- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
Having established from Scripture in the previous blog that the Son of God has eternally existed, being Yahweh the Almighty I AM, without beginning of days, nor end of life, we can now direct our attention to the proof-texts presented by those who seek to deny His eternal preexistence. Since the Christadelphians, who deny that the Son preexisted His incarnation, interpret most of these texts differently than the Jehovah Witnesses and the followers of A. E. Knoch, I will be considering their distinct interpretations side by side.
Revelation 3:14 “The beginning of the creation of God”
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God (η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου).’” (Rev 3:14)
All three groups have their own unique way of translating the phrase, “the Beginning of the creation of God (η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου).”
The Jehovah Witnesses, in their New World Translation, correctly render the first genitive in the phrase as, “of the creation,” but then proceed to render the second genitive “of God (του θεου)” as, “by God,” in order to make Jesus out to be saying that He was created by God. However, the noun του θεου is in the genitive form, not the instrumental, and therefore the phrase should be translated “of the creation of God.”
A. E. Knoch renders η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου as “God’s Creative Original.” Without wanting to be facetious, I must say that it is his paraphrase which is a creative original, rather than it being a literal translation. This rendering aligns with his belief that the Son of God is merely a unique creature, being the first and most sublime of all God’s creatures.
The Christadelphians cannot say that the Son was literally the first created being, since they believe that He didn’t even exist prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb. Therefore, they must go against all consensus of understanding, saying that Christ is the beginning of God’s new creation, rather than seeing Jesus as referring here to the original creation. I here quote their explanation of this verse: “Christ is the beginning of this new creation of God (Rev 3:14), leading the way to which his followers can attain, for, what he is today they can become.” [1] While it is true that Christ is making all things new, whenever He speaks of the new creation, He refers to it as such (Rev 21:1,5; 2Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). To read “I am the beginning of the creation of God” as “I am the beginning of the new creation of God,” is to add to the text something which is not actually stated.
However, if we let Scripture interpret Scripture, it becomes clear that, here in John’s Revelation, Jesus is referring to Himself as the uncreated originating source of all creation, the Almighty (Rev 1:8), the eternal Word (Rev 19:13), rather than saying that He is merely the first created being. We see in Scripture that before the ages (before time/space creation) the Father made the ages through the Son, and the Son upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:1-3; Col 1:17). Also, in John 1:1-3 we see that in the beginning the Word already was, being Himself God, and that “all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
Also, in Colossians 1:16 we see that all things were created in (ἔν) Him, whether visible or invisible. Only of the infinitely immense omnipresent Son of God could it be said that all things were created in Him. Only of the infinite God could Solomon say: “Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You” (1 Kings 8:27).
Therefore, ἡ ἀρχή in this context cannot mean “the beginning” in the sense of the first created, since He existed prior to His creation and infinitely extends beyond its limits. Here ἀρχή expresses that He is the active beginning of the creation, the One who caused the creation. It speaks of His priority and preeminence over God’s creation, just as we see His creative role expressed in the other New Testament passages cited above. According to The Complete Word Study Diccionary, when ἀρχή is used as a metonymy of persons, as we see here, it expresses priority and preeminence. [2]
We saw in the previous blog that Jesus is the Almighty, the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament. For those who would argue that the Son was subsequently created as a God, Yahweh is very emphatic, saying to His people Israel:
“You are My witnesses, says Yahweh, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I AM (LXX ἐγώ εἰμι). Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.” (Isa 43:10)
While there are some men and angels who have been designated by Yahweh as gods, in these cases it is merely a delegated position of authority. Yahweh, the I AM, very emphatically declares that there has never been a God created before Him nor after Him. There is only one true God, and both the Father and the Son comprise that one true God (Jn 17:3, cf., 1Jn 5:20). God is one, but that oneness is a complex unity. As Jesus said: “I and My Father are one” (Jn 10:30). For that reason, He could truly say: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). They are distinct, yet one, rather than being two separate Gods.
Colossians 1:15-17 “He is… the firstborn over all creation”
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως). 16 FOR by (ἔν “in”) Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col 1:15-17)
The word “firstborn” is from the compound word πρωτοτοκος (prototokos), made up of protos, meaning “first” and tikto, “to produce.” It literally means “the first to be produced.” From it we derived our word “prototype.” It is commonly used in a literal sense to refer to the firstborn.
A. E. Knoch had a unique way of applying this term here. While he believed that the Son of God was first as to creation, he did not see that as having been a birth, which left him with a dilemma. He attempts to resolve it by dividing first from born. The following is his ingenious attempt to explain the meaning of πρωτοτοκος or firstborn:
“It does not necessarily imply that He was born first. There were many sons of God before His generation as a man. He is the first in reference to creation and the only begotten in regard to generation.” (emphasis mine) [3]
So, according to Knoch, “first” refers to His creation, and “born” refers to His conception in Mary’s womb, many centuries later. However, dividing the word “firstborn” in this manner is unique to him and is a stretch, to say the least!
While the term “firstborn” was often used in a literal sense, the firstborn son among the Jews obtained the birthright which gave them a position of privilege and legal authority over the other members of the household. Eventually, the word came to be used figuratively referring to a position of authority and pre-eminence, without regard to birth.
For example, God said of the coming Messiah, the Son of David: “Also I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps 89:27). Here we see the term “firstborn” used figuratively of Christ the Son of David receiving a position of preeminence as King of kings and Lord of lords. It is not used in a literal sense, referring to His birth, but rather to His exaltation during the Millennial kingdom. (Other instances in the New Testament where πρωτοτοκος is used in this sense without reference to a literal birth are Rom 8:29; Col 1:18; Heb 1:6, and possibly 12:23).
If there were any doubt concerning what is meant by Christ being the firstborn of all creation, the meaning is explained for us in verse 16 and following, introduced with the explanatory “for”:
“…the firstborn over all creation. FOR by (ἔν “in”) Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col 1:15b-17)
Clearly, in the light of these explanatory statements, the term “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is to be understood only in the sense of being prior to and pre-eminent over all things created, rather than the Son Himself having been created or born.
The Christadelphians recognize this usage of the term “firstborn” and appeal to it, since they believe that Christ did not even exist prior to His conception in Mary’s womb. Since they do not believe that the Son existed at the time of creation, they must argue that Colossians 1 is not referring to the original creation, but to the new creation, just as they do with Revelation 3:14. However, there are several problems with trying to make Colossians 1 refer to a new creation.
In the first place, it is described in the past tense, referring to a creation which had already occurred, whereas the new creation is presently in progress and will not be completed until the end of the times of the restoration of all, when all will have finally been made alive and subjected to Christ, resulting in God being all in all in eternity (Acts 3:21; 1Cor 15:22,28).
Also, in verse 17 we see that, not only were all things created in, through and for Him (past tense), but these same all things are presently being held together by Him (συνιστάω). Hebrews further elaborates, saying that He upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:3). This explains the scientific mystery of the immense power which holds all the atoms of the universe together.
Not only is the creation of all things spoken of here in past tense, but we also see that that same creation, consisting of all things in heaven and on earth had become estranged from God and at enmity with Him, needing to be reconciled:
“For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:19-20)
Here we see that God sent His Son in order to reconcile by His own shed blood the very same all things which Christ is said to have originally created in verses 15-17 but had become alienated through the fall. In the final dispensation of the fullness of the times, all creation, both in heaven and on earth, will once again be reunited in Christ, becoming part of His new creation (Eph 1:10; 2Cor 5:17).
Clearly, the term “firstborn” in this passage figuratively expresses Christ’s pre-eminence over creation, rather than saying that He was somehow literally born at the beginning of creation. Colossians 1 presents the Son as the Creator, Sustainer and Reconciler of all created things, just as we see Him presented throughout the rest of the New Testament.
John 3:16 “His only begotten Son”
Both Christadelphians and the followers of Knoch understand “only begotten Son” to be referring to the physical birth of God’s Son through Mary at Bethlehem. However, this reflects an earlier misunderstanding of the etymology of the word μονογενής (monogenes), rendered “only begotten” in the Authorized Version.
At the time when the King James Version was translated, it was thought that μονογενής was composed of μόνος, “only” and γεννάω, “to beget or procreate.” However, as more extrabiblical Greek manuscripts were discovered and examined it became evident that μονογενής was made up of μόνος and γένος, which means “kind,” instead of γεννάω, “to beget.” Therefore, a more correct reading would be, “His only one-of-a-kind Son,” His only unique Son,” or simply “His only Son.”
Even the KJV correctly rendered μονογενής as “only” in nearly every instance, except when it was used referring to the Son of God (“only” Lu 7:12; 8:42; 9:38, cf. “only begotten” Jn 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1Jn 4:9; Heb 11:17). The only time they rendered μονογενής as “only begotten” referring to someone other than Jesus, was in Hebrews 11:17 where it is clearly a mistranslation, since it calls Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son, when in reality Isaac wasn’t his “only begotten son,” since he also had Ishmael. The obvious reading here should be “your only unique son,” i.e., your only son according to the promise. Most modern translations correct this error, consistently rendering μονογενής as “only” or “unique.”
Obviously, if the Word who became flesh in the incarnation was in the beginning with God, being Himself God, having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Jn 1:1,14; Heb 7:3), He did not literally come into existence by being begotten as God’s Son in Bethlehem, but has always existed as the only unique Son of God. Within the Godhead, the titles Father and Son do not speak of generation by reproduction but of the economic relationship enjoyed between them.
Hebrews 1:5 “You are my Son, Today have I begotten You”
This verse is here quoted from Psalm 2:7, referring to Christ, and it is mistakenly presented as evidence that He wasn’t the Son of God prior to His birth in Bethlehem. However, Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, indicated that the Father had declared this concerning Christ at the time of His resurrection, figuratively being the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18). Luke says:
“God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’” (Acts 13:33)
Psalm 2:7 cannot be referring to Christ’s resurrection and at the same time refer to His birth. Equally mistaken are those who believe that Psalm 2:7 speaks of some sort of “eternal generation” of the Son of God by God’s eternal decree.
Genesis 3:15 “the seed of the woman.”
The final argument I will be considering in this blog is presented by the Christadelphians against Christ ever having existed prior to His conception in Mary’s womb. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the biblical teaching concerning the incarnation of the Son of God. The argument goes: “If Christ pre-existed, how could he be described as ‘the seed of the woman?’” [4]
This ignores the fact that the eternal Word, being God the Son, became flesh, being born of a woman, and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14; Gal 4:4). He didn’t begin to exist nine months prior to being born in Bethlehem – He already existed previous to becoming incarnate. It was said of the preincarnate Son that He was sent and that He came into the world. A non-existent being could not be said to have been sent or to have come:
“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” (Gal 4:4)
“Therefore, coming into the world (present participle), He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come — in the volume of the book it is written of Me — to do Your will, O God.’” (Heb 10:5-7)
It doesn’t say that God “conceived” a Son, but that He “sent” Him. The fact that He is here seen to have been conversing with the Father prior to His incarnation when He was being sent by Him, and that He willingly came into the world to do the Father’s will, requires that He had a conscious existence prior to being born of a woman. In Matthew 20:28, Jesus said that He came with a purpose – to serve and to give His life a ransom for many. This logically requires a previous conscious existence.
In Philippians 2 we see that, prior to coming in the likeness of men, He existed in the form of God. But rather than clinging to His position of equality with God, He emptied Himself, taking upon Himself all the limitations of humanity:
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:5-8)
Here we see Him first presented as existing in the form of God. Then He emptied Himself in taking on the form of a servant in the likeness of men, appearing as a man. He came to serve and give His life a ransom for mankind. In order to do that, it was necessary that He become incarnate in human form as our Kinsman Redeemer. The language of this passage becomes meaningless if indeed He didn’t exist as God prior to taking on human flesh.
Therefore, in answer to their question: “If Christ pre-existed, how could he be described as ‘the seed of the woman?’” I would ask: “How else could Yahweh become our Savior and Kinsman redeemer?” In order for the Son of God to be our Savior, He had to be fully God and at the same time fully man. He was fully divine as the Son of God and at the same time fully human as the seed of the woman, born of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3-4). While existing in the form of God, the Father sent His only unique Son to be born of a woman according to the flesh. However, He never ceased being God: He simply took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin:
“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.” (Rom 8:3)
God the Son had to become incarnate on account of sin – not His own sin, but rather on account of the sins of the world of humanity. The child Jesus who was born in a manger may have appeared to be just as any other newborn. However, Isaiah the prophet was shown that He was in reality Emanuel or “God with us” (Isa 7:14; Matt 1:23). Isaiah also declared of Him:
“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6)
Conclusion
Having examined five of the primary texts used to deny that the Son of God is co-eternal with the Father, it becomes clear that, when properly understood, they in no way contradict the overall revelation of Scripture concerning the eternal preexistence of the Son.
Nevertheless, Christadelphians actually teach that, in order for one to have eternal life, they must deny that Christ, the Son of God, is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, since, to them, only the Father is the true God. In the next blog I will be considering the passages of Scripture they use to support this claim.
