One True Message Foundation

How misused: Repeatedly interpreted as implying polytheism ('God was with God' implies two gods), rather than understanding it as the distinct yet co-existent personhood of the Word (Jesus Christ) with God the Father within the single divine essence. This misinterpretation ignores the Trinitarian nature of God and the nuanced meaning of Greek prepositions indicating relationship.

Scripture's answer: The Greek phrase 'kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon kai Theos ēn ho Logos' (and the Word was toward God, and God was the Word) signifies a distinct yet intimate relationship between the Word (Jesus) and God the Father, while simultaneously affirming the Word's full divinity. The use of 'pros ton Theon' (with God, lit. 'towards the God') emphasizes communion, while 'Theos ēn ho Logos' (God was the Word) declares identity in nature. This is foundational to Trinitarian doctrine, not polytheism.

How misused: Consistently downplayed as a mere statement of pre-existence or a grammatical quirk ('ego eimi' as a common phrase), deliberately ignoring the Jewish audience's reaction (picking up stones to stone Him for blasphemy) and its connection to God's self-revelation in Exodus 3:14 ('I AM WHO I AM'). This minimizes Jesus' clear claim to divine identity and timeless existence.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' profound statement 'prin Abraham genesthai ego eimi' (before Abraham came into being, I AM) uses the absolute form of 'ego eimi,' an explicit claim to eternal, self-existent deity that directly echoes Yahweh's self-designation in Exodus 3:14. The Jewish reaction confirms they understood it as a claim to divinity, hence their charge of blasphemy. It is not merely a statement of pre-existence but of co-eternal existence with God the Father.

How misused: Interpreted as definitive proof against Jesus' omniscience and, by extension, His divinity. This ignores the theological concept of kenosis (Christ's voluntary self-limitation in His incarnate state) and the functional subordination of the Son within the Trinitarian economy. It's used to assert a lack of divine attribute in Jesus.

Scripture's answer: This verse is a profound statement about Christ's kenosis (self-emptying) during His incarnation. While fully divine, Jesus willingly subjected Himself to human limitations, including a functional subordination to the Father's knowledge, during His earthly ministry. This limitation is not a renunciation of His divine nature or omniscience, but a demonstration of His humility and obedience within the Trinitarian plan of salvation. Other scriptures affirming His omniscience (e.g., John 16:30) must be held in conjunction with this passage.

How misused: Used to assert that the Father is the 'only true God' to the *exclusion* of Jesus' divinity, implying Jesus is merely a messenger and subordinate. This misinterprets the verse's emphasis on the distinctive personhood of the Father within the Trinity, failing to acknowledge that Jesus is also 'true God' in essence, as affirmed throughout John's Gospel and the New Testament.

Scripture's answer: In John 17:3, Jesus is not denying His own deity but is identifying the Father as the unique source of divinity, distinct from pagan deities. This statement emphasizes the object of saving knowledge within the Trinitarian context where Jesus (the Son) is the mediator and revealer of the Father, and is Himself fully divine. It affirms true monotheism, not a Unitarianism that excludes the divine nature of the Son and Holy Spirit.

How misused: Erroneously applied to Prophet Muhammad, particularly references to 'Kedar' and 'Selah,' to claim biblical prophecy of Islam's prophet. This deliberately ignores the clear New Testament fulfillment of these prophecies in Jesus Christ and forces an anachronistic interpretation onto the text.

Scripture's answer: Christian theology historically and biblically identifies the 'Servant' in Isaiah 42 as Jesus Christ. Matthew 12:18-21 explicitly quotes from this chapter, applying it directly to Jesus. The context speaks of a gentle, universal bringer of justice whose spirit will be upon him, all characteristics fulfilled in Christ, not Muhammad. Kedar and Selah refer to Arabian tribes/locations, but their mention does not indicate a specific prophecy of Muhammad, especially when the Servant's identity is clearly established elsewhere in Isaiah and the New Testament.

How misused: Dismissed as merely a 'plural of majesty,' an Islamic interpretation, rather than acknowledging its Trinitarian implications or the internal theological plurality within the Godhead indicated in the Hebrew text. This negates potential biblical support for the Trinity.

Scripture's answer: While 'plural of majesty' (or a deliberative plural 'let us') is a possible linguistic nuance, from a Trinitarian perspective, Genesis 1:26 offers an early hint of the multi-personal nature of God. The creation act, involving God (Father), the Spirit (Gen 1:2), and the Word (John 1:3), points to the collaborative work within the Godhead, which aligns with later, clearer revelation of the Trinity. It signifies a divine deliberation within the Godhead, not merely a stylistic choice.

How misused: Misinterpreted as the Bible condoning or prescribing 'rape marriage,' applying a modern understanding of rape to an ancient legal context that speaks of seduction or consensual bedding of an unbetrothed virgin. This ignores the passage's concern for the woman's protection and compensation in her cultural context.

Scripture's answer: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 pertains to the seduction of an unbetrothed virgin, not violent rape (*'anaš* or *ḥāmas*). The Hebrew verb *pātâ* often implies seduction or enticement. The law's purpose was to ensure the woman's honor was restored, her future provided, and legal protection granted, preventing her from being discarded. Rape was condemned elsewhere in Mosaic law with different penalties (e.g., Deut 22:25-27 for rape in the field leading to death penalty for the man).

How misused: Misapplied to all professing Christians, suggesting Jesus will reject them on judgment day, thereby undermining Christian assurance of salvation. This distorts the passage's intent, which warns against superficial faith and emphasizes genuine obedience and a personal relationship with Christ over mere religious performance.

Scripture's answer: Matthew 7:21-23 warns against false professors of faith – those who claim to do works in Jesus' name but lack a genuine, transformative relationship with Him. Jesus will judge not based on outward religious performance alone, but on true obedience flowing from a heart of faith. It is a call to authentic discipleship, not a condemnation of all who identify as Christian.