Program 191: Another Look at John 1

The “Word” in John 1 does not refer to a pre-existent Christ. It refers to Yahuwah’s plan, laid from the foundation of the world.

Welcome to WLC Radio, a subsidiary of World’s Last Chance Ministries, an online ministry dedicated to learning how to live in constant readiness for the Savior's return.

For two thousand years, believers of every generation have longed to be the last generation. Contrary to popular belief, though, Christ did not give believers “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, he repeatedly warned that his coming would take even the faithful by surprise. Yahushua urgently warned believers to be ready because, he said, “The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” [Matthew 24:44] 

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Part 1: (Miles & Dave)

Miles Robey: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word . . . was God.” The opening words to John’s gospel are some of the most beautiful and lyrical in all of Scripture.

Hi, I’m Miles Robey and today I’ve asked Dave Wright to take a second look at the first chapter of John. If you’ve listened to us before, you know that at WLC we are unitarian. In other words, we believe that there is only one true god, and that is Yahuwah. He is our elohim. He’s not three-in-one combo god. There’s just Him.

But, admittedly, John 1 sounds like John is poetically describing Yahushua as part of a trinity. So, what’s the truth? If Yahuwah is the only one—and He is—then what’s the first chapter of John really saying?

Dave?

Dave Wright: Thanks, Miles. It has been said that the winners write the history books. What that means, of course, is that the account is slanted, or shaded, by the winning side. And that’s what’s happened with John chapter 1.

I was trying to think of a story that illustrated history being re-written and I actually Googled it. There were a shocking number of instances from around the world of where people have attempted to re-write, or change, what we know of history.

Miles: Oh, really? Do tell! Like what?

Dave: Well, that’s the problem. We’re broadcasting around the world, and it seems that every country we’re broadcasting in has some insane example of re-writing history, from China to the United States; from England, Germany and Spain, to Chile, India, Cambodia, Ukraine and more. I don’t want to cause problems for our team members who live in these places—some of them are more politically, um, strict than others—so I asked my daughter if she knew of any examples from history.

She loves history and is constantly devouring all the history books she can get her hands on.

Miles: Yeah, whenever she comes in here, she typically has a funny story or factoid of history to share. So, what example of rewriting history did she tell you about?

Dave: Well, once upon a time … the kings of Assyria, Babylon, and Elam were at war.

Miles laughes: Just when did this revision of history happen?

Dave: Oh, some time around 700 BCE. Anyway, Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, left us one of the most graphic descriptions of Assyrian warfare ever recorded. We won’t read all of it. Some of it’s a bit too graphic, but I copied off some of it that I’d like you to read.

It’s from a book by a Daniel Luckenbill that transcribes the ancient Assyrian writings. Here. What does the mighty Sennacherib have to say about his battle with Babylon?

Miles: Uhh …

They drew up in battle array before me . . . on the bank of the Tigris. They blocked my passage and offered battle. . . . I put on my coat of mail. My helmet, emblem of victory, I placed upon my head. My great battle chariot which brings low the foe, I hurriedly mounted in the anger of my heart. . . . I stopped their advance, succeeding in surrounding them. I decimated the enemy host with arrow and spear. All of their bodies I bored through. . . . I cut their throats, cut off their precious lives as one cuts a string. . . . My prancing steeds, harnessed for my riding, plunged into the streams of their blood as into a river. The wheels of my war chariot, which bring low the wicked and the evil, were bespattered with filth and blood. With the bodies of their warriors I filled the plain, like grass. . . .

Dave: So that’s Sennacherib’s account of the battle with Babylon.

Miles: Wow. So what’s next? Some detailed account of the victory party when they returned home?

Dave: That’s just it! He goes home, gives a very graphic account to the Assyrians of this battle he so bravely fought … but notice he never says he actually won the battle!

Miles: What?

Dave: We know from the Babylonian account that Sennacherib actually lost. He didn’t win! So his entire over-the-top description, talking about his helmet, “emblem of victory,” and his chariot wheels “which bring low the wicked,” was all just a diversionary tactic so he didn’t have to admit he lost.

Miles: Oh, that’s brilliant! Brilliant! Talk about a successful spin. So what did the Babylonian account say? Was it as graphic or descriptive as Sennacherib’s account?

Dave: No. They were the winners. They didn’t feel the need to embellish. They simply and rather casually mentioned that the Assyrians lost. That’s all.

Miles: Sounds like this was a case of the loser rewriting history!

Dave: Whichever. History was re-written. And I see that as what’s happened with John 1. John the Beloved had a very clear grasp of truth, and that included the nature of Yahuwah as well as the nature of Yahushua. He wasn’t confused. Like every Israelite, including Yahushua himself, he knew Yahuwah was just one. Not the “three-in-one” pagan nonsense that came in several hundred years later.

The problem is, modern Christians have been so deeply indoctrinated into this belief that we read John 1 through a trinitarian lens.

Miles: That’s true. When I was first looking at the issue of the trinity, John 1 was a huge obstacle for me. When you’re a trinitarian, you’re going to assume that doctrine is there and read that into John 1.