[1] christadelphia.org “Jesus Did Not Pre-Exist”
[2] The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, ἀρχή, NT:746:
(VII) Spoken by metonymy of persons indicating not time but priority and preeminence (Col 1:18, "who is the beginning," meaning the ruler). See prœtótokos
(4416), firstborn; Sept.: Gen 49:3; Deut 21:17. In Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13, "the beginning and the end" means the first and the last indicating the One who created the beginning and the One who will bring about the end of what He originally created, not through elimination but change. In Rev 3:14, "the beginning of the creation" means the active beginning of the creation, the One who caused the creation, referring to Jesus Christ not as a created being, but the One who created all things (John 1:3).
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament © 1992 by AMG International, Inc. Revised Edition, 1993)
[3] A. E. Knoch, Sons of God
[4] christadelphia.org “Jesus Did Not Pre-Exist”
Having established from Scripture in the previous blog that the Son of God has eternally existed, being Yahweh the Almighty I AM, without beginning of days, nor end of life, we can now direct our attention to the proof-texts presented by those who seek to deny His eternal preexistence. Since the Christadelphians, who deny that the Son preexisted His incarnation, interpret most of these texts differently than the Jehovah Witnesses and the followers of A. E. Knoch, I will be considering their distinct interpretations side by side.
Revelation 3:14 “The beginning of the creation of God”
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God (η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου).’” (Rev 3:14)
All three groups have their own unique way of translating the phrase, “the Beginning of the creation of God (η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου).”
The Jehovah Witnesses, in their New World Translation, correctly render the first genitive in the phrase as, “of the creation,” but then proceed to render the second genitive “of God (του θεου)” as, “by God,” in order to make Jesus out to be saying that He was created by God. However, the noun του θεου is in the genitive form, not the instrumental, and therefore the phrase should be translated “of the creation of God.”
A. E. Knoch renders η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου as “God’s Creative Original.” Without wanting to be facetious, I must say that it is his paraphrase which is a creative original, rather than it being a literal translation. This rendering aligns with his belief that the Son of God is merely a unique creature, being the first and most sublime of all God’s creatures.
The Christadelphians cannot say that the Son was literally the first created being, since they believe that He didn’t even exist prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb. Therefore, they must go against all consensus of understanding, saying that Christ is the beginning of God’s new creation, rather than seeing Jesus as referring here to the original creation. I here quote their explanation of this verse: “Christ is the beginning of this new creation of God (Rev 3:14), leading the way to which his followers can attain, for, what he is today they can become.” [1] While it is true that Christ is making all things new, whenever He speaks of the new creation, He refers to it as such (Rev 21:1,5; 2Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). To read “I am the beginning of the creation of God” as “I am the beginning of the new creation of God,” is to add to the text something which is not actually stated.
However, if we let Scripture interpret Scripture, it becomes clear that, here in John’s Revelation, Jesus is referring to Himself as the uncreated originating source of all creation, the Almighty (Rev 1:8), the eternal Word (Rev 19:13), rather than saying that He is merely the first created being. We see in Scripture that before the ages (before time/space creation) the Father made the ages through the Son, and the Son upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:1-3; Col 1:17). Also, in John 1:1-3 we see that in the beginning the Word already was, being Himself God, and that “all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
Also, in Colossians 1:16 we see that all things were created in (ἔν) Him, whether visible or invisible. Only of the infinitely immense omnipresent Son of God could it be said that all things were created in Him. Only of the infinite God could Solomon say: “Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You” (1 Kings 8:27).
Therefore, ἡ ἀρχή in this context cannot mean “the beginning” in the sense of the first created, since He existed prior to His creation and infinitely extends beyond its limits. Here ἀρχή expresses that He is the active beginning of the creation, the One who caused the creation. It speaks of His priority and preeminence over God’s creation, just as we see His creative role expressed in the other New Testament passages cited above. According to The Complete Word Study Diccionary, when ἀρχή is used as a metonymy of persons, as we see here, it expresses priority and preeminence. [2]
We saw in the previous blog that Jesus is the Almighty, the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament. For those who would argue that the Son was subsequently created as a God, Yahweh is very emphatic, saying to His people Israel:
“You are My witnesses, says Yahweh, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I AM (LXX ἐγώ εἰμι). Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.” (Isa 43:10)
While there are some men and angels who have been designated by Yahweh as gods, in these cases it is merely a delegated position of authority. Yahweh, the I AM, very emphatically declares that there has never been a God created before Him nor after Him. There is only one true God, and both the Father and the Son comprise that one true God (Jn 17:3, cf., 1Jn 5:20). God is one, but that oneness is a complex unity. As Jesus said: “I and My Father are one” (Jn 10:30). For that reason, He could truly say: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). They are distinct, yet one, rather than being two separate Gods.
Colossians 1:15-17 “He is… the firstborn over all creation”
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως). 16 FOR by (ἔν “in”) Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col 1:15-17)
The word “firstborn” is from the compound word πρωτοτοκος (prototokos), made up of protos, meaning “first” and tikto, “to produce.” It literally means “the first to be produced.” From it we derived our word “prototype.” It is commonly used in a literal sense to refer to the firstborn.
A. E. Knoch had a unique way of applying this term here. While he believed that the Son of God was first as to creation, he did not see that as having been a birth, which left him with a dilemma. He attempts to resolve it by dividing first from born. The following is his ingenious attempt to explain the meaning of πρωτοτοκος or firstborn:
“It does not necessarily imply that He was born first. There were many sons of God before His generation as a man. He is the first in reference to creation and the only begotten in regard to generation.” (emphasis mine) [3]
So, according to Knoch, “first” refers to His creation, and “born” refers to His conception in Mary’s womb, many centuries later. However, dividing the word “firstborn” in this manner is unique to him and is a stretch, to say the least!
While the term “firstborn” was often used in a literal sense, the firstborn son among the Jews obtained the birthright which gave them a position of privilege and legal authority over the other members of the household. Eventually, the word came to be used figuratively referring to a position of authority and pre-eminence, without regard to birth.
For example, God said of the coming Messiah, the Son of David: “Also I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps 89:27). Here we see the term “firstborn” used figuratively of Christ the Son of David receiving a position of preeminence as King of kings and Lord of lords. It is not used in a literal sense, referring to His birth, but rather to His exaltation during the Millennial kingdom. (Other instances in the New Testament where πρωτοτοκος is used in this sense without reference to a literal birth are Rom 8:29; Col 1:18; Heb 1:6, and possibly 12:23).
If there were any doubt concerning what is meant by Christ being the firstborn of all creation, the meaning is explained for us in verse 16 and following, introduced with the explanatory “for”:
“…the firstborn over all creation. FOR by (ἔν “in”) Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col 1:15b-17)
Clearly, in the light of these explanatory statements, the term “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is to be understood only in the sense of being prior to and pre-eminent over all things created, rather than the Son Himself having been created or born.
The Christadelphians recognize this usage of the term “firstborn” and appeal to it, since they believe that Christ did not even exist prior to His conception in Mary’s womb. Since they do not believe that the Son existed at the time of creation, they must argue that Colossians 1 is not referring to the original creation, but to the new creation, just as they do with Revelation 3:14. However, there are several problems with trying to make Colossians 1 refer to a new creation.
In the first place, it is described in the past tense, referring to a creation which had already occurred, whereas the new creation is presently in progress and will not be completed until the end of the times of the restoration of all, when all will have finally been made alive and subjected to Christ, resulting in God being all in all in eternity (Acts 3:21; 1Cor 15:22,28).
Also, in verse 17 we see that, not only were all things created in, through and for Him (past tense), but these same all things are presently being held together by Him (συνιστάω). Hebrews further elaborates, saying that He upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:3). This explains the scientific mystery of the immense power which holds all the atoms of the universe together.
Not only is the creation of all things spoken of here in past tense, but we also see that that same creation, consisting of all things in heaven and on earth had become estranged from God and at enmity with Him, needing to be reconciled:
“For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:19-20)
Here we see that God sent His Son in order to reconcile by His own shed blood the very same all things which Christ is said to have originally created in verses 15-17 but had become alienated through the fall. In the final dispensation of the fullness of the times, all creation, both in heaven and on earth, will once again be reunited in Christ, becoming part of His new creation (Eph 1:10; 2Cor 5:17).
Clearly, the term “firstborn” in this passage figuratively expresses Christ’s pre-eminence over creation, rather than saying that He was somehow literally born at the beginning of creation. Colossians 1 presents the Son as the Creator, Sustainer and Reconciler of all created things, just as we see Him presented throughout the rest of the New Testament.
John 3:16 “His only begotten Son”
Both Christadelphians and the followers of Knoch understand “only begotten Son” to be referring to the physical birth of God’s Son through Mary at Bethlehem. However, this reflects an earlier misunderstanding of the etymology of the word μονογενής (monogenes), rendered “only begotten” in the Authorized Version.
At the time when the King James Version was translated, it was thought that μονογενής was composed of μόνος, “only” and γεννάω, “to beget or procreate.” However, as more extrabiblical Greek manuscripts were discovered and examined it became evident that μονογενής was made up of μόνος and γένος, which means “kind,” instead of γεννάω, “to beget.” Therefore, a more correct reading would be, “His only one-of-a-kind Son,” His only unique Son,” or simply “His only Son.”
Even the KJV correctly rendered μονογενής as “only” in nearly every instance, except when it was used referring to the Son of God (“only” Lu 7:12; 8:42; 9:38, cf. “only begotten” Jn 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1Jn 4:9; Heb 11:17). The only time they rendered μονογενής as “only begotten” referring to someone other than Jesus, was in Hebrews 11:17 where it is clearly a mistranslation, since it calls Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son, when in reality Isaac wasn’t his “only begotten son,” since he also had Ishmael. The obvious reading here should be “your only unique son,” i.e., your only son according to the promise. Most modern translations correct this error, consistently rendering μονογενής as “only” or “unique.”
Obviously, if the Word who became flesh in the incarnation was in the beginning with God, being Himself God, having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Jn 1:1,14; Heb 7:3), He did not literally come into existence by being begotten as God’s Son in Bethlehem, but has always existed as the only unique Son of God. Within the Godhead, the titles Father and Son do not speak of generation by reproduction but of the economic relationship enjoyed between them.
Hebrews 1:5 “You are my Son, Today have I begotten You”
This verse is here quoted from Psalm 2:7, referring to Christ, and it is mistakenly presented as evidence that He wasn’t the Son of God prior to His birth in Bethlehem. However, Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, indicated that the Father had declared this concerning Christ at the time of His resurrection, figuratively being the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18). Luke says:
“God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’” (Acts 13:33)
Psalm 2:7 cannot be referring to Christ’s resurrection and at the same time refer to His birth. Equally mistaken are those who believe that Psalm 2:7 speaks of some sort of “eternal generation” of the Son of God by God’s eternal decree.
Genesis 3:15 “the seed of the woman.”
The final argument I will be considering in this blog is presented by the Christadelphians against Christ ever having existed prior to His conception in Mary’s womb. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the biblical teaching concerning the incarnation of the Son of God. The argument goes: “If Christ pre-existed, how could he be described as ‘the seed of the woman?’” [4]
This ignores the fact that the eternal Word, being God the Son, became flesh, being born of a woman, and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14; Gal 4:4). He didn’t begin to exist nine months prior to being born in Bethlehem – He already existed previous to becoming incarnate. It was said of the preincarnate Son that He was sent and that He came into the world. A non-existent being could not be said to have been sent or to have come:
“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” (Gal 4:4)
“Therefore, coming into the world (present participle), He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come — in the volume of the book it is written of Me — to do Your will, O God.’” (Heb 10:5-7)
It doesn’t say that God “conceived” a Son, but that He “sent” Him. The fact that He is here seen to have been conversing with the Father prior to His incarnation when He was being sent by Him, and that He willingly came into the world to do the Father’s will, requires that He had a conscious existence prior to being born of a woman. In Matthew 20:28, Jesus said that He came with a purpose – to serve and to give His life a ransom for many. This logically requires a previous conscious existence.
In Philippians 2 we see that, prior to coming in the likeness of men, He existed in the form of God. But rather than clinging to His position of equality with God, He emptied Himself, taking upon Himself all the limitations of humanity:
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:5-8)
Here we see Him first presented as existing in the form of God. Then He emptied Himself in taking on the form of a servant in the likeness of men, appearing as a man. He came to serve and give His life a ransom for mankind. In order to do that, it was necessary that He become incarnate in human form as our Kinsman Redeemer. The language of this passage becomes meaningless if indeed He didn’t exist as God prior to taking on human flesh.
