by the work of Levites,
hand of Ithamar bar Aharon the produced by Ithamar son
priest. of Aaron, the priest.
 Scripture Index

Gen 1 264, 265, 278, 295, Gen 2:8 43, 354, 358, 492,
337, 352, 354, 433, 571, 616, 617
436, 437, 438, 496, Gen 2:16 356
507
Gen 2:17;3.22-24 249
Gen 1:1 419, 495, 539
Gen 2:18 276, 356
Gen 1:1-4 484
Gen 2:19 215
Gen 1:2 609
Gen 2:21,22 215
Gen 1:3 405
Gen 2:24 60, 164
Gen 1:5 60
Gen 3 278
Gen 1:26 217, 219, 220, 254,
Gen 3:1 278
443
Gen 3:5 232, 245, 249, 252
Gen 1:26,27 215, 226, 231, 234
Gen 3:5,6 235
Gen 1:26,27;9.6 217, 218
Gen 3:7,21 43
Gen 1:26,28 190
Gen 3:8 43, 356, 358, 465, 617
Gen 1:26-27 217, 485
Gen 3:8-9 493
Gen 1:27 215, 248, 249, 352,
475, 492 Gen 3:10 357, 617
Gen 1:28 245, 353 Gen 3:15 191, 609
Gen 1:29 353 Gen 3:21 361
Gen 2:3 337 Gen 3:22 493
Gen 2:4-25 338 Gen 3:24 489, 617
Gen 2:7 212, 214, 215, 258, Gen 4:6 359
353 Gen 4:9-10 359
 649

Gen 4:15 360 Gen 21:20 624

Gen 4:23 618 Gen 21:22 624
Gen 4:26 493, 618 Gen 21:23 624
Gen 5:2 618 Gen 21:33 624
Gen 5:3 217 Gen 22:1 625
Gen 5:24 618 Gen 22:8 169
Gen 6:3 493, 619 Gen 22:11 379
Gen 6:6 619 Gen 22:16 474, 626
Gen 6:7 619 Gen 22:18 626
Gen 7:16 363, 619 Gen 24:1 626
Gen 8:1 620 Gen 24:3 626
Gen 8:21 620 Gen 26:3 626
Gen 9:6 218, 219, 220 Gen 26:5 626
Gen 9:12 620 Gen 26:24 626
Gen 9:13 620 Gen 26:28 627
Gen 9:15 620 Gen 27:28 627
Gen 9:16 620 Gen 27:31 627
Gen 9:17 621 Gen 27:38;40.5 61
Gen 11:5 550 Gen 28:3 329
Gen 11:8 621 Gen 28:7 627
Gen 12:17 621 Gen 28:15 628
Gen 13:16 379 Gen 28:16 352
Gen 15:1 621 Gen 28:20 628
Gen 15:6 475, 622 Gen 29:12 628
Gen 16:1 622 Gen 29:31 628
Gen 16:7-11 379 Gen 30:22 628
Gen 16:13 489, 622 Gen 30:50 278
Gen 17:1 329 Gen 31:3 629
Gen 17:2 622 Gen 31:5 629
Gen 17:7 622 Gen 31:24 629
Gen 17:10 622 Gen 31:50 629
Gen 17:11 623 Gen 32:24-30 379
Gen 18 365 Gen 32:30 347
Gen 18:1 345 Gen 35:3 629
Gen 18:5 623 Gen 35:9 629
Gen 18:17 623 Gen 39:2 630
Gen 19:24 623 Gen 39:3 630
Gen 20:3 623 Gen 39:21 630
Gen 20:6 624 Gen 39:23 630
Gen 20:18 624 Gen 41:1 630
650

Gen 41:40 630 Ex 8:10 65

Gen 41:42 214 Ex 9:14 65
Gen 41:44 631 Ex 10:10 635
Gen 43:7 631 Ex 10:19 61
Gen 45:21 631 Ex 10:29 635
Gen 45:26 213 Ex 12:13,21 552
Gen 46:4 631 Ex 12:23 636
Gen 47:31 489 Ex 12:27 636
Gen 48:9 631 Ex 12:29 636
Gen 48:21 632 Ex 12:42 484
Gen 49:17 489 Ex 12:49 57
Gen 49:18 489 Ex 13:5 637
Gen 49:25 632 Ex 13:8 637
Gen 50:20 632 Ex 13:15 637
Ex 1:21 633 Ex 13:17 637
Ex 2:5 633 Ex 14:25 638
Ex 2:23 633 Ex 14:28 61
Ex 3 343, 377, 563 Ex 14:31 638
Ex 3:5 380 Ex 15:1 639
Ex 3:7 378 Ex 15:1-18 322
Ex 3:7,8 552 Ex 15:2 335, 639
Ex 3:8 553, 633 Ex 15:3 350, 600
Ex 3:12 634 Ex 15:8 640
Ex 3:12-15 341 Ex 15:13 383
Ex 3:14 31, 51, 98, 106, 110, Ex 15:25 640
328, 341, 342, 343, Ex 16:3 640
344, 377, 378
Ex 16:8 475, 641
Ex 3:16 104
Ex 16:10 243
Ex 3:17 634
Ex 16:14 557
Ex 3:19 634
Ex 17:1 641
Ex 4:12 634
Ex 17:13 641
Ex 4:15 615, 634
Ex 17:15 641
Ex 4:16 331
Ex 17:16 641
Ex 4:22 92
Ex 18:19 642
Ex 4:22,23 83, 86
Ex 19:5 642
Ex 4:31 105
Ex 19:10,11 552
Ex 5:2 635
Ex 19:11 553
Ex 6:8 635
Ex 19:20 550
Ex 7:1 330
Ex 20:1 67
Ex 7:25 635
Ex 20:3 67, 129
 651

Ex 20:4 254, 605 Ex 40:34 487, 543

Ex 20:7 337, 642 Ex 40:35 564
Ex 21:22 642 Lev 4:3,5,16;6:22 245
Ex 22:20 143 Lev 9:23 243
Ex 23:21 332, 381, 643 Lev 18:5 588
Ex 23:22 643 Lev 20:26 570
Ex 24:10-11 347, 369 Lev 24:11 337, 341
Ex 25 501 Lev 26:11 499
Ex 25:8 491, 501 Lev 26:11,12 498
Ex 25:22 501, 643 Num 6:14 152
Ex 25:36 61 Num 6:25 303
Ex 26:28 643 Num 7:89 603
Ex 29:42 644 Num 11:25 498, 550
Ex 29:43 644 Num 12:5 550
Ex 30:6 644 Num 14:10;16.19,42;20.6 243
Ex 30:36 644 Num 14:18 343
Ex 31:13 644 Num 16:35 558
Ex 31:17 645 Num 21:6-9 184
Ex 31:18 422 Num 21:7-9 272, 552
Ex 32:10 149 Num 21:8 184
Ex 32:13 645 Num 22 380
Ex 32:26 130, 578 Num 33:52 217
Ex 32:35 645 Num 35:34 501
Ex 33:7 501 Dt 1:30 474
Ex 33:9 645 Dt 4:7 479
Ex 33:11 366 Dt 4:15-19 225
Ex 33:12 645 Dt 4:16-18 251
Ex 33:19 646 Dt 4:24;9.3 121
Ex 33:20 290, 406, 594 Dt 4:35 47, 64, 142
Ex 33:22 646 Dt 4:39 142
Ex 34 343 Dt 5:6 225
Ex 34:5 646 Dt 5:7 129
Ex 34:6 343 Dt 5:8 605
Ex 34:7 343 Dt 5:9 57, 59
Ex 34:14 142 Dt 6:4 18, 46, 47, 48, 56, 57,
Ex 34:27 646 58, 59, 62, 63, 67,
172, 226, 390
Ex 34:34 603
Dt 6:4,5 18, 64
Ex 36:18 60
Dt 6:5 18, 57, 63
Ex 36:33 646
Dt 6:13 81, 144, 145, 397
Ex 38:21 647
652