Dave: But the truth is, it’s not there!

Why don’t you turn there and read the first six verses for us? Let’s see what it says, and then let’s dig into what John is really saying because I can pretty much guarantee that if you’ve been raised believing in a trinity, that’s all you’re going to hear when you read this passage. So go ahead and read it, and then we’ll dig into it.

Oh, and use the titles as it appears in the English translation. You’ll see why in a minute.

Miles: All right, it says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Dave: The real issue isn’t this passage. It’s not the words John wrote. It’s the meaning modern Christians project onto the passage.

See, we all want to reinterpret John’s words. We want to look at them through the lens of post-Biblical beliefs. These are doctrines that were developed literally hundreds of years later! We can’t do that and still arrive at the truth.

Miles: That’s a good point. The trinity heresy first showed up in the second century, over a hundred years after Christ. But even then, it didn’t become part of church orthodoxy until the fourth century. That’s a long time after Christ.

Dave: The Nicean Creed is all about the trinity. If this was Biblical truth, why did it have to be established, or laid-down as official doctrine, in a creed?

Miles: Well, there were still people that didn’t believe in a triune godhead. Believers clinging to apostolic Christianity saw it for what it was: heresy adopted from paganism.

Dave: You’re exactly right. So to arrive at what John is really saying here, we have to look at all of what John says. We can’t take a passage out of context and let him contradict himself. Fortunately, John left us some very clear statements that reveal his beliefs. These are our benchmarks, so to speak, they are basic framework statements that let us know the parameters of John’s theology that he learned directly from Yahushua himself.

Turn to John chapter 17 and read verse 3 for us. This is one of the Savior’s last prayers before his betrayal in Gethsemane. John 17:3.

Miles: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Yahushua Christ, whom you have sent.”

Dave: Now leave your finger there, then turn over to John 20 and read verse 31.

Miles: “But these are written that you may believe that Yahushua is the Messiah, the son of [Yah], and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Dave: These two statements set the parameters of John’s beliefs. Here, in context, would be the two best places to state that Yahushua was divine if John, in fact, actually believed that. But he didn’t. Instead, in John 17:3 he says “this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Yahushua Christ, whom you have sent.”

Notice the use of the word “and.” There is absolutely nothing in this verse that says Yahushua is divine. Nothing! It’s a prayer, addressed to Yahuwah, that says, “This is eternal life: that they know YOU … the only true God.” Eternal life is to know the Father as the only true God. And then there’s a conjunction … “and … Yahushua Christ whom you have sent.”

Conjunctions combine words, phrases and clauses, and that’s what the word is doing here. It’s not saying anything about Yahushua being some mystical “God the Son.” Just that knowing Yahushua is part of eternal life.

Miles: What about John 20 verse 31?

Dave: Read it again, but this time start both verses 20 and 31.

Miles: “Yahushua performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Yahushua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Dave: This is John’s stated purpose for writing his gospel: so that his listeners might know for a surety that Yahushua was indeed the long-awaited Messiah, the son of Yah, and that by believing this, they’d be able to have eternal life. That’s all!

Again, nothing whatsoever that even hints at Yahushua being divine. Yes, it uses the phrase “the son of Yah” but not in the trinitarian sense that came later. Every Jew viewed himself as a son of Yah. To read divinity into that statement is to read in a belief that came in hundreds of years later.

Miles: Put that way, notice it refers to Yahushua as “the son of God,” not “God the son.”

Dave: That’s a good point. Whenever we hear the term “Son of God” we tend to transpose it in our mind. That’s our trinitarian conditioning. We equate “Son of God” with “God the Son” but that’s not what this is saying here.

Again, if Yahushua were truly divine, this would be the logical place to teach it. This and John 17:3. But John doesn’t. Instead, the verses actually reaffirm the unitarian nature of Yahuwah. He is God alone, not with someone else, not even His own son.

And this is clearly spelled out in Scripture. Turn to Psalm 86 and read verse 10. This is a psalm addressing Yahuwah.

Miles: Okay, it says … “For You are great, and do wondrous things;
You alone are elohim.”

Dave: Remember: “Elohim” is Hebrew for “god.” It’s used to apply to false gods, too. Even without all the other Scriptural evidence, this verse alone is sufficient to prove the trinity doctrine for the heresy it is. This very literally states that Yahuwah alone is god. Only He is divine.

This is why John was a unitarian. It’s why Yahushua was, too. It’s why all the Jews were.

Turn to John 5. This chapter begins with the story of the man healed at the pool of Bethesda. Verse 16 says, “the Jews persecuted Yahushua, and sought to kill him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath.”

So the rest of the chapter is Yahushua explaining why he healed on the Sabbath as well as his relationship to Yahuwah. Now read verse 44.

Miles: “How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?”

Dave: He’s clearly talking about Yahuwah and what does Christ call Him? “The only God.” Not “God the Father,” one-third of a trinity. Christ doesn’t even include himself in this. He simply and very clearly states that Yahuwah is “the only God.” This is why John was a unitarian. He never believed in a triune godhead and his writings reflect that.

