Program 265
The Word Became Flesh

Trinitarians view John 1 as proof of Christ’s divinity, but this interpretation ignores contextual evidence that proves Christ was not divine.

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: The Gospel of John opens with some of the most poetic words in all of Scripture. Verse 1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This verse, along with verse 14, constitutes the primary proof text used by trinitarians as evidence of a triune godhead made up of a God the Father, a God the Son, and a God the Holy Spirit.

But as we have covered in other programs, Scripture doesn’t actually teach that “God” is a trinity. Rather, the overwhelming evidence is that there is only one God, and that’s Yahuwah. His nature, like everyone else’s, is “unitarian,” meaning there’s only one of Him.

Hello, I’m Miles Robey and you’re listening to World’s Last Chance Radio where we cover a variety of topics related to Scripture, prophecy, practical piety, Biblical beliefs, and living in constant readiness for the Savior’s unexpected return, whenever that might be. Today, I’ve asked Dave Wright to share with us the problems you run into when you try and impose a triune interpretation on John 1 and how this fits—or doesn’t—within the rest of Scripture. Later, Jane Lamb has a promise of protection for those in danger.

Dave? What can you tell us about this incorrect interpretation of John 1? Where does it come from and how does this impact the rest of Scripture?

Dave Wright: Well, those are all great questions, Miles, and we’re going to cover all of that today. First, though, I have a question for you: have you ever seen any video clips of people who are colorblind being able to see in color for the first time? They now have special glasses that let color blind people see color. Have you ever watched any of those?

Miles: Oh, yeah! Those are real feel-good clips. Can you imagine going through life seeing only shades of gray and then, with the simple act of putting on a special pair of glasses, you get to see the full range of colors?

Dave: I can’t imagine that. And you can see the impact on the people when they put the glasses on. Usually, they break down in tears.

Miles: Sure! The difference has to be profound.

Dave: Well, that’s what I see happening with John 1. When you read Scripture through the lens of a triune godhead, you’re going to see it everywhere—even where it doesn’t exist. And that’s a problem. Because when you impose the trinity doctrine onto your interpretation of Scripture, you’re going to miss out on what it’s really saying.

Now, before we go on, I want to clarify some terms. Scripture reveals that only Yahuwah is divine. He’s the only true God and there’s just Him. His nature, like our own, is thus unitarian, meaning just one. It’s not trinitarian.

Most Christians today, not knowing that the trinity doctrine came in hundreds of years after Christ—

Miles: From ancient paganism!

Dave: Right. Most Christians today, not knowing this, believe in a triune godhead. They say that the trinity is one in nature and one in purpose. Many even believe they are one in essence. So today when I say “God,” understand that I am not referring to Yahuwah, our Creator. I am referring to this pagan concept of a three-in-one god. Also, when I use the name “Jesus,” I’m referring to him in the trinitarian sense as one-third of the trinity.

Miles: Okay.

Dave: Let’s start with verse 1 of John 1. Could you read it for us? Or, if you know it, just go ahead and say it.

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

Dave: Trinitarians say that Jesus was the Word of God, so then when they read this verse that says “the Word was God,” they go: “Oh, look! Scripture is saying that Jesus is God! He’s divine!”

Now, we know, that Yahushua is actually only human.

Miles: Oh, trinitarians will say he’s fully human. I was raised in a trinitarian denomination. We were taught that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine.

Dave: Which is ridiculous when you stop to think about it. No one has a dual nature, not even Yahuwah Himself. And because divinity cannot die, the Savior had to be fully human in order to die for our sins. If any part of him did not die, then he didn’t truly die.

Miles: So, since we know he died, Yahushua couldn’t have been divine.

Dave: When you interpret this phrase, “the Word was God,” from a trinitarian perspective, this passage seems to prove that Jesus is God. Now read verse 14. What does that say?

Miles: “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.”

Dave: These two verses, for trinitarians, constitute the primary “proof” of Christ’s divinity. And, to be fair, at first glance this does sound like a logical conclusion to draw … if you’re reading it through trinitarian lenses. The problem is, “God” as a triune entity doesn’t appear anywhere at all in the Gospel of John. In fact, theos, the Greek word for “God,” is used 1320 in the New Testament. And if you take the time to look those passages up, you’ll discover that it’s never used to refer to the trinity. Not a single time.

Miles: Sooo … the “god” being referred to here can’t be the triune godhead.

Dave: No. Now, I’ve heard preachers and religious writers claim that John was focused on Jesus’s divinity and that, as God the Son, Jesus came to reveal God the Father.