Dt 7:6 402 Jdgs 20:8 62

Dt 7:7 387 Ruth 1:16 117
Dt 7:9 57, 341 1Sam 2:2 65, 536
Dt 7:14 555 1Sam 3:1 416
Dt 9:10 422 1Sam 4:21,22;15.29 407
Dt 10:14 57 1Sam 6:5 251
Dt 10:15;26.19;28.1 556 1Sam 8:7 178
Dt 10:17 114, 181, 390 1Sam 15:29 287
Dt 13:6 57 1Sam 24:6,10 245
Dt 14:1 83 1Sam 26:20 61
Dt 14:1,2 171 2Sam 5:11 247
Dt 18:13 570 2Sam 6:21 556
Dt 19:15 61 2Sam 7:13 583
Dt 26:18 171 2Sam 7:14 92, 95, 582
Dt 28:58 337, 338, 341 2Sam 19:21 245
Dt 30:11 428 2Sam 22:10 551
Dt 30:11-14 428 2Sam 22:29 423
Dt 30:14 590 2Sam 23:1 245
Dt 30:20 57 1Ki 4:22 61
Dt 32:12 57, 143 1Ki 5:1 247
Dt 32:39 485, 486 1Ki 8:10 543
Dt 32:41 479 1Ki 8:27 372, 569
Dt 33:12 124 1Ki 8:60 142
Dt 33:27 114 1Ki 18:21 337
Dt 34:6 368 2Ki 6:12 313
Dt 34:7 368 2Ki 11:18 217
Dt 34:10 366, 370, 546 2Ki 19:15 143, 390
Dt 40 426 2Ki 19:19 143
Josh 5:13-15 380 2Ki 19:34 474
Josh 5:14 223 2Ki 19:35 380
Josh 23:10 61 1Chr 4:23 215
Josh 24:15 337 1Chr 13:6 390
Jdgs 5:3-5 552 1Chr 17:12 583, 585
Jdgs 6:20 378 1Chr 17:13 582
Jdgs 6:34 498 1Chr 21:16 380
Jdgs 13 378 1Chr 22:10 583
Jdgs 13:2 61 1Chr 28:6 583
Jdgs 13:18 223, 404 1Chr 29:1 61
Jdgs 13:22 223 1Chr 29:11 555
Jdgs 15:14 498 2Chr 2:6;6.18 569
 653

2Chr 5:13,14 543 Ps 19:14 170

2Chr 6:2 311, 502 Ps 22 455
2Chr 6:21 311 Ps 22:1 116, 282
2Chr 7:1 543 Ps 24:8 302
2Chr 13:20,21 373 Ps 30:9 607
2Chr 23:17 217 Ps 33:6 24, 220, 412, 416,
Ezra 7:12 181 424, 433, 436, 441,
483, 511, 537, 542,
Neh 9:5 555
558, 560
Neh 9:6 144
Ps 35:23,24 312
Neh 9:17 343
Ps 36:9 161, 513
Neh 9:27 173
Ps 37:4 154
Job 4:16 231, 254, 605
Ps 40:8 154
Job 5:16 477
Ps 45 318, 331
Job 5:17 329
Ps 45:1 222
Job 7:17,18 211
Ps 45:6 222, 318
Job 9:8 551
Ps 45:6,7 318
Job 9:32 287
Ps 45:7 222, 319, 331
Job 11:14 477
Ps 46:1 377
Job 23:12 554
Ps 46:7 376
Job 33:4 441, 443
Ps 46:8;46:12 376
Job 35:10 220
Ps 47:7,8 420
Ps 2 13, 21, 89, 91, 579,
Ps 50:1 223
580, 581, 582, 583,
610 Ps 51:11 444
Ps 2:2 396, 579 Ps 65:3 573
Ps 2:7 89, 91, 92, 95, 103, Ps 68:5 335
168, 222, 580, 581, Ps 68:7,8 553
582, 583 Ps 69:9 570
Ps 2:9 600 Ps 72:18 144
Ps 2:9;110.1 89 Ps 77:17 414
Ps 4:8 144 Ps 78:35,56 331
Ps 8 188, 190, 191, 192, Ps 82:1,6,7 318
203, 211, 213
Ps 82:6 84, 331, 496
Ps 8:4 191
Ps 82:6,7 213, 222
Ps 8:4;144.3 211
Ps 83:18 144, 420
Ps 8:5 190, 211, 213, 249,
Ps 85:10 477
496
Ps 86:11 397
Ps 8:6 191
Ps 86:15;103.8;145.8 343
Ps 16:10 393, 607
Ps 89:6,7;95.3;96.4;97.9 555
Ps 16:11 607
Ps 90:2 114, 296, 328
Ps 18:9 551
654

Ps 91:13 191 Ps 148:13 144

Ps 100:3;149.2 220 Prov 3 437
Ps 101:27 528 Prov 6:23 423
Ps 102:1 319 Prov 8 267, 466
Ps 102:15 72 Prov 8:1-9.6 437
Ps 102:16 243 Prov 8:22 465
Ps 102:25 319 Prov 8:22-31 295
Ps 102:25-27 114, 319 Prov 8:30 220, 221, 295, 515,
Ps 102:26 528 517, 519, 527
Ps 102:26,27 328 Prov 20:27 49, 122
Ps 103:19 329 Eccl 3:21 49, 122
Ps 103:20 277 Eccl 12:7 212
Ps 104:4 527 Song 6:8 57, 59
Ps 107 187, 415, 471 Isa 1:2 83, 86
Ps 107:19 415 Isa 1:10 424
Ps 107:19,20 607 Isa 2:11 144
Ps 107:19,20608 13 Isa 4:2 491
Ps 107:19-2019 607 Isa 5:1-7 399
Ps 107:20 415 Isa 6 271, 290, 328, 593,
595, 596
Ps 107:23 186
Isa 6:1 330, 406, 594, 596
Ps 107:29,30 551
Isa 6:1,5 291
Ps 107:42 477
Isa 6:3 219, 543
Ps 110:1 138, 190, 191, 193,
194 Isa 6:5 309
Ps 110:4 289 Isa 7:14 371, 376, 526, 545,
610
Ps 113:4 555
Isa 9:6 27, 178, 221, 223,
Ps 118:25 456
338, 371, 393
Ps 119 421
Isa 9:7 222
Ps 119:43 513
Isa 11:2 498
Ps 119:89 422, 528
Isa 11:4 600
Ps 119:105 423, 484
Isa 11:6-9 223
Ps 119:115 139
Isa 14:13,14 237
Ps 135:1-3 181
Isa 26:4 341
Ps 136:2 114
Isa 28:29 223, 404
Ps 139 358
Isa 29:16;41.25 215
Ps 139:7-8 359
Isa 29:18 186
Ps 139:14 355
Isa 30:30 432
Ps 144:5 550, 551
Isa 31:4 550
Ps 145:5 490
Isa 33:14 121
Ps 147:15 477
Isa 34:16 61
 655

Isa 35:2 312 Isa 45:22 257, 578

Isa 35:8 199 Isa 45:22,23 256, 287
Isa 37:16 143, 390 Isa 45:23 78, 229, 255, 256
Isa 37:20 143 Isa 45:25 475
Isa 40 51 Isa 46:5 65
Isa 40:1-5 26 Isa 46:9 65
Isa 40:3 370 Isa 48:6 575
Isa 40:3-5 375, 376 Isa 48:11 229, 474
Isa 40:5 370, 375, 497, 550 Isa 48:13 432, 433
Isa 40:6 122 Isa 48:14 432
Isa 40:10 431 Isa 51:9 431, 444
Isa 40:11 107 Isa 53:1 432
Isa 40:13 443 Isa 55 409
Isa 40:18 226 Isa 55:8 294
Isa 40:25 65, 226 Isa 55:10 411, 413, 414, 424
Isa 41:4 325 Isa 55:10,11 319, 410, 413
Isa 42:8;43.7;48.11;59.19 72 Isa 55:11 319, 549
Isa 42:9 575 Isa 58:14 154
Isa 42:13 600 Isa 59:2 282
Isa 43:1 171 Isa 59:20 399
Isa 43:3 169 Isa 63:1-3 599
Isa 43:10 326 Isa 63:12 432
Isa 43:10,11 106 Isa 64:1 547, 550
Isa 43:19 575 Isa 64:1-3 548
Isa 44:6 182, 183, 325, 331 Isa 64:4 301, 403
Isa 44:13 217, 232, 606 Isa 64:4,5 210
Isa 44:13-17 232 Isa 64:6 210
Isa 44:24 144, 267, 268 Isa 64:8 83, 220
Isa 45 78 Isa 65:2 526
Isa 45:1,2 474 Isa 65:16 42
Isa 45:3 78 Isa 66:1 373
Isa 45:5 64, 142 Isa 66:13 480
Isa 45:6,21 536 Jer 10:6 65
Isa 45:9 78 Jer 13:11 72
Isa 45:14 64, 78 Jer 15:16 554
Isa 45:15 78, 350, 572 Jer 17:12 488
Isa 45:18 65, 143 Jer 31:3 343, 383, 573
Isa 45:19 397 Jer 31:9 83, 86
Isa 45:21 65, 173, 229 Jer 31:22 610
Isa 45:21,22 47, 143, 541 Lam 3:40 49
656