Miles: We need to take a quick break but when we come back, let’s apply that to John 1 and see what John’s really talking about there.

Dave: Sounds good.

Miles: We’ll be right back.

* * *

Advertisement

It’s a very common misconception that Yahushua was resurrected on Sunday. A similar assumption is that Saturday must be the Biblical Sabbath because that’s when the Jews worship and go to synagogue. In fact, there are literally millions of Protestants around the world who worship on Saturday because they believe it’s the Biblical Sabbath since it’s the seventh day of our modern week, and that’s when the Jews worship. The assumption is made that the Jews would never worship on anything but the Biblical Sabbath.

That assumption, like most assumptions based on a faulty premise, is wrong. Saturday is not the Biblical Sabbath, nor is Sunday the day of Christ’s resurrection and Jewish scholars know this. This may shock you, but the is a wealth of historical, archeological, Scriptural, and even astronomical proof to support this.

Daniel 9 contains a prophecy which, if correctly understood, pinpoints the actual year of Yahushua’s crucifixion, and it is here that we have inarguable evidence that the modern week does not align with the Biblical week because the papal calendar used today is solar, while Yah’s calendar was luni-solar.

If you would like to learn more, look for the previously aired radio program called “Daniel 9, the Crucifixion, and the Calendar Lie.” [Program 189] There are also many articles and video on our website that cover every aspect of the Biblical calendar. Look for “Daniel 9, the Crucifixion, and the Calendar Lie” to learn more. You can find it on our website in 10 different languages, and on YouTube! Look for it today!

* * *Part 2: (Miles & Dave)

Dave: Would you please read 1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 1 for us? This is a warning we all should take seriously: 1 Timothy 4, verse 1.

Miles: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.”

Dave: This is what the doctrine of a trinity is. It’s deceptive, it teaches the wrong thing about the nature of Yahuwah and, in doing so, it teaches very dangerous errors about the plan of salvation.

So, let’s look again now at John 1. What’s the first verse say? Again, use the English titles here because it’s a misuse of titles that has helped cause this confusion and I want you to see it. Go ahead.

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

Dave: Now, right away, we’ve got here a problem. The word “Word”—which we all assume to be referring to Yahushua—is capitalized. In English, only proper nouns are capitalized, so this implies that it’s Yahushua who is “the Word.”

Miles: I know that Hebrew didn’t capitalize any words, and Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew. But what about Greek? This is in the New Testament.

Dave: What most people don’t know is that all of the earliest Greek manuscripts, right up to the sixth century, all used capital letters only. We call these “uncial” or “majuscule” manuscripts. It wasn’t until the sixth century that we get the first hints of the development of lower-case script in Greek. This was fully developed by the ninth century. However, centuries before when the New Testament was written, it wasn’t a thing. So John did not have lower case script by which he could set apart the word “Word” by capitalizing it.

Capitalizing it here is tendentious.

Miles: “Tendentious”? What do you mean?

Dave: It’s favoring a particular point of view. It’s not how it was originally written, so to capitalize it gives dishonest and inaccurate support to the trinity doctrine.

Miles: Basically, it’s imposing meaning upon the text that isn’t there in the original.

Dave: Exactly.

Miles: What does the word, “Word,” even mean in the original Greek? Is it possible that the definition implies Yahushua?

Dave: That’s a great question. Let’s look it up. Grab your Bible dictionary there and turn to number 3056 and read the entry for us. What does it say?

Miles: All right. Uh … “Logos: something said, including the thought; by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental facility) or motive … Logos denotes the expression of thought, not the mere name of an object, as embodying a conception or idea.”

Dave: In other words, it’s a thought. An idea. The expression of the mind.

Now here’s an interesting point. In the Old Testament, what was a verb there becomes, in the New Testament, a noun.

Miles: For example?

Dave: Uh … in Genesis 1, Yahuwah spoke “Let there be light.” In the New Testament, Yahushua himself is the light.

In the Old Testament, we have prophecies about a descendant to reign on David’s throne. The verb “reign” becomes the noun “kingdom”—Yah’s kingdom—in the New Testament. You can see John thinking of Genesis here. “In the beginning, Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Elohim and the word was Elohim.”

Miles: I find all of this really interesting, but I’ve got a question about the phrase that says “the word was with God.” Wouldn’t that suggest Yahushua’s presence with Yah?

Dave: Not necessarily. Yes, you can be with someone else. Right now, Elise O’Brien is in the front office with someone. You are in here with me. Now, in Scripture, concepts are often personalized. Being personalized, they can be said to be with someone else. Wisdom is with Yahuwah.

Turn to Proverbs 8. Here, wisdom is personified as a woman. Read the first three verses as soon as you find it.

Miles:

Does not wisdom cry out,
And understanding lift up her voice?
She takes her stand on the top of the high hill,
Beside the way, where the paths meet.

She cries out by the gates, at the entry of the city,
At the entrance of the doors. [Proverbs 8:1-3a]

Dave: Verse 12 says, “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence.” Well, if “Wisdom” is a woman, who’s Prudence?