Therefore, in answer to their question: “If Christ pre-existed, how could he be described as ‘the seed of the woman?’” I would ask: “How else could Yahweh become our Savior and Kinsman redeemer?” In order for the Son of God to be our Savior, He had to be fully God and at the same time fully man. He was fully divine as the Son of God and at the same time fully human as the seed of the woman, born of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3-4). While existing in the form of God, the Father sent His only unique Son to be born of a woman according to the flesh. However, He never ceased being God: He simply took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin:
“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.” (Rom 8:3)
God the Son had to become incarnate on account of sin – not His own sin, but rather on account of the sins of the world of humanity. The child Jesus who was born in a manger may have appeared to be just as any other newborn. However, Isaiah the prophet was shown that He was in reality Emanuel or “God with us” (Isa 7:14; Matt 1:23). Isaiah also declared of Him:
“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6)
Conclusion
Having examined five of the primary texts used to deny that the Son of God is co-eternal with the Father, it becomes clear that, when properly understood, they in no way contradict the overall revelation of Scripture concerning the eternal preexistence of the Son.
Nevertheless, Christadelphians actually teach that, in order for one to have eternal life, they must deny that Christ, the Son of God, is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, since, to them, only the Father is the true God. In the next blog I will be considering the passages of Scripture they use to support this claim.
[1] christadelphia.org “Jesus Did Not Pre-Exist”
[2] The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, ἀρχή, NT:746:
(VII) Spoken by metonymy of persons indicating not time but priority and preeminence (Col 1:18, "who is the beginning," meaning the ruler). See prœtótokos
(4416), firstborn; Sept.: Gen 49:3; Deut 21:17. In Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13, "the beginning and the end" means the first and the last indicating the One who created the beginning and the One who will bring about the end of what He originally created, not through elimination but change. In Rev 3:14, "the beginning of the creation" means the active beginning of the creation, the One who caused the creation, referring to Jesus Christ not as a created being, but the One who created all things (John 1:3).
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament © 1992 by AMG International, Inc. Revised Edition, 1993)
[3] A. E. Knoch, Sons of God
[4] christadelphia.org “Jesus Did Not Pre-Exist”
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
Is the Son of God eternal, as the Church has believed from its earliest days, or was there a time when He did not exist? [1]That is the question that I hope to answer from Scripture in this blog. There are some modern-day versions of third century Arianism, like the Jehovah Witnesses and the followers of A. E. Knoch, who argue that the Son is not eternal, but rather was the first being created by the Father. Others, like the Christadelphians, believe that the Son of God didn’t even exist prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb, being merely a man whom God enabled to overcome His own fallen sinful flesh, thereby showing us the way of salvation. After examining the Scriptural evidence for the eternal existence of the Son, I will be considering some of the proof-texts these groups make use of in order to deny Christ’s eternal preexistence.
Does it really matter?
Some believe that the Deity of Christ and His eternal preexistence is peripheral to the Christian faith and not an issue that we should divide over. However, according to Scripture, no one other than Yahweh Elohim Himself could have ever been our Savior. Yahweh repeatedly declared there can be no savior besides Him. He said:
“I, even I, am the Lord (Yahweh), and besides Me there is no savior.” (Isa 43:11)
“Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me; for there is no savior besides Me.” (Hos 13:4)
“And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.” (Isa 45:21)
Being a just God, there could not have been another savior besides Himself. If God were to have sent one of His created beings to suffer the just penalty for our sins against Him, rather than bearing that penalty Himself, that would have only served to compound injustice. A. E. Knoch and his followers even present God as being the original source of evil. Try to imagine a God who first creates evil, and then sends one of His creatures to suffer in order to satisfy His own offended justice, which was in reality the result of the very evil He Himself created!
The psalmist understood that no mere creature could redeem another’s soul from Sheol: Our Redeemer had to be God Himself. He said:
“No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him 8 For the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever — 15
But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will receive me.” (Ps 49:7-8,15 NASU)
We see that our ransom price is owed to God, but no man is able to pay it. Only God Himself could have paid it. If the one who died for us upon the cross had been merely an angel or a man divinely enabled to undergo such suffering instead of the Son being God Himself incarnate, His suffering and death would not have had sufficient value to make propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
Some, failing to understand the Triune nature of God, have ridiculed those who believe in Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement, saying that one man suffering for six hours on the cross wouldn’t have had sufficient value to atone for all the sins committed throughout history. What they fail to take into account is that it was God in flesh who bore our sins on that tree, and therefore His sacrifice of Himself had infinite value.
Had He been a mere man, His blood would not have atoned for the sins of even one soul, let alone the sins of the whole world. That is why there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, except for the name of Jesus, which means “Yahweh saves” (Acts 4:12). That is why Jesus said to those who refused to believe that He was who He said He was: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM (ego eimí), you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).
Jesus is the Eternal I AM
“I AM” is the name by which Yahweh identified Himself at the burning bush when Moses asked Him by which name He should be called (Ex 3:14). From this point forward, we see Yahweh referring to Himself numerous times as the I AM (Deut 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10; 43:13; 46:4; 48:12; 52:6). It is significant that Jesus is the only one who identifies Himself as the I AM in the New Testament.
The verb “to be” normally requires a predicate in order to make a complete phrase, whether it be in Greek or in English. Each time Jesus refers to Himself as I AM, He is affirming His Deity as the eternal Yahweh (Jn 8:56-59; 13:19; 6:19-20; 4:26; 18:3-8). I demonstrate this in more detail in my blog, Jesus Christ the Eternal I AM. Here I just want to point out a couple of these instances in which Christ most emphatically identifies Himself as Yahweh, the eternal I AM.
Revelation 1:17
In Isaiah alone, Yahweh uses the title I AM, referring to Himself as the eternal self-existent One 6 times. One of these is especially significant, since Jesus later identifies Himself as being that same Yahweh. Yahweh says:
“I, the Lord (Yahweh), am the First; and the Last; I AM (LXX ἐγὼ θεὸς πρῶτος, καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ἐγώ εἰμι.).” (Isa 41:4)
This is one of the most emphatic declarations of Yahweh’s eternality. When the glorified Christ appeared to John the Revelator, He identified Himself in the same manner saying:
“Do not be afraid; I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι, ego eimí) the First and the Last.” (Rev 1:17, cf. Rev 22:13)
Here Jesus identifies Himself as being the Yahweh of the Old Testament, the First and the Last. While it is possible for the one Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to coequally be the First and the Last as one, it is not possible that the Christ also be the First and the Last if indeed He had been subsequently created by Yahweh who alone is said to be the First and the Last.
Not only this, but Jesus also declares Himself to be the Almighty (Rev 1:8). While a created being may be called mighty, there can only be one Almighty, yet Yahweh who appeared to the Patriarchs also repeatedly called Himself the Almighty. Clearly, the Son of God has always been the visible manifestation of the one and only Triune Almighty God. There cannot be two separate Almighties.
Those who deny the Deity of Christ often say that He wasn’t God but merely His representative. They appeal to the Hebrew practice of appointing a legal representative or emissary (Heb. shaliah) who was basically a legal agent appointed to make transactions in representation of another person. However, in reality, this is nothing unique to the Hebrews, since every society utilizes legal representatives with authority to make transactions in the place of another or go in representation of another. However, a shaliah only represented those who sent them, they never impersonated them. A shaliah would speak and act in representation of the Almighty, but they would never say “I am the Almighty.” That would have been blasphemy, even for a shaliah. A shaliah never impersonated the one whom they represented.
John 8:58
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’ 57 Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ 58 Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM (ego eimí).’ 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” (Jn 8:56-59)
The obvious reason why the Jews picked up stones to throw at Jesus was because of His declaration, “before Abraham came to be, I AM.” They understood Him to be declaring His eternal preexistence as the I AM and sought to stone Him for blasphemy. If indeed Jesus were merely the representative of the eternal I AM, surely He would have explained it to them in order to avoid being mistaken as claiming to be God Himself, but He didn’t. Even if He had said “I WAS before Abraham,” they wouldn’t have sought to stone Him. They understood that He was claiming to be Yahweh, the eternal I AM. Knowing the Scriptures, they knew that He was claiming to be the one and only Yahweh I AM, as emphatically declared in Isaiah:
“You are My witnesses,’ says the LORD (Yahweh), ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I AM (LXX ἐγώ εἰμι, ego eimí). Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.” (Isa 43:10)
There is no reasonable way in which John 8:58 can be reconciled with the belief that the Son of God who calls Himself the I AM is not eternal but merely a god who was formed or created by Yahweh – not to mention the claim of the Christadelphians that the Son didn’t even exist at all prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb.
Jesus is the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament
Many have overlooked the fact that Christ, as well as the New Testament authors, often quoted passages from the Old Testament referring to Yahweh Elohim, applying them to Christ, the Son of God. In my blog, Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, I cite fourteen texts which clearly identify Christ as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. Here I will just cite a couple of them for brevity.
1) Only Yahweh / Jesus is the Creator of All
Yahweh Elohim is not only presented as the only Savior, but He is also presented in the Old Testament as the only Creator of heaven and earth. Isaiah says:
“For thus says Yahweh, who created the heavens, who is God (Elohim), who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: ‘I am Yahweh, and there is no other.’” (Isa 45:18)
In Psalm 102 the psalmist worships Yahweh Elohim as the eternal Creator who never changes. He says of Him:
“Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. 27 But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.” (Ps 102:25-27)
The writer of Hebrews directly acknowledges Jesus as Yahweh when he quotes directly from this Psalm preceded by Psalm 45:6, which is also quoted word for word, identifying Jesus as Yahweh Elohim:
“But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God (Elohim), is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom… 10 And: “You, Lord (Yahweh), in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11 They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; 12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.’” (Heb 1:8,10-12, cf. Psa 45:6-7)
Here we see that Hebrews 1:10-12 is a direct quote from Psalm 102:25-27, identifying Jesus as the Yahweh who created all things. If that affirmation of His deity were not clear enough to silence those who claimed that He was a mere angel, he continues by saying in the next verse: “But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool?’” (Heb 1:13)
This passage in Hebrews clearly affirms that Jesus is the eternal Yahweh Elohim, who is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), and the Creator of all things. As John says:
“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him” (Jn 1:10).
When the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, it is a declaration of His eternal existence, just as His identification of Himself as the I AM, or the First and the Last. In Hebrews 7:3 he says that Melchizedek was a type of Christ in that he had, “neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Christ’s eternal preexistence couldn’t have been expressed any clearer!
2) Isaiah saw Yahweh / Jesus’ glory
At the time Yahweh anointed Isaiah as a prophet, Isaiah saw Him on His throne in a heavenly vision. He describes it in Isaiah chapter six:
“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!’… 5 So I said: ‘Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts… 9 And He said, "Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' 10 "Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and return and be healed.” (Isa 6:1-5,9,10)
Jesus manifested His glory, performing signs and wonders, and the people still did not believe Him. John quotes Isaiah 6 to explain the reason why they did not believe even though Jesus had manifested His glory in their presence. In doing so, he clearly identified Him as Yahweh. He said:
“But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: ‘Lord (Yahweh), who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord (Yahweh) been revealed?’ 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’ 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw HIS glory and spoke of HIM.” (John 12:37-41)
John, consistent with the entire gospel of John, affirms the full divinity of Christ, presenting Him as being the same Yahweh who appeared to Isaiah. The New Testament authors consistently identified Jesus as being Yahweh.
There are many more Scriptures which present Christ the Son of God as eternally preexisting. John 1 says that the Word who became flesh was with God in the beginning and He was God. John 1:3 continues saying: “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” That in itself refutes the claim that He had a beginning, having been created.
We see in Philippians 2 that Christ existed in the form of God prior to His incarnation. He always was the visible form or expression of the invisible God. In the incarnation He humbled Himself, coming as a servant in the likeness of men. No one has seen God the Father. Every appearance of Yahweh Elohim in the Old Testament was the preincarnate Christ. He has always been the only visible manifestation of the invisible God. I demonstrate this in my blog: The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
In Jesus’ intercessory prayer in John 17, on the night of His passion, before being crucified, He prayed to the Father saying:
“I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:4-5)
Obviously, in order for Christ to have shared in the Father’s glory before creation He had to have existed prior to creation. One may be chosen from the foundation of the world without having yet known or experienced it, but it is impossible to have had the Father’s glory with Him without ever having known or experienced it.
Conclusion
Having seen that no one other than Yahweh Himself could have been our Savior, and that Jesus is identified in the New Testament as the Yahweh I AM, the First and the Last, the Almighty, without beginning of days, nor end of life, the Creator and sustainer of all things which exist, we now have a foundation upon which to base our understanding of the Son of God. Those who deny Christ’s eternal preexistence must ignore or try to explain away the obvious meaning of these clear affirmations of the eternal existence of the Son.
In the next blog I will be considering the texts commonly presented to argue against the eternality of the Son of God. Most who use these proof-texts fail to take into account the economic relationship that exists within the Godhead. While we can see in Scripture that they are co-equal in essence and attributes, nevertheless, as expressed by the titles Father and Son, they are not the same in authority, but rather enjoy a loving complementary relationship. The Son is subject to the Father and the Holy Spirit likewise carries out the will of the Father and glorifies the Son. When Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I,” it must not be misconstrued as meaning that the Son is somehow inferior in essence to the Father, any more than my son is inferior to me. Rather, the Father is greater in authority than the Son.