Lam 4:20 245 Hos 11:9 287

Lam 5:19 329 Hos 11:10 480
Ezek 1 271, 407 Joel 2:13 343, 404
Ezek 1:1 407 Joel 2:23 414
Ezek 1:3 407 Joel 2:31 288
Ezek 1:22 407 Joel 2:31,32 393
Ezek 1:26 330 Joel 2:32 338
Ezek 1:26,28 370 Amos 5:26 217
Ezek 1:28 330 Obad 1:21 173
Ezek 1:28;3.23;8.4 243 Jonah 4:2 343
Ezek 3:1-3 554 Mic 1:3 550
Ezek 7:20 217 Mic 3:8 498
Ezek 9:3 490 Mic 7:18 367
Ezek 10:3 543 Nahm 1:3 343
Ezek 16:17 217, 224 Hab 3 306
Ezek 16:17;23.14 217 Hagg 1:13 377
Ezek 26:7 181 Hagg 14 471
Ezek 28:12 246, 247 Zech 1:3 329
Ezek 37:15-22 60 Zech 1:12 377
Ezek 37:27 499 Zech 12:1 49, 122
Ezek 38 485 Mal 1:6 83
Ezek 39:17 599 Mal 2:7 377
Ezek 39:21 600 Mal 3:1 371, 546
Dan 2:37 181 Mal 3:6 328
Dan 2:47;11.36 114 Mal 3:17 402
Dan 6:3 556 Mal 4:5 546
Dan 7 192, 193, 222 Mt 1:21 21, 27, 256, 376
Dan 7:13 87, 192, 193, 194, 323 Mt 1:23 526, 545
Dan 7:13,14 194 Mt 2:15 86
Dan 7:14 192, 193, 194, 222 Mt 3:1-3 375
Dan 8:11 223 Mt 3:11 74
Dan 8:25 223 Mt 3:16 554
Dan 10 325 Mt 3:17 580
Dan 10:4 325 Mt 3:17;17.5 170, 231
Dan 10:5 324 Mt 4 163, 203, 232
Dan 10:5,6 324 Mt 4:10 81, 144, 227, 308
Dan 10:6 324 Mt 4:15 450
Dan 10:8,9 325 Mt 5 175
Hos 1:9 341 Mt 5:9 76
Hos 11:1 86 Mt 5:10-12 294
 657

Mt 5:14 163, 243, 325 Mt 12:41 587

Mt 5:18 427, 455 Mt 12:42 584, 587
Mt 5:22 167, 453 Mt 12:49,50 116
Mt 5:34 329 Mt 13:15,16 186
Mt 5:34,35 329, 373 Mt 13:19 413
Mt 5:34-37 166 Mt 13:19,20,22 441
Mt 5:35 165 Mt 13:46 204
Mt 5:37 164, 167 Mt 13:56 515, 520
Mt 5:48 153, 570 Mt 14:33 76
Mt 6:9 73, 97 Mt 16:16 93, 94, 95, 581, 582
Mt 6:9-13 118, 373 Mt 16:16;26:63 91
Mt 6:11 431 Mt 16:17 320, 457
Mt 6:12 269 Mt 16:27 198
Mt 6:13 269 Mt 17:2 489
Mt 6:24 453, 532 Mt 17:5 580
Mt 6:28,29 276 Mt 18:20 303
Mt 7 176 Mt 19:5 164
Mt 7:9,10 373 Mt 19:21 117
Mt 7:21,22 17 Mt 19:30 278
Mt 7:21-23 135 Mt 20:25 179
Mt 7:22 139 Mt 20:28 170, 180, 232, 320
Mt 7:22,23 64 Mt 21:25 258
Mt 7:23 48, 139 Mt 21:42 25
Mt 8 187 Mt 22:20 224
Mt 8:8 472 Mt 22:29 171
Mt 8:16 472 Mt 22:37 64, 332
Mt 8:24-27 186, 551 Mt 22:40 64
Mt 10:3 456 Mt 23 146
Mt 10:29 354, 372, 434 Mt 23:9 128, 371
Mt 10:29-31 354 Mt 23:11 245
Mt 10:38 117 Mt 23:15 403
Mt 11:3 585 Mt 23:34,35 131
Mt 11:9-11 371 Mt 24 36, 192, 486
Mt 11:14 546 Mt 24:3 34
Mt 11:19 239, 291, 360, 424, Mt 24:14 34, 35, 36
526 Mt 24:24 128, 227, 444
Mt 11:27 97, 191 Mt 24:30 192, 193
Mt 11:27;28.18 97 Mt 24:36-37 313
Mt 11:28 117, 578 Mt 25:31-46 129, 180
Mt 12:6 587 Mt 25:34 297, 299
658

Mt 25:36,43 104 Mark 9:2,3 489

Mt 26:25,49 454 Mark 9:5,11:21,14:45 454
Mt 26:36 459 Mark 9:19 520
Mt 26:52 219 Mark 10:18 130
Mt 26:59,60 86 Mark 10:42-44 179
Mt 26:60 86 Mark 10:45 178, 180, 232, 320
Mt 26:61 310, 561 Mark 10:46 457
Mt 26:64 193, 194 Mark 10:51 454
Mt 26:65,66 86 Mark 11:9 456
Mt 27:6 455 Mark 11:30 258
Mt 27:14 526 Mark 12:10 25
Mt 27:16 457 Mark 12:28 66
Mt 27:41 90 Mark 12:28-30 48
Mt 27:46 116, 139, 282, 454 Mark 12:29 18, 46, 53, 56, 64, 66,
Mt 27:51 551 105, 172, 485, 575
Mt 28:18 111, 181, 191, 277, Mark 12:29,30 129
321 Mark 12:29,31 18
Mt 28:18-20 34 Mark 12:29-31 146
Mt 28:19 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, Mark 12:30 18, 64, 332, 404
74, 75, 76, 77, 394, Mark 12:32 64
396
Mark 12:36;14.62 191
Mt 28:19-20 68
Mark 13 486
Mt 28:20 412, 445
Mark 13:22 444
Mark 1:1 91
Mark 13:26 193, 194
Mark 1:2-5 375
Mark 14:24 414
Mark 1:10 550, 554
Mark 14:32 459
Mark 1:11 286
Mark 14:36 118, 333, 453
Mark 1:24 570
Mark 14:58 310, 561, 564, 574
Mark 2:27 274
Mark 14:64 86
Mark 3:17 457
Mark 15:22 459
Mark 3:34,35 116
Mark 15:32 91
Mark 4:26 413
Mark 15:34 116, 282, 455
Mark 5:41 23, 452
Mark 16:12 249, 251
Mark 6:3 515, 520
Luke 1:15 456
Mark 7:11 456
Luke 1:31 27
Mark 7:13 522
Luke 1:35 285, 581
Mark 7:34 452
Luke 1:51 432
Mark 8:29 93
Luke 2:9 303
Mark 8:34 117
Luke 2:11 151
Mark 8:38 198
Luke 2:14;20:38 532
 659