Miles: Good point!

Dave: Just as “Wisdom” and “Prudence” are personified in the Old Testament, so is “Word” personified in the New Testament. But after looking up the word logos, we know that’s just a personification of Yahuwah’s thoughts. That’s all the “Word” here is referring to. Yah’s plan.

It’s only later that people read into it some second person of some mystical trinity. We have to remember that John had the capability, he had the words to say he was speaking of Yahushua, but he didn’t.

Miles: That’s true. We always try to twist things, as though the writer were struggling to express his thoughts, but they all had full working vocabularies. They had the ability to express any thought they wished.

Dave: Now, I have here a copy of the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible. This was the Bible of the Protestant Reformers, and it gives an interesting insight into how the earliest Bibles translated this text. Would you read the first five verses of John 1 in this translation, please?

Miles: “In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the wilderness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.”

Dave: Did you catch what was different here?

Miles: Yeah! The King James translation refers to the Word as “Him.” The Geneva Bible translates “Logos” as “it.”

Dave: Which is more consistent with the original. We have to remember that King James, who commissioned the translation named after him, was raised Roman Catholic. Of course his beliefs are going to influence his interpretation of Scripture.

However, using the word “it” is more consistent with John’s original intent.

Another way we can know what John was thinking is by looking at the writings of his contemporaries. John, like Peter, predominantly ministered to the Jews. His writings were understood by them. I’ve got here a quote from the writings of the Essenes. They were a sect within Judaism. Notice how much this statement resembles John 1.

Go ahead. Just … where it’s marked.

Miles: “By his knowledge everything has been brought into being and everything that is, God established by his purpose and apart from God, nothing is done.”

Dave: This is what a Jew would say; this is how a Jew thought. And no, it does not say “Yahuwah” in the original because the New Testament Jews didn’t use the sacred name as they thought it was too holy to use.

Miles: It’s all about Yahuwah, though, isn’t it? There’s nothing there about a partner. A co-equal. It’s pure monotheism as we know they were. It even sounds like John 1. There’s nothing about a son.

Dave: There’s nothing about a son because a son was the predicted descendant of David. The Messiah had to be descended from David, not only because prophecy said so, but because making him older than his ancestor David, or older than his mother Mary, is impossible. It’s ridiculous.

When the son was born, though, he became a real person. He moved from an idea, from a concept, a plan, into reality. The word became Yahushua, but—IT, the word—wasn’t Yahushua. The plan became flesh when he was born. It was then that humanity saw his glory.

Miles: Trying to superimpose a pre-existent Savior onto John 1—before his birth—is confusing, isn’t it? The pure faith of the apostles is lost.

Dave: And church doctrine was changed forever. We’re so used to modern Christian theology, that we forget that the early Church fathers, the ones who brough in compromises with paganism, were well-educated in Platonic philosophy. They read the writings of the apostles through the lens of Plato. We’ve covered this in other programs so we won’t go into it again here, but we should remember that. It’s an important point.

Miles: If you haven’t studied that aspect of it yet, we’ve done at least one radio program on it. You can also look for the articles entitled “How Plato Influenced Our View of Yahuwah” and … what’s the other one?

Dave: Uh, “Christianity’s Platonic Heaven.” There’s also a video called “Paganism, Plato & the Trinity.” So, check them out. There’s a lot of info there.

Getting back to John 1, what John, as a unitarian Jew who believed in only one God is saying here is that Yahuwah had a plan, an idea. That plan became flesh only when Yahushua was born. “It” materialized into reality at his birth.

Now. Earlier I asked you to leave the English title in and just use “God.” Typically, we like to use Yahuwah, or Yah, but throughout the New Testament, the Greek actually uses theos, or God. This is partly what has allowed trinitarians to impose meaning on this passage. Trinitarians say “God” and automatically think of a triune God.

But now I want you to read John 1:1 again, but this time let’s stick in Yahushua’s name and Yahuwah’s name.

Miles: “In the beginning was Yahushua, and Yahushua was with Yahuwah, and Yahushua was Yahuwah.”

Dave: It doesn’t work, does it? Even trinitarians don’t claim that Yahushua and Yahuwah are one and the same. Even if they believe they’re the same being but in different epochs, they still maintain some difference between Yahuwah and Yahushua.

Read it again only this time stick in “second member of the trinity” and “first member of the trinity.”

Miles: “In the beginning was the second member of the trinity, and the second member of the trinity was with the first member of the trinity, and the second member of the trinity was the first member of the trinity.”

Dave: Again, it doesn’t work, does it?

Miles: No.

Dave: To recap: The “Word” is Yahuwah’s thought. His plan. It’s not His “son.” It’s His plan for a son.

Now let’s keep going. When we read John 1 just as it’s written, you’ll see that the son comes into the account several verses later. So, we start out with Yahuwah having a plan. Begin at verse 11.