Another thing those who deny Christ’s preexistence fail to take into account (especially the Christadelphians), is that, while Christ was one hundred percent God, He was also one hundred percent man. While He continued being the Son of God, He also became the Son of Man. When He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, coming in the likeness of men, He submitted Himself to the limitations of a fleshly body. Even though, as the Son of God, He continued being the One who sustains all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17), in His humanity He had to grow in wisdom and stature (Lu 2:39). While as God He knew all things, in His humanity He had to grow in knowledge. He suffered fatigue as any other man, and as a man in the likeness of sinful flesh He was tempted in all points as we, yet without sin (Rom 8:3; Heb 4:15). This union of the Divine and human nature of the Son is referred to as the hypostatic union. All these considerations are fundamental to a proper understanding of the Son of God, as we shall see in the next blog.
[1] The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Trinity
Is the Son of God eternal, as the Church has believed from its earliest days, or was there a time when He did not exist? [1]That is the question that I hope to answer from Scripture in this blog. There are some modern-day versions of third century Arianism, like the Jehovah Witnesses and the followers of A. E. Knoch, who argue that the Son is not eternal, but rather was the first being created by the Father. Others, like the Christadelphians, believe that the Son of God didn’t even exist prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb, being merely a man whom God enabled to overcome His own fallen sinful flesh, thereby showing us the way of salvation. After examining the Scriptural evidence for the eternal existence of the Son, I will be considering some of the proof-texts these groups make use of in order to deny Christ’s eternal preexistence.
Does it really matter?
Some believe that the Deity of Christ and His eternal preexistence is peripheral to the Christian faith and not an issue that we should divide over. However, according to Scripture, no one other than Yahweh Elohim Himself could have ever been our Savior. Yahweh repeatedly declared there can be no savior besides Him. He said:
“I, even I, am the Lord (Yahweh), and besides Me there is no savior.” (Isa 43:11)
“Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me; for there is no savior besides Me.” (Hos 13:4)
“And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.” (Isa 45:21)
Being a just God, there could not have been another savior besides Himself. If God were to have sent one of His created beings to suffer the just penalty for our sins against Him, rather than bearing that penalty Himself, that would have only served to compound injustice. A. E. Knoch and his followers even present God as being the original source of evil. Try to imagine a God who first creates evil, and then sends one of His creatures to suffer in order to satisfy His own offended justice, which was in reality the result of the very evil He Himself created!
The psalmist understood that no mere creature could redeem another’s soul from Sheol: Our Redeemer had to be God Himself. He said:
“No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him 8 For the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever — 15
But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will receive me.” (Ps 49:7-8,15 NASU)
We see that our ransom price is owed to God, but no man is able to pay it. Only God Himself could have paid it. If the one who died for us upon the cross had been merely an angel or a man divinely enabled to undergo such suffering instead of the Son being God Himself incarnate, His suffering and death would not have had sufficient value to make propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
Some, failing to understand the Triune nature of God, have ridiculed those who believe in Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement, saying that one man suffering for six hours on the cross wouldn’t have had sufficient value to atone for all the sins committed throughout history. What they fail to take into account is that it was God in flesh who bore our sins on that tree, and therefore His sacrifice of Himself had infinite value.
Had He been a mere man, His blood would not have atoned for the sins of even one soul, let alone the sins of the whole world. That is why there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, except for the name of Jesus, which means “Yahweh saves” (Acts 4:12). That is why Jesus said to those who refused to believe that He was who He said He was: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM (ego eimí), you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).
Jesus is the Eternal I AM
“I AM” is the name by which Yahweh identified Himself at the burning bush when Moses asked Him by which name He should be called (Ex 3:14). From this point forward, we see Yahweh referring to Himself numerous times as the I AM (Deut 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10; 43:13; 46:4; 48:12; 52:6). It is significant that Jesus is the only one who identifies Himself as the I AM in the New Testament.
The verb “to be” normally requires a predicate in order to make a complete phrase, whether it be in Greek or in English. Each time Jesus refers to Himself as I AM, He is affirming His Deity as the eternal Yahweh (Jn 8:56-59; 13:19; 6:19-20; 4:26; 18:3-8). I demonstrate this in more detail in my blog, Jesus Christ the Eternal I AM. Here I just want to point out a couple of these instances in which Christ most emphatically identifies Himself as Yahweh, the eternal I AM.
Revelation 1:17
In Isaiah alone, Yahweh uses the title I AM, referring to Himself as the eternal self-existent One 6 times. One of these is especially significant, since Jesus later identifies Himself as being that same Yahweh. Yahweh says:
“I, the Lord (Yahweh), am the First; and the Last; I AM (LXX ἐγὼ θεὸς πρῶτος, καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ἐγώ εἰμι.).” (Isa 41:4)
This is one of the most emphatic declarations of Yahweh’s eternality. When the glorified Christ appeared to John the Revelator, He identified Himself in the same manner saying:
“Do not be afraid; I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι, ego eimí) the First and the Last.” (Rev 1:17, cf. Rev 22:13)
Here Jesus identifies Himself as being the Yahweh of the Old Testament, the First and the Last. While it is possible for the one Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to coequally be the First and the Last as one, it is not possible that the Christ also be the First and the Last if indeed He had been subsequently created by Yahweh who alone is said to be the First and the Last.
Not only this, but Jesus also declares Himself to be the Almighty (Rev 1:8). While a created being may be called mighty, there can only be one Almighty, yet Yahweh who appeared to the Patriarchs also repeatedly called Himself the Almighty. Clearly, the Son of God has always been the visible manifestation of the one and only Triune Almighty God. There cannot be two separate Almighties.
Those who deny the Deity of Christ often say that He wasn’t God but merely His representative. They appeal to the Hebrew practice of appointing a legal representative or emissary (Heb. shaliah) who was basically a legal agent appointed to make transactions in representation of another person. However, in reality, this is nothing unique to the Hebrews, since every society utilizes legal representatives with authority to make transactions in the place of another or go in representation of another. However, a shaliah only represented those who sent them, they never impersonated them. A shaliah would speak and act in representation of the Almighty, but they would never say “I am the Almighty.” That would have been blasphemy, even for a shaliah. A shaliah never impersonated the one whom they represented.
John 8:58
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’ 57 Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ 58 Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM (ego eimí).’ 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” (Jn 8:56-59)
The obvious reason why the Jews picked up stones to throw at Jesus was because of His declaration, “before Abraham came to be, I AM.” They understood Him to be declaring His eternal preexistence as the I AM and sought to stone Him for blasphemy. If indeed Jesus were merely the representative of the eternal I AM, surely He would have explained it to them in order to avoid being mistaken as claiming to be God Himself, but He didn’t. Even if He had said “I WAS before Abraham,” they wouldn’t have sought to stone Him. They understood that He was claiming to be Yahweh, the eternal I AM. Knowing the Scriptures, they knew that He was claiming to be the one and only Yahweh I AM, as emphatically declared in Isaiah:
“You are My witnesses,’ says the LORD (Yahweh), ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I AM (LXX ἐγώ εἰμι, ego eimí). Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.” (Isa 43:10)
There is no reasonable way in which John 8:58 can be reconciled with the belief that the Son of God who calls Himself the I AM is not eternal but merely a god who was formed or created by Yahweh – not to mention the claim of the Christadelphians that the Son didn’t even exist at all prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb.
Jesus is the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament
Many have overlooked the fact that Christ, as well as the New Testament authors, often quoted passages from the Old Testament referring to Yahweh Elohim, applying them to Christ, the Son of God. In my blog, Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, I cite fourteen texts which clearly identify Christ as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. Here I will just cite a couple of them for brevity.
1) Only Yahweh / Jesus is the Creator of All
Yahweh Elohim is not only presented as the only Savior, but He is also presented in the Old Testament as the only Creator of heaven and earth. Isaiah says:
“For thus says Yahweh, who created the heavens, who is God (Elohim), who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: ‘I am Yahweh, and there is no other.’” (Isa 45:18)
In Psalm 102 the psalmist worships Yahweh Elohim as the eternal Creator who never changes. He says of Him:
“Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. 27 But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.” (Ps 102:25-27)
The writer of Hebrews directly acknowledges Jesus as Yahweh when he quotes directly from this Psalm preceded by Psalm 45:6, which is also quoted word for word, identifying Jesus as Yahweh Elohim:
“But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God (Elohim), is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom… 10 And: “You, Lord (Yahweh), in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11 They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; 12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.’” (Heb 1:8,10-12, cf. Psa 45:6-7)
Here we see that Hebrews 1:10-12 is a direct quote from Psalm 102:25-27, identifying Jesus as the Yahweh who created all things. If that affirmation of His deity were not clear enough to silence those who claimed that He was a mere angel, he continues by saying in the next verse: “But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool?’” (Heb 1:13)
This passage in Hebrews clearly affirms that Jesus is the eternal Yahweh Elohim, who is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), and the Creator of all things. As John says:
“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him” (Jn 1:10).
When the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, it is a declaration of His eternal existence, just as His identification of Himself as the I AM, or the First and the Last. In Hebrews 7:3 he says that Melchizedek was a type of Christ in that he had, “neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Christ’s eternal preexistence couldn’t have been expressed any clearer!
2) Isaiah saw Yahweh / Jesus’ glory
At the time Yahweh anointed Isaiah as a prophet, Isaiah saw Him on His throne in a heavenly vision. He describes it in Isaiah chapter six:
“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!’… 5 So I said: ‘Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts… 9 And He said, "Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' 10 "Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and return and be healed.” (Isa 6:1-5,9,10)
Jesus manifested His glory, performing signs and wonders, and the people still did not believe Him. John quotes Isaiah 6 to explain the reason why they did not believe even though Jesus had manifested His glory in their presence. In doing so, he clearly identified Him as Yahweh. He said:
“But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: ‘Lord (Yahweh), who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord (Yahweh) been revealed?’ 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’ 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw HIS glory and spoke of HIM.” (John 12:37-41)
John, consistent with the entire gospel of John, affirms the full divinity of Christ, presenting Him as being the same Yahweh who appeared to Isaiah. The New Testament authors consistently identified Jesus as being Yahweh.
There are many more Scriptures which present Christ the Son of God as eternally preexisting. John 1 says that the Word who became flesh was with God in the beginning and He was God. John 1:3 continues saying: “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” That in itself refutes the claim that He had a beginning, having been created.
We see in Philippians 2 that Christ existed in the form of God prior to His incarnation. He always was the visible form or expression of the invisible God. In the incarnation He humbled Himself, coming as a servant in the likeness of men. No one has seen God the Father. Every appearance of Yahweh Elohim in the Old Testament was the preincarnate Christ. He has always been the only visible manifestation of the invisible God. I demonstrate this in my blog: The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
In Jesus’ intercessory prayer in John 17, on the night of His passion, before being crucified, He prayed to the Father saying:
“I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:4-5)
Obviously, in order for Christ to have shared in the Father’s glory before creation He had to have existed prior to creation. One may be chosen from the foundation of the world without having yet known or experienced it, but it is impossible to have had the Father’s glory with Him without ever having known or experienced it.
Conclusion
Having seen that no one other than Yahweh Himself could have been our Savior, and that Jesus is identified in the New Testament as the Yahweh I AM, the First and the Last, the Almighty, without beginning of days, nor end of life, the Creator and sustainer of all things which exist, we now have a foundation upon which to base our understanding of the Son of God. Those who deny Christ’s eternal preexistence must ignore or try to explain away the obvious meaning of these clear affirmations of the eternal existence of the Son.
In the next blog I will be considering the texts commonly presented to argue against the eternality of the Son of God. Most who use these proof-texts fail to take into account the economic relationship that exists within the Godhead. While we can see in Scripture that they are co-equal in essence and attributes, nevertheless, as expressed by the titles Father and Son, they are not the same in authority, but rather enjoy a loving complementary relationship. The Son is subject to the Father and the Holy Spirit likewise carries out the will of the Father and glorifies the Son. When Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I,” it must not be misconstrued as meaning that the Son is somehow inferior in essence to the Father, any more than my son is inferior to me. Rather, the Father is greater in authority than the Son.
Another thing those who deny Christ’s preexistence fail to take into account (especially the Christadelphians), is that, while Christ was one hundred percent God, He was also one hundred percent man. While He continued being the Son of God, He also became the Son of Man. When He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, coming in the likeness of men, He submitted Himself to the limitations of a fleshly body. Even though, as the Son of God, He continued being the One who sustains all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17), in His humanity He had to grow in wisdom and stature (Lu 2:39). While as God He knew all things, in His humanity He had to grow in knowledge. He suffered fatigue as any other man, and as a man in the likeness of sinful flesh He was tempted in all points as we, yet without sin (Rom 8:3; Heb 4:15). This union of the Divine and human nature of the Son is referred to as the hypostatic union. All these considerations are fundamental to a proper understanding of the Son of God, as we shall see in the next blog.
[1] The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Trinity
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
The claim is often made by anti-Trinitarians that the doctrine of the Trinity was not held by the Church Fathers prior to the 4th century, at which time it was formulated and made part of Church dogma by the Council of Nicaea which convened in 325 A D.