Luke 2:29 201 Luke 20:17 128

Luke 3:2-6 375 Luke 21:5 486
Luke 3:22 554, 581 Luke 22:20 414, 607
Luke 3:38 92, 212, 217, 285 Luke 22:25 179
Luke 4 163, 203, 232 Luke 22:26 245
Luke 4:8 144, 145, 227, 308 Luke 22:42 254
Luke 4:16 337 Luke 23:35 331
Luke 4:34 570 Luke 23:47 76
Luke 4:41 91 John 1 126, 268, 295, 409,
Luke 5:37 414 410, 413, 417, 430,
443, 447, 463, 465,
Luke 6:46 17, 48, 64, 135, 179
472, 484, 495, 504,
Luke 7:7 472 507, 511, 513, 514,
Luke 7:11-17 104 523, 538, 539
Luke 7:12;9.38 285 John 1:1 12, 20, 24, 37, 44, 50,
Luke 7:15 104 80, 164, 206, 241,
Luke 7:26-28 371 242, 287, 295, 389,
405, 407, 409, 417,
Luke 7:34 360 419, 420, 426, 433,
Luke 7:35 291 434, 435, 436, 438,
Luke 7:35;11.49 239, 424, 526 442, 464, 466, 467,
Luke 8:11;1 413 468, 472, 492, 496,
497, 503, 504, 506,
Luke 8:21 116
509, 511, 512, 513,
Luke 8:42 285 514, 515, 516, 517,
Luke 9:20 76, 93 519, 523, 524, 525,
Luke 9:35 331, 387 526, 527, 528, 529,
Luke 10:22 191 533, 534, 535, 536,
537, 538, 539, 541,
Luke 10:27 64, 332 542, 549, 559, 560,
Luke 11:3 431 569, 600, 602, 603,
Luke 11:4 269 604, 614
Luke 11:31 584, 587 John 1:1,14 10, 412, 505
Luke 11:32 587 John 1:1,2 419, 495, 521, 522,
Luke 11:47-51 572 525, 526, 527
Luke 11:49 527 John 1:1,2;13:3 516
Luke 12:7 372 John 1:1-18 408, 524
Luke 12:48 129 John 1:1;20:28 53, 386
Luke 14:6 526 John 1:3 262, 416, 436, 479,
492, 496
Luke 16:9-13 454
John 1:3,10 430, 470, 474, 480
Luke 16:19-31 391
John 1:4 423
Luke 18:19 130
John 1:6 538, 547
Luke 18:22 117
John 1:10 351
Luke 20:4 258
660

John 1:12 92 John 3:14,15 184, 272, 294, 552

John 1:14 21, 26, 30, 88, 101, John 3:16 305, 333, 343, 566,
102, 122, 153, 187, 584
203, 207, 239, 283, John 3:16,18 285
286, 288, 290, 291,
John 3:17 351
310, 412, 429, 433,
434, 441, 486, 488, John 3:19 162
491, 494, 495, 497, John 3:31 555
498, 500, 502, 505, John 3:32 291
513, 514, 523, 524, John 3:34 554
535, 541, 542, 545,
547, 549, 557, 558, John 3:34;6.63 441
560, 561, 594, 595 John 3:35;13.3 191
John 1:14,18;12.45;14.10;15.24 John 3:35;5.21-27;13.3;17.2 97
224 John 3:35;5.22,27,36;6.39;12.49;13.3 98
John 1:14;3.16,18 28, 154 John 4:10,14 367
John 1:15 586 John 4:13,14 273
John 1:15,30 586 John 4:14 22, 414
John 1:16 441, 442, 495, 502 John 4:21 109
John 1:17 168, 422, 560 John 4:22 398
John 1:18 123, 284, 286, 287, John 4:24 49, 234, 243, 373,
523, 531, 532, 594 406, 533, 534, 603
John 1:18;3.16 89 John 4:34 154, 159
John 1:23 375 John 4:42 21, 22, 89, 111, 152,
John 1:29 111, 610 233
John 1:29,36 169, 317 John 5 82, 111
John 1:32,33 554 John 5:15 83
John 1:34 90, 95 John 5:19 105, 160, 188, 291
John 1:39;5.40;6.44,65 117 John 5:19,30 256
John 1:42 457 John 5:22 289
John 1:49 90, 95, 581 John 5:25 110
John 1:49,4:31,6:25,9:2,11:8 454 John 5:26 110, 158, 427
John 2:17 570 John 5:27 110
John 2:19 107, 206, 207, 310, John 5:30 105, 111, 159, 161,
311, 351, 488, 499, 188
561, 562, 563, 564 John 5:36 188
John 2:19-21 500 John 5:41 176
John 2:21 107, 288, 549, 564, John 5:42 146
573, 574 John 5:43 71
John 2:22 25, 107, 310, 561, 562 John 5:43;10.25 75
John 3:5,6,8 412 John 5:44 18, 105, 129, 145,
John 3:8 441 146, 165, 176, 220,
John 3:13,31;6.38 427 391, 485, 536, 594
 661

John 5:44;17.3 66 John 10 85

John 6 79, 177, 178, 273, John 10:7,9 103
367, 553, 554, 566 John 10:11,14 106
John 6:15 48, 177, 179 John 10:15;14.9 97
John 6:27 110, 112 John 10:17,18 562
John 6:31 258 John 10:18 160
John 6:33 553 John 10:18;12.49;15.10 139
John 6:33,35 414 John 10:24 99
John 6:37 374 John 10:25 71, 188
John 6:38 161 John 10:25,37,38 204
John 6:39 159 John 10:27 84, 117
John 6:39,40 563 John 10:30 153, 566
John 6:46 291 John 10:32 188
John 6:51,58 367 John 10:34 222, 496
John 6:53 414 John 10:34,35 318, 331, 535
John 6:57 157, 158 John 10:34-36 213
John 6:63 398, 442, 557 John 10:36 410
John 6:69 570 John 11:16 458
John 7:16 154 John 11:16,20:24 458
John 7:17 161 John 11:25 103, 105
John 7:18 176 John 11:25-27 103
John 7:38,39 445 John 11:25;14.6 410
John 7:39 294 John 11:27 95
John 7:42 610 John 11:27;20:31 91
John 8 99, 101 John 12:13 71
John 8:12;9.5 243, 325, 427 John 12:23,24 294
John 8:23 410, 555 John 12:24 413
John 8:24 99, 103 John 12:28 71
John 8:28 100, 101, 105, 294 John 12:32-33 294
John 8:29 73, 154, 231 John 12:38 432
John 8:34 497 John 12:40-41 593
John 8:38 291 John 12:41 13, 289, 290, 291,
John 8:42 159, 556 406, 593, 594, 595,
John 8:50 176 596
John 8:53 587 John 12:43 176
John 8:54 176 John 12:49 106, 160
John 8:58 13, 105, 106, 563, John 13:1 179
586, 587 John 13:16 157
John 9 186 John 13:23 123, 286
John 9:9 98, 102 John 13:31 294
662

John 13:33,36 411 301

John 14 108 John 17:6 72
John 14:2,3 299 John 17:7 293
John 14:6 77, 101, 103 John 17:10 292
John 14:8 309 John 17:11 72, 566
John 14:9 111, 217, 224, 232 John 17:11,22 80
John 14:10 27, 105, 106, 160, John 17:17 102
165, 173, 187, 188, John 17:21-23 565
288, 495, 554, 561, John 17:22 72, 304
565
John 17:22,23 88
John 14:10,11 310
John 17:23 136, 305, 374, 375
John 14:11 206, 207
John 19:6 86
John 14:13 231
John 19:7 86
John 14:16 480
John 19:13 459
John 14:16,17 412
John 19:17 459
John 14:17 446
John 19:28 167
John 14:18 411
John 19:30 410
John 14:24 106
John 20:16 454
John 14:26 73
John 20:17 114, 116, 117, 139,
John 14:28 85, 108 299, 411
John 14:31 160 John 20:21 157
John 15:1 85, 399 John 20:22 117, 233
John 15:5 564 John 20:28 79, 308, 312, 505
John 15:6 399 John 20:31 21, 64, 96, 99, 101,
John 15:10 160 317, 423
John 15:16;16.23-26 73 John 21:9,12,13 364
John 15:26 75 John 21:17 313
John 16:7 443 John 21:19 295
John 16:10 299, 411 Acts 1:9-11 555
John 16:15 292 Acts 1:23 457
John 16:23;15.16 231 Acts 2 544, 608
John 17 68, 304, 317 Acts 2:20 288, 289, 393
John 17:1-5 491 Acts 2:20;1 288
John 17:3 16, 17, 26, 27, 99, Acts 2:21 338
105, 111, 118, 145, Acts 2:22 187, 188
165, 257, 284, 309,
Acts 2:24,32;3.15,26;13.30 562
397, 496, 509, 541,
575, 594 Acts 2:24,32;3.15,26;4.10;5.30;10.40
107
John 17:3;5.44 577
Acts 2:27 393
John 17:4 301, 410
Acts 2:27,31;13.35,37 570
John 17:5 293, 295, 297, 299,
 663