Miles:

He came to his own, and his own did not receive him. But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of [Yahuwah], to those who believe in his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of [Yah]. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [John1:6-14]

Dave: Verse 13 is very interesting. Our modern translation says, “who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of [Yah].” However, the earliest versions read differently. They say, “who WAS born.” In other words, it’s here in verse 13 that the focus shifts to Yahushua birth. Not back in the first few verses, but here in verse 13. The Church Fathers quoted this differently and Tertullian, the second century Church Father, claimed the Gnostics changed the wording.

Miles: That makes sense. Yahushua was not born of natural descent, or the will of a human. Or a husband. He was born of Yah.

Dave: And only then did he come into existence. Not before. That’s what the very word “begotten” means! To “come into existence.” You can’t have a virgin birth and preexistence. The virgin birth cancels out any preexistence. You can’t have it both ways by the very definition of the words Scripture uses to explain Yahushua’s coming into existence.

The gospels, and particularly John, describes Yahushua as the only “begotten” of the Father. A human.

Miles: And to be a human being, you have to be begotten in the womb of your mother. That’s what it means to be human.

Dave: Everything in John agrees with everything else in the rest of Scripture which reveals that there is one God only—Yahuwah—and He has a fully human, not divine, only begotten son.

We have to stop applying the language and concepts of the paganized creeds to Scripture. Those came in centuries later.

Miles: More than that, as we’ve studied in previous programs, the trinity doctrine actually destroys the plan of salvation in a very real sense. It shifts the entire focus and even emphasis. This impacts believers. Most people don’t realize how much this one error changes all of the plan of salvation!

Dave: There’s one more verse I want to look at. Verse 18.

Miles: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.”

Dave: Do we really think that “God” was begotten? Because if Yahushua was divine, that’s what this is saying.

Language was invented by Yahuwah. He supplied us with the language to understand divine concepts. The Bible writers had sufficient vocabulary to adequately express what they were inspired to say, so we need to take their writings just as they’re written and, for the love of all that’s holy, stop reading into them pagan concepts that simply aren’t there!

* * *

You are listening to World's Last Chance Radio.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Advertisement

The doctrine of a triune godhead is one of the most basic doctrines of modern Christianity. In fact, scholar and Jesuit priest, John A. Haddon writes, quote: “The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the most fundamental of our faith. On it everything else depends and from it everything else derives.”

For such an important, foundational doctrine, Scripture is surprisingly silent. Is it possible that the Savior and the apostles deliberately hid the true nature of divinity from their followers? After all, the trinity did not become established doctrine within Christianity for several hundred years after Christ.

If you would like to learn more, listen to the radio program entitled “Christ, the Trinity, and Bad Faith.” [Program 190] That’s “Christ, the Trinity, and Bad Faith.” Previously aired programs can be found on WorldsLastChance.com and on YouTube!

* * *Daily Mailbag (Miles & Dave)

Miles: Our question today is coming from the first country to adopt Daylight Savings Time clear back in 1916, right in the midst of World War I.

Dave: Was it a country that fought in World War I?

Miles: Yep. Makes you wonder how that impacted battle plans with allies. You know, your allies tell you to show up at 10 am and you show up at 9 and wonder where everyone is!

Dave: I hardly think that’s how things transpire—ever so neatly—in battle. So which country is it?

Miles: Germany! Where they have 1,500 different beers and 65% of the highways have no speed limits.

Dave laughs: I can see that’s a country you’d like to live in!

Miles: Wouldn’t that be great? No speed limits! You’re running late for an appointment the next town over, you can just zip right over there, no worries about speed traps or going the speed limit because there is no speed limit!

Dave: I feel like I need to warn the German consulate about you!

Miles laughs: Anyway, Oskar … uh, can’t pronounce the last name, so just Oskar from Kassel writes, “In your articles and earlier radio programs, you seem to make a big deal over when believers are to worship. How do you explain Romans 14:5 and 6 then? It sounds like Paul’s talking about worship days. If not, to which days is he referring?”

Dave: I’m happy to answer, and I like Oskar’s question. It shows he’s studying deeply to make sure his beliefs are consistent with all of Scripture, not just part.

First, let’s take a moment to read the verses Oskar’s asking about. Would you please read Romans 14, verses 5 and 6?

Miles:

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to [Yahuwah]; and he who does not observe the day, to [Yahuwah] he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to [Yahuwah], for he gives [Elohim] thanks; and he who does not eat], to [Yahuwah] he does not eat, and gives [Elohim] thanks.

Dave: It’s a common assumption that these words mean it doesn’t matter on which day a person worships, or does not worship, as the case may be.

Miles: Yeah, that’s what I was always taught regarding this passage.

Dave: Unfortunately, that interpretation contradicts many other passages of Scripture. The only way you can put that spin onto these verses if you quote them out of context. So, to understand what these verses are meaning, we need to read them in context.

Let’s read them again, but this time start with verse 1 of Romans 14.

Miles:

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for [Yahuwah] has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for [Yahuwah] is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to [Yahuwah]; and he who does not observe the day, to [Yahuwah] he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to [Yahuwah], for he gives [Elohim] thanks; and he who does not eat], to [Yahuwah he does not eat, and gives [Elohim] thanks.