However, as I hope to demonstrate in this blog, the Church Fathers understood the Godhead as being Triune from the very beginning. It is true that the language they used to express the Trinity was at first limited to general nonspecific affirmations. However, as their beliefs began to come under attack, first by the Gnostics and Modalists, and then later in the 3rd century by the Arians who denied the full deity of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit, their language of necessity became more precise and specific. The following citations of the Fathers are just a few of hundreds which make it abundantly clear that the Church Fathers believed in the Trinity from the time of the Apostles.
Ignatius (30 – 107AD)
“Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth.” [1]
While this statement is simply a general affirmation, emphasizing that there are only three who are God in opposition to the Gnostics who believed that we are all gods, he does nevertheless clearly mention three distinct persons who are God. At the same time, he emphasizes throughout his epistle that there is only one God, so he is clearly not teaching Tritheism.
Justin Martyr (100 – 165AD)
“Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but saw Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: ‘And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven’… and again, when He says: ‘The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.’” [2]
In the context of this quote, Justin Martyr is establishing that Yahweh who was seen in the Theophanies of the Old Testament was not the Father but God the Son; that the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was in fact the preincarnate Son of God; that when it says in Genesis 19:24 that Yahweh rained fire upon Sodom from Yahweh, it is referring to the preincarnate Son who was with Abraham, and the Father in heaven, just as in Psalms 110:1 says: “Yahweh says to my Adonai, sit at My right hand till I make Your enemies your footstool.” I demonstrate that Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament in my blog, Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, and also the Angel of Yahweh in my blog, The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
“For, in the name (sing.) of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.” [3]
Speaking of water baptism, Justin Martyr alludes to the Triune baptismal formula given by Jesus in Matthew 28:19, “baptizing them in the name (sing.) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” While they are three persons, they are nevertheless one in name since they are one God and not three Gods.
Ignatius of Antioch (died 110AD).
“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made (begotten and unbegotten), God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,- even Jesus Christ our Lord…” [4]
Here Ignatius speaks of the Son of God as both begotten of Mary and unbegotten as the eternal Son of God (begotten and unbegotten, gennhtos kai agennhtos), God existing in flesh. This is a clear affirmation of the eternal deity of Christ. While it is another subject in itself, begotten is from γεννάω (gennao) and should not be confused with γένος (genos) which means “kind.” Jesus is referred to as the Father’s “only Son” or “unique one of a kind Son” (μονογενής, monogenes), rather than His “only begotten Son.” [5] Most modern translations reflect this correction.
Irenaeus (115-190AD).
“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . ‘” [6]
In addition to Irenaeus’ obvious references to the final restoration of all, he says that the Church had received from the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles the belief in one God the Father, one Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons. Additionally, he says that Christ Jesus is Lord and God. This quote contains an allusion to 1 Corinthians 8:6, which says: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”
Some Unitarians have mistaken Paul as saying here that only the Father is God. However, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also called God in Scripture, therefore they also make up the one Godhead. It also says that there is one Lord, yet we know that the Father and the Holy Spirit are also called Lord in Scripture. Paul was addressing Gentiles of Corinth who had been raised in a polytheistic society, and we see in the context that his objective was to emphasize that for us there is only one God and one Lord, not many.
Athenagoras, (133 – 190AD)
“Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?” [7]
“…they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity.” [8]
Here we see in the 2nd century a clear expression of the triunity of the Godhead or the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As iron sharpens iron, the Fathers became more specific and precise in their use of terms as the Scriptural doctrine of God came under attack from different fronts. At this time the distinction of persons within the Godhead was emphasized in response to the Modalists who denied that the one God exists as three persons, saying that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merely three forms in which the one God manifests Himself. A modern version of Modalism is the Oneness Pentecostals, or Jesus Only Pentecostals.
The Christians at that time were called Atheists because they did not worship the pagan gods; nor would they acknowledge the emperor as being a god.
Tertullian (155 – 220AD)
“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. For just as the Word of God is not actually He whose Word He is, so also the Spirit (although He is called God) is not actually He whose Spirit He is said to be. Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which it belongs. He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.” [9]
In Tertullian’s treatise, Against Praxeas, he is not opposing Arianism, or the denial of the deity of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit since that was a non-issue at the time, being that Arius wasn’t even born until after Tertullian’s death. Tertullian was opposing the Modalism of Praxeas, who like Sabellius, taught that God was a unipersonal being, with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit simply being three modes or manifestations of that one divine Person. In his treatise, Tertullian uses the word “Trinity” 15 times and emphasizes the Triune nature of God.
He seeks to demonstrate by various examples the logical absurdities one confronts when reading the Scripture as though God were a solitary being rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He says to Praxeas:
“If you want me to believe him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, “The Lord said to himself, ‘I am my own Son, today have I begotten myself.’ … On your side, however, you must make Him out to be a liar, an impostor, and a tamperer with his word, if, when he was himself a Son to himself, he assigned the part of his Son to be played by another. All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction of persons in the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. He who speaks, and he of whom he speaks and to whom he speaks, cannot possibly seem to be one and the same.” [10]
He also answers to the claim that Trinitarians are Tritheists, saying:
“Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.” [11]
In spite of the fact that we as Trinitarians emphatically affirm that we are Monotheists who believe that the one true God is Triune as to Persons, to this day, we continue to be misrepresented as though we were Tritheists, teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods.
Origen (185 – 254AD).
“But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness, we have fallen, in what we have said, into a digression, having considered that the subject of the soul… We shall, however, with the permission of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, more conveniently consider in the proper place the subject of all rational beings, which are distinguished into three genera and species.” [12]
In his treatise, de Principiis alone, Origen uses the word “Trinity” to refer to the Godhead over 20 times. Origen emphasized that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Triune Godhead and not merely the impersonal force or influence of God. He said:
“…the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” [13]
In response to those who claimed that the Son of God was a created being, Origen said:
“How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ- ‘that there never was a time when He did not exist’ - is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words ‘when’ or ‘never’ have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages.” [14]
Hippolytus of Rome, (170 – 235AD)
“Who will not say that there is one God? Yet, he will not on that account deny the economy.”
“If then the Word was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that I speak of two Gods? I will not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one. I speak of two persons, however, and of a third economy – the grace of the Holy Spirit…the economy of harmony is led back to one God. For God is one. The Father who commands, the Son who obeys and the Spirit who gives understanding.” [15]
The Greek Fathers used the word οἰκονομία “economy or dispensation” to describe the eternal economic complementary relationship between the persons of the Trinity. While they are one as to their essential nature and attributes, and co-eternal and co-equal, their relationship one with the other is distinct. In that sense, Jesus could say that the Father was greater than He, even though they are both the one and only Almighty God (Rev 1:8, cf. 11:17). The Son is eternally in loving submission to the Father and the Holy Spirit always carries out the will of the Father and the Son.
Cyprian of Carthage (210 – 258AD)
“And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is written: ‘And the three are One.’” [16]
Here we see Cyprian quoting what is commonly referred to as the Comma of 1John 5:7 which says: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” While I am not a King James only advocate, I do feel that there are several good arguments for considering the Comma to have been part of the original text. Cyprian here cites it a hundred years before the oldest Greek manuscript we have of 1John, and he quotes it as though it were a commonly known passage in the Church at that time.
The authenticity of 1John 5:7 wasn’t severely challenged until the 19th century. It is true that there are very few later Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma, apart from the many Latin manuscripts which contain it. However, there is reason to believe that it was removed from the Greek texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church under pressure from the Arians, only being retained in the Latin texts by the Latin Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church was battling against Modalistic Sabellianism at the time, and the Comma, being one of the favorite prooftexts of the Sabellians, may have made them more willing to part with it.
It is significant that there is no record of anyone insisting that the Comma be included in Scripture before the council of Nicaea. We only have record of the Arians demanding that Gregory remove it, which implies that it was originally there and removed. For anyone who might want to investigate this subject further, Dr. C. H. Pappas, ThM, presents his arguments for its inclusion in his book In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria (273 – 326AD)
“Therefore, when the holy prophets, and all, as I have said, who righteously and justly walked in the law of the Lord, together with the entire people, celebrated a typical and shadowy Passover, the Creator and Lord of every visible and invisible creature, the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.” [17]
Here again, we see another Ante Nicene Father stating that the Son is co eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, sharing in the same essence or substance.
Conclusion
All of these quotes are from prominent Church Fathers long before the council of Nicea in 325AD. It is true that, as errors crept into the Church, it became necessary for Church leaders to convene to counter them with formal Church creeds. However, as we have seen, the Trinity was the prevailing doctrine of the Church from the very time of the Apostles.
[1] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV
[2] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 127
[3] Justin Martyr First Apology, chapter 61
[4] Ignatius, commentary on Ephesians, chapter 7
[5] https://mindrenewers.com/2014/12/16/the-meaning-of-only-begotten/
[6] Against Heresies, Book 10, chapter 1
[7] Athenagoras. The Sacred Writings of Athenagoras (p. 10). Jazzybee Verlag. Kindle Edition.
[8] Athenagoras. The Sacred Writings of Athenagoras (pp. 11-12). Jazzybee Verlag. Kindle Edition.
[9] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 25
[10] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 11
[11] Tertullian, Against Praxeas chapter 9
[12] Origen, De Princiipiis, book 1, chapter 4.2
[13] Origen, De Princiipiis, book 1, chapter 3.2
[14] Origen, De Princiipiis, book 4, chapter 28
[15] https://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Tradition-Hippolytus-Popular-Patristic-ebook/dp/B084DXNNYW
[16] St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, The Unity of the Catholic Church, chapter 6
[17] Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius. Chapter 1.7
--
The claim is often made by anti-Trinitarians that the doctrine of the Trinity was not held by the Church Fathers prior to the 4th century, at which time it was formulated and made part of Church dogma by the Council of Nicaea which convened in 325 A D.
However, as I hope to demonstrate in this blog, the Church Fathers understood the Godhead as being Triune from the very beginning. It is true that the language they used to express the Trinity was at first limited to general nonspecific affirmations. However, as their beliefs began to come under attack, first by the Gnostics and Modalists, and then later in the 3rd century by the Arians who denied the full deity of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit, their language of necessity became more precise and specific. The following citations of the Fathers are just a few of hundreds which make it abundantly clear that the Church Fathers believed in the Trinity from the time of the Apostles.
Ignatius (30 – 107AD)
“Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth.” [1]
While this statement is simply a general affirmation, emphasizing that there are only three who are God in opposition to the Gnostics who believed that we are all gods, he does nevertheless clearly mention three distinct persons who are God. At the same time, he emphasizes throughout his epistle that there is only one God, so he is clearly not teaching Tritheism.
Justin Martyr (100 – 165AD)
“Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but saw Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: ‘And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven’… and again, when He says: ‘The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.’” [2]
In the context of this quote, Justin Martyr is establishing that Yahweh who was seen in the Theophanies of the Old Testament was not the Father but God the Son; that the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was in fact the preincarnate Son of God; that when it says in Genesis 19:24 that Yahweh rained fire upon Sodom from Yahweh, it is referring to the preincarnate Son who was with Abraham, and the Father in heaven, just as in Psalms 110:1 says: “Yahweh says to my Adonai, sit at My right hand till I make Your enemies your footstool.” I demonstrate that Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament in my blog, Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, and also the Angel of Yahweh in my blog, The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
“For, in the name (sing.) of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.” [3]
Speaking of water baptism, Justin Martyr alludes to the Triune baptismal formula given by Jesus in Matthew 28:19, “baptizing them in the name (sing.) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” While they are three persons, they are nevertheless one in name since they are one God and not three Gods.
Ignatius of Antioch (died 110AD).
“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made (begotten and unbegotten), God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,- even Jesus Christ our Lord…” [4]
Here Ignatius speaks of the Son of God as both begotten of Mary and unbegotten as the eternal Son of God (begotten and unbegotten, gennhtos kai agennhtos), God existing in flesh. This is a clear affirmation of the eternal deity of Christ. While it is another subject in itself, begotten is from γεννάω (gennao) and should not be confused with γένος (genos) which means “kind.” Jesus is referred to as the Father’s “only Son” or “unique one of a kind Son” (μονογενής, monogenes), rather than His “only begotten Son.” [5] Most modern translations reflect this correction.
Irenaeus (115-190AD).
“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . ‘” [6]
In addition to Irenaeus’ obvious references to the final restoration of all, he says that the Church had received from the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles the belief in one God the Father, one Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons. Additionally, he says that Christ Jesus is Lord and God. This quote contains an allusion to 1 Corinthians 8:6, which says: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”
Some Unitarians have mistaken Paul as saying here that only the Father is God. However, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also called God in Scripture, therefore they also make up the one Godhead. It also says that there is one Lord, yet we know that the Father and the Holy Spirit are also called Lord in Scripture. Paul was addressing Gentiles of Corinth who had been raised in a polytheistic society, and we see in the context that his objective was to emphasize that for us there is only one God and one Lord, not many.