But the truth is, Yahushua revealed … Yahuwah. The Creator. Not a trinity.

Turn to John 17. This was a prayer Yahushua prayed just before his betrayal. What does he say in verse 3?

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

Dave: Notice that Yahushua is not referring to himself as being “God” or even one-third of “God.” He’s drawing a distinct difference between Yahuwah as “the only true God” and himself. He even puts in the word “and.”

“And” is a conjunction. It joins two things together. It does not automatically make two things the exact same thing. Yahushua is saying life eternal is to know Yahuwah as the only true God—and—to know Yahushua whom the only true God sent. This is not a triune godhead being described here.

Theos, or God here, is referring exclusively to Yahuwah. That’s how the word is consistently used throughout the New Testament.

Miles: When you look at John 1 verses 1 and 14, there really aren’t that many words that even can be inferred as referring to a trinity. And our eternal destiny is supposed to hinge on this all-important doctrine?

Dave: It doesn’t make sense, does it? And in order to interpret those two little phrases as saying that Yahushua is part of a trinity, you have to ignore what he himself said was the greatest commandment, which is that Yahuwah is one. Not three-in-one. Just one.

It’s this sort of taking phrases out of context that twists the truth and creates cults.

Miles: True. I don’t know how many words there are in John in every language, but in English, the average translation contains over 18,000 words. And we’re supposed to believe that 10 little words, taken out of context, can be taken as proof of Christ’s divinity?

Dave: The truth is, you’ll never find a reference to “God the Son” in Scripture. It’s not there. There are plenty of references to Yahushua being the “son of God” but that’s something else entirely.

Miles: Yeah. Paul refers to believers as sons of God, so being called the “son of God” doesn’t automatically make Yahushua “God the Son.”

Dave: And don’t you think that if the apostles believed Yahushua was divine, they’d have said so? But you look at what they talked about—the focus of their preaching—it was never about Yahushua being divine.

Let’s look at a couple of passages. Read Acts 3 verse 15.

Miles: “You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.”

Dave: Clearly, this use of theos is referring to Yahuwah. And the thrust of the message? You killed Yahushua, but Yahuwah raised him back to life.

What about Acts 5 verse 30?

Miles: “The God of our fathers raised Yahushua, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.”

Dave: Acts 2 records Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost and he spent a long time—verses 22 to 36—expounding on this very point. That was the core of Peter’s sermon. People were being saved and they were never taught that Yahushua was divine. They were never told that “God” is actually three persons sharing one essence. They weren’t told that because the apostles didn’t believe it. That belief comes from pagan philosophy.

Miles: It’s interesting when you think about how Yahushua is presented in the rest of the New Testament. He’s not presented as “God” or a part of “God.” Instead, he’s presented as being at the right hand—of—God. Is he at the right hand of himself?? That doesn’t make sense.

Yahushua is his own separate entity. He’s human. And he’s been exalted to be at the right hand of Yahuwah, the only being who is divine.

Dave: Very true,. John doesn’t teach incarnation but agency.

Miles: What do you mean?

Dave: Neither John nor the rest of the New Testament teach that Yahushua was “God” incarnate in human flesh. You can’t find it in Scripture. Instead, what the Bible teaches is that Yahushua was Yahuwah’s agent, His representative on earth authorized to act on His behalf. And that’s how Yahushua talked about himself. When he said, “My Father is greater than I,” he was saying that because it's true. He’s human! Only Yahuwah is divine.

But if he were saying that as part of a trinity, he’d be lying.

Do you know that fairy tale of the frog prince?

Miles: Yeah, isn’t that a German fairytale? A frog helps a princess and then asks, in exchange, to live with her. She’s disgusted, naturally, but in the end, it turns out that the frog was actually a prince under an evil spell.

Dave: That’s the one. You could say the prince was incarnated into the body of the frog. He was inside the body of the frog.

Those who believe Christ is divine take it even further. They say that although Christ became fully human, he still remained fully divine. That would be like saying the frog prince was “fully man and fully frog.”

Miles laughs: Even the fairytale doesn’t claim that. It says the human was trapped in the body of a frog; it doesn’t try and claim the prince was both fully human and fully amphibian at the same time. He stayed human and was finally able to escape the body of the frog.

Dave: And that’s precisely why the Savior had to be fully human. By definition, divinity cannot die. Trinitarians say that he was wholly human and wholly divine. He was 100% human while being 100% divine.

Miles: But since divinity can’t die, he wouldn’t have really died, then!

