The question “Why is Jesus called the Son of God” has been ratting around in my head since a recent talk with a friend of mine (who’s a Jehovah’s Witness). We’re debating if Jesus is God, or merely “a god”. My friend insists that because Jesus is the “Son of God”, he can’t be God Himself.
I did a bunch of research and – as it turns out – I think the opposite is true.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
The “Son of God” in the Bible
The Bible uses this phrase a few dozen times and it usually – but not always – refers to Jesus Himself.
In many Bible translations, Luke 3:38 lists Adam as the “son of God” in Jesus’ genealogy. However, the word “son” does not exist in the Original Greek. It was added for clarity in the translation. (you can see the interlinear for Luke 3:38 here.) The Berean Literal Bible translates it as “of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God.” which is closer to the Greek, though less pleasant in English.
Secondly, Christians, the nation of Israel, angels, and a few people are occasionally referred as “sons of God”. However – as we will see in a minute – it has a slightly different meaning when applied to Christ.
Why Jesus is called the “Son of God”
Some have argued that the phrase “Son of God” refers to Jesus’ relationship with God the Father in eternity past before time began. Many incorrect ideas are built on this, such the (heretical) idea that Jesus was a created being. However, Jesus’ title of the “Son of God” has a very clear and specific reason/cause, which was revealed when Gabriel visited Mary.
Luke 1:34-35
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
Jesus is the Son of God because of the incarnation.
That’s the only reason.
Therefore, Jesus was not the “Son of God” before the incarnation.
This is a crucial point that most people seem to miss. Jesus relationship to the Father became a father/son relationship because of the incarnation. However, the scriptures are almost entirely silent on what Jesus’ relationship with the Father was before the incarnation. We simply don’t know. The only clue we are given is that the Father sent Jesus into the world. (1 John 4:9 and others).
That’s about all we know of the Father’s relationship with Jesus before the incarnation.
However, the phrase “Son of God” had an extremely important meaning to 1st century Jews that we modern westerners often miss.
We’ll look at that next because it reveals the reason that calling Jesus the “Son of God” proclaims His Deity, and thus was so upsetting to the Pharisees.
The Context
As with all things Biblical, Context is absolutely crucial. (You can read my articles on Tithing, and Speaking in Tongues, and especially my article on Revelation if you disagree) The root of the title “Son of God” and its meaning goes all the back to the beginning. Specifically, Genesis 1 and the account of creation.
Genesis 1: 11-12, 21, 24
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Notice the phrase, “after its kind” I’ve highlighted. Contrary to what Evolutionists think, every species on this planet is unique in its “kind” (It’s genus and species.) You cannot create new species of animal.
You just can’t.
(NOTE:You can mix a few of them that are very closely related to each other – such and Horses and donkeys to get a mule – but these hybrids are always sterile. They cannot reproduce “after their kind”. Further, you can only cross species that are already VERY closely related like horses and donkeys.)
Every species that exists was created to reproduce “after it’s own kind”. You can breed for certain traits (dogs come in both Doberman Pincer and Poodle varieties) but you can’t change their species. The offspring of two dogs is always another dog.
Always.
100% of the time.
A species can only reproduce “after its own kind”, and this is key to understanding what “the Son of God” meant in its original context.
The son of an Ape is always an Ape.
The son of a Sloth is always a Sloth
The son of a Turtle is always a Turtle.
Always.
No exceptions.
So the Son of the true God must be: ____?
(if you said “the true God”, you get a gold star)
Remember, the Bible was primarily written by Jews, to Jews, living in a Jewish culture. To the Jews, this idea of “after its own kind” was obvious. It was a part of their culture. A son is always exactly the same species as his Father.
Every time, no exceptions.
So it is with Jesus.
That’s why Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was the final nail in the coffin at His trial. (after they couldn’t get false witnesses to accuse Him)
Matthew 26:63-66
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
Some have claimed it was Jesus reference to judgement that was the blasphemy. However, Luke’s account is more concise and leaves us in no doubt that Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was the blasphemy.
Luke 22:70-71
70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”
71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”
If Jesus was merely claiming to a creation of God (as some suggest) why would Jesus saying that He was the Son of God be blasphemy? Claiming to be a creation of God is hardly blasphemy. However, if being the Son of God means claiming to be God, then it makes sense.
Again – from a Jewish perspective – the Son of God could only be God.
Another thing, Sonship meant more than Species.
“Son” establishes the relationship between two people. A father and son are identical species, but the father has more authority. Jesus submitted Himself to the Father in everything, partially as an example to us. So the “son of something” is exactly like that thing except that the Father has a higher authority.
The “Son of God” is a perfect way to phrase Jesus’ relationship with the Father as well as His unity to the Father.
But then, why does the Bible call Christians (and others) “sons of God”
I’m glad you asked.
Ephesians 1:5
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
The key word there is “adoption”. We are not “natural” sons of God but rather adopted into the family. Because we are adopted, we don’t have to share God’s qualities even though He calls us “sons of God”.
A example:
A family of sloths might adopt a turtle and welcome him into their family. The turtle might be loved and welcomed into the sloth’s family. However, that doesn’t mean the turtle can hang upside down on trees. Though he is a son, he is a son by adoption. So it’s not required that the turtle be the same the species with the sloths… because he’s adopted.
Further, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the “only” Son of God.
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
The word that’s translated “only begotten” (yes it’s just one word) is the Greek word “monogenes.” I have joked before that monogenes means “The only one with my genes“, and that’s not far from the actual definition.
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, “one-and-only” and 1085 /génos, “offspring, stock”) – properly, one-and-only; “one of a kind” – literally, “one (monos) of a class, genos” (the only of its kind).
Notice, the idea of “begetting” is not contained in the Greek word. Here’s the definition of “beget” from the Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries respectively.
to procreate as the father: SIRE
– He died without begetting an heir.to be the father of:
– In the Bible it says that Adam begat Cain and Abel.
To be 100% clear: the word “begotten” does NOT appear in the Greek, nor does monogenes include “begotten” in its meaning.
It’s not there.
It’s an (inaccurate) hold-over from the King James version and only appears in a few modern translations because monogenes does NOT indicate birth or creation of any kind. It refers to being the “only one of its kind” as seen above.
In the New Testament, it’s used of both Jesus and others. In each case, it refers to only children.
Luke 7:12
12 Now as He approached the gate of the city, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a sizeable crowd from the city was with her.
Luke 8:41-42
41 And there came a man named Jairus, and he was an official of the synagogue; and he fell at Jesus’ feet, and began to implore Him to come to his house;
42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying. But as He went, the crowds were pressing against Him.
Luke 9:38
38 And a man from the crowd shouted, saying, “Teacher, I beg You to look at my son, for he is my only boy,
(Notice how the word “begotten” isn’t used in the translation of those verses? That’s because it doesn’t belong.)