Athenagoras, (133 – 190AD)
“Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?” [7]
“…they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity.” [8]
Here we see in the 2nd century a clear expression of the triunity of the Godhead or the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As iron sharpens iron, the Fathers became more specific and precise in their use of terms as the Scriptural doctrine of God came under attack from different fronts. At this time the distinction of persons within the Godhead was emphasized in response to the Modalists who denied that the one God exists as three persons, saying that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merely three forms in which the one God manifests Himself. A modern version of Modalism is the Oneness Pentecostals, or Jesus Only Pentecostals.
The Christians at that time were called Atheists because they did not worship the pagan gods; nor would they acknowledge the emperor as being a god.
Tertullian (155 – 220AD)
“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. For just as the Word of God is not actually He whose Word He is, so also the Spirit (although He is called God) is not actually He whose Spirit He is said to be. Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which it belongs. He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.” [9]
In Tertullian’s treatise, Against Praxeas, he is not opposing Arianism, or the denial of the deity of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit since that was a non-issue at the time, being that Arius wasn’t even born until after Tertullian’s death. Tertullian was opposing the Modalism of Praxeas, who like Sabellius, taught that God was a unipersonal being, with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit simply being three modes or manifestations of that one divine Person. In his treatise, Tertullian uses the word “Trinity” 15 times and emphasizes the Triune nature of God.
He seeks to demonstrate by various examples the logical absurdities one confronts when reading the Scripture as though God were a solitary being rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He says to Praxeas:
“If you want me to believe him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, “The Lord said to himself, ‘I am my own Son, today have I begotten myself.’ … On your side, however, you must make Him out to be a liar, an impostor, and a tamperer with his word, if, when he was himself a Son to himself, he assigned the part of his Son to be played by another. All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction of persons in the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. He who speaks, and he of whom he speaks and to whom he speaks, cannot possibly seem to be one and the same.” [10]
He also answers to the claim that Trinitarians are Tritheists, saying:
“Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.” [11]
In spite of the fact that we as Trinitarians emphatically affirm that we are Monotheists who believe that the one true God is Triune as to Persons, to this day, we continue to be misrepresented as though we were Tritheists, teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods.
Origen (185 – 254AD).
“But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness, we have fallen, in what we have said, into a digression, having considered that the subject of the soul… We shall, however, with the permission of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, more conveniently consider in the proper place the subject of all rational beings, which are distinguished into three genera and species.” [12]
In his treatise, de Principiis alone, Origen uses the word “Trinity” to refer to the Godhead over 20 times. Origen emphasized that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Triune Godhead and not merely the impersonal force or influence of God. He said:
“…the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” [13]
In response to those who claimed that the Son of God was a created being, Origen said:
“How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ- ‘that there never was a time when He did not exist’ - is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words ‘when’ or ‘never’ have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages.” [14]
Hippolytus of Rome, (170 – 235AD)
“Who will not say that there is one God? Yet, he will not on that account deny the economy.”
“If then the Word was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that I speak of two Gods? I will not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one. I speak of two persons, however, and of a third economy – the grace of the Holy Spirit…the economy of harmony is led back to one God. For God is one. The Father who commands, the Son who obeys and the Spirit who gives understanding.” [15]
The Greek Fathers used the word οἰκονομία “economy or dispensation” to describe the eternal economic complementary relationship between the persons of the Trinity. While they are one as to their essential nature and attributes, and co-eternal and co-equal, their relationship one with the other is distinct. In that sense, Jesus could say that the Father was greater than He, even though they are both the one and only Almighty God (Rev 1:8, cf. 11:17). The Son is eternally in loving submission to the Father and the Holy Spirit always carries out the will of the Father and the Son.
Cyprian of Carthage (210 – 258AD)
“And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is written: ‘And the three are One.’” [16]
Here we see Cyprian quoting what is commonly referred to as the Comma of 1John 5:7 which says: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” While I am not a King James only advocate, I do feel that there are several good arguments for considering the Comma to have been part of the original text. Cyprian here cites it a hundred years before the oldest Greek manuscript we have of 1John, and he quotes it as though it were a commonly known passage in the Church at that time.
The authenticity of 1John 5:7 wasn’t severely challenged until the 19th century. It is true that there are very few later Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma, apart from the many Latin manuscripts which contain it. However, there is reason to believe that it was removed from the Greek texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church under pressure from the Arians, only being retained in the Latin texts by the Latin Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church was battling against Modalistic Sabellianism at the time, and the Comma, being one of the favorite prooftexts of the Sabellians, may have made them more willing to part with it.
It is significant that there is no record of anyone insisting that the Comma be included in Scripture before the council of Nicaea. We only have record of the Arians demanding that Gregory remove it, which implies that it was originally there and removed. For anyone who might want to investigate this subject further, Dr. C. H. Pappas, ThM, presents his arguments for its inclusion in his book In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria (273 – 326AD)
“Therefore, when the holy prophets, and all, as I have said, who righteously and justly walked in the law of the Lord, together with the entire people, celebrated a typical and shadowy Passover, the Creator and Lord of every visible and invisible creature, the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.” [17]
Here again, we see another Ante Nicene Father stating that the Son is co eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, sharing in the same essence or substance.
Conclusion
All of these quotes are from prominent Church Fathers long before the council of Nicea in 325AD. It is true that, as errors crept into the Church, it became necessary for Church leaders to convene to counter them with formal Church creeds. However, as we have seen, the Trinity was the prevailing doctrine of the Church from the very time of the Apostles.
[1] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV
[2] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 127
[3] Justin Martyr First Apology, chapter 61
[4] Ignatius, commentary on Ephesians, chapter 7
[5] https://mindrenewers.com/2014/12/16/the-meaning-of-only-begotten/
[6] Against Heresies, Book 10, chapter 1
[7] Athenagoras. The Sacred Writings of Athenagoras (p. 10). Jazzybee Verlag. Kindle Edition.
[8] Athenagoras. The Sacred Writings of Athenagoras (pp. 11-12). Jazzybee Verlag. Kindle Edition.
[9] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 25
[10] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 11
[11] Tertullian, Against Praxeas chapter 9
[12] Origen, De Princiipiis, book 1, chapter 4.2
[13] Origen, De Princiipiis, book 1, chapter 3.2
[14] Origen, De Princiipiis, book 4, chapter 28
[15] https://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Tradition-Hippolytus-Popular-Patristic-ebook/dp/B084DXNNYW
[16] St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, The Unity of the Catholic Church, chapter 6
[17] Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius. Chapter 1.7
- Published on
00:00
00:00
0How Literal is the Concordant Literal Version?
by George Sidney Hurd
Just how true is the Concordant Literal Version to the original languages? Does it demonstrate consistent scholarly integrity, or was it translated in such a manner so as to accommodate unorthodox doctrines, such as we see with the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses?
Many who believe that God’s punishments are temporal and corrective, resulting in the final restoration of all, have enthusiastically recommended it, seeing that it correctly translates olam, aión and aionios as eon and eonian, rather than, everlasting and eternal, as most other translations do. I demonstrate that these words express temporal duration, rather than perpetuity, in my blog, The Duration of Punishment. Other widely accepted literal translations, besides the Concordant Literal Version, also correctly render these time-words, such as Young’s Literal Translation and Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible. While there is no indication that either Young or Rotherham ever believed in the final restoration of all, they were nevertheless faithful to the actual meaning of the text.
Since I prefer using the NKJV hand-in-hand with the Greek and Hebrew text, I never gave close attention to the literal versions. However, knowing that many are unfamiliar with the original languages, I have recommended them to others and often cited from them, including the Concordant Literal Version. However, as time passed, I began to come across more and more renderings in the CLV which were incongruous with the original text. That in turn led me to investigate the background and beliefs of A. E. Knoch and his Concordant Publishing Concern which compiled and published the CLV. As I read his writings to see his justifications for his unique renderings, it became evident to me that his primary motive in making his own translation was in order to have a Bible which would substantiate his own particular doctrinal beliefs, just as the Jehovah Witnesses did with their New World Translation.
Among other things, He denied the Trinity and taught that the Son of God was a created being rather than being co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Being a contemporary of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses, and sharing many beliefs in common with him, they corresponded, but couldn’t agree on the subject of ultimate reconciliation. The Watchtower Society did not yet have their own translation of the Bible and were going to distribute copies of the CLV but later announced in 1921 that they had decided against it, primarily because of the issue of Universal Salvation. [i]
Another major unorthodox belief held by Knoch was that, according to him, God created evil in the beginning, even creating Satan as the Adversary and evil, rather than him having been created perfect and subsequently becoming evil, independently of God. He also taught the hyperdispensational two-gospel doctrine, also known as Bullingerism, since it first originated with E. W. Bullinger (1837 to 1913). I consider the fallacies of the two-gospel doctrine in a series of four blogs, Are there Two Different Gospels in the New Testament?
For a time, Knoch was a leading member of a Plymouth Brethren congregation in Los Angeles California. However, he began to teach his new doctrines which were contrary to those of the Brethren of that congregation. In his zeal, and with his characteristically uncharitable spirit towards those who differ with him evident throughout his writings, he persisted in promoting his contrary doctrines, even after having been removed from his teaching position in the church. This resulted in him eventually being disfellowshipped. [ii]
In this blog, I will briefly point out a few clear examples of the many instances where he intentionally altered the proper rendering of the original text in order to accommodate his own doctrinal bias.
The Alteration of Passages related to the Origin of Evil
Isaiah 45:7
(NKJV) “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace (shalom) and create calamity (ra’) I, the LORD, do (present) all these things.”
(CLV) “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.”
In spite of the fact that shalom never means “good” in all of its 235 occurrences in the Old Testament, Knoch renders shalom as “good” and ra’ as “evil” in order to make it refer to the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” in Eden. However, there are two primary factors which militate against this rendering.
In the first place, in Genesis the word rendered “good” is towb which always means “good” and is elsewhere even distinguished from shalom (Deut 23:6). While I didn’t take the time to look at all 235 instances of shalom, I looked at his rendering of numerous verses and didn’t find any other place where he translated shalom as “good” instead of “peace.” [iii]
Furthermore, it is significant that the translators of the Greek Septuagint, or LXX, (which were the Scriptures Paul and others would have been using among the Greek speaking world of that time), rendered towb in Isaiah 45:7 as εἰρήνη (eirene) which means “peace,” and not καλός (kalos) which means “good.” In similar manner, they rendered the phrase “good and evil” in Genesis 2:9 as του καλού και του κακού, using καλός (good), rather than eirene (peace), as it appears in Isaiah 45:7. These are the same two words used in the New Testament in Hebrews 5:14 for good and evil when the author said that we need to have our senses trained to discern both “good and evil.” Even here, Knoch, in his typical nonconformist manner, translates kalos and kakos as “the ideal and the evil,” adding the definite articles which are absent in the original.
While it is true that God created good – indeed, all that He created was very good, it is not true that He created evil, as Knoch insists. It is a logical impossibility for Him to have created everything very good if indeed evil in any form was a part of His original creation.
However, according to Knoch’s reasoning, creating evil is good as long as the end result is good. In response to those who say that it would have been morally wrong for God to have directly created evil and created Satan as a sinner and the Adversary, he begins by limiting the definition of sin to simply missing the mark. From there he reasons that God would have only been sinning if He had created Satan, sin and evil and missed the mark, failing His objective in creating Satan and evil. Reading his logic, I couldn’t help but think of what the Lord said through Isaiah when He said:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20-21)
Using this type of logic, a bank robber could argue that he didn’t sin because he obtained his objective, successfully robbing the bank. Hitler would have been justified in all his atrocities if only he had achieved his original goal of a global Third Reich. Sin in Scripture is not merely missing the mark, but a moral missing the mark or lawlessness (1Jn 3:4). It is a failure to live according to God’s government.
God did not create evil in any form, be it moral evil or natural evil. In the first place, considering the fact that the contrast in Isaiah 45:7 is between peace (shalom) and ra’, which can mean either moral or natural evil, it is obvious that it is natural evil which is being referred to, or more specifically wartime calamity, since the contrast is not between that which is good or evil, as Knoch tries to argue, but between peace and the absence thereof. In our fallen condition, God brings calamity and hardship in judgment for correction, but God does not create moral evil.
If it were not sufficient that he replaced the word peace for good in order to make God out to be the one who originated evil, he also changes the tense of the verbs in Isaiah 45:7 from present tense to past tense in order to make it refer to the original creation. [iv] Here again, in the Septuagint, over seventy Greek and Hebrew scholars rendered it in the present tense ο ποιών ειρήνην και κτίζων κακόν “I make peace and create evil or bad.” I consider the nature of evil and the sense in which God creates evil in my blog, The What of Evil.
Ezekiel 28:15
(NKJV) “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.”
(CLV) “Perfect are (aorist in LXX “were perfect”) you in your ways, From the day of your being produced (Heb. bara, κτίζω LXX same as Gen 1:1), Till perversity has been found (past perfect) in you.”