Dave: Outside of Scripture’s very clear statements regarding the nature of Yahuwah and the fully human nature of Yahushua, that right there is the clearest proof that the Savior wasn’t divine. He couldn’t have been and still died for our sins.

Okay. Looking again at John 1:14, it says, “The Word became flesh.” That’s how most modern versions, influenced by the trinity doctrine, translate it. But a handful translate it as “the Word was made flesh.” That’s a bit more in line with the Greek which means, literally, to cause to be.

Miles: I’m not seeing the problem.

Dave: The problem is that that’s passive. So “God the Son” lacked the power to incarnate himself? He had to have help?

Which is it?

Miles: Well, put like that, it emphasizes a transformation. And that’s a problem, too, even if you go with the “became flesh” translation. The Nicene creed—I’ve still got this memorized—says of Christ that he’s “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” So did he stop being consubstantial with the Father when he took on human flesh? But how could he still be divine if he did that since being consubstantial—or of the same essence as the Father—is part of what defines him as being divine?

Dave: That’s a very good question. When the frog prince became a frog and no longer had a human body, he wasn’t fully human anymore, was he? Same with, say, a caterpillar. Once it becomes a butterfly, it’s no longer a caterpillar. When you take on human flesh, you’re no longer whatever it was before you took on human flesh. You know what I’m saying? You’ve transformed. You can’t cling to the definition of what you were before and say nothing has changed. It doesn’t work that way.

Miles: Hmm. And that’s why trinitarian theologians sort of dance delicately around this whole issue. They don’t admit God the Son transformed into human flesh. Instead they try to claim that he simply took on a second nature.

Dave: Right. But as we’ve seen, no one—including Yahuwah Himself—has a dual nature. By definition, all anyone can ever have is a single nature. You look up the word “nature” in dictionary and the sense in which we’re using it is defined as, quote, “the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.” Unquote.

So. It’s simply not possible to have two natures. You have one or the other. Christ was divine, or he was human. He couldn’t have been both at the same time. And, as we’ve seen, he couldn’t have been divine and still died for sin because divinity, by its very definition, cannot die.

* * *

Advertisement

Among trinitarians, it is widely believed that Yahushua had a preexistence prior to his birth in Bethlehem. This actually makes logical sense. If Yahushua is indeed divine, he would have had to have had a preexistence.

If you’ve been listening to WLC Radio for long, you’ll know that at WLC we’re unitarian. We do not believe Scripture teaches a triune godhead and we have many articles, videos and previously aired radio programs covering the evidence for that. There is a passage in Paul’s writing that appears to support the idea of a preexistent Christ. In fact, this passage states that Yahushua was the rock from which the Children of Israel obtained water. It adds that this “rock” followed them through their wilderness wanderings.

Truth, of course, never contradicts itself so there is a perfectly logical way to reconcile Paul’s statement with the fact that Yahushua did not, in fact, preexist prior to his birth. For a careful look at this topic, listen to the radio program entitled “Christ the Rock.” [Program 186] That’s “Christ the Rock” on WorldsLastChance.com. You can also find this, and other previously aired programs, on YouTube!

* * *Part 2: (Miles & Dave)

Dave: Have you ever noticed that trinitarians have a very specific way of speaking about the incarnation?

Miles: What do you mean?

Dave: Well, most trinitarian-influenced translations will translate John 1:14 as “the Word became flesh,” but then that’s not the way they phrase it when talking about the nature of Christ. Instead, they say that Christ assumed or took on human nature.

Miles: Oh, yeah. I’ve even heard someone say he “added” human nature, as though it’s some sort of accessory software he could just add to his divine nature.

Dave: But have you ever noticed how, in such contexts, they don’t like to say “flesh”? Have you ever heard a trinitarian say “God added flesh”?

Miles laughs: Have you?

Dave: No. It’s like they avoid using that word. It’s too literal for them. Instead, they prefer to use more abstract terms like “human nature.”

Miles: That’s true.

Dave: So, after insisting that John 1:14 is teaching that “God” literally took on human flesh, becoming incarnate, they then switch up the dialogue and start referring to it as “taking on human nature.” And that’s not the same thing. But when you’re a theologian, when you’ve been taught to analyze things, you start to realize that the phraseology in John 1:14 is problematic. So that’s when you start claiming that Christ just “took on human nature.”

Miles: Are you saying they don’t really believe that God the Son actually became or turned into flesh?

