Re: The Son of God Created-3fold witness

Posted by Wrench in the works on November 29, 1999 at 11:54:55:

In Reply to: Ray's First Reply to Wrench posted by Ray on November 27, 1999 at 18:33:56:

Hi Ray,
I have enjoyed reading your responses. My comments in return will be in between the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s.

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So far, in all that you have said, I find this to be the first real point in your defense to the information I presented. However, upon closer examination of 'Thayer's lexicon' I think a few interesting things come to light. The poster called "In behalf of wrench" was correct in the information he gace you concerning "Thayer's". The words you quote from Thayer's are really the words of the "Trinitarian" Grimm, who I believe was a Lutheran. I think you first need to revise your claim that "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." Since these are the words of a Trinitarian in actuallity, I believe the probability for 'bias' is still very much in tact.

I find it interesting as well that this definition Grimm gives to 'arche' is not supported by ANY OTHER biblical witnesses. He cites no other verse that uses 'arche' in the manner he suggests for 'Rev. 3:14'. This is a strong hint to the fact that 'bias' is involved and actually adds weight with the argument that I have presented, which was, "There are no examples (outside of our verse under discussion) within the scriptures where "arche" means "cause" or "source". More on your other sources below.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Rather than going into an examination of each of what these other scholars have to say, I think it is suffucient to ask the following:

If you were to present an array of scriptures that were taken to prove a particular aspect of the Trinity, and I responded by showing that every JW apologist and every unitarian scholar that I had encountered disagreed with your findings, what would be your response to my evidence against you? Of what value is it to convince the unitarian camp to quote Trinitarian scholars to support Trinitarian conclusions? Of what value would it be to you for me to quote JW scholars and apologists in support of JW conclusions? Would you think that we had 'fairly' weighed all the evidence? Again you mention 'Thayer' as if that is a trump card for your position, but in reality, it doesn't help you in the least for Thayer's (actually Grimm's) is from your own camp, not ours. Your trump card is valueless in demonstrating some "unbiased" opinion for it is the wrong "suite".

You claim that they were NOT ignorant of the passages that I pointed to. I would wonder of course, how you would know that for a fact. I would also wonder, since the passages I mentioned were just examples of what we find EVERY TIME when the "arche" is followed by a genitive phrase, why they DIDN"T comment on such a lop-sided display of the evidence against them? Let's face it, EVERY TIME is devastating to their position, especially when they ADMIT that "first created " IS LINGUISTICALLY POSSIBLE.

So, I would hope that they were NOT aware of this evidence, because if they were, they have demonstrated a huge bias in not addressing such a "preponderance" of evidence for the opposing view. More on this to follow.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
These examples given by Robertson were NOT in response to the argument I presented concerning "arche" followed by a genitive phrase for that aspect is not even mentioned in his discussion. He simply dealt with the word "arche" and I notice he does not offer ANY OTHER scriptural passages where "arche" clearly carries the meaning of "source".
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think you will find in the aftermath of thorough discussion, John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 will not nail anything down for your position. I suggest, if you have it available, that you read Greg Stafford's information dealing specifically with those scriptures and the thought that you mention along with it. In particular, chapter 4, pages 221-224 and chapter 6, pages 320-326 of the book entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended (second edition). I f you don't have that available, it is possible I could get him to email those sections to you, but if that is not an option, we can discuss those passages at length. The choice is yours. but I am confident that it can be demonstrated that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 do not present Christ as an active participant in creation but is shown to be the 'passive' mediator of God's creative acts.

Your appeal to the majority of Trinitarian scholarship to be in agreeance with you is completely without value as evidence since none of them specifically address the issue as it was raised, that being, "arche" followed by a genitive phrase.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yet, there is not ONE OTHER SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLE for you to use to clearly validate your claim. Again, when "arche" is followed with a genitive phrase, EVERY TIME it is PARTITIVE. As well, you can not show even ONE EXAMPLE where John uses "arche" as "ruler". ALWAYS, he uses it as beginning. You place yourself out on a theological limb in BOTH INSTANCES in order to hold on to your position.

If I found myself out on a theological limb ONCE in relation to an interpretation of scripture, I might be able to handle that. But TWICE, if I had to place myself out there TWICE, for the SAME scripture, for the SAME doctrine, I would consider that devastatingly against me, especially when my own doctrinal comrades tell me that the opponents view is LINGUISTICALLY POSSIBLE.