In his determination to make Ezekiel out to be exclusively addressing the king of Tyre who was alive at the time of writing, he supplied “are” instead of “were.” The main problem with that is that God continues, saying “from the day you were created till iniquity was found in you.” The personage that God is here addressing was perfect from the moment of his creation, until iniquity was found in him. The Septuagint uses aorist verbs throughout this verse, as does every other translation I consulted. This is a deliberate manipulation of the text, albeit inconsistent. [v]
Knoch also changes “from the day you were created,” to “from the day of your being produced” in an attempt to make it refer to the king of Tyre rather than to Lucifer who was created. However, bara never refers to procreation, but rather to God’s original creation. Again, he is inconsistent, since nowhere else does he translate bara as “produced,” being that it so obviously means “to create.” [vi]
Isaiah 14:12
(NKJV) “How you are fallen from heaven, o Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!”
(CLV) “How you have fallen from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn! You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations!”
Since the Hebrew word helel, rendered Lucifer, only occurs here in Scripture, there is some debate as to its etymology. A very few, in their attempt to deny that Isaiah 14 has any reference to the fall of Satan, argue that the root word for helel is yalal, which means “the howler.” Even if that meaning were the correct one, Knoch is incorrect in converting a substantive into an imperative verb, making it read “howl” instead of “the howler.” However, since it wouldn’t make sense to say, “the howler, son of the dawn,” he takes the liberty to change the noun into a verb.
Nearly all scholars believe that the root word for helel is halal, which can have either a positive or a negative meaning, depending upon the context in which it appears. If it is used in the negative sense, it would read, “how you are fallen from heaven, o arrogant bragger, son of the morning.” However, if it is to be understood in a positive sense, it would read, “how are you fallen from heaven, o shining one, son of the morning.” Lucifer in Latin means “shining one,” and for that reason, many translations retain that name.
That it is used in the positive sense in this passage is evident, considering that it is a dirge or song of lamentation in which God is lamenting Lucifer’s fall. These are not words of reproach or condemnation but rather an expression of sorrow for one who was once His shining one, the son of the morning, only to afterwards fall because of pride and selfish ambition. I haven’t been able to find even one translation of the Bible which understands helel negatively as “arrogant bragger,” much less seeing it as related to yalal, and going even farther, taking the liberty to change the noun, “the howler,” into an imperative verb!
It is significant that the Greek Septuagint rendered helel as phosphoros, (ὁ ἑωσφόρος), which means “the shining one,” or in Latin, Lucifer. To me, it is much more likely that the 72 Greek speaking Hebrew scholars who reverently compiled the Septuagint in the 3rd century B.C., had a better idea of what helel meant than a single individual in the 20th century determined to demonstrate that God created evil.
The Alteration of Passages Affirming the Deity of Christ
John 1:1-10
(NKJV) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.”
NKJV
(CLV) “In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. 2 This (autos, ‘He’) was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it (αυτου, ‘Him’), and apart from it (αυτου, ‘Him’) not even one thing came into being which has come into being. 4 In it (αυτω ‘Him’) was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. 6 There came to be a man, commissioned by God. His name was John. 7 This one came for a testimony, that he should be testifying concerning the light, that all should be believing through it (αυτου, ‘Him’). 8 Not he was the light, but he came that he should be testifying concerning the light. 9 It was the true light (ην το φως το αληθινον, ‘He was the true light’) - which is enlightening every man - coming into the world. 10 In the world He was (εν τω κοσμω ην, ‘in the world He was’), and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him (αυτον, ‘Him’) not.”
Any sect denying the deity of Christ must somehow alter the wording of John 1. The Jehovah Witnesses have verse 1 say that the Word was “a god,” and instead of saying, “in Him was life” in verse 4, they make it read, “by means of him was life.” I won’t take the time to point out the fallacies of these renderings, but any first-year Greek student could easily point them out.
Knoch uses a different and more radical approach, turning the alteration of the text up a notch. First, he renders the masculine personal pronouns referring to the Word as “it” instead of “He” or “Him,” until he gets to verse 10, where he then correctly renders the masculine pronoun as “Him.” I have noticed that he often is not even consistent in his mistranslations. [vii]
He then translates the connective preposition pros in verse 1 as “toward” instead of “with.” He argues that the idea expressed by pros here is not the nearness of the Word to God, but rather the function of directing others towards God. However, in verse 2, it says that in the beginning, before anything had been created, He was with (pros) God. In what sense could the Word be said to have directed others towards God in eternity before there was anyone for the Word to direct towards Him?
Whenever pros is used to speak of nearness or association between persons, it always means “with.” Knoch himself follows this rule in every other instance, except when it would imply Christ’s deity. The following are examples from the CLV, showing his inconsistency in rendering pros here in John 1:1 as toward instead of with: “And I came to be with (pros) you in weakness” (1 Cor 2:3); “I am expecting to stay some time with (pros) you” (1 Cor 16:7); he should be with (pros) you fearlessly” (1 Cor 16:10); “And, being present with (pros) you and in want” (2 Cor 11:9); “I stay (aorist, ‘stayed’) with (pros) him fifteen days” (Gal 1:18); “not only in my presence with (pros) you” (Gal 4:18); “Yet I wanted to be present with (pros) you just now” (Gal 4:20) and, “Do you not remember that, still being with (pros) you” (2 Thess 2:5).
The only other place where he switches back to rendering pros as “toward” instead of “with” in the context of relationships is 1 John 1:2, which again speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father. He makes it read, “the life eonian which was toward the Father.” Even the Jehovah Witnesses translate it correctly as “with the Father.”
Knoch also inverts the word order in the third and final clause of John 1:1, making it read “and God was the word,” instead of “the Word was God.” It is understandable how someone without any real knowledge of Greek syntax could commit this error, since that is the actual word order in the phrase (και θεος ην ο λογος). However, Greek syntax is not according to word order, but according to the form of each word. In this instance, θεος (God) is the predicate nominative and ο λογος is the subject.
In my Greek studies in the 1970s one of the courses I found very helpful was a course in sentence diagramming based upon John chapter 1. Sentence diagramming enables the student to properly arrange the Greek words in grammatical order for English readers. The third phrase in John 1:1 is diagrammed in the following manner:
Just how true is the Concordant Literal Version to the original languages? Does it demonstrate consistent scholarly integrity, or was it translated in such a manner so as to accommodate unorthodox doctrines, such as we see with the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses?
Many who believe that God’s punishments are temporal and corrective, resulting in the final restoration of all, have enthusiastically recommended it, seeing that it correctly translates olam, aión and aionios as eon and eonian, rather than, everlasting and eternal, as most other translations do. I demonstrate that these words express temporal duration, rather than perpetuity, in my blog, The Duration of Punishment. Other widely accepted literal translations, besides the Concordant Literal Version, also correctly render these time-words, such as Young’s Literal Translation and Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible. While there is no indication that either Young or Rotherham ever believed in the final restoration of all, they were nevertheless faithful to the actual meaning of the text.
Since I prefer using the NKJV hand-in-hand with the Greek and Hebrew text, I never gave close attention to the literal versions. However, knowing that many are unfamiliar with the original languages, I have recommended them to others and often cited from them, including the Concordant Literal Version. However, as time passed, I began to come across more and more renderings in the CLV which were incongruous with the original text. That in turn led me to investigate the background and beliefs of A. E. Knoch and his Concordant Publishing Concern which compiled and published the CLV. As I read his writings to see his justifications for his unique renderings, it became evident to me that his primary motive in making his own translation was in order to have a Bible which would substantiate his own particular doctrinal beliefs, just as the Jehovah Witnesses did with their New World Translation.
Among other things, He denied the Trinity and taught that the Son of God was a created being rather than being co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Being a contemporary of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses, and sharing many beliefs in common with him, they corresponded, but couldn’t agree on the subject of ultimate reconciliation. The Watchtower Society did not yet have their own translation of the Bible and were going to distribute copies of the CLV but later announced in 1921 that they had decided against it, primarily because of the issue of Universal Salvation. [i]
Another major unorthodox belief held by Knoch was that, according to him, God created evil in the beginning, even creating Satan as the Adversary and evil, rather than him having been created perfect and subsequently becoming evil, independently of God. He also taught the hyperdispensational two-gospel doctrine, also known as Bullingerism, since it first originated with E. W. Bullinger (1837 to 1913). I consider the fallacies of the two-gospel doctrine in a series of four blogs, Are there Two Different Gospels in the New Testament?
For a time, Knoch was a leading member of a Plymouth Brethren congregation in Los Angeles California. However, he began to teach his new doctrines which were contrary to those of the Brethren of that congregation. In his zeal, and with his characteristically uncharitable spirit towards those who differ with him evident throughout his writings, he persisted in promoting his contrary doctrines, even after having been removed from his teaching position in the church. This resulted in him eventually being disfellowshipped. [ii]
In this blog, I will briefly point out a few clear examples of the many instances where he intentionally altered the proper rendering of the original text in order to accommodate his own doctrinal bias.
The Alteration of Passages related to the Origin of Evil
Isaiah 45:7
(NKJV) “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace (shalom) and create calamity (ra’) I, the LORD, do (present) all these things.”
(CLV) “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.”
In spite of the fact that shalom never means “good” in all of its 235 occurrences in the Old Testament, Knoch renders shalom as “good” and ra’ as “evil” in order to make it refer to the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” in Eden. However, there are two primary factors which militate against this rendering.
In the first place, in Genesis the word rendered “good” is towb which always means “good” and is elsewhere even distinguished from shalom (Deut 23:6). While I didn’t take the time to look at all 235 instances of shalom, I looked at his rendering of numerous verses and didn’t find any other place where he translated shalom as “good” instead of “peace.” [iii]
Furthermore, it is significant that the translators of the Greek Septuagint, or LXX, (which were the Scriptures Paul and others would have been using among the Greek speaking world of that time), rendered towb in Isaiah 45:7 as εἰρήνη (eirene) which means “peace,” and not καλός (kalos) which means “good.” In similar manner, they rendered the phrase “good and evil” in Genesis 2:9 as του καλού και του κακού, using καλός (good), rather than eirene (peace), as it appears in Isaiah 45:7. These are the same two words used in the New Testament in Hebrews 5:14 for good and evil when the author said that we need to have our senses trained to discern both “good and evil.” Even here, Knoch, in his typical nonconformist manner, translates kalos and kakos as “the ideal and the evil,” adding the definite articles which are absent in the original.
While it is true that God created good – indeed, all that He created was very good, it is not true that He created evil, as Knoch insists. It is a logical impossibility for Him to have created everything very good if indeed evil in any form was a part of His original creation.
However, according to Knoch’s reasoning, creating evil is good as long as the end result is good. In response to those who say that it would have been morally wrong for God to have directly created evil and created Satan as a sinner and the Adversary, he begins by limiting the definition of sin to simply missing the mark. From there he reasons that God would have only been sinning if He had created Satan, sin and evil and missed the mark, failing His objective in creating Satan and evil. Reading his logic, I couldn’t help but think of what the Lord said through Isaiah when He said:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20-21)
Using this type of logic, a bank robber could argue that he didn’t sin because he obtained his objective, successfully robbing the bank. Hitler would have been justified in all his atrocities if only he had achieved his original goal of a global Third Reich. Sin in Scripture is not merely missing the mark, but a moral missing the mark or lawlessness (1Jn 3:4). It is a failure to live according to God’s government.
God did not create evil in any form, be it moral evil or natural evil. In the first place, considering the fact that the contrast in Isaiah 45:7 is between peace (shalom) and ra’, which can mean either moral or natural evil, it is obvious that it is natural evil which is being referred to, or more specifically wartime calamity, since the contrast is not between that which is good or evil, as Knoch tries to argue, but between peace and the absence thereof. In our fallen condition, God brings calamity and hardship in judgment for correction, but God does not create moral evil.
If it were not sufficient that he replaced the word peace for good in order to make God out to be the one who originated evil, he also changes the tense of the verbs in Isaiah 45:7 from present tense to past tense in order to make it refer to the original creation. [iv] Here again, in the Septuagint, over seventy Greek and Hebrew scholars rendered it in the present tense ο ποιών ειρήνην και κτίζων κακόν “I make peace and create evil or bad.” I consider the nature of evil and the sense in which God creates evil in my blog, The What of Evil.
Ezekiel 28:15
(NKJV) “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.”
(CLV) “Perfect are (aorist in LXX “were perfect”) you in your ways, From the day of your being produced (Heb. bara, κτίζω LXX same as Gen 1:1), Till perversity has been found (past perfect) in you.”
In his determination to make Ezekiel out to be exclusively addressing the king of Tyre who was alive at the time of writing, he supplied “are” instead of “were.” The main problem with that is that God continues, saying “from the day you were created till iniquity was found in you.” The personage that God is here addressing was perfect from the moment of his creation, until iniquity was found in him. The Septuagint uses aorist verbs throughout this verse, as does every other translation I consulted. This is a deliberate manipulation of the text, albeit inconsistent. [v]
Knoch also changes “from the day you were created,” to “from the day of your being produced” in an attempt to make it refer to the king of Tyre rather than to Lucifer who was created. However, bara never refers to procreation, but rather to God’s original creation. Again, he is inconsistent, since nowhere else does he translate bara as “produced,” being that it so obviously means “to create.” [vi]
Isaiah 14:12
(NKJV) “How you are fallen from heaven, o Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!”