Dave: It’s a bit literal. They like to keep it more abstract. Instead of saying that God the Son’s new nature was flesh, they just say he assumed or “took on” an additional nature. But taking on an additional nature is not the same thing as becoming that new nature.

So my question for trinitarians is: Was Christ a chimera? Did he fully become human flesh? Or only partly? But if it’s only in part, what are you going to do about John 1:14 that says he became flesh?

Miles: Hmmm. Good point. And if he became flesh, did he become God again at his resurrection or ascension?

Dave: And if only one member of the triune godhead became flesh, then can they truly be said to be consubstantial or of the same essence? Or is the Son no longer equal to the Father and the Spirit? See, you just start running into more and more problems, the more you try to impose a trinitarian interpretation onto Scripture.

It works well as pagan theology—

Miles: Or as a fairytale!

Dave: But it bears false testimony about the true nature of Yahuwah and the true nature of His son. Yahushua is the son of God; he is not God the Son. Making Christ fully human, even if you try to insist that’s just an add-on nature, fundamentally changes who he is. So how can one-third of a triune godhead be different from the two-thirds and they all still be one consubstantial whole?

Miles: I never really thought that out before, but I see your point. No wonder trinitarians prefer to leave it in the abstract!

Dave: You have to talk out of both sides of your mouth if you cling to the doctrine of a trinity. Turn to Hebrews 13 verse 8. This is a verse frequently quoted by trinitarians to prove Christ’s divinity. Could you read that for us, please?

Miles: “Yahushua Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

Dave: They use this verse in an attempt to prove the Savior’s divinity by showing that, like Yahuwah, he doesn’t change. But how can you say he never changes when, by the very act of taking on human nature … he changed?! You can’t use this verse to prove Christ’s divinity because becoming incarnate changed him. Even if you try to foolishly insist he’s fully human and fully divine. It’s a contradiction that misrepresents Yahuwah as well as Yahushua.

Miles: Hmmm. Not only that, but have you ever noticed that John never talks about Yahushua’s birth or conception. It’s something he just doesn’t talk about. John’s Messiah steps fully formed into the narrative. In fact … let me just find it here … later in that same chapter when Philip calls Nathanael, he says, quote: “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Yahushua of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Dave: Not only is there nothing divine in that description, but if you go back and study everything Moses and the prophets said about the coming Messiah, you’ll discover that not a single one of them spoke of a triune godhead OR of Yahuwah becoming a human being. So if that’s what John meant, why wouldn’t he have spent a lot of time describing this miraculous event?

I don’t want to rush past this point too quickly. Just sit with that thought for a moment. Trinitarians say that the Gospel of John is the primary New Testament source for teaching that God became human. Yet we’re supposed to accept that John believed Jesus was God becoming human, God taking on human flesh, and didn’t bother to talk about such an event? Not even the angel’s visit to Mary??

Miles: That doesn’t make sense, does it?

Dave: Not at all. This whole concept hinges on this one little phrase: the Word became flesh. And yet that act is not described or talked about in John at all.

And when you go to the other gospels, we find descriptions of John the Baptist’s miraculous conception and birth. We find an angel visiting Mary to tell her she’ll give birth to the Messiah. But no where do we find a statement that divinity becomes flesh, that God becomes human, or even that God adds on another nature!

Turn to Luke 1. This is where the angel is explaining to Mary what’s going to happen. Luke 1 verse 35. Mary’s just asked how this can happen seeing as she’s a virgin. Go ahead and read the angel’s answer.

Miles: “And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

Dave: This would have been the perfect place to explain divinity incarnating into humanity, but he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t even say that the one to be born will be called God the Son.

Miles: Yeah, and as you said, that’s a big difference from “the son of God.” Even humans and occasionally angels are called sons of God.

Dave: Trinitarians say that God is three persons in one essence, united with one purpose. This is how they still claim to be monotheist.

Miles: Somewhere I read that the trinity is three whos in one what.

Dave chuckles: That’s cute. Doesn’t make sense, but it’s cute.

The problem is, the trinitarian description of God doesn’t fit even their definition of Him.

Miles: What do you mean?

Dave: They’re basing their belief on John 1 verses 1 and 14 that God the Word became flesh. Right? That’s the description. But the definition is that God is three persons in one essence. But if one of those three is human, having taken on human flesh, how can you say the three are all still of one essence?

For the trinitarian definition to work, God the Father also has to have both fully divine and fully human natures. God the Holy Spirit also has to be both fully human and fully divine. Otherwise, you can’t claim they all have the same essence.