Notice that it refers to an only child when it’s used. Now lets throw a (really cool) wrench in this definition.
Hebrews 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten (monogenes) son;
This statement about Issac being Abraham’s only son is interesting because we know that’s not the case. In Genesis 16, Abraham has a child (Ishmael) with Hagar. Yet Issac is described as Abraham’s only son.
How?
Because Monogenes doesn’t mean “only son/daughter/child”. It means “the only one of its kind“. Issac was the son of promise, Ishmael was the result Abraham and Sarah trying to get ahead of God. Despite their shared father, Issac was the “only one of his kind” as it relates to inheritance because of the promise to Abraham.
We also see this usage outside the bible.
The word monogenes is also used to describe the only heir of a king or pharaoh, even though the king/pharaoh had other children by concubines. The point is not “only had one son” in that context; the point is only legitimate heir. Again – as I like to joke – it’s “the only one with my genes“.
That’s how it’s used of Christ.
It’s not that God doesn’t have other “children” (such as Christians being His adopted children). Monogenes sets out that Jesus is the only one of His kind. All of the other children are grafted in, adopted, or not actual heirs like a son would be. Jesus is the only one who “has God’s genes“.
Again, we come back to the context of Genesis. Jesus is the only (monogenes) Son of The Father, and that means he is the only one who is God… Because the son of an Ape is an Ape, and the son of God is God.
That’s why Jesus is called “The Son of God” and that’s what it means
Pretty cool huh?
Jesus is also the “Son of Man”
Just a quick final thought. In addition to being called the Son of God, Jesus is also called the “Son of Man”. This is true in the sense we’ve already talked about. (The son of a man is a man). The fact that both “Son of God” and “Son of man” are applied to Jesus is further evidence for the “Fully God, Fully Man” doctrine.
However it also has a deeper meaning and is a reference to a prophecy about Jesus.
Daniel 7:13-14
13
“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.14
“And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.
Again, pretty cool. 🙂
That was enlightening…Thank you
Luke 1:35, according to Gabriel, he is to be called Gods son because God is actually the child’s Father, meaning God is the one who started the child’s life in Mary/The Mothers womb, not Joseph/a Man. To my knowledge this actually the only place in the entirety of scripture that actually gives a word-for-word, I.e. “for this precise reason” in the Greek, reason as to why he is to be given the title “Son of God”….Now also, Yes, the Davidic King was also to be a son, or like a son, to God, but Luke is still the only word for word (for this reason” we are to call him God’s son) answer as to the meaning of why he’s Gods son and why he has that title…
Among the top three studies on this subject I’ve ever read. The first two are from a more scholarly position. This reading puts the food on the plate with the meat cut ready to be consumed. The average Believer can understand, apply and repeat this, Excellent work.
Thanks so much…Jesus is both son of GOD AND HE IS THE FULLY GOD..the ALMIGHTY GOD .HE HAS COME TO LIFE ,HE PRETEND AS THE SON BECAUSE OF THE WORLD TO HAVE A SALVATION AND LEARN FROM HIM..HE IS THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TASTAMENT
ZACHARIAH12:10. He say they will look upon him who they have pierced,so the Bible is not a novel nor reader, IT is a spiritual scripture ,if you want to know more about Jesus you have to be in spirit…so we should continue to learn about him…
Quote from your article: “However, the scriptures are almost entirely silent on what Jesus’ relationship with the Father was before the incarnation. We simply don’t know. The only clue we are given is that the Father sent Jesus into the world. (1 John 4:9 and others).”
Sir, if you wrote in another post about how much you value the authority and weight of every single word in the Bible (by God whose ways and thoughts are above ours), you clearly contradict yourself by changing the word “his only begotten son” / ton huio auto ton monogene” into “Jesus”.
You’re contrarying yourself to the Nicene creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
“The only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages” obviously contradicts your stand in the article.
The traditional understanding is that the Father and Son exists before all of creation, and that the reason why creation contains family (with father and son) was because all things were made from God and reflect His triune character, just as we know marriage was created to reflect the all-consummate marriage between Christ and the church.
Hope to get some clarification regarding this.
I wasn’t intending to quote scripture there, or I would’ve put it in quotes. I was making a statement that happened to closely align with a verse that I then referenced. To my reverence for scripture, I recommend you read the first two headings of my article on bible translations. I’m very serious about every single word.
It’s because I’m so serious about God’s words that I explicitly reject the doctrine of “Eternal Generation of the Son”, which the Nicene Creed explicitly teaches (“God from God”. etc.). It essentially states that the Father is constantly creating the Son, and has from eternity past so the Word (Jesus) still has no beginning. That’s what they mean by “begotten”; the idea is that the Father “begets” – i.e. creates – the Son from eternity past, so essentially the Father is constantly creating the Son and always has been. I explicitly reject this idea. The Nicene Creed explicitly teaches this doctrine, but it’s clearly repudiated by Luke 1:35. The Word/Jesus is the “Son of God” only because of the incarnation according to Luke 1:35. There’s absolutely no other reason for that title. For more information, please see the Berean Patriot statement of Faith.
As for μονογενής (monogenés), it means
Notice that there’s nothing about “fathering” or “begetting” in the word’s definition. As this article says, it’s an inaccurate holdover from the KJV, which was likely translated that way because of the bias from the Nicene Creed.
Technically, that is incorrect. You’re importing Greek philosophical ideas into the Bible about the offspring of a being being the “nature” of that being, but such an idea was not present in the original Hebraic culture in which the Bible was written.
To the ancient Jews, the idea of being the Son of God would not be one of ontology (being) but one of authority. To be a “son of God” in the Old Testament meant to have one’s authority derived from God – for example, kings of Israel were called sons of God (see 1 Chron. 29:6-7 and Psalm 2, keeping in mind that the psalm was originally a coronation psalm and not a Messianic prophecy, as well as Psalm 82:6 which refers to a council of kings as “elohim [gods]” and “sons of the Most High”).
In fact, Jesus even applies Psalm 82:6 to Himself in a sense, by saying that if the scripture calls those kings “sons of God”, why should the Jews be angered that He calls Himself the “Son of God” (John 10:34-36)? (Implication is that He is the son of God in the same way that those kings were sons of God, that is, having their authority derived from God.)
Obviously, I don’t deny that the title “Son of God” is applied in a special sense to Jesus, in relation to His miraculous conception via the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that doesn’t mean that being the “Son of God” is an ontological statement about Jesus’ equivalence with Yahweh.