Acts 2:31,32 607 Acts 17:24 220

Acts 2:31-32 138 Acts 17:28 372, 434
Acts 2:33 414, 608 Acts 18:9,10 392
Acts 2:34 138 Acts 19:2 233
Acts 2:36 78, 112, 141, 229, Acts 19:28 198
255, 327, 391 Acts 20:24 241, 281
Acts 2:38 445 Acts 20:26 96
Acts 2:38;8.16;10.48;19.5 74 Acts 20:28 201
Acts 3:6;9.27,28;16.18 74 Acts 21:39 252
Acts 3:13,26;4.25,27,30 390 Acts 22 544
Acts 3:18 505 Acts 24:16 525
Acts 4:10 287 Acts 26:7 308
Acts 4:12 73, 77, 207 Rom 1:1 108
Acts 4:24 201 Rom 1:2 25
Acts 4:24;12.5 525 Rom 1:3 610
Acts 4:24;12:5;24:16 516 Rom 1:4 91, 573, 582
Acts 4:27,30 391 Rom 1:16 252, 423
Acts 4:36 457 Rom 1:18-25 248
Acts 5:32;10.45 445 Rom 1:20 539, 545, 604
Acts 7:2 303 Rom 1:21 27, 118
Acts 7:2,55 243 Rom 1:22,23 224
Acts 7:44-47 502 Rom 1:23 251
Acts 7:48 574 Rom 1:25 316
Acts 7:49 373 Rom 2:28 400
Acts 7:56 391 Rom 2:28,29 67, 401, 402
Acts 7:59 391, 392 Rom 2:29 401
Acts 9:3-7 392 Rom 3:10 152
Acts 9:36 458 Rom 3:10-18 175
Acts 10:36 556 Rom 3:21-26 184, 185
Acts 12:21 245 Rom 3:22 186
Acts 13 582 Rom 3:23 168
Acts 13:5;17.13 529 Rom 3:26 184
Acts 13:6 457 Rom 3:28;5.1 52
Acts 13:32.33 582 Rom 3:30 58, 78, 385
Acts 13:33 89 Rom 3:30;4.9 401
Acts 13:35 607 Rom 3:31 429
Acts 14:3;20.32 513 Rom 4 300
Acts 15:5 395 Rom 4:3;1 25
Acts 16:7 412 Rom 4:11 169
Acts 17:23 149 Rom 4:12 400
664

Rom 4:17 298, 300, 585 Rom 9:1-3 252

Rom 4:24;6.4 562 Rom 9:4 303, 304, 403
Rom 5:1 516, 522, 525 Rom 9:5 53, 85, 114, 140, 314,
Rom 5:1;10:1;15:17,30 516 315, 316, 386
Rom 5:2 198 Rom 9:6 401, 403
Rom 5:5 73, 445 Rom 9:8 401
Rom 5:6 170 Rom 9:20 78
Rom 5:7 152 Rom 10:1;15.30 525
Rom 5:8 169 Rom 10:2 214
Rom 5:9,10,15,17 272 Rom 10:4 590
Rom 5:12-21;7.7-11 249 Rom 10:5 588
Rom 5:15,17 192, 287 Rom 10:6 428, 589, 590
Rom 5:15-19 272 Rom 10:6-9 428, 588
Rom 5:17 498 Rom 10:6-9:6 428
Rom 5:17-19 610 Rom 10:8 442, 590
Rom 5:19 28, 123, 150, 159, Rom 10:9 107, 138
202, 203, 232, 233, Rom 10:13 338, 392, 393
255 Rom 10:21 526
Rom 6:3 74 Rom 11 398, 399
Rom 6:4 301, 309 Rom 11:1,2 398
Rom 6:5 567 Rom 11:5,7 398
Rom 6:16;7.14 498 Rom 11:11 398
Rom 7:4 413, 500 Rom 11:13 384
Rom 7:6 442 Rom 11:16 398
Rom 8:2 441 Rom 11:17 398
Rom 8:3,18-21 249 Rom 11:22 399
Rom 8:8,33 532 Rom 11:25 49
Rom 8:9 394 Rom 11:26 399
Rom 8:9;1 412 Rom 11:33 78, 300, 500
Rom 8:10 441 Rom 11:34 262, 443
Rom 8:11 499 Rom 11:36 140, 262, 316
Rom 8:14,15 333 Rom 12:1 322
Rom 8:15 118, 445, 453 Rom 12:1,2 54
Rom 8:16 308 Rom 12:2 208, 259, 505
Rom 8:17 274, 292, 308 Rom 12:4,5 565
Rom 8:28 381, 578 Rom 13:8,10 429
Rom 8:29 274, 278, 296 Rom 14:11 78
Rom 8:29,30 296, 299 Rom 15:6 29, 112, 114
Rom 8:32 169, 170, 172, 274, Rom 15:33 316
333, 362, 379
Rom 16:20 191
 665

Rom 16:27 19, 78, 316, 385 219, 226, 242, 243,
1Cor 1:9 91 250, 270, 271, 346
1Cor 1:12 458 1Cor 11:28 443
1Cor 1:26 241 1Cor 12:11 413
1Cor 1:27 387 1Cor 12:27 500
1Cor 2:8 301, 302, 303, 304, 1Cor 13:12 205
488 1Cor 14:25 78
1Cor 2:9 277, 403 1Cor 15 142
1Cor 2:10 443 1Cor 15:9 421
1Cor 2:10,11 443, 444, 445 1Cor 15:20 183
1Cor 2:11 49 1Cor 15:21-22 249
1Cor 2:12 445 1Cor 15:23 173
1Cor 2:12,13 441 1Cor 15:24-28 194
1Cor 2:16 177, 443 1Cor 15:25 194
1Cor 3:16 565 1Cor 15:25-28 89, 321
1Cor 3:16,17;6.19 351 1Cor 15:27 213
1Cor 3:16;6.19 203, 446, 500, 502 1Cor 15:27,28 142
1Cor 3:21 275, 292, 403 1Cor 15:27,45 249
1Cor 3:21-23 275, 292 1Cor 15:28 214, 307, 308, 395
1Cor 3:23 171, 275, 306 1Cor 15:35-57 194
1Cor 5:3,4 444 1Cor 15:40-43 293
1Cor 6:3 277 1Cor 15:42,47-49 249
1Cor 6:14 107, 573 1Cor 15:45 173, 183, 191, 217,
1Cor 6:16,17 60, 304 233, 242
1Cor 6:17 123, 124, 126, 304, 1Cor 15:45-47,49 258
446, 567 1Cor 15:47 154, 192, 194, 242,
1Cor 6:19 561, 563 246, 252, 259
1Cor 6:19,20 170, 500 1Cor 15:48 194
1Cor 8:5 45, 133, 496, 541 1Cor 15:49 226
1Cor 8:5,6 31, 181 1Cor 15:50 320
1Cor 8:5-6 57, 58 1Cor 16:22 392, 450, 454
1Cor 8:6 58, 77, 256, 257, 264, 2Cor 1:3 29, 114
315 2Cor 1:3;11.31 112
1Cor 8:6;8.4 78, 385 2Cor 1:17,19 164
1Cor 10:3,4 273 2Cor 1:19 91, 94
1Cor 10:11 575 2Cor 1:20 403
1Cor 10:16 413 2Cor 1:21;5:19 532
1Cor 11:1 241, 281 2Cor 1:22 446
1Cor 11:3 275 2Cor 2:15,16 128
1Cor 11:7 175, 189, 191, 209, 2Cor 3:4 525
666

