Re: The Son of God Created-3fold witness

 

Posted by Ray on November 27, 1999 at 18:33:56:

In Reply to: The Son of God Created-3fold witness posted by Wrench in the Works on November 27, 1999 at 09:29:28:

Hello Wrench: Nice to see you. You title your article "The Son of God Created-3fold Witness" thereby setting forth your intent to prove from three Scriptural references that the Son of God was created. So that will be the question we shall examine...Do the three passages you refer to prove your point as claimed...either individually or collectively?

The first of the "Witnesses" you refer to is Revelation 3:14. Here Three titles are being applied attributively to Christ. Let's observe first that each of these are presented with the article thus identifying them as single grammatical units. THE Amen....THE faithful and true Witness, and THE beginning of the creaton of God. At the outset we might well be charry of attempting to determine the meaning of the entire unit by making recourse to a literal definition of each individual word in the unit. If we were to try to do that in English with the idiomatic expression "I can dig it", me might end up suggesting that we don't know our rear-ends from a hole in the ground :-)...since "dig" might connote such an idea, but it would send us on a wild goose chase trying to get to its meaning. So in this verse you focus on the grammatical unit "The beginning of the creation of God" with a two fold argument, centering on the suggested meaning of the genitive case, that of being a "partitive genititve". With this in mind, you then proceed to show example after example where the genitive case is used when the subject is or was the "first part" of the whole category.

At the outset I would not be inclined to flippantly dismiss the possibility that this could be a partitive genitive, especially in view of the examples you've cited. We must examine the evidence to see if it confirms or denies the conclusion you've reached in this instance. First, do the accepted Authorities in NT Greek agree that such a conclusion is required? Not most of the ones I'm familiar with, such as Thayers revision, the BAG, And Zhodiates' "Word Studies". Thayers for example lists Rev 3:14 under the meaning "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause." Interestingly, although he acknowledges the meaning you are contending for, he nevertheless does not include Rev 3:14 in that category of meaning. And I think it would be difficult to suggest that Thayer was a biased witness in favor of the Orthodox viewpoint that Christ was not an original creature. The BAG lists Rev 3:14 under the meaning "first cause" but includes a parenthetical statement that "..beginning--first created" is "linguistically possible". Their scholarly opinion, however, is that it means in this case "first cause" and not "first in a series". Dr. Zhodiates likewise lists Rev 3:14 under the meaning "active cause" and not "first in a series". By the way, Dr. Zhodiates is a well known NT Greek Scholar who himself is a natural Greek from the Island of Cypress, certainly no lightweight when it comes to understanding his own natural language. And last but not least, here, is Dr. A.T. Robertson, whose scholarship with NT Greek the WT has acknowledged more than once, yet concerning Rev 3:14 he says: "Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works (Col 1:15, 18, a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3; Heb 1:2; as is made clear by 1:18; 2:8; 3:21; 5:13 [Revelation he means]" (Word Pictures...vol 6 page 321).

So Wrench I'd have to say that we can't prove your claim based on the best and most reliable scholarship in the area of the original languages. At most I found one who only admitted that it was "linguistically possible" but opted for the other meaning itself (the BAG). So we could hardly consider that a "ringing endorsement", right? Next I doubt if you would suggest that these scholars were completely ignorant of the passages you pointed to to "prove" your claim, so we must ask ourselves why they were NOT inclined to draw the same conclusion you did based on them. If they weren't ignorant of them, should we assume that they were all prejudiced against your view including Dr. Thayer? I don't think we could successfully maintain that since even the WT Society has acknowledged the credibility of their scholarship when appealing to them to "prove" their own points. So the bottom line, Wrench, since neither of us are NT Greek scholars, is that I don't see how you can prove your case when the well known Scholars have not reached a consensus favoring your claims. In fact most seem to lean the other way.

But if the scholars were NOT ignorant of the passages you referred to, what could have led them to deny your claims and instead opt for the other meaning? I think one point we need to consider is that they compared the "entire unit" in Rev 3:14 with other passages of Scripture which they felt rejected your claims and suggested the other meaning. Dr. Robertson mentions a few of them above (John 1:3...Rev 1:18, 2:8, 5:13...etc...among others) thus explaining WHY he was not impressed by your examples. Interestingly one of the passages he cites is the one YOU YOURSELF claim for the next "witness" to prove your case (Col 1:15). Imagine that!

So then, with such little support from the scholarly community in mind, let's now consider if the meaning you claim is either confirmed or denied by Scripture elsewhere. Dr. Robertson cited John 1:3 in rejecting your claim. I agree that with him here. Not only does John call the logos God, but then he immediately portrays him as being distinguishible from all creation by priority of existence. He says "all things came into existence through him". Does "all" mean "all" here? Most assuredly in this context for no sooner does John say that all things came into existence through him, but then he expressly denies even a single exception by turning it around "and without him not even one thing came into existence that has come into existence". So, since all things means what it says here, it would have to include the FIRST creation. So we see that the logos was not that first creation as the WT claims, but that first creation came into exisence thru him! Thus we see how Scripture elsewhere would be contradicted outright by your claim as to the meaning of Rev 3:14. On the other hand, Wrench, we can accomodate Rev 3:14 in the light of John 1:3 (and also Col 1:16-17) by agreeing with the majority of reliable scholarship here and understanding it to refer to Christ as the "active cause" of God's creation...thus he was the beginning of God's creation, NOT because he himself had a beginning, but because creation had its beginning in him (John 1:3; Col 1:16-17). I forgot to mention earlier that even Dr. Goodspeed, a Greek scholar acknowledged by the WT even translated it himself "the origin of God's creation" which also would not require the meaning you claim.