I strongly suggest that you read this article to get a better understanding of what the title “son of God” would have implied to the ancient Jews: https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/son-of-god-part-1/
There is a difference between “sons of God” (plural) and THE Son of God (singular with the definite article). The only occurrence of a singular “son of God” in the OT is Daniel in the fiery furnace, where it almost certainly refers to the pre-incarnate Christ. The fact that the title “Son of God” is an assertion of Deity is made clear by John 5:18:
Further, the article you linked to was written by a unitarian, who denies Jesus Deity. Thus, you’ll understand if I’m skeptical about his claims. It’s worth noting that the article doesn’t mention John 5:18, and most unitarians won’t for obvious reasons.
Well, actually that unitarian did extensively exegete John 5:18-27, in part 3 of that series (https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/son-of-god-part-3/). So it’s patently untrue that most unitarians won’t mention John 5:18 for “obvious reasons”.
You’re ignoring the ancient concept of agency, by which an agent of a king or deity is representationally equal to that king or deity, though (obviously) ontologically separate. In the same way, Jesus, being the “Son of God” (i.e., the Messianic agent of God) is “making Himself equal to God”. If you continue to read through that passage, up to v. 27, it’s clear that this passage is about agency, not deity.
And I agree, there is a difference between sons of God and the Son of God. Jesus, being miraculously conceived, can be called the “Son of God” in two senses, both by being God’s king and representative agent as well as by being the literal son of God (Lk. 1:32-35). This is why Jesus can be called “the only-begotten Son”. Note how Luke writes that Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit “wherefore *also* He shall be called the Son of God”, that is, this is a *second* reason why Jesus will be called the Son of God.
Also, I find it interesting that you think of Dan. 3:25 as a Christophany. The actual text here says “son of the gods”, not “son of God” (throughout the Aramaic section of Daniel, the name “God” is in the singular, so this is a true plural and not a majestic plural like “elohim”).
It’s extremely anachronistic to think that a pagan king of the sixth-century BC would have thought of an angelic being as the pre-incarnate Messiah of the Jews. In fact, the idea of Christophanies in the Old Testament at all was not even thought of until the mid-second century, when Justin Martyr equated the “angel of Yahweh” with the pre-existent Jesus (whom he saw as a lesser God created by the Father; Dialogue with Trypho 56).
Furthermore, Daniel goes on to write in v. 28 that the being in the flames was an *angel*, not God Himself, and certainly not the “pre-existent Messiah”.
Apologies for the lack of clarity. I meant the fourth person in the fire was probably the pre-incarnate Christ, not that Nebuchadnezzar knew who it was. It would silly to think he was referring to that. To verse 28, perhaps Nebuchadnezzar was correct in thinking it was an angel, perhaps it was the “Angel of YHWH”, which I tend to think usually refers to the pre-incarnate Christ. That’s merely personal opinion though I could absolutely be wrong about that.
To that article, notice he starts his commentary on verse 19, not verse 18. I look to 5:18 because it’s the Apostle John’s commentary on what Jesus was doing. To John 5:18+ being about authority, maybe it’s about that too (authority to judge in context), however John’s commentary in verse 18 that “Son of God” is Jesus making himself equal to God is pretty ironclad in my book.
To 1 Chronicles, did you reference the correct passage? I don’t see the phrase “sons of God” there. To Psalm 2, Hebrews 1:5 explicitly reveals that this verse is about Christ.
Unrelated, I can’t but notice your blog URL; Have you checked out my series on Universal Restoration? I suspect that you might enjoy it given your blog URL.
Ah sorry, yes, I mis-cited the 1 Chronicles passage. That should be 1 Chron. 28:6-7, not 29:6-7. This shows that the original fulfillment of the prophecy, “I will be to him a father and he will be to me a son,” is actually about Solomon (although it did find its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus).
And Psalm 2 is another prophecy that finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus, but was likely originally written as a coronation psalm for an unnamed Davidic king (just as Psalm 45, the famous “your throne O God” psalm, was written for the wedding of Ahab and Jezebel, or possibly Solomon and the unnamed daughter of the king of Tyre).
Yeah, I have checked out your UR series, in fact that was what originally convinced me that UR was true, believe it or not!
Glad to hear it was convincing. 🙂
Interesting about Chronicles. I ascribe the quotation to 2 Sam 7:14, which is a bit more ambiguous and arguably applies to any descendent, not just Solomon. The 1st Century Jews almost universally believed this passage referred to Messiah, hence the title “Son of David”. I take the same view.
To those two Psalms, it’s rarely a good idea to assume the circumstances under which they were written and decide doctrine based on those assumptions. Even if your assumptions are correct – and I’m not saying they are – but even if they are correct, consider Joseph’s “what you meant for evil, God meant for good.” So even if your assumptions were correct, then I would say “what they meant for kings, God meant for Christ.” Ultimately, I would prefer to take the interpretation that Hebrews offers, since it’s God-breathed. Hebrews seems clear that those passages – even if originally written about someone else – were ultimately about Christ first.
I have to ask, do you consider yourself a unitarian?
Yes, I’m a unitarian, a Socinian to be exact.
I believe that Jesus was a human being miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit, who, though being a human, was the “image of the invisible God” (meaning the perfect representative of God on earth, who so fully reveals God’s will that we can perceive the Father in Him). I believe that Jesus truly died, was buried, and was resurrected on the third day, at which time He was exalted to become Lord over heaven and earth, a position which He still occupies at the right hand of His God and Father. (You’ll note that I’m using only biblical language to describe Jesus’ life and relationship to God.)
I agree that those prophecies find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus, that much is clear from Hebrews 1. But what’s important is that they were originally written about human kings, so nothing in those prophecies cannot be applied to a regular human being, including the title of “Son of God”.
I think you’re still thinking in terms of Greek philosophy, and not in the Hebraic culture that the first-century Jews (to whom most of the New Testament was written) would have understood. Jesus Himself stated that His relationship with God is one of agency, not one of ontological equivalence, many times (“the Father sent me”, “he who sees Me sees the Father”, “is it not written in your own law, ‘ye are gods’”, etc.)
Interesting. I had never heard of Socinianism before and had to look it up. So, if you think Christ didn’t exist before the incarnation, then how do view verses like John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16? Clearly things existed long before the incarnation, so how could “all things” have been created through Him if He didn’t exist when they were created?
Okay, please bear with me here, this is going to be a rather long explanation.
Throughout the New Testament, God (as Creator) is actually distinguished from the person of Jesus Christ. For example, see Acts 17:24, 31 in which Paul says to the Athenians that “God, who made the world and all things in it, of heaven and earth inherently being Lord… is about to judge the world by a man whom He did ordain” – this clearly distinguishes between God, the Creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ.
Likewise, Jesus, several times in the synoptic gospels, says that God [not referring to Himself] created the world (Matt. 19:4, Mk. 10:6, 13:19). Although we could understand this as saying that “God, a triune being including Myself, created the world”, if we read His statements without any preconceptions about Jesus being Creator (as His disciples would have) the plain and obvious reading is that He is saying that God, a separate person from Himself, created the world.