If your whole religion is predicated upon God becoming man, then shouldn’t “God” (all three of them) have dual natures? You can’t define “God” as one and then turn right around and say that one-third of God actually has two natures . . . but the other two-thirds only have one nature.

Miles laughs: What a confusing mess!

Dave: Error is confusing.

So now, let me ask this: if you’re a trinitarian, how many natures does God have? I’m not asking how many natures God the Son has. I know they believe he has two. But they also say that they worship only one God. So how many natures does that one triune God have? If your main definition is that God is three persons in one nature, then the human flesh part of God the Son has just been denied. He can only be one person with a single nature—the same nature that the other two persons of the godhead hold.

So which is it? Did God become flesh? Or does the triune godhead have a single nature? They can’t both be true.

Miles: Could I just say something here? I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb and risk offending some people, but I think it’s a point worth making. And that is, conservative Christians who cling to the trinity doctrine are being hypocritical when they condemn transgender individuals.

Dave: That’s interesting. Say more.

Miles: Okay. Scientists know that gender is complex with males, females, intersex, and a whole bunch of other mutations. That’s reality; that’s not choice.

This is an oversimplification, but for the purposes of illustration, just go with it. Say a person was born with all the plumbing of a man, and yet, due to a weaker amygdala lateralization, their brain tells them, “Hey! I’m in the wrong body. I’m a female.” So she has gender reassignment surgery and says, “Now I’m female. My pronouns are she and her.” And a conservative Christian will come along and say, “No. You’re still a male. You’re a mentally ill male.”

But then that same Christian will insist that “God” is three persons in one essence . . . all the while ignoring the supposed fact that one of those persons is trans-natured. They’ll insist that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. It would be like a trans person saying, “I am 100% male and I am 100% female.”

Dave: Huh. Never thought of that before. And like trans individuals changing their pronouns, trinitarians do, too. They refer to their God with the singular personal pronoun of “He,” even though there are three and so “God” should more correctly be referred to as “They.”

Miles: You’ve got it. Medical science has demonstrated that transgender individuals have actual differences in brain structure corresponding to the gender they say they identify with rather than the gender we tend to view them as having based on secondary sex characteristics. But even with this, many conservative trinitarian Christians will denounce and openly mock transgender individuals while at the same time ignoring the fact that their triune godhead has a trans-essence and will stubbornly refer to them using singular pronouns.

Dave: That’s … an interesting observation. And yes, you’ve probably offended a few listeners.

Miles: Sorry.

Dave: I’m not saying you’re wrong. It’s a helpful way to look at it. Brings it closer to home, doesn’t it?

There’s another point trinitarians should know and that is history is against you. The so-called “Church Fathers” tended to be quite well-educated. They also tended to be quite prolific writers and many of their writings exist to this day. As a result, we can trace just how and when a triune godhead became accepted church orthodoxy.

Miles: It wasn’t an overnight transition, was it? As I recall, some Christians even lost their lives for rejecting this pagan doctrine.

Dave: You’re right. Error has always made headway over the blood of martyrs.

We know that the apostolic Christians, like the Jews before them, were strict monotheists. They believed that only Yahuwah is divine and that Yahushua, as the son of Yahuwah, was fully human although Yahuwah’s only begotten son.

About a hundred years later, the Church Fathers—who were well-versed in Platonic philosophy—began adapting Plato’s ideas of a Logos or “Word” to the first chapter of John. They decided that “the Word” referred to a secondary god, a lesser god who was not co-equal and certainly not co-eternal with Yahuwah, the Supreme deity. This is where the idea of a pre-existent Christ first came in.

Miles: Straight out of paganism.

Dave: That’s right. When you look at it, even the Nicene Creed isn’t strictly trinitarian.

Miles: How can you say that? That’s what was voted in at the Council of Nicea in, what was it … 325 CE?

Dave: Well, look at how it’s worded. The opening statement is: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.”

So it says “one God,” but then it names only “the Father” as being that “one God.” Fourth-century Christians still insisted they were monotheists by emphasizing that the Father was supreme. It wasn’t until later in that same century—around 350 years after Christ—that gentile Christians in what is today Turkey claimed that their God was three persons in one essence.

Miles: Wow. That’s late. That’s like the 1600s from today. That’s a long time ago!

Dave: The truth is, Christians haven’t always viewed Christ as co-equal or even co-eternal with Yahuwah. But most Christians today don’t know their history or the development—perhaps I should say “corruption”—of doctrine that led to modern Christianity.