2Cor 3:4;13:7 516 Gal 1:18 458, 520

2Cor 3:6 442 Gal 2:5 529
2Cor 3:13,14 422 Gal 2:16;3.24 52
2Cor 3:16 603 Gal 2:19;4:8 532
2Cor 3:17 13, 602, 603, 604 Gal 2:20 91, 170, 202, 344
2Cor 3:18 226 Gal 3:1 74, 131, 464
2Cor 4:2 253 Gal 3:2 445
2Cor 4:4 218, 232, 250, 251, Gal 3:7 400
270, 364 Gal 3:19-22 168
2Cor 4:6 250 Gal 3:20 58, 172
2Cor 4:18 234 Gal 3:27 74
2Cor 5:2 259 Gal 3:28 395, 401
2Cor 5:4 545 Gal 3:29 67, 401
2Cor 5:5 446 Gal 4:1 275
2Cor 5:17 121, 575, 609, 610 Gal 4:3-4 249
2Cor 5:17-20 281 Gal 4:6 118, 333, 453
2Cor 5:18-20 567 Gal 4:9 118
2Cor 5:19 27, 30, 102, 165, 172, Gal 4:19 232
183, 188, 195, 266,
Gal 5:2-4 22
288, 314, 351, 557,
573, 600 Gal 5:6 129
2Cor 5:21 281 Gal 5:14 429
2Cor 6:16 446, 499, 565 Gal 5:22 121
2Cor 6:18 329 Gal 6:16 67, 385, 400, 404, 585
2Cor 7:15 135 Eph 1:3 112, 115
2Cor 8:1,2 280 Eph 1:3;3.14;4.6 78, 385
2Cor 8:2 241, 281 Eph 1:4 265, 266, 277
2Cor 8:9 280, 281 Eph 1:6 306
2Cor 9:15 129 Eph 1:7 279
2Cor 11:23-27 252 Eph 1:10 263, 567
2Cor 11:23-30 568 Eph 1:13 102, 513
2Cor 11:31 114, 315, 316 Eph 1:19 556
2Cor 12:2,3 444 Eph 1:19-23:19 141
2Cor 12:9 189 Eph 1:20 191, 562
2Cor 13:7 525 Eph 2:10 259, 263
2Cor 13:14 77, 78 Eph 2:11 401, 403
Gal 1:1 107, 562 Eph 2:12 385, 403
Gal 1:4 115 Eph 2:15 395, 609
Gal 1:10 108 Eph 2:16 567
Gal 1:13 421 Eph 2:21 564
Gal 1:14 385 Eph 2:22 446
 667

Eph 3:4 127, 434 Phil 2:9 41, 222

Eph 3:5 100 Phil 2:9-11 28, 213, 214, 245,
Eph 3:14 113 278, 302, 307, 327
Eph 3:19 442, 544 Phil 2:9-119 255
Eph 3:21 305 Phil 2:10 229, 230, 256
Eph 4:3 412 Phil 2:10,11 287
Eph 4:6 115, 140, 141 Phil 2:10-11 78, 208, 229
Eph 4:12 500 Phil 2:11 29, 41, 229, 230, 256,
326
Eph 4:13 91, 94, 173, 174
Phil 2:12 135
Eph 4:18 49, 513
Phil 2:16 512
Eph 4:24 259
Phil 2:17 240, 241, 281
Eph 5:20 74, 230
Phil 3:1 305
Eph 5:23 413
Phil 3:3 308, 401, 403
Eph 5:32 276
Phil 3:4-6 385
Eph 6:12 320
Phil 3:5 304
Eph 6:17 130
Phil 3:8 281
Phil 1:6 259
Phil 3:11-13 568
Phil 1:19 394, 412
Phil 3:12 123, 206, 308
Phil 1:23 525
Phil 4:4 305
Phil 2 20, 41, 48, 50, 233,
241, 242, 253, 295 Phil 4:6 516, 525
Phil 2:5 236, 241, 244, 245, Phil 4:20 115
281 Col 1 20, 50, 261, 267, 269,
Phil 2:6 19, 29, 41, 48, 159, 270, 274, 277, 408
214, 217, 218, 219, Col 1:5 442, 513
231, 233, 235, 236, Col 1:12 261, 403
237, 238, 239, 241,
Col 1:12-20 266, 269
242, 243, 245, 249,
251, 253, 254, 255, Col 1:12-22 264
280 Col 1:13 269
Phil 2:6,7 13, 249, 251, 605 Col 1:13-22:13 263
Phil 2:6-11 40, 41, 141, 230, 240, Col 1:14 269
241, 243, 244, 246, Col 1:15 218, 224, 232, 250,
247, 248, 252, 253, 251, 256, 261, 274,
261, 408 277
Phil 2:6-7 235 Col 1:15-17 266
Phil 2:6-76 605 Col 1:16 262, 265, 275, 276
Phil 2:6-8 240, 242, 307 Col 1:17 277, 279
Phil 2:7 156, 178, 232, 233, Col 1:18 274, 277, 413
239, 281 Col 1:19 153, 271, 495, 546
Phil 2:8 28, 203, 239, 245, Col 1:19,20 263
252, 278, 281, 327
Col 1:19;2.9 43, 502, 557
668

Col 1:20 206, 314, 500, 567, 1Tim 1:17,2.5 256

607 1Tim 1:17;2.5 78, 385
Col 1:20,22 266 1Tim 1:17;6.15,16 198
Col 1:22 266, 271 1Tim 2:5 30, 58, 77, 168, 183,
Col 2:3 78 192, 199, 207, 227,
Col 2:9 153, 203, 223, 310, 287, 308, 497, 554,
442, 488, 495, 500, 558
545, 546, 555, 563, 1Tim 2:5,6 153
570 1Tim 3:16 30, 282, 290, 600
Col 2:9;1.19 288, 569 1Tim 6:15 180, 181, 315, 417,
Col 2:12 107,562 598
Col 2:13 573 1Tim 6:15,16 594
Col 2:15 174 1Tim 6:16 114
Col 2:18,19 323 1Tim 6:17 275, 276
Col 2:19 564, 565 2Tim 1:9 27, 29, 298, 299
Col 3:2 333 2Tim 1:9,10 298, 514
Col 3:9,10 259 2Tim 1:10 196, 514
Col 3:11 394, 395, 401 2Tim 1:14 499
Col 3:16 414 2Tim 2:8 610
Col 3:17 74 2Tim 2:15 442, 529
Col 4:3 127, 434 2Tim 3:1 577
Col 4:11 401 2Tim 4:6 241, 281
1Thes 1:3 115 Tit 1:1.4 589
1Thes 1:8 516, 525 Tit 1:3 363
1Thes 3:11 115 Tit 1:3;2.10;3.4 257
1Thes 3:13 115 Tit 1:4 196
1Thes 4:8 445 Tit 1:4;3.6 257
1Thes 4:15 416 Tit 1:16;3:8 532
1Thes 5:2 288 Tit 2:13 53, 196, 197, 198,
1Thes 5:3 81 199, 386
2Thess 1:8 532 Tit 2:14 500
2Thess 1:12 200 Tit 3:6 196, 414
2Thess 2:3,4 81 Heb 1 20, 50, 319, 408
2Thess 2:4 81 Heb 1:1-3 304
2Thess 2:8 375 Heb 1:2 274
2Thess 2:9 82 Heb 1:2,3 319
1Tim 1:1 363 Heb 1:3 191, 192, 224, 257,
288, 319, 488, 571,
1Tim 1:1;2.3 169
594
1Tim 1:1;4.10 198
Heb 1:3;8.1 407
1Tim 1:17 8, 18, 228, 243, 315,
Heb 1:5 582, 583, 584, 585
333
 669