In the Old Testament too, we read that “I am Yahweh, doing all things, stretching out the heavens by myself, spreading out the earth – who was with Me [when I created]?” This is obviously a rhetorical question, and the answer is, no one was with Yahweh when He created the heavens and earth. The singular personal pronouns here make it clear that, even if Yahweh is a triune being, only a single “person” of God is being referred to here (since whenever more than one “person” of God is explicitly referred to elsewhere, plural pronouns are used; see especially John 14:23).
Therefore, creation cannot have been a shared action between the Father and Jesus as trinitarians (and even Jehovah’s-Witness-style Arians) assume; it must have been only the work of the Father.
But, as you note, there are several verses that seem to indicate that Jesus did create the world. So what could these verses mean?
The first verse used to support this idea, that Jesus created all things, is found in the prologue of John 1. This says that by the word of God, all things were made. Since the word is elsewhere said to be Jesus (Rev. 19:13), this means Jesus made all things. Case closed?
Well, actually no, because it’s nowhere said *when* the word became Jesus; trinitarians take for granted that Jesus has always been the word, whereas Arians believe that the word became a personal being at creation, and Socinians (like myself) believe that the word only became a personal being (Jesus) when it “became flesh”.
The “word” or “logos” of the prologue of John 1 bears distinct similarities to the “Word”, “Logos”, or “Memra” of Second Temple Judaism, which was considered to be an impersonal (yet personified) aspect of God like “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8. This was God’s literal spoken word, which though being impersonal, was often personified in the Old Testament (see, for example, Isaiah 55:11).
Furthermore, according to Psalm 33:6-9, all things were created by Yahweh’s word, and yet this is clearly not a personal being from the context; it refers to God’s literal, spoken word that He said in the beginning, and by which “He spoke, and it came to be” (cf. Gen. 1:3ff).
Since the gospel of John was written to Jews under the cultural backdrop of Second Temple Judaism, *this* is what he would have had in mind when writing “through it [the word] all things came to be, and without it nothing came to be that came to be”. His Jewish readers would have understood him as referring to the impersonal Logos, or Memra, by which God created the world.
This divine, yet impersonal, word of God then “became flesh” when Jesus, the Messiah, was born in accordance with the prophetic “word” of God regarding His future Messiah. Whereas, when modern readers read “the word became flesh” they think “the pre-incarnate Son of God was incarnated into a human body” (based on their preconceptions about pre-existence), John’s readers would have thought “the impersonal Memra of God was manifested in a fleshly human person”.
I’ll leave off my explanation of the prologue of John 1 with a quote from (trinitarian) scholar Murray Harris:
“Until verse 14 we are still dealing with the Wisdom and Logos figure of pre-Christian Judaism, that is, not as a personal being, but as the wise utterance of God personified. But verse 14 may well mark the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.” (Jesus as God, p. 58)
Now, as for the second verse you quoted, Colossians 1:16, there are actually two ways to translate this verse. To describe how all things “were created” (passive) in reference to Jesus, Paul uses the Greek prepositions εν and δια. These prepositions have both a causal and an instrumental sense; that is, they could either be translated “by” and “through” (meaning that all things were created through the instrumentality of Jesus) or they could be translated “on account of” and “because of” (all things were created with Jesus in mind as the future inheritor, or “firstborn”, of creation; cf. v. 15).
Both of these translations are made possible by the context, so it’s really a matter of preference, as far as I can tell (although I don’t claim to be a Greek scholar of any kind). But I think the fact that God the Creator is elsewhere distinguished from Jesus the man by Paul (Acts 17:24, 31) is evidence that the causal reading is more probable than the instrumental reading.
Finally, a third passage sometimes used to support the idea that Jesus is Creator is found in Hebrews 1:10-12, which many people believe is referring to the Son and not the Father (based on the context in vv. 8-9). Here are some Socinian interpretations of this passage:
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/hebrews-1-10
https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2021/11/01/an-interpretive-key-to-hebrews-chapter-1-part-2/
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/hebrews1_10.html
I don’t have a preference as to which of these interpretations might be true, but they all seem at least equally plausible as the trinitarian interpretation.
In summary, there are no verses that can be used beyond a doubt to support the idea that Jesus was the Creator. John 1:3 is almost certainly referring to the impersonal Logos or Memra of God, not a conscious “pre-existent Christ”, through which God did indeed create all things (Ps. 33:6-9), and Colossians 1:16 could equally be translated in the causal sense, that all things were created with Jesus in mind as the future “firstborn”, or inheritor, of creation (Col. 1:15 cf. Ps. 89:27). In contrast, there are many passages that lean the other way, that Jesus was *not* the Creator, especially Acts 17:24, 31.
Interesting. Okay, so let’s set side John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:10 because they would take much longer to deal with, though we can later if you like.
Now, the Greek of Col 1:16.
So the word “ἐν” (en) doesn’t have a possible meaning of “on account of” . Other prepositions do, but not ἐν. You can do a “CTRL+F” / “find in page” search in the lexion page I linked to above, and you’ll find that the word “account” doesn’t appear. Having translated over half of the NT, I con confirm that it’s not used that way. It primarily denotes position or the means of something, which more than one definition bears out:
Even more clearly, since this word is followed by a Dative:
Either “in” or “by” is appropriate in my opinion.
Now, to “διά” (dia).
Greek prepositions change meaning slightly based on the grammatical case that follows them. It isn’t a case of “pick which one you like”, you need to look at the following word for the specific nuance that the author intended. Note that in Col 1:16, it’s followed by a genitive, which you can confirm by looking at the verse in an interlinear Bible. So copy/pasting from the lexicon page linked to above:
And again:
To mean “because of” or “for the sake of”, it would need to be followed by an accusative word:
And
Again, feel free to double check in the interlinear Bible link above (Easier on a desktop as hovering your cursor over the abbreviations on the lowest line will give you that information.), and/or the word definition links.
Now, I hope you see that the case for “through” is pretty ironclad from the Greek. That isn’t a problem if Jesus is God, which passages like Acts 20:28 explicitly proclaim.
That’s why my statement of faith article says that the Father is the “maker of all things visible and invisible”, and of Jesus I say: “through whom all things were made, whether visible or invisible”. Father = maker, Jesus = instrument through which everything was made.
All that said, would you be willing to concede to “through” in Col 1:16?