Let's take the theological limb scenario a little further. Revelation 3:14 should weigh heavily enough on that limb, but what could possibly stop that limb from breaking (except bias) when added to that are TWO other scriptures where, statiscally from the scriptures, I have to place myself out on the SAME theological limb to deny the preponderance of evidence against me, for that is truly the case with "prototokos" with the genitive in Colossians 1:15 and the meaning of "qanah" at Proverbs 8:22. More on these two verses below .
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, I'm at least glad to see that you feel the "partitive genitive" is valid. At this point, I don't even think it to be necessary to try to prove WHAT meaning we give to 'prototokos" since we both agree that this 'prototokos' is included among creation. I personally think that he is called firstborn both timewise and status wise since the "firstborn" carried the position of first in status. I think the context clearly shows BOTH elements of the word "firstborn". More on that below, but first, I would like to take a closer look at this interpretation that you give to the "creation" that Christ is a part of. I find that reasoning very hard to even entertain when I look at the context of why he was included among creation.

Verse 15 ends with the phrase "firstborn of all ceation". Verse 16 begins with the "BECAUSE", or "oti". Verse 16 is telling us the BECAUSE behind the title "firstborn of all creation". He is among creation BECAUSE of the fact that, word for word from Greek to English, "in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth, the (things) visible and the (things) invisible..." Now, regardless of how you understand verse 16 in regard to the creation there, one thing is for certain, it has NOTHING to do with the fact that Christ became a man. That idea is totally foreign to the words that follow. That interpretation is not even hinted at in the context. Many of your doctrinal comrades have rejected THAT interpretaion because of the "HOTI" clause that follows.

As well, you say that this "firstborn" does not mean "first in a series". However, let us look at the phrases that follow and see what is the most natural way to view that phrase. After the "hoti" clause we have some more phrases that continue to establish why Christ is called firstborn of all creation. Verse 17 starts by saying he is BEFORE all things, indicating a TIME element and not a STATUS element. As I stated before, the element of STATUS is includeed by the nature of what the firstborn was. Verse 18 calls him the head, obviously a designation of status, BUT, it also calls him the "beginning", another element of TIME, the firstborn from the dead, both time and status included in this and the the clincher, that he might become the one who is FIRST in all things, TIME AND STATUS. There is no way to divorce the element of time from the word "firstborn" when considered with the context and you have already acknowledged the validity of the "partitive genitive", and your interpretation for "creation" is foreign to the context. Once again I find you out on that same theological limb with the burden of Revelation 3:14 already weighing heavily upon you.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Covered above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You apparently did not read my comments carefully in relation to your objection about God being without "Wisdom" in the past. Please note what I said, which actually agrees in part with what you said but adds weight to what the argument established :

"Therefore, what is spoken of at Proverbs 8:22 can NOT be the “quality” of wisdom, for it should be apparent to anyone who is a believer in the Almighty God, that he did not have to “acquire” the quality of wisdom, but ALWAYS POSSESSED it. The wisdom that was “qanah” in Proverbs 8:22 is one that HAD TO BE OBTAINED in some fashion according to the consistent meaning of the word.

Therefore, the question arises. What is the “wisdom” that was acquired by God before the earth was made according to the context, who was with God as a workman by his side as the later verses reveal? "

Therefore, it is BECAUSE of the fact that the quality of wisdom was ALWAYS possessed by God, that we are led to the inevitable conclusion that THIS "wisdom" at Proverbs 8:22 was something DIFFERENT than the QUALITY of wisdom. It was an "ACQUIRED" wisdom, according to the overwhelming usage of the word "qanah".

The scholarly evidence of your doctrinal comrades weighs heavily in favor of the view that the wisdom at Proverbs 8 was the Son of God. God ACQUIRED that PARTICULAR wisdom, not the QUALITY, but the actual personification of that quality of wisdom. God always had the quality of wisdom, we all believe that. But, he ACQUIRED that person who embodies that wisdom, and according to "qanah", that person/wisdom was obtained in some fashion. The use of the word "qanah" weighs heavily again upon that understanding.

With such weight of evidence, I find it profoundly difficult to grasp why anyone denies the creation of the Son of God. Revelation weighs heavily in our favor. Colossians weighs heavily in our favor and Proverbs 8 weighs heavily in our favor. In each of those cases the most natural reading of the words lends itself to the conclusions that we have come to. Like I said before, if that happened to me in one incident, that would not sit well, but, if it happened time and again when ever the Son of God was mentioned in the context of creation, I would have to seriously reconsider my position. I suggest, and I mean this sincerely for I would not taunt you, that you do the same.

I certainly appreciate your demeanor and your style, it's enoyable to read, even if I am convinced that you are in error, I thankyou for taking the time to respond. So many don't.

Agape,
Wrench

**************************************