There’s a lot of documentation for this. I want to encourage our listeners to start digging. Christianity today bears a closer resemblance to ancient paganism than it does to apostolic Christianity. This whole idea that God became a man was a concept that first appeared in paganism. So, the gentile converts, having been raised and educated in paganism, brought that concept with them and applied it to a gospel written by a first-century monotheistic Jew. This is where the corruption of truth occurs. This is why, to this day, Christians read Scripture through pagan, trinitarian lenses.

But that is a corruption of truth.

* * *

You are listening to World's Last Chance Radio.

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

* * *Advertisement

“Vicegerent” is a word we don’t hear very often. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that for most of us, the only time we hear the word used in reference to the pope. However, the pope is Yahuwah’s self-appointed vicegerent. The history of the persecution of everyone who disagreed with the pope reveals just what sort of representative the pope is.

By contrast, Yahushua is the vicegerent that Yahuwah Himself appointed. This enabled him to speak and act with full divine authority while still fully human. Studying the life of Christ with the understanding that every deed he did, every word he spoke, was as Yahuwah’s active and legal representative, shines a fascinating spotlight on the Savior’s life.

Look for Program 258 called “Yahuwah’s Vicegerent (It’s not the pope!)” When you see how Christ, acting as Yahuwah’s vicegerent, received sinners with compassion and understanding, it will inspire confidence that Yahuwah will receive you the same way. You can find Program 258 on WorldsLastChance.com. Once again that’s “Yahuwah’s Vicegerent (It’s not the pope!)” on WorldsLastChance.com.

* * *Part 3: (Miles & Dave)

Dave: I want to spend the rest of our time looking at verses 1 and 14 of John 1 in context. And that context is the entirety of the rest of the Gospel of John. What does John say in the rest of his gospel? Is there anything there that would support a dual-natured Savior? Is there anything there that teaches a triune godhead or that “God” became man in human flesh?

And what we find, over and over throughout the Gospel of John, is that Yahushua is presented as Yahuwah’s agent. That’s all.

Miles: That’s an interesting distinction. So, what you’re saying is that what we’ve interpreted as passages talking about the Son revealing the Father through incarnation—as God becoming man—are actually passages presenting Yahushua as Yahuwah’s legal representative, fully authorized to act on His behalf.

Dave: Yes. And this is a legal designation. Yahushua was fully authorized to speak for and act on behalf of the Father. This is what we find throughout the Gospel of John—and the other gospels, actually, but for our discussion today we’re focusing on John.

Not only John’s commentary, but we find this in the words of Yahushua himself! We’re repeatedly told that Yahushua was sent by God.

Miles: And obviously if “God” sent him, he couldn’t be God himself. Did God send Himself? That doesn’t make sense.

Dave: Try reading John from the perspective of Yahushua being Yahuwah’s representative. I think you’ll get a completely different perspective, and you’ll wonder why you ever imposed a trinity on your interpretation of Scripture.

Miles: Could you share with us some passages where this is made clear?

Dave: Sure! Let’s start with John 12, verses 44 and 45.

Miles: “And Yahushua cried out and said, ‘Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.’”

Dave: John repeatedly makes a distinction between Yahushua and God. Naturally. John was a Jew. As such, he was a true monotheist. The only “God” John acknowledged was Yahuwah.

We see this in John 3:16: “For … God … so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” There are two separate individuals being referred to here.

Miles: Yeah. If Christ were God in the triune sense it would say, “For God so loved the world that He gave Himself.” That’s consistent with trinitarian theology. But that’s not what it says.

Dave: In John 8:40, Yahushua says that he heard the truth … from God. Not from himself; from God. Again: this is not a trinitarian god. This is Yahuwah he’s talking about.

What does John 15:1 say?

Miles: Uhh … “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.”

Dave: Yahushua and Yahuwah are clearly not one and the same. They’re different entities, different beings.

And the disciples knew this! They didn’t make the mistake we’ve made, assuming Yahushua was divine. What did they tell Christ in John 16 verse 30?

Miles: Um … “Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Dave: If the disciples believed Yahushua was divine, this statement would make no sense.

One more: John 14 verse 1.

Miles: “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.”

Dave: “Believe in God; believe …”?

Miles: Also in me.

Dave: “Also” is an adverb that means “in addition to.” Now, he couldn’t have been “God” and made this statement. That’s nonsensical. But this is what we see in John over and over again: a distinction being drawn between Yahuwah and Yahushua.

Miles: What about where Yahushua says, “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.”