Dave: In context, the subject is diet not which days should be worship days.

Miles: Yeah, but worship days are brought into it. I can’t really see Paul claiming that Yahushua’s death did away with the very same days Yahushua had observed all his life, can you?

Dave: No, I can’t. And he’s not saying that Yahuwah esteems one day above another or that Yahuwah esteems every day alike. Instead it says one man esteems one day above another, and another man esteems all days alike. It’s important to keep the details straight here. This is revealing what men were teaching, not some new revelation from Yahuwah.

Miles: Okaaay, that’s not really the clarifying statement you intended it to be.

Dave: All right. To put it another way, Yahuwah isn’t going to judge us by some manmade standard. He’s not going to judge us by human beliefs or human teachings. We are judged by Yah’s standard which is His Word. John 12 says, “… the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” [John 12:48]

It's very telling that right in the midst of this passage, in fact, just before those two verses, is a verse telling us not to judge one another. Read verse 4 again.

Miles: “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for [Yahuwah] is able to make him stand.”

Dave: The focus of this passage isn’t to tell believers when to worship, or that it doesn’t matter at all when they worship. That’s already been established elsewhere in Scripture. There wasn’t, at that time, any controversy over when to worship. It was a moot point.

The point Paul is driving at here is … don’t judge. Don’t get into arguments over differences of opinion.

Miles: That’s something believers today really need to take to heart. I’m thinking of another question we recently received where the person was asking how they were to handle a really striking difference of opinion in their home-church group. There were several families who’d been worshipping together for some time but recently they were in danger of splitting because some had accepted as new light a concept that the others rejected as error. They were wanting to know what to do about it because they were all hurting over the possibility of a split.

Dave: I remember that. As Christians, we tend to split off and condemn fellow believers far too easily. We have to remember that Yahuwah is the one who, through His spirit, is convicting hearts. It’s Yahuwah that is leading us, individually, into all truth. We’re not to set ourselves up as judge and jury of how Yahuwah is leading another. We can trust that, though our paths may be different because we all come from different belief backgrounds, if we follow on to know the truth, Yahuwah will lead us to the same truth. But, again, it may be by different paths. And that’s okay.

Remember: It’s not our place to convict hearts. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job.

Now, getting back to Romans. It appears that the believers in Rome had very weak faith. Let’s take a look at Paul’s opening statement in this letter. Go to Romans 1 and read verses 8 to 12. Romans 1:8 to 12.

Miles:

 First, I thank my [Elohim] through Yahushua Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For [Elohim] is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of [Elohim] to come to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established—that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

Dave: Paul is being very diplomatic in how he phrases this, but he does make the point that he wants to “establish” them in their faith. This isn’t a comment he makes at the start of every letter. The Roman believers were young in the faith. They hadn’t yet “matured” their faith. So, Paul longs to go there to impart some spiritual gift to help strengthen and establish them in their faith.

Understanding that, when you get down to Romans 14, this isn’t giving them free reign to believe whatever they want. Paul wouldn’t have felt the need to “establish” them in the faith if that were the case.

Miles: That’s true. We’re never given license to believe whatever we want to believe. There’s a world full of error and only one truth: Yah’s truth. Reminds me of that verse that says, “lean not unto your own understanding.” [Proverbs 3:5]

Dave: Excellent example! I’m so glad you brought that up. I’d forgotten about that passage but let’s go there and read that in context, too. Remember, this passage is part of what has to be taken into account when we correctly interpret Romans 14. It can’t contradict each other.

Miles: What text is that? I don’t remember where it’s found.

Dave: It’s Proverbs 3. Read the first six verses once you find it.

Miles:

My son, do not forget my law,
But let your heart keep my commands;
For length of days and long life
And peace they will add to you.

Let not mercy and truth forsake you;
Bind them around your neck,
Write them on the tablet of your heart,
And so find favor and high esteem
In the sight of Elohim and man.

Trust in Yahuwah with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

Dave: Is there anything in here, anything at all, that suggests you don’t have to keep Yah’s eternal law? That we don’t have to continue to obey Him?

Miles: No. In fact, just the opposite.

Dave: Until we know what Yah’s word says, how can we be fully settled in our own minds? That’s how we become established in the faith, not by deciding parts of it are now unimportant and no longer binding. Paul told Timothy that the holy Scriptures were able to make him wise unto salvation. [See 2 Timothy 3:15.] Again, nothing to suggest that some parts of Yah’s requirements are no longer binding.

Miles: Yeah, that makes sense.

Dave: Another thing we should bear in mind is that the believers in Rome were comprised of both Jewish and Gentile converts. The Jewish converts, with the background of already knowing and believing the Old Testament Scriptures, tended to have stronger faith than those recently converted from paganism. Paul’s taking this into account. It’s why he’s telling them to accept those who are weaker in their faith.

Now, some of the recent Gentile converts, being weaker in the faith, had decided they shouldn’t eat meat. They were vegetarians.

Miles: Where do you get this?

Dave: From 1 Corinthians chapter 8.