Ah, my apologies, that quote about the prologue of John is from J. D. G. Dunn, who is not a trinitarian. However, other scholars have expressed similar views. Furthermore, the traditional interpretation – that Jesus is interchangeable with the Logos and always has been – was not the interpretation believed by the early Church (even when they believed in the pre-existence of Christ); see https://trinities.org/blog/debating-john-1-eusebius-vs-marcellus/
My bad, you’re correct that δια with the genitive denotes instrumentality. Like I said, I don’t claim to be a Greek scholar, and sometimes my knowledge of Greek can be horrifyingly awful 😅
That also explains why the majority Socinian interpretation differs from mine. All of the other unitarian resources I’ve found argue that the creation being referred to in Colossians 1:16 is the “new creation”, the Church, because Paul (via the literary technique of encircling) defines the “all things” here as “thrones, lordships, rulers, and authorities,” rather than aspects of the Genesis creation. Here’s one resource that explains this interpretation:
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/colossians1_16.html
Now, I didn’t like that interpretation because (as a universalist) I would like the “all things” being reconciled in v. 20 to be truly all things. But the more I think about it, the more that seems like eisegesis because I’m reading universalism into the text (in this case). And because, as you pointed out, δια must be translated in the instrumental sense, there’s really no possibility of another interpretation.
I don’t think it’s eisegesis because v20 says the reconciliation comes from Jesus having made peace through the blood of the cross. Seems like it definitely leans in a UR direction to me. There might be other ways to take it, but I don’t think a UR direction is out of line.
Also, I’d be curious on your take of Acts 20:28, which in my opinion is one of the strongest verses for the Deity of Christ. It’s my go-to verse for the topic.
I’m surprised that you see Acts 20:28 as a reference to the deity of Christ, since even most trinitarian scholars have abandoned that interpretation. The prevailing interpretation is now that the correct translation would be “…the church of God which He bought with the blood of His own [Son]”. See, for example, the RSV and NRSV translations of this verse. The phrase του αιματος του ιδιου is just as easily translated “…the blood of His own [Son]” rather than “His own blood”, and the context supports the former translation.
See Murray Harris’ “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus” (1992), p. 132, which is available online here: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/file/18473-Jesus-as-God-The-New-Testament-Use-of-Theos-in-Reference-to-Jesus.pdf
Unless you meant to write John 20:28. For that verse, a good case can be made that either Jesus was being referred to as God in a representational sense, or else Thomas was invoking “Yahweh God,” as saying “[By] my Lord and my God [I do believe]” (cf. 1 Sam. 12:20 in which a similar statement is made by Jonathan to David).
I can delve into that if you want, but the fact is that there are only two or three verses that can be adduced which certainly refer to Jesus as “God”, in contrast to literally hundreds of times that the Father is called “God”, the “only true God”, “one God”, etc. (and often distinguished from Jesus in that way). The very title, “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which is used by Paul and other New Testament writers, implies that the Father alone is the supreme God.
I did mean Acts. Interesting that you think the prevailing opinion has changed. A simple survey of the modern popular translations would indicate it hasn’t. I count 4/27 that have the word “son”. Not exactly a majority. The translations that mistranslate that verse aren’t exactly quality translations either, including the RSB and NRSV. Besides, the Greek grammar there is pretty clear. The “του ιδιου” is in the second attributive position, making it clearly adjectival, and the genitive clearly connecting with Θεοῦ, and the overwhelming vast majority of all translations – including all the good ones – agree with this position. Additionally, there are no references to “son” anywhere near this verse, and there are no masculine words after Θεοῦ. In my opinion it seems conclusive, but we are going a bit far afield.
So going back to an earlier question, does “through” in Col 1:16 change your view of Christ any? I’m hoping it at least moves you out of Socinianism to Christ existing before the incarnation. (since the “all things” that were created through Him clearly existed before the incarnation)
Sorry, that should be 1 Sam. 20:12, not 1 Sam. 12:20.
I really don’t think Acts 20:28 can be considered conclusive at all – both Harris (previously cited) and Wright (https://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/wright_jesus-as-god.pdf) conclude that this is a “dubious” example of Jesus being called Θεος.
But that aside, yes, I admit that my previous interpretation of Colossians 1:16 is wrong. That doesn’t mean Socinianism as a whole is wrong, since if Jesus pre-existed His birth and the entire world was created through Him, that would go against many other passages that indicate otherwise (as I noted already, Isa. 44:24, Matt. 19:4, Mk. 10:6, 13:19, Acts 17:24, 31 show that God alone and not Jesus created the universe, along with Matt. 1:18-20, Lk. 1:35, and Gal. 4:4 which indicate that Jesus’ existence began at His conception).
We are told that Jesus was glorified *because* of His death (Acts 2:36, Rom. 14:9, Php. 2:9-11, Heb. 2:9), and that He had not yet been glorified during His ministry (John 7:39), which precludes His having actual, realized glory prior to His existence as a human being (showing that, for example John 17:5 must be understood proleptically).
Furthermore, if Jesus pre-existed His birth, He wasn’t a human being, but rather a divine and/or angelic being with a “human nature”. This goes against many Pauline passages that present Jesus’ innate humanity (His being the “second Adam”) as necessary for redemption.
Certainly there are some passages that can be adduced in favor of the “pre-existence of Christ”, but I would argue that they are better understood in terms of “notional/ideal pre-existence”, which is the idea that a person could exist in the foreknowledge of God prior to their actual existence. In Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism, it was believed that the Messiah indeed pre-existed, but only in the “decision” or “contemplation” of God:
“Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of Messiah.” (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 54a:8)
“Six things preceded the creation of the world; some of them were created and some of them were decided to be created… The Patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah were decided to be created.” (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4)
But back to the topic at hand: Colossians 1:16. The interpretation that I gave you before is actually not the typical Socinian interpretation of this verse (and now I understand why, since the Greek precludes my previous interpretation).
The Socinian interpretation of this verse is that this is referring to the new creation (not the Genesis creation), because through the literary technique known as encircling, Paul defines the “all things” in the context as “thrones, lordships, rulers, and authorities”. These are not things created in the Genesis creation, but the reorganization of power in the “kingdom of the Son” (v. 13). To be honest, I’m not that familiar with this interpretation, so I can’t give a very good explanation. But here are some unitarian expositions of this passage:
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/colossians-1-15-20
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/colossians1_16.html
To Col 1 referring to the “new creation” because they say on the Greek word there “κτίσις” (ktisis) can’t refer to creation, but rather institutions like the church. That’s silly, since that exact same word is used in Romans 1:20: “For since the creation (ktisis) of the world”. The verb form “κτίζω” (ktizó) is used in Matthew 19:4, which you say refers to God creating. So yeah, that argument simply doesn’t hold water. In fact, the usage of the word elsewhere leans against this interpretation if anything.
Further, in Col 1:16, the problem is the “all things in the heavens and on the earth were created in Him” clause, which is clarified by saying that everything “visible or invisible” was created “through Him”. If we don’t import anything into the text but simply read it, that means that “all things” which existed when Paul wrote the letter – whether visible or invisible – were created “through” Jesus. That means earth, rocks, air, etc. I don’t see a way around that, and none of those resources touched on that; instead they glossed over the “in the heavens and on the earth were created in Him” clause and simply don’t mention it.