Heb 1:7 527 Heb 9:15;12.24 183

Heb 1:7-8 526 Heb 9:26 575
Heb 1:8 53, 318, 319, 386 Heb 10:5 610
Heb 1:8,9 318 Heb 11:17 285, 584
Heb 1:9 318 Heb 11:24-29 428
Heb 1:10 319 Heb 12:1,2 184
Heb 1:10-12 319 Heb 12:2 174, 183
Heb 1:11 528 Heb 12:29 121, 369
Heb 2:7 249, 496 Heb 13 501
Heb 2:8 191 Jms 1:13 123, 163, 498
Heb 2:9 181 Jms 1:17 273
Heb 2:10 140, 150, 151, 254, Jms 1:18 102
262 Jms 2:1 301, 302, 303, 304,
Heb 2:10;5.8 568 489
Heb 2:14 320 Jms 2:19 58
Heb 2:17;5.1 525 Jms 2:26 441
Heb 2:17;5:1 516 Jms 3:2 155
Heb 3:5 585 1Pet 1:3 112, 115
Heb 3:5,6;8.5,6;11.24-26 422 1Pet 1:12 414
Heb 4:12 130, 506, 512 1Pet 1:18,19 170
Heb 4:15 203, 498 1Pet 1:19 149, 362
Heb 4:16 390 1Pet 1:20 298
Heb 5:1 168, 527 1Pet 1:21 107, 298
Heb 5:1.49 527 1Pet 1:23 441
Heb 5:5 89, 90, 169, 582 1Pet 2:5 446
Heb 5:7 282 1Pet 2:9 72
Heb 5:8 154, 254 1Pet 2:9,10:9 171
Heb 5:9 102 1Pet 3:18 101, 117, 208
Heb 5:9;7.28 252 1Pet 4:17 128
Heb 5:9;7.28;11.40;12.23 206 2Pet 1:1 200
Heb 5:13 442 2Pet 1:4 121, 125, 530, 538
Heb 7:1 89 2Pet 1:17 170
Heb 7:3 288 2Pet 2:1 201
Heb 7:24,25 139 2Pet 3:10 288
Heb 7:25 139, 308 1Jn 1:1 102, 419, 441, 512,
Heb 7:28 150 513, 514
Heb 9:5 303, 390 1Jn 1:1,2 512, 541
Heb 9:9;10.2 308 1Jn 1:2 512, 514, 523
Heb 9:11 574 1Jn 1:3 137
Heb 9:14 152 1Jn 1:5 534
670

1Jn 2:1 308 Rev 2:10 241

1Jn 2:24 284 Rev 3:2,12 139
1Jn 2:28 375 Rev 3:9 191
1Jn 3:1 333, 376 Rev 3:12 116
1Jn 3:2 219, 259, 308, 374, Rev 3:21 322, 327, 333
375, 376 Rev 4 322, 333
1Jn 3:4 529 Rev 4:8 330, 344
1Jn 3:9 203, 375 Rev 4:9,10 182
1Jn 3:21 516, 525 Rev 5 333
1Jn 4:2 509 Rev 5:5 174
1Jn 4:8,16 275, 534 Rev 5:12 301
1Jn 4:9 154, 285 Rev 6:2 511
1Jn 4:10 300 Rev 6:10 201
1Jn 4:14 89, 152, 173, 233 Rev 6:16 149
1Jn 4:16 333 Rev 7:9-12 321
1Jn 4:19 332 Rev 7:17 321
1Jn 5:7 283 Rev 10 324
1Jn 5:7,8 283 Rev 10:1 325
1Jn 5:16,17 131 Rev 10:6 262
1Jn 5:20 53, 91, 284, 386 Rev 10:9 554
1Jn 5:21 130, 216 Rev 11:15 137, 505
2Jn 1:3,9 91 Rev 12:5;13:6 516
2Jn 1:7 509 Rev 12:9 278
2Jn 12 520, 521 Rev 12:10 505
Jude 1:25 19 Rev 13:8 265, 266, 297, 299
Jude 4 200, 201 Rev 13:11 320
Rev 1 323, 324, 325, 326 Rev 13:14,15 226
Rev 1:4 328, 344 Rev 13:15 226
Rev 1:4,8 328 Rev 14 226
Rev 1:5 274, 320 Rev 14:1 69
Rev 1:6 115, 327 Rev 15:1 322
Rev 1:7 323 Rev 16:2 226
Rev 1:8 344 Rev 17:14 180, 181, 245, 598
Rev 1:12 139 Rev 19:11-1611 598
Rev 1:13 323, 324 Rev 19:13 13, 511, 538, 598,
Rev 1:14 324 599, 600
Rev 1:15 324 Rev 19:17 599
Rev 1:16 325 Rev 21:3 545
Rev 1:17 325, 330 Rev 22:1 327
Rev 1:17;2.8 173, 182, 278 Rev 22:3 321
 671

Rev 22:6 323

Rev 22:8 323
Rev 22:9 328
Rev 22:13 183
Rev 22:16 323, 328
Rev 22:20 392
 Page Number Correspondence
Between The PDF Edition of TOTG
and the Original Print Edition

A
ll future publications that cite TOTG will refer to the page num-
bers of the e-book edition, not those of the original print edition.
For the convenience of those who have the print edition, the fol-
lowing table maps the new page numbers to the original page numbers.
To give an example, “049 → 34” means that the top of page 49 of the e-
book corresponds to some location on page 34 of the print book. For
convenient reference, the first pages of chapters and appendixes are
indicated in the table. “N/A” means that there is no corresponding page.

This PDF Edition → Original Print Edition

001 → N/A 025 → 9 049 → 34 073 → 60

002 → N/A 026 → 10 050 → 35 074 → 61
003 → N/A 027 → 12 051 → 36 075 → 62
004 → Front cover 028 → 13 052 → 37 076 → 63
005 → Back cover 029 → 14 053 → 39 077 → 64
006 → iii 030 → 15 054 → 40 078 → 65
007 → iv 031 → 16 055 → 41 079 → 66
008 → v 032 → 17 056 → 43 (Ch 1) 080 → 67
009 → vii 033 → 18 057 → 43 081 → 68
010 → viii 034 → 19 058 → 44 082 → 69
011 → ix 035 → 20 059 → 45 083 → 70
012 → x 036 → 21 060 → 46 084 → 71
013 → xi 037 → 22 061 → 47 085 → 72
014 → xii 038 → 23 062 → 48 086 → 73
015 → xiii 039 → 24 063 → 49 087 → 74
016 → 1 (Intro) 040 → 25 064 → 50 088 → 75
017 → 1 041 → 26 065 → 52 089 → 76
018 → 2 042 → 27 066 → 53 090 → 77
019 → 3 043 → 28 067 → 54 091 → 78
020 → 4 044 → 29 068 → 55 092 → 79
021 → 5 045 → 30 069 → 56 093 → 80
022 → 6 046 → 31 070 → 57 094 → 81
023 → 7 047 → 32 071 → 58 095 → 82
024 → 8 048 → 33 072 → 59 096 → 83
 673