See, most meat for sale in the markets had been offered to idols. The pagan meat sellers wanted the gods to bless their business, so they offered some of the meat to idols. The Gentile converts wanted nothing to do with that, so they chose to abstain from meat altogether, while the Jewish converts, who’d never believed in idols, thought it was all foolishness and had no problem eating meat.

What’d you find there?

Miles: I’m just taking a look at 1 Corinthians 8. It’s interesting. It says:

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Yahushua Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to [Yahuwah]; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

Dave: Again, Paul’s point is to allow everyone freedom of conscience; the religious liberty to follow their own convictions without judgment. And we can certainly trust Yah’s spirit to lead all sincere believers to the same truth!

Miles: So then what days was Paul referring to? Why’s he mixing diet and worship days?

Dave: One way to find answers is to compare different translations. I’d like you to read that verse again from the Moffat translation. I think it will be clearer. Let me pull it up on my monitor really quick …

There. Can you read that?

Miles: Uh, it says: “Then again, this man rates one day above another, while that man rates all days alike. Well, everyone must be convinced in his own mind; the man who values a particular day does so to Yahuwah. The eater eats to Yahuwah, since he thanks Yahuwah for his food; the non-eater abstains to Yahuwah, and he too thanks Yahuwah.” [Romans 14:5-6]

Dave: This is clarifying that there were some converts, weak in the faith, that abstained from eating meat offered to idols where there were others who, as a matter of course, abstained from specific foods and they semi-fasted on specific days. Still other converts refused to abstain from any foods, or set aside any days as fast days. They regarded all days as normal.

It's not talking about worship days here. It’s talking about fasting. Or not, as the case may be. Some fasted, some didn’t. That’s all it’s saying. It wasn’t uncommon for Jews to set aside a couple of days a week to fast. According to Zechariah 7, many of them also fasted during the fifth and seventh months.

Miles: Months?? Not a total fast, then.

Dave: No. Like Daniel described his fast. He ate no “pleasant” bread. In other words, he ate very simply for maximum clarity of mind.

Now, some of the gentile converts—not all. Some—also wanted to fast but, based on their individual backgrounds, they disagreed when this should be done. That was the disagreement over days.

Miles: And they were divided over that? What a stupid thing to split a congregation over!

Dave: Are we any better today? All believers need to give each other the freedom of conscience to follow their own convictions. Again, we can trust that the Holy Spirit will lead the sincere of heart into the same truths, but it may be by different paths. And that’s all right. That’s the bigger point we should all take to heart.

Miles: That’s true. That’s true.

If you have a question or concern that’s been troubling you that you’d like Dave to answer, just go to WorldsLastChance.com and click on Contact Us. We always enjoy receiving your messages.

Up next is Elise with your Daily Promise.

* * *Daily Promise

Hello! This is Elise O’Brien with today’s daily promise from Yah’s word.

One time the disciples asked Yahushua who was the greatest in the kingdom of Yahuwah. Matthew 18 tells us what the Savior’s response was.

“He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’” [Matthew 18:2-3]

Like most of us, Vidya Sury likes to see proof before she believes something. Her mum would often laugh at her when she’d ask for proof. Laying her hand on her heart, Vidya’s mum would say, “If it feels right here and the head doesn’t argue too much, that’s reasonable proof to have faith.”

Vidya’s son, on the other hand, has strong faith like his grandma. One day, in January of 2014, something happened that let Vidya see her son’s strong faith at work.

The day began like any other. After seeing her little boy off to school, Vidya got busy getting things done around their apartment. She got a lot done and was feeling good about her day when, at 2 pm, she grabbed her purse and headed out the door to pick her son up from school. She was shocked when the front door unexpectedly slammed shut behind her. It never did that. The mechanism was such that she had to pull it shut, but that day it had shut automatically. She dug in her purse for her keys … only to remember with a sinking heart that they were still on the table. She’d forgotten to pick them up.

Now what? Well, she decided, first, to pick up her son from school. She told her little boy what had happened, the child said, “Don’t worry, Mum. I’m praying. Everything will be okay.”

Mother and son returned home on the bus. The man in the neighboring apartment let them use his phone to call a locksmith Vidya had used before and trusted. Unfortunately, he was out of town. Their only option was to walk to the market and see if they could find another locksmith to come and let them in.

As the two stepped outside, the child put his hand on his mummy’s arm. “Have faith, Mum. The right solutions will come.” Vidya could see his lips move as he silently prayed.

She sent her own prayer heavenward, begging for a miracle. As they started to cross the road, Vidya saw a vehicle racing toward them. She signaled her son to wait and let it pass first. To her astonishment, who should be driving the vehicle but the locksmith she’d been told was out of town! Excitedly waving her arms up and down, she flagged him down. In short order, he had their home open again. Her son insisted it was because they’d prayed.

In thinking about their experience, Vidya says, quote: “If this is not a miracle, I don’t know what is. So many things could have gone wrong. But they didn’t. … it really wasn’t a dire situation. But I am somehow convinced, yet again, that keeping the faith through prayer kept us positive.”

John 15, verses 15 and 16 says: “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.”