So to solve the world being created by YHWH only, I see it thusly: YHWH is the name of the Trinity, not the Father. As Deut 6:4 proclaims: “Hear O Israel, YHWH your Gods (yes it’s plural there), YHWH is one.” (And the word for “one” there is the Hebrew word for one from multiples, not the Hebrew word meaning absolute one.). I’d also like to point out Gen 1:1 “In the beginning, one (singular verb) Gods (plural noun) created the heavens and the earth.” “One Gods” sounds pretty Trinitarian to me…
So I would say that YHWH (the Trinity) alone created everything.
To the preexistence of The Word (Jesus), John 17:5 states this quite clearly. I’d like to hear your understanding, because His preexistence seems clear from the text if we don’t important anything to it.
We are told that Jesus was glorified *because* of His death and resurrection (Acts 2:36, Rom. 14:9, Php. 2:9-11, Heb. 2:9), and that He had not yet been glorified during His ministry (John 7:39), which precludes His having actual, realized glory prior to His existence as a human being (showing that John 17:5 must be understood proleptically).
Also, Jesus goes on to say in v. 24: “my glory that You gave Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world,” which is consistent with the understanding that He is referring to His glory proleptically.
I would direct you back to the quotes from Second Temple and rabbinic Jewish sources, that show that they understood the Messiah as having a sort of impersonal pre-existence in the foreknowledge of God:
“Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of Messiah.” (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 54a:8)
“Six things preceded the creation of the world; some of them were created and some of them were decided to be created… The Patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah were decided to be created.” (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4)
Since this is the cultural backdrop in which the gospel of John was written, like the prologue, we should understand this verse with this idea of “notional pre-existence” in mind.
You say that “His preexistence seems clear from the text if we don’t important [sic] anything to it,” but I would argue that it’s impossible to not import one’s own preconceptions into the text when reading it. And if you don’t understand the cultural backdrop in which a passage was written, it’s all too easy to miss what the original readers would have understood it to mean.
You also mentioned the fact that Elohim is a grammatical plural – that’s true, but it’s almost certainly a majestic plural, especially because He uses singular pronouns literally thousands of times throughout the Old and New Testaments. In contrast, when Jesus and the Father are mentioned together in the New Testament, they use plural pronouns (e.g. John 14:23); so if Elohim were truly a triune being including Jesus and the Father, He would use plural pronouns the majority of the time.
Even some of the false ‘gods’ of the Old Testament were given the majestic plural occasionally: Ashtoreth in 1 Kings 11:5 is called the “elohe [plural] of the Sidonians”, and both she and Chemosh are called (plural) “elohe” in v. 33 of that chapter. In 1 Samuel 28:13, the temporarily resurrected Samuel is called an “elohim” (plural) by the medium. So unless all of these are triune beings as well, Elohim must be a majestic plural.
The Jews were also expecting a conquering king, so I don’t really think their views on the Messiah are much worth looking at as authoritative. As to John 17:5, I think we’ll need to agree to disagree. A proleptically understanding twists the text far too much in my opinion, especially since He could’ve had glory, laid it aside at the incarnation, and then been glorified again because of the cross. That would be a very simple way to harmonize everything without twisting anything.
There’s also John 8:58. Even if you don’t take ἐγὼ εἰμί as an “I AM” reference to Exodus (and I’m sure you don’t, so let’s set that aside) it establishes His existence before Abraham.
Going back to Col 1:16, any comments on “all things in the heavens and on the earth were created in Him” and “through Him” clause?
Re: Colossians 1:16, I believe I may have figured out what Paul was saying here. If we look back two verses, we see that Paul wrote,
“In [Christ] we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (v. 14)
Therefore, by saying that all things have been created “in Christ” in v. 16, Paul isn’t saying that Christ originally created all things (which we know to be false based on Isa. 44:24 and Acts 17:24-31), but that all things have been created anew in Christ – which is exactly what he says elsewhere, in 2 Corinthians 5:17-18!
Then, by saying at the end of the verse that “all things have been created [perfect tense] through Him and for Him,” Paul is referring to the *current state* in which the creation stands, the ongoing act of creation by which Christ is causing all things to subsist (v. 17) and upholding all things by the power of His word (Heb. 1:3).
This is the only interpretation of Col. 1:16 that is fully consistent with both the Greek grammar and the rest of the Bible.
If you say that a proleptic understanding of John 17:5 “twists the text far too much”, then you’ll also have to conclude that Christians were also granted grace in Christ before times of the ages (2 Tim. 1:9). The fact is, prolepsis was used quite a lot in the Bible, and it often isn’t clear whether something is being stated proleptically or not. But I digress.
As for John 8:58, see here for two possible interpretations of this verse:
https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/john-858/
(Sorry I’m bombarding you with so many links, it’s just that other people have already provided better explanations than I could 🙂
Personally, I think the second interpretation (set out at the end of that article) is the most likely. According to this interpretation, the correct translation (based on how the aorist infinitive of γινομαι is used elsewhere in the New Testament) should be:
“before Abraham’s [future] coming [in the resurrection], I am”
That is, He was claiming to be the Messiah who would bring about the resurrection. Since claiming to be the Messiah without backing up your claim was considered worthy of capital punishment (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24669031), this explains why they immediately tried to stone Him.
For Colossians 1:16, see my previous comment.
The other interpretation is that John 8:58 is referring to Christ’s pre-eminence in God’s plan, even before Abraham. The Jews then tried to stone Him for claiming to be greater than Abraham.
Don’t worry about links, I completely understand. 🙂
Re: Col 1:16. The perfect tense indicates a completed action in the past that produces effects that last up until the present. Notice, completed action is required; not optional, but required. Here’s a page with more about the Perfect tense. Without a completed action, it’s not the perfect tense. Ongoing creation would be the (badly named) Greek ‘present’ tense. Thus, understanding it as ongoing creation isn’t consistent with the Greek grammar, but in fact is directly contrary to it.
Would you agree?
Re: John 8:28. I could say a lot about Greek grammar (which the article got mostly wrong), but I feel that will be a dead end. To get your understanding, you need to import the idea of resurrection and a conversation about Jesus being the Messiah. Those ideas are contained nowhere in the immediate context. Elsewhere yes, but not in John chapter 8 (I just re-read it to be sure.)
Are you comfortable importing ideas that are nowhere in the text?
(Neither here nor there, nor worth debating, but if you want to accurately – though woodenly – capture the aorist infinitive there, you could translate it like this: “before Abraham was to come into being, I Am.” That’s actually a stronger statement of preexistence than “Abraham was”. Also, yes I’m comfortable with God gracing us before the ages. That actually makes a lot of sense.)