097 → 84 146 → 135 195 → 184 244 → 236

098 → 85 147 → 136 196 → 185 245 → 237
099 → 86 148 → 137 (Ch 2) 197 → 186 246 → 238
100 → 87 149 → 137 198 → 187 247 → 239
101 → 88 150 → 138 199 → 188 248 → 240
102 → 89 151 → 139 200 → 189 249 → 241
103 → 90 152 → 140 201 → 190 250 → 242
104 → 91 153 → 141 202 → 192 251 → 243
105 → 93 154 → 142 203 → 193 252 → 244
106 → 94 155 → 143 204 → 194 253 → 245
107 → 95 156 → 144 205 → 195 254 → 246
108 → 96 157 → 145 206 → 196 255 → 247
109 → 97 158 → 146 207 → 197 256 → 248
110 → 98 159 → 147 208 → 198 257 → 249
111 → 99 160 → 148 209 → 201 (Ch 3) 258 → 250
112 → 100 161 → 149 210 → 201 259 → 251
113 → 101 162 → 150 211 → 202 260 → 253 (Ch 4)
114 → 102 163 → 151 212 → 203 261 → 253
115 → 103 164 → 152 213 → 204 262 → 254
116 → 104 165 → 153 214 → 205 263 → 255
117 → 105 166 → 154 215 → 206 264 → 256
118 → 106 167 → 155 216 → 207 265 → 257
119 → 107 168 → 156 217 → 208 266 → 258
120 → 108 169 → 157 218 → 209 267 → 259
121 → 109 170 → 158 219 → 210 268 → 260
122 → 110 171 → 159 220 → 211 269 → 261
123 → 111 172 → 160 221 → 213 270 → 262
124 → 112 173 → 161 222 → 213 271 → 263
125 → 113 174 → 162 223 → 215 272 → 264
126 → 114 175 → 163 224 → 216 273 → 265
127 → 115 176 → 164 225 → 217 274 → 266
128 → 116 177 → 165 226 → 218 275 → 267
129 → 117 178 → 166 227 → 219 276 → 268
130 → 118 179 → 168 228 → 220 277 → 269
131 → 119 180 → 169 229 → 221 278 → 270
132 → 120 181 → 170 230 → 222 279 → 271
133 → 121 182 → 171 231 → 223 280 → 272
134 → 122 183 → 172 232 → 224 281 → 273
135 → 123 184 → 173 233 → 225 282 → 274
136 → 124 185 → 174 234 → 226 283 → 275
137 → 125 186 → 175 235 → 227 284 → 276
138 → 126 187 → 176 236 → 228 285 → 277
139 → 127 188 → 177 237 → 229 286 → 278
140 → 128 189 → 178 238 → 230 287 → 279
141 → 129 190 → 179 239 → 231 288 → 281
142 → 130 191 → 180 240 → 232 289 → 282
143 → 132 192 → 181 241 → 233 290 → 283
144 → 133 193 → 182 242 → 234 291 → 284
145 → 134 194 → 183 243 → 235 292 → 285
674

293 → 286 342 → 335 391 → 385 440 → 435

294 → 287 343 → 336 392 → 386 441 → 436
295 → 288 344 → 337 393 → 387 442 → 437
296 → 289 345 → 338 394 → 388 443 → 438
297 → 290 346 → 339 395 → 389 444 → 439
298 → 291 347 → 340 396 → 390 445 → 440
299 → 292 348 → 341 397 → 392 446 → 442
300 → 293 349 → 342 398 → 393 447 → 443 (Ch 8)
301 → 294 350 → 343 399 → 394 448 → 443
302 → 295 351 → 344 400 → 395 449 → 444
303 → 296 352 → 345 401 → 396 450 → 445
304 → 297 353 → 346 402 → 397 451 → 446
305 → 298 354 → 347 403 → 398 452 → 447
306 → 299 355 → 348 404 → 399 453 → 448
307 → 300 356 → 349 405 → 401 (Ch 7) 454 → 449
308 → 301 357 → 350 406 → 401 455 → 450
309 → 302 358 → 351 407 → 402 456 → 451
310 → 303 359 → 352 408 → 403 457 → 452
311 → 304 360 → 353 409 → 404 458 → 453
312 → 305 361 → 355 410 → 405 459 → 454
313 → 306 362 → 356 411 → 406 460 → 455
314 → 307 363 → 357 412 → 407 461 → 456
315 → 308 364 → 358 413 → 408 462 → 457
316 → 309 365 → 359 414 → 409 463 → 458
317 → 310 366 → 360 415 → 411 464 → 459
318 → 311 367 → 361 416 → 411 465 → 460
319 → 312 368 → 362 417 → 412 466 → 461
320 → 313 369 → 363 418 → 413 467 → 462
321 → 314 370 → 364 419 → 415 468 → 463
322 → 315 371 → 365 420 → 416 469 → 464
323 → 317 372 → 366 421 → 417 470 → 465
324 → 318 373 → 367 422 → 418 471 → 466
325 → 319 374 → 368 423 → 419 472 → 467
326 → 320 375 → 369 424 → 420 473 → 468
327 → 321 376 → 370 425 → 420 474 → 469
328 → 322 377 → 371 426 → 421 475 → 470
329 → 323 378 → 372 427 → 422 476 → 471
330 → 324 379 → 373 428 → 423 477 → 472
331 → 325 380 → 374 429 → 424 478 → 473
332 → 326 381 → 375 430 → 425 479 → 474
333 → 327 382 → 376 431 → 426 480 → 475
334 → 328 383 → 377 432 → 427 481 → 476
335 → 329 (Ch 5) 384 → 379 (Ch 6) 433 → 428 482 → 477
336 → 329 385 → 379 434 → 429 483 → 478
337 → 330 386 → 380 435 → 430 484 → 479
338 → 331 387 → 381 436 → 431 485 → 480
339 → 332 388 → 382 437 → 432 486 → 481
340 → 334 389 → 383 438 → 433 487 → 482
341 → 334=== 390 → 384 439 → 434 488 → 483
 675

489 → 484 538 → 533 587 → 583 636 → 635

490 → 485 539 → 534 588 → 584 (Ap 3) 637 → 637
491 → 486 540 → 535 589 → 584 638 → 638
492 → 487 541 → 536 590 → 585 639 → 640
493 → 488 542 → 537 591 → 587 (Ap 4) 640 → 641
494 → 489 543 → 538 592 → 588 641 → 642
495 → 490 544 → 539 593 → 589 (Ap 5) 642 → 643
496 → 491 545 → 540 594 → 590 643 → 645
497 → 492 546 → 541 595 → 591 644 → 646
498 → 493 547 → 542 596 → 592 645 → 647
499 → 494 548 → 543 (Ch10) 597 → 593 646 → 649
500 → 495 549 → 543 598 → 594 (Ap 6) 647 → 650
501 → 496 550 → 544 599 → 595 648 → 651 (Index)
502 → 497 551 → 545 600 → 596 649 → 651
503 → 498 552 → 546 601 → 597 650 → 652
504 → 499 (Ch 9) 553 → 547 602 → 598 (Ap 7) 651 → 652
505 → 499 554 → 548 603 → 598 652 → 653
506 → 500 555 → 549 604 → 599 653 → 654
507 → 501 556 → 550 605 → 601 (Ap 8) 654 → 655
508 → 502 557 → 551 606 → 602 655 → 656
509 → 503 558 → 553 607 → 603 (Ap 9) 656 → 656
510 → 504 559 → 554 608 → 604 657 → 657
511 → 505 560 → 555 609 → 605 (Ap 10) 658 → 658
512 → 506 561 → 556 610 → 605 659 → 659
513 → 507 562 → 557 611 → 606 660 → 660
514 → 508 563 → 558 612 → 607 (Ap 11) 661 → 660
515 → 509 564 → 559 613 → 607 662 → 661
516 → 510 565 → 560 614 → 609 (Ap 12) 663 → 662
517 → 511 566 → 561 615 → 609 664 → 663
518 → 512 567 → 562 616 → 610 665 → 664
519 → 513 568 → 563 617 → 611 666 → 664
520 → 514 569 → 564 618 → 612 667 → 665
521 → 515 570 → 565 619 → 613 668 → 666
522 → 516 571 → 566 620 → 615 669 → 667
523 → 517 572 → 567 621 → 616 670 → 667
524 → 518 573 → 568 622 → 617 671 → 668
525 → 519 574 → 569 623 → 618 672 → N/A (Table)
526 → 520 575 → 570 624 → 620 673 → N/A
527 → 521 576 → 571 625 → 621 674 → N/A
528 → 522 577 → 572 626 → 622 675 → N/A
529 → 523 578 → 573 627 → 623 END
530 → 524 579 → 575 (Ap 1) 628 → 624
531 → 525 580 → 575 629 → 626
532 → 527 581 → 576 630 → 627
533 → 528 582 → 577 631 → 629
534 → 529 583 → 578 632 → 630
535 → 530 584 → 580 633 → 632
536 → 531 585 → 581 634 → 633
537 → 532 586 → 582 (Ap 2) 635 → 634