We have been given great and precious promises. Go and start claiming!

* * *Part 3: (Miles & Dave)

Miles: You know, with today’s topic, it struck me that there’s a new way to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17, that I’d never seen before.

Dave: Oh, really? What’s that?

Miles: Well, let me read these verses really quick so everyone knows which passage I’m talking about. It says: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of [Yahuwah], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of [Yah] may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Now, I’ve always interpreted that to mean that all of Scripture contains teaching that’s profitable for believers throughout history. Certainly doctrine, but more than that. Like it says: for correction and instruction in righteousness.

But it struck me just now that, in addition to that, the fact that Scripture is given by inspiration of Yah, means we can rely on its teachings to be in harmony and consistent with itself.

Scripture does not teach a triune godhead, but the first chapter of John has seemed to suggest (to me) that it did. Hearing what you had to say really emphasizes that no, it doesn’t teach a pre-existent Christ. Because Yahuwah is the author of the entire Bible, He’s made sure that all of its disparate parts, everything authored by different people across several centuries, actually harmonizes. One part truly doesn’t contradict another.

Dave: Isn’t it beautiful? Every part harmonizes with another part. That’s why, when we find something that appears to contradict an established truth, it’s a red flag we should pay attention to. You don’t need to lose your faith over it. Simply take it as an invitation to study more because the truth will never contradict itself. If you’ve found something that appears to contradict, it’s the Holy Spirit’s way of saying, “Dig a little deeper here. There’s something you’ve missed, something that will harmonize everything once you know the full truth.”

Miles: That’s a good way to look at it. We shouldn’t let red flags shake our faith. With all the truth Heaven is pouring out—

Dave: With all the centuries and centuries of accumulated error we’ve all inherited—

Miles: Yeah, that, too. We shouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of our beliefs have been in error. Let’s just be grateful we can learn the truth now!

Dave: Turn to Psalm 18. There is a promise here we don’t pay enough attention to. Psalm 18 verse 30. What does that say?

Miles: “As for Elohim, His way is perfect: Yahuwah’s word is flawless; He shields all who take refuge in Him.”

Dave: The Word of Yahuwah is flawless. It’s perfect just as He Himself is. We can safely trust it in all things.

Miles: Reminds me of Psalm 119.

Dave: Oh, that’s a great psalm. We tend to crack jokes about it or avoid reading it simply because it’s so long. It’s the longest chapter in the entire Bible.

Miles: Doesn’t it have like 175, 176 verses to it?

Dave: I don’t know. Something like that.

Miles: Anyway, verse 105 is familiar to most of us. It says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.” That means it’s a light—a truth—we can fully trust in. We can rely on it.

You ever been out walking late at night and your torch goes out? You didn’t change the batteries so the light gets dimmer and dimmer until it finally goes out?

Dave: Yes, it’s rather unsettling when it happens.

Miles: Not to mention a bit risky. You might not see that garden rake your kid left lying out, prongs up, until you step on it and bean yourself hard in the head. But a light you can depend on, that’s valuable. I like that Yah’s Word is that for us.

Dave: There’s another verse in Psalm 119. It’s verse 130. It goes, “The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.” Again, Yah’s Word is dependable. When it is taken in its entirety as a whole, when you study like the Bereans, comparing Scripture with Scripture—

Miles: “Here a little, there a little.”

Dave: You can rely fully on the truths of Yah’s word because the truth is always harmonious. Furthermore, Yahuwah never expects you to simply except by faith a confusing mumbo-jumbo of ideas. His truth “gives understanding to the simple.” The truth will never require you to accept something blindly by faith. It will never be something “too mysterious” for you to understand. That’s an excuse used for error.

Miles: This reminds me of a quote I recently read by John Bunyan. For our listeners who may not be familiar with English-language writers, Bunyan was a 17^th century preacher who spent 12 years in jail for refusing to stop preaching when his religious convictions conflicted with that to of England’s king. While in prison, he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress which, second only to the Bible itself, was for many years the most published book in the English language.

Anyway, the quote said, “The reason many Christians in this day are at such a loss as to some things is that they are contented with what comes from man’s mouth, without searching and kneeling before [Yah] to know of Him the truth of things.”

I see this in the interpretation we’ve imposed on John 1. We’ve been taking what men have to say about it. I want to thank you for clarifying what Yahuwah says about it, because that’s the only opinion that matters.

Well, our time is up for today, but please join us again tomorrow, and until then, remember: Yahuwah loves you . . . and He is safe to trust!

* * *

You have been listening to WLC Radio.

This program and past episodes of WLC Radio are available for downloading on our website. They're great for sharing with friends and for use in Bible studies! They're also an excellent resource for those worshipping Yahuwah alone at home. To listen to previously aired programs, visit our website at WorldsLastChance.com. Click on the WLC Radio icon displayed on our homepage. 

In his teachings and parables, the Savior gave no “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, the thrust of his message was constant … vigilance. Join us again tomorrow for another truth-filled message as we explore various topics focused on the Savior's return and how to live in constant readiness to welcome him warmly when he comes.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.