> (yes I’m comfortable with God gracing us before the ages. That actually makes a lot of sense.)
I think you’re missing my point. God gracing us before the ages didn’t require us to physically exist prior to our births; this is referring to God’s decision to grace us before the ages, and speaking of it proleptically. Likewise, God giving glory to Jesus before the world was didn’t require Him to physically exist prior to His birth. In fact, even Augustine (who as I’m sure you know was a trinitarian) believed that John 17:5 was to be understood proleptically because the previous verse is proleptic as well:
“when the Son says, “And now, O Father, glorify Thou me with Your own self, with the glory which I had with You before the world was”, we understand the predestination of the glory of His human nature, as thereafter, from being mortal, to become immortal with the Father: and that this had already been done by predestination before the world was, as also in its own time it was done in the world. For if the apostle has said of us, According as He has “chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world”, why should it be thought incongruous with the truth, if the Father glorified our Head at the same time as He chose us in Him to be His members?” (Tractates on John 105)
> Re: Col 1:16. The perfect tense indicates a completed action in the past that produces effects that last up until the present. Notice, completed action is required; not optional, but required.
Perhaps; I’ve seen at least one Greek scholar argue otherwise, that the perfect tense at the end of v. 16 is to be understood as the past *and ongoing* action of creation (The Minister and his Greek New Testament, p. 101).
But that’s merely peripheral to the interpretation that I laid out. My main point is that this refers to the fact that all things have been created anew in Christ, not the original Genesis creation, and this action *was* completed at the cross. See 2 Cor. 5:17-18 which describes the same thing in very similar words, saying that all things (παντα) are a creation (κτισις) in Christ (εν Χριστω) and through Christ (δια Χριστου), and yet this is referring to the new creation, not the old creation.
So I think this is also how we should understand Col. 1:16.
> Re: John 8:28 [sic]. I could say a lot about Greek grammar (which the article got mostly wrong), but I feel that will be a dead end.
Fair enough. I admit that the “resurrection” understanding is probably incorrect; the more I think about it, the more it seems like a strained interpretation. So then, the other interpretation is probably correct, which I’ll try to summarize here but check out the article to read a more detailed explanation.
Like in the quotes I provided above from rabbinic sources, the Jews in Jesus’ day believed that especially important things pre-existed their creation in the mind of God, and that the more important something was, the earlier it existed in God’s foreknowledge. (Regardless of whether this is correct, and I don’t think it is [since God is outside of time], but that’s what they believed.)
So when Jesus said that “before Abraham was, I have been,” He was answering their earlier question: “are you greater than our father Abraham who died?” By saying that He was before Abraham, He was saying that He was more important than Abraham, which caused them to try to stone Him for blasphemy.
It seems that when the Jews said, “you are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” they were deliberately misrepresenting what He said to make Him sound more ridiculous, just as they did earlier in v. 52.
I agree with you that the Jews’ conception of the Messiah was wrong. But we still need to examine their statements, and Jesus’ responses to them, in light of what we know that they believed. Furthermore, the idea of the proleptic or ideal pre-existence of Messiah is actually reflected in the Bible – see 1 Peter 1:20.
Okay, so let’s look at 2 Cor 5:17-18 to get context for Col 1:16 then:
Notice the conditional statement in verse 17: “if”. A person is only a new creation IF he is “in Christ” (a Christian). If you want to understand Col 1:16 in light of these two verses, then clearly only Christians are the “new creation”. With this understanding, would you then limit Col 1:16 to only Christians?
To John 8:58, you say they wanted to stone Him because he claimed to be more important than Abraham, which is what He meant by “before”. However, the Greek word “πρὶν” (prin) can’t mean importance. There are Greek words often translated “before” that can – like πρό and ἔμπροσθεν – but that word can’t. It only refers to “before” in the sense of time, and no other sense. It’s always used in the sense of time, all 13 times it’s used.
As an aside, I really appreciate that we’ve been having this conversation for a couple days now and it’s still cordial, friendly, and respectful. I love that. 🙂
> With this understanding, would you then limit Col 1:16 to only Christians?
No (although some unitarians would), because the entire creation will be redeemed in Christ (Rom. 8:20-21). We have to interpret Paul’s statement that all things were created “in Christ” in light of what he said just two verses earlier, “in [Christ] we have our redemption”. So all things being “in Christ” refers to all things being redeemed, which – if only proleptically – occurred at the cross.
I just think that the parallels between 2 Cor. 5:17-18 and Col. 1:16 are too clear to dismiss.
> It only refers to “before” in the sense of time, and no other sense. It’s always used in the sense of time, all 13 times it’s used.
Yes – Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah in God’s plan, even before Abraham was. Again, to the first century Jews, how important a thing or person is is reflected in how early it appeared in the foreknowledge of God. The patriarchs, Israel, the temple, and the Messiah were considered to be things that existed in God’s mind even before the beginning of creation.
So Jesus, by claiming to have existed before Abraham, was claiming to be greater in God’s plan than even Abraham. At least, that’s my interpretation, based on what we know about the Jewish idea of predestination and foreknowledge (since they believed that something foreknown could be considered as existing in heaven).
> As an aside, I really appreciate that we’ve been having this conversation for a couple days now and it’s still cordial, friendly, and respectful. I love that. 🙂
No problem. 🙂
If you have time, and I understand if you don’t, you might find these podcasts by Dr. Dale Tuggy (a unitarian) interesting. They discuss pre-existence in early Jewish thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMOqo8KnQLY&list=PLMCt15e8gG-g7t7wo9MCq9KSDSsvGNcsm&index=61
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhEBkWXOqxw&list=PLMCt15e8gG-g7t7wo9MCq9KSDSsvGNcsm&index=62
They’re also available here:
https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-61-dr-dustin-smith-on-preexistence-in-ancient-jewish-thought/
https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-62-dr-dustin-smith-on-the-preexistence-of-jesus-in-the-gospel-of-john/
https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-63-thomas-belsham-and-other-scholars-on-john-858/
And (sorry to bombard you with comments!) here is a quote from 1 Enoch, written just before the time of Jesus, which seems to describe the pre-existence of the Messiah. Did the Jews actually believe that the Messiah would pre-exist His birth? No, but they did think that He pre-existed in the mind of God. Compare the following passage to how the New Testament talks about Jesus’ “pre-existence”:
1 Enoch 43:2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Ancient of Days [cf. Dan. 7:13].
3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.
5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.
6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.