You address yourself to the "ruler" rendering in the NIV, pointing out that although it "CAN" mean that (well, if it can, you've hardly proven your case, Wrench, for you need to show that it CAN'T mean that to sustain your claim that he was the first creation and thus satisfy the burden of proof that you accepted at the beginning of your treatise.). Actually the two meanings have concreted from two different forms of the verbal cognate. The ruler meaning came from the active voice, and the beginning meaning came form the middle voice. And it makes no difference whether the meaning is plural or singular.....the basic meaning remains constant and does not REQUIRE the partitive gentive meaning. Showing that it can and proving that it must is two different things, Wrench. To satisfy the burden you have to prove that it MUST have the partitive meaning not that it can. So in light of what we've seen so far, I think it is fair to conclude that your "first witness" has failed to prove your claims.

Let's now consider the second "witness" you refer to: Col 1:15 and the expression "the firstborn of all creation". You begin by citing serveral examples showing again how supposedly the genitive case requires a partitive meaning....meaning that Christ must be part of the category of creation. However, Wrench, since you took on the burden of proof at the beginning of this treatise, if we can show a single instance in scripture where "firstborn" does not require the meaning "numerically first", you will lose your case. Why? Because even if we accept the partitive meaning, that can be accomodated by the fact that even the Orthodox position teaches that the logos "took on our nature" at the incarnation (John 1:14..Phil 2) and thus the application of the term would not require him to be the original creature or the first in the series, and can thus be satisfied by him becoming "one of us" later in history. But what about the meaning and application of the term "firstborn"? Let's see if we can determine God's mind on the subject.

Does "firstborn" always carry a numerical significance or emphasis? Consider Genesis 41:51, where we read that Joseph called his firstborn "Manasseh" and the second "Ephraim". Yet in Jerimiah 31:9 we read "....I have become a Father to Israel, and as for Epraim, he is my firstborn". Now here we see an example of the term being applied without regard for numerical order...STATUS was the emphasis. This is revealed to be God's mind on the subject, Wrench. Another example is in Job 18:13, where we read of the "firstborn of death". Is it referring to the first desease? No...it's referring to the most deadly of deseases. ..so once again we see that numerical order was not the emphasis...STATUS was. How about King David? Actually David was Jessie's youngest son, and he was also not the first king of Isreal, right? And yet we find in Psalms 89:27 where he was elevated by God to be "firstborn of the kings of the earth". Once again we see God's mind on the subject...it means STATUS and not numerical order. In fact Wrench, do you remember reading how David was finally chosen from among the other sons of Jessie? That was really instructive...all the others older...were deliberately and one at a time passed over until finally David was called in....and chosen....wow, now I'd say that's a good illustration that numerical order doesn't mean a a Buffalo nickle to God. And we should be influenced by God's mind on this, don't you agree? So then, all we needed was a single instance where in the bible "firstborn" doesn't require numerical order...so I'd say that in light of the above, it's fair to conclude that your second "witness" has likewise failed to satisfy the burden of proof.

And now, finally, let's consider your "third witness" to prove that Christ is a creature. What about Proverbs 8:22? Well, let's first observe that the NWT's choice of text here is the Masoretic (produce) and not the text behing the LXX (create). And so they render it "produced me". Assuming for the sake of the argument that "wisdom" is here a reference to the Logos, must "produced me" mean "no previous existence"? Not at all. Once can easily think of an example where the term could used with no such connotation, thus: "produce for me one bit of evidence!"...Does this mean that the evidence had no previous existence before it was produced in this usage? Obviously not...it did indeed exist and only needed to be placed on the table. Hence, even if the NWT's translation of this passage were correct, it still would not require us to conclude that God's wisdom once did not exist. In fact it could very easily be understood to mean that God's Wisdom was "produced-brought to bear" in the creation of all things....a function we know he performed as per John 1:3. Hence, then, we are not forced to conclude on the basis of Proverbs 8:22 that God's Wisdom once did not exist. It is much better to understand that God's Wisdom was brought to bear or "produced" in the creation of all things at the beginning. Secondly Wisdom is the natural opposite of folly and so they are inversely proportional. Now I'm sure you don't want to imply that God was once infinitely foolish, right? I couldn't blame you.

Then, as you pointed out, there's another possible meaning for the term...."possessed or purchased". You point to the Hebrew term "Qanah", saying that it meant that when "you qanah something there was a time when you did not possess it or have it"....etc. Well, Wrench, is that what you think about the infinite God...that God once did not have wisdom? In fact according to the WT Society Wisdom is an attribute of the Eternal God (Aid to Bible Understanding, page 665). So surely you can't be meaning to suggest that the eternal and unchanging infinite God once did not have one of His attributes "Wisdom"? In fact, Wrench, I think that fact understood by the inspired writers of Scripture actually was WHY they made the association with Christ....their purpose was to set forth the eternality of the Son....and that was considered an excellent way of getting that across....to ordinary people. For surely no one would EVER talk themselves into believing that God's Wisdom once did not exist.

So inconclusion, I have considered each of the witnesses you referred to , to see if they really proved what you claimed at the beginning of your treatise, and demonstrated that you have not satisfied the burden of proof...the generally accepted scholarship failed to reach a consensus favorable to your claim...and the passages (Rev 3:14...Col 1:15...Prov 8:22) neither individually nor collectively satisfied that burden. The Scripture makes it plain as a pikestaff that the Logos preceded all creation (John 1:3..Col 1:16-17)...and to this the majority of scholarship, even that appealed to by the WT, agrees....Christ was not an original creature. That is why He deserves to be honored "just as" we would honor the Father....That is why I must reject your claims, Wrench, even though it was really nice to see someone from the JW side at least address himself mainly to the argument instead of resorting to a personal attack. You set a decent example, my friend. Thanks, Ray.