Dave: That’s another great passage. Not only does it disprove Christ’s divinity, but it does prove his role as Yahuwah’s agent, acting on His behalf.

Miles: I agree with you. I see this, too. But I do have a question for you. What about passages where Yahushua makes statements like “I and my Father are one”? [John 10:30] What do you do with statements like that?

Dave: You don’t have to be divine to be “one” with Yahuwah.

I’m going to say that again: you don’t have to be divine to be “one” with Yahuwah.

See, because trinitarians say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “one” in purpose, we’ve made that a sort of mystical part of being divine. But it’s not. Turn to John 17. It’s one of the Savior’s last recorded prayers in Scripture. And as you read, notice how even here, Yahushua is establishing a difference between himself and the Father, and then he closes with a statement about humans being one with Yahuwah.

Start with verse 1.

Miles:

Yahushua spoke these words, lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your son, that Your son also may glorify You, as You have given him authority over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as You have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Yahushua Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given me to do. [John 17:1-4]

Dave: Basically, he’s saying, “You sent me to act on your behalf. And I’ve done that. I’ve done everything you asked me to do.” Verse 11 says: “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.”

Drop down to verse 20.

Miles:

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that You sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them, that they may be one just as we are one: I in them, and You in me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. [John 17:20-23]

Dave: This is not the language one deity uses to speak to another co-equal, co-divine, co-essence partner. These are the words of an agent to his boss. And notice that he ends with praying that believers may be one.

Miles: Another point I just thought of: Yahushua keeps talking about people seeing … Yahuwah. They weren’t seeing “God the Son” because there is none. They were seeing Yahuwah through His agent, Yahushua.

Dave: That’s right. Yahushua obviously wasn’t literally “God the Father,” but he revealed the Father while acting as his legal representative. This is why Paul could say, in Colossians 1:15 that Yahushua is, quote, “the image of the invisible God.”

Miles: Right there’s another point. If Yahushua were truly “God” in the triune sense, he couldn’t have been seen because no sinful human can behold divinity and live. And because trinitarians say Jesus was still wholly divine while still wholly human, that wouldn’t have changed things. He still couldn’t have been seen.

Dave: A very good point. In fact, it’s not just Moses who was told he couldn’t see Yahuwah’s face and live. John repeats that right there in verse 18. Would you read that for us? John 1:18.

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: Again, drawing a distinction between God—who is Yahuwah alone—and the only begotten son who was born to be Yah’s agent, revealing what the Father would be like if He were human. But Yahushua clearly can’t be “God,” because he was seen by multitudes.

Miles: Just a point for clarification: Yahushua was the Word?

Dave: The Word is Yahuwah’s thought, His plan from before the creation of the world. Yahushua is that thought made physical, made visible. Made audible.

Turn to 1 John 1 and read the first three verses. You’ll see he’s referring to Yahushua, but as you read, ask yourself: could this passage be true if Yahushua were God, since sinners cannot see God?

Go ahead.

Miles:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His son Yahushua Christ.

Dave: John’s emphasis that their eyes saw Christ, that their hands handled him, precludes Yahushua from being “God,” since sinners cannot see God and live.

You won’t find any “God the Son” in Scripture, let alone in John. You won’t find any “God the Word,” either.

Miles: This reminds me of a recent program we had on what Thomas meant when he said, “My Lord and my God.” Yahushua never said, “When you see me, you see God the Son.” He never even said, “When you see me, you are beholding deity.”

Instead, when Philip asked to see the Father, Yahushua said, “He that has seen me, has seen the Father.”

Dave: Again, drawing a distinction between the two. The “God” that Yahushua revealed was never his own divinity because he wasn’t divine. He was always simply Yahuwah’s agent, appointed to represent Him. So the “God” that Yahushua revealed was always Yahuwah. No one else.

The thing we need to realize is that when we impose the trinity doctrine onto John’s words, and we interpret John 1 as being about God becoming a man, we’re actually ignoring John’s stated purpose in writing his gospel in the first place!

Miles: How so?

Dave: Turn to John 20 and read verses 30 and 31.

Miles: “And truly Yahushua did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Yahushua is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

Dave: This is why John wrote his book! So that we might believe … what? That Yahushua is God?

Miles: No, that he’s the son of God.

Dave: As we said before, “son of God” and “God the Son” are not the same thing. John could have said he wrote his book so that we might believe that Yahushua is God the Son. He clearly had the vocabulary to express that. All you have to do is just rearrange the order of the words a little bit. But that’s not what he said, because that’s not what he meant.