Okay, I listened to the first video and about half the second before I needed to stop shaking my head and quit. Please, if anyone ever says that aorist = past tense, please tune him out. They also misquoted the LXX (Septuagint), saying it doesn’t use “Ἐγώ εἰμι” (I Am, also used in John 8:58), but instead uses “ὁ ὤν”; that’s deceptive at best, and downright lying at worst:
Jesus/John used exactly the same words in exactly the same forms as the LXX uses. And that’s just the easy to explain stuff. I would file that podcast under: “avoid because of terribly misleading information”
Re: Col 1:16. I would ask “are you claiming that everything has already been redeemed”, but you would apparently say “yes, if only proleptically.” You use much the same approach to John 8:58.
I’ve noticed that you use prolepsis as a “trump card” of sorts to override any passage that indicates that Jesus existed before the incarnation. (John 17:5, 8:58, Col 1, etc.) All of those verses provide strong evidence, but you tend to use prolepsis to avoid the fairly clear meaning. It seems to me that the Socinian case would completely fall apart without prolepsis.
Your other “trump card” is the idea that the Hebrews believed in prolepsis, so we should view the scriptures that way. The trouble is, they believed some incredibly insane ideas. I have a copy of the “Everyman’s Talmud” by Abraham Cohen, and among other things it talks about how the world is supported by pillars and Jerusalem is the center of the world/universe. It also has advice on which side of the street to walk on under certain situations so you can best avoid the angel of death. No joke, I’m 100% serious that it has advice on that. (page 58) The Hebrew hermeneutic was to make up anything that had even the vaguest connection to scripture and then get dogmatic about it. Seriously, I recommend you read the book if you have time. I shook my head at the poor exegesis so much that I probably looked like a bobblehead.
I’m not sure if you realize it, but that’s the hermeneutic you’re endorsing. Worse, that hermeneutic + the shaky foundation of prolepsis seems like it’s the entire foundation for the Socinian view of Christ. That seems like an flimsy foundation to me.
Also, perhaps look at Jude 1:4-5, and especially v5. Jesus led them out of Egypt, and the textual variant “the Lord” vs. “Jesus” doesn’t help because v4 identifies Jesus as our “only lord and master”. Also 1 Cor 10:1-4, which supports Jude 1:5
You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m going to have to take a hard look at some of these passages and see if they are saying what you think they are saying. Thanks for showing me these things. 🙂
You’re welcome. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and thanks for commenting; it was a real pleasure. Based on our conversation, you seem like an intellectually honest fellow, which is quite refreshing in this day and age, and I greatly respect you for that. May God bless you richly and guide you on your search for truth. 🙂
@ Berean Patriot and Andrew P, l really your conversation; it helps us readers to rightly divide the word of God. Thank you
enjoyed*
Hi Berean Patriot,
You’ll be interested to know that I’m now a trinitarian. After much deliberation and study of scripture, I came to the conclusion that the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit are all equally personal and divine (each being Yahweh), while also being personally distinct from one another. Of course, it had to happen right after I wrote over 100 pages of material ‘refuting’ the Trinity from a unitarian perspective on my blog. 🙄 Like seriously, God, couldn’t you have chosen to show me the truth *before* I went and did that? 😆 😬
Regards,
Andrew
P.S. If you’re interested, here’s a list of all of the passages I found to support the Trinity and deity of Christ over against other doctrines like unitarianism, modalism, etc.: https://www.docdroid.net/jV9dwaK/pro-trinity-and-deity-of-christ-passages-pdf
I’m glad to hear that. 🙂 Also, I sympathize with your blog article; I’ve been there too.
That file is fantastic! You went through basically every verse in the Bible that touches the topic, and your commentary is clear, concise, and you took pains to point out verses which were unclear. Would you mind if I turned that into an article? I’d like to basically copy/paste the entire file with a (clearly delineated) short intro from me and publish it that way. Please let me know if you’d be okay with that.
Yes, I’d be happy to let you use this for your blog. I was shocked when I actually looked at the biblical evidence for the Trinity, because I had been under the false impression that it was only supported by a handful of easily misinterpreted passages! Hopefully it will help some of your readers who are still uncertain about trinitarianism to discover the truth.
Oh, and by the way, I made one error in my note on Matthew 3:3. The correct OT ref should be Isa. 40:3, not Mal. 3:1. This actually makes the case even stronger that the author is implicitly referring to Jesus as “Yahweh,” because in that context there is no indication of agency – it is Yahweh alone Who is accomplishing it.
In addition to the alteration of my note on Matthew 3:3, you might want to add to the note on Revelation 5:6 with this observation I just made that supports the deity of Christ:
“Furthermore, the Lamb is said to have seven eyes, a characteristic of Yahweh in the OT (Zech. 4:10) which symbolically expressed “fullness of seeing” (in Latin, omni-scienta, literal ‘omniscience’). This shows that the Lamb has omniscience, a characteristic which belongs to God Most High alone (cf. Jn. 16:30; 21:17).”
I finally got around to publishing the article based on your file. Here’s the link: List of Pro-Trinity/Deity of Christ Bible Passages
@Barean Patriot, please how can i follow you on YouTube. please can you help me on why we should celebrate Christmas as some Christians speak against. and why Christianity is the only way to heaven.
in fact Andrew P. is an honest person, i pray we all have such heart.
• Romans 8:32 “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” THUS, JESUS WOULD HAVE HAD TO ALREADY BEEN “HIS OWN SON”
Unless the Father and Son are distinct from each other, as the doctrine of the Trinity clearly teaches.
Greetings. Congratulations on your article, I agree, in a high percentage, with what you say. One part that perhaps I do not share is the designation of Son only from the birth of Jesus.
I hasten to present a very personal position on the matter, to which I can later return with the biblical evidence that supports it, since now that I write I do so without having time to delve deeper.
1. There are two psalms which record that God begets a Son, applied to David but prophetically to Jesus. Psalm 2 records it as a decree.
2. Col 1:13 seems to say that it is through the Son that God created all things (before Jesus).
3. Heb 1:3 also says that through the Son he made the ages
4. John 3:16 says that God sent his Son, that is, it seems that “the term “Son” already existed” when he was sent (also Gal 4:4)
Given this, it is possible for me to suggest that:
1. The Logos prophetically becomes the Son by virtue of a decree that occurred in some decision of the divine will
2. The Logos becomes the Son in the incarnation
3. The position of Son is confirmed in the baptism of Jesus
4. Sonship is declared (or sealed) at the resurrection (Rom 1:4).
Hence, when it is said that the Son created everything, it is because prophetically the Logos was already designated as the Son.
PS: I am using an online translator, I apologize for any possible errors
So, here’s another way to look at those verses. If I say “My wife started attending a different church when she was 3“, I obviously don’t mean that we were married when she was 3. I’m using a present title for her to refer to her in the past for clarity. I think that’s what’s going on in the verses that you mentioned. Luke 1:35 seems to leave no room for the title “Son of God” to come from anything other than the incarnation.
Adrew: Hello: Is socialism the same as dynamic monarchianism?