There’s one final point that I feel is important to make here and that is that if we say John 1 is describing the incarnation of divinity into humanity, we effectually deny that Yahushua of Nazareth is a human being.

Miles: How ironic is that when Yahushua’s favorite way of referring to himself was “son of man” or, if you look up the words in Greek, he was repeatedly calling himself “human being.”

Dave: I know most trinitarians have missed the significance of this, so let’s talk about it.

Trinitarians say Jesus was wholly divine and wholly human. What they miss is that in order to have one Messiah, they must deny his humanity or else they’d have two Jesuses walking around.

Miles: Okay. You’ve lost me.

Dave: Have you heard of the Council of Chalcedon?

Miles: No.

Dave: It was an ecumenical council convened in 451. That’s over 400 years after Christ.

At this council, it was decided that the human and the divine natures of Christ co-existed, quote “in one Person and one Personhood, not parted or divided into two persons.” Unquote.

So. If the Savior is only one person, and over the centuries, the doctrine that has been built up by theologians is that God the Son is, quote, “the eternal god person,” then Christ cannot be human.

Miles: Ahhh. I see. Because you can’t be an eternal god person and still be a human being. But why couldn’t he be God in a human body?

Dave: Because orthodox theology says he is a person. A god person.

Remember the fairytale we talked about earlier? The prince was still a prince even when he was in the body of a frog. The frog was not a frog person. It was just a frog body. That’s it. But the prince remained a prince even when trapped in a frog body. He didn’t become a frog person.

Okay. Now apply that to trinitarian doctrine. We’re told that Jesus was God in human flesh. That means he was still God, just trapped in a human meat suit. That doesn’t make him human. You can’t have it both ways.

And the theologians know this. I have here a quote from William Lane Craig, a Christian author and apologist. Would you read that for us, please?

Miles: Okay, it says: “…there is only one person in Christ. There is not a human person. There is no man Jesus of Nazareth who is a human person. You have a divine person who has a human nature.”

Wow!

Dave: If Christ is God with just a human nature added on, is he indeed fully human?

Miles: No, he can’t be.

Dave: That’s how the trinity doctrine and the idea of God incarnate in human flesh denies the humanity of Christ—the very humanity, as you pointed out, Christ himself repeatedly tried to assert.

When you really dig deep into this heresy, you start to see this idea of a God-man isn’t Biblical at all. It’s pagan.

* * *Daily Promise:

This is Jane Lamb with your daily promise from Yah’s word.

There is not a single situation in life for which Yahuwah has not provided a promise!

It is said that during World War I, a particular company in the US Expeditionary Army had a commanding officer who believed in the power of Yahuwah’s promises. He gave each soldier in his command a little card on which was printed the 91^st Psalm. Every day, the men recited it together, and claimed the promises it contained in prayer.

… He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust … A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou has made Yahuwah, which is my refuge, even the Most High, thy habitation, no evil shall befall thee … For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone ….

Afterward, this particular group of soldiers fought in three of the bloodiest battles of the First World War. Other American units who fought in these same battles suffered up to 90 percent casualties! But this company did not suffer a single combat-related casualty.

Nor was that the last time soldiers in danger claimed the divine promises. A fighter pilot in World War 2 was shot down and incarcerated in a concentration camp. One day, after nearly two years as a prisoner of war, he looked up to see the sky filled with B-24s and B-17s. The prisoners started yelling with joy, expecting to soon be liberated.

Their joy soon turned to terror, however, as they realized they might not live to see freedom. The pilot, who was in the infirmary at the time, leaped under an iron table. Two other soldiers scrambled under with him, a young Jewish soldier, and a Roman Catholic. In his fear, the pilot’s thoughts turned to Yah and he began reciting the 91^st Psalm. The Jewish boy immediately chimed in: “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty … Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.”

The Catholic boy prayed: “Lord, I don’t know it by heart, but Amen! Amen! Amen!”

When the battle was over, the concentration camp, the prisoners’ infirmary, the barracks, everything had been reduced to a pile of rubble. All that was left was an iron table under which were three young men, claiming the promises of Psalm 91.

They claimed Yahuwah’s promises and He heard and kept His promises to them.

Are you afraid? Do you need help? Do you need guidance? Claim a promise! Yahuwah stands back of every promise He has made, and He will keep His promises to you.

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

* * *Part 4: (Miles)

Miles: I want to thank you for tuning into today’s program called The Word Became Flesh. Today’s program, number 265, is also available on our website along with past episodes.

We hope you can 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.