(CLV) “How you have fallen from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn! You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations!”
Since the Hebrew word helel, rendered Lucifer, only occurs here in Scripture, there is some debate as to its etymology. A very few, in their attempt to deny that Isaiah 14 has any reference to the fall of Satan, argue that the root word for helel is yalal, which means “the howler.” Even if that meaning were the correct one, Knoch is incorrect in converting a substantive into an imperative verb, making it read “howl” instead of “the howler.” However, since it wouldn’t make sense to say, “the howler, son of the dawn,” he takes the liberty to change the noun into a verb.
Nearly all scholars believe that the root word for helel is halal, which can have either a positive or a negative meaning, depending upon the context in which it appears. If it is used in the negative sense, it would read, “how you are fallen from heaven, o arrogant bragger, son of the morning.” However, if it is to be understood in a positive sense, it would read, “how are you fallen from heaven, o shining one, son of the morning.” Lucifer in Latin means “shining one,” and for that reason, many translations retain that name.
That it is used in the positive sense in this passage is evident, considering that it is a dirge or song of lamentation in which God is lamenting Lucifer’s fall. These are not words of reproach or condemnation but rather an expression of sorrow for one who was once His shining one, the son of the morning, only to afterwards fall because of pride and selfish ambition. I haven’t been able to find even one translation of the Bible which understands helel negatively as “arrogant bragger,” much less seeing it as related to yalal, and going even farther, taking the liberty to change the noun, “the howler,” into an imperative verb!
It is significant that the Greek Septuagint rendered helel as phosphoros, (ὁ ἑωσφόρος), which means “the shining one,” or in Latin, Lucifer. To me, it is much more likely that the 72 Greek speaking Hebrew scholars who reverently compiled the Septuagint in the 3rd century B.C., had a better idea of what helel meant than a single individual in the 20th century determined to demonstrate that God created evil.
The Alteration of Passages Affirming the Deity of Christ
John 1:1-10
(NKJV) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.”
NKJV
(CLV) “In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. 2 This (autos, ‘He’) was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it (αυτου, ‘Him’), and apart from it (αυτου, ‘Him’) not even one thing came into being which has come into being. 4 In it (αυτω ‘Him’) was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. 6 There came to be a man, commissioned by God. His name was John. 7 This one came for a testimony, that he should be testifying concerning the light, that all should be believing through it (αυτου, ‘Him’). 8 Not he was the light, but he came that he should be testifying concerning the light. 9 It was the true light (ην το φως το αληθινον, ‘He was the true light’) - which is enlightening every man - coming into the world. 10 In the world He was (εν τω κοσμω ην, ‘in the world He was’), and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him (αυτον, ‘Him’) not.”
Any sect denying the deity of Christ must somehow alter the wording of John 1. The Jehovah Witnesses have verse 1 say that the Word was “a god,” and instead of saying, “in Him was life” in verse 4, they make it read, “by means of him was life.” I won’t take the time to point out the fallacies of these renderings, but any first-year Greek student could easily point them out.
Knoch uses a different and more radical approach, turning the alteration of the text up a notch. First, he renders the masculine personal pronouns referring to the Word as “it” instead of “He” or “Him,” until he gets to verse 10, where he then correctly renders the masculine pronoun as “Him.” I have noticed that he often is not even consistent in his mistranslations. [vii]
He then translates the connective preposition pros in verse 1 as “toward” instead of “with.” He argues that the idea expressed by pros here is not the nearness of the Word to God, but rather the function of directing others towards God. However, in verse 2, it says that in the beginning, before anything had been created, He was with (pros) God. In what sense could the Word be said to have directed others towards God in eternity before there was anyone for the Word to direct towards Him?
Whenever pros is used to speak of nearness or association between persons, it always means “with.” Knoch himself follows this rule in every other instance, except when it would imply Christ’s deity. The following are examples from the CLV, showing his inconsistency in rendering pros here in John 1:1 as toward instead of with: “And I came to be with (pros) you in weakness” (1 Cor 2:3); “I am expecting to stay some time with (pros) you” (1 Cor 16:7); he should be with (pros) you fearlessly” (1 Cor 16:10); “And, being present with (pros) you and in want” (2 Cor 11:9); “I stay (aorist, ‘stayed’) with (pros) him fifteen days” (Gal 1:18); “not only in my presence with (pros) you” (Gal 4:18); “Yet I wanted to be present with (pros) you just now” (Gal 4:20) and, “Do you not remember that, still being with (pros) you” (2 Thess 2:5).
The only other place where he switches back to rendering pros as “toward” instead of “with” in the context of relationships is 1 John 1:2, which again speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father. He makes it read, “the life eonian which was toward the Father.” Even the Jehovah Witnesses translate it correctly as “with the Father.”
Knoch also inverts the word order in the third and final clause of John 1:1, making it read “and God was the word,” instead of “the Word was God.” It is understandable how someone without any real knowledge of Greek syntax could commit this error, since that is the actual word order in the phrase (και θεος ην ο λογος). However, Greek syntax is not according to word order, but according to the form of each word. In this instance, θεος (God) is the predicate nominative and ο λογος is the subject.
In my Greek studies in the 1970s one of the courses I found very helpful was a course in sentence diagramming based upon John chapter 1. Sentence diagramming enables the student to properly arrange the Greek words in grammatical order for English readers. The third phrase in John 1:1 is diagrammed in the following manner:
This is only logical, since all three phrases are telling us who the Word is, not who God is. John is saying 1) “the Word was in the beginning,” 2) “the Word was with God,” and 3) the Word was God.” Also, if John had said, “God was the Word,” he would have contradicted his previous statement which made a hypostatic distinction, saying that the Word was “with” God. If God were the subject rather than the predicate, Theos would have needed the article (ὁ θεός) in order to avoid making θεός (God), ambiguous.
This passage clearly teaches the eternality of the Word, since in the beginning of creation the Word already was (ην). If “was” had been in the aorist form, it would have meant “came to be.” However, it is in the imperfect which means “was continually existing.” Those who deny the eternality of the Word would say that he was created prior to this creation. However, it is said of the Son of God that Melchizedek was a type of Him in that he had “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7:1-3). The Son of God is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, verses 2 and 3 continue saying, “He was (ην) in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” That makes the Word the eternal uncreated Creator of all things.
Additionally, εν αρχη (in beginning) is anarthrous. In Greek there is no indefinite article. In the absence of an article, it doesn’t necessarily make it indefinite but rather emphasizes quality or characteristics. Taken together, εν αρχη ην ο λογος (In beginning was the Word) is saying, “In anything having the quality of a beginning the Word was existing.” I demonstrate the eternality of the Son in more detail from Scripture in my blog, Jesus Christ – the Eternal I AM. Also, I demonstrate that Jesus was Yahweh of the Old Testament in my blogs, Jesus is the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament, and The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
I can find no scholarly justification for Knoch’s apparently deliberate alteration of the text of John 1 in his attempt to diminish and depersonalize the eternal Son of God. There are numerous passages affirming the full deity of Christ which he likewise alters, but space here won’t allow for more examples.
The Alteration of Passages affirming the Trinity
John 16:13-15
(NKJV) “However, when He (ἐκεῖνος masc.), the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.”
(CLV) “Yet whenever that (ἐκεῖνος masc. ‘He’) may be coming - the spirit of truth -it (ἐκεῖνος masc.‘He’) will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself (ἑαυτού, masc. ‘Himself’) but whatsoever it (He) should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it (He) be informing you. 14 That (He) will be glorifying Me, seeing that of Mine will it (He) be getting, and informing you."
15 All, whatever the Father has, is Mine. Therefore I said to you that of Mine is it (He) getting, and will be informing you.”
In his attempt to depersonalize the Holy Spirit, Knoch renders all of the masculine personal pronouns in this passage, translating them all as if they were neuter. Not even the Jehovah Witness’ New World Translation takes such liberties. Even they must have realized that all the activities which are here attributed to the Holy Spirit are only applicable to a person. Apart from computers that are programmed by a person, an “it” cannot guide, and it cannot speak. These are not the only attributes the Holy Spirit possesses which only apply to a person. The Holy Spirit has emotions and therefore can be grieved (Eph 4:30). We can enjoy communion with Him (2Cor 13:14). He jealously yearns for us (James 4:5). Because He has intellect, He can teach, speak, convince us and remind us. We can lie to Him, something one can only do to another person (Acts 5:3-4).
Once we see that the Son of God, the eternal Word, is a distinct person who is eternally with God and yet also God; and once we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit (also called God in Acts 5:3-4) is also a person whom the Father sent to glorify the Son, the many passages alluding to God as Triune make the doctrine of the Trinity an undeniable conclusion. That is why the Early Fathers affirmed the Triune nature of God well before the Nicene creed.
There are many more passages which Knoch altered in order to deny the Trinity, but space here will not allow me to give more examples. All considered, I can no longer in good conscience recommend the CLV, in spite of some of its good points. If one decides to use it anyway it should be used along-side of other more scholarly translations, or better yet, comparing it with the texts in their original languages. For a more extensive defense of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, I recommend reading my blogs, The Triunity of God, and The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Trinity.
[i] https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-watchtower-and-universalism-almont.html
[ii] https://agatheringinchrist.com/articles/ae-knoch-errors-in-doctrine.html
[iii] A representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern informed me that there is a footnote in the CLV indicating that “good” was selected because that was how it reads in the 1QIsaa, which is the most complete of the 20 copies of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves. I do not possess a version of the CLV with footnotes, so I was unaware of their justification for this rendering. However, it is highly unlikely that the original text would have read “good” instead of “peace” since the LXX, which was translated by Greek speaking Hebrew scholars during the same time period as the 1QIsaa, rendered it as “peace,” just as we find in the Masoretic text.
[iv] I was encouraged when their representative informed me that the updated CLV corrected this error, translating it in the present tense, “make,” instead of “made.” Unfortunately, my copy of the CLV, as well as all those I found on the internet, still read “made,” giving the impression that God created evil in the beginning.
[v] According to the representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern, the updated CVOT corrected this as well, changing it from the present, “Perfect are you,” to a past tense paraphrase, “You walked flawless.”
[vi] I was informed that the updated CLV has been corrected to read, “day of your creation,” instead of “day of your being produced.”
[vii] The representative of the CLV here correctly pointed out that feminine and masculine nouns often refer to something inanimate, and in such cases should be rendered “it.” Conversely, we even see that neuter nouns, when clearly referring to a person, should be rendered as “he,” such as “the Lamb of God,” or “the Holy Spirit,” both of which are masculine, even though they are neuter nouns. However, here in John 1, the context clearly indicates that the Word is a person who was with God in the beginning. Furthermore, Knoch is inconsistent when he changes the masculine pronoun for “Word” from “it,” correctly rendering it as “Him,” beginning in verse 10
This passage clearly teaches the eternality of the Word, since in the beginning of creation the Word already was (ην). If “was” had been in the aorist form, it would have meant “came to be.” However, it is in the imperfect which means “was continually existing.” Those who deny the eternality of the Word would say that he was created prior to this creation. However, it is said of the Son of God that Melchizedek was a type of Him in that he had “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7:1-3). The Son of God is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, verses 2 and 3 continue saying, “He was (ην) in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” That makes the Word the eternal uncreated Creator of all things.
Additionally, εν αρχη (in beginning) is anarthrous. In Greek there is no indefinite article. In the absence of an article, it doesn’t necessarily make it indefinite but rather emphasizes quality or characteristics. Taken together, εν αρχη ην ο λογος (In beginning was the Word) is saying, “In anything having the quality of a beginning the Word was existing.” I demonstrate the eternality of the Son in more detail from Scripture in my blog, Jesus Christ – the Eternal I AM. Also, I demonstrate that Jesus was Yahweh of the Old Testament in my blogs, Jesus is the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament, and The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
I can find no scholarly justification for Knoch’s apparently deliberate alteration of the text of John 1 in his attempt to diminish and depersonalize the eternal Son of God. There are numerous passages affirming the full deity of Christ which he likewise alters, but space here won’t allow for more examples.
The Alteration of Passages affirming the Trinity
John 16:13-15
(NKJV) “However, when He (ἐκεῖνος masc.), the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.”
(CLV) “Yet whenever that (ἐκεῖνος masc. ‘He’) may be coming - the spirit of truth -it (ἐκεῖνος masc.‘He’) will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself (ἑαυτού, masc. ‘Himself’) but whatsoever it (He) should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it (He) be informing you. 14 That (He) will be glorifying Me, seeing that of Mine will it (He) be getting, and informing you."
15 All, whatever the Father has, is Mine. Therefore I said to you that of Mine is it (He) getting, and will be informing you.”
In his attempt to depersonalize the Holy Spirit, Knoch renders all of the masculine personal pronouns in this passage, translating them all as if they were neuter. Not even the Jehovah Witness’ New World Translation takes such liberties. Even they must have realized that all the activities which are here attributed to the Holy Spirit are only applicable to a person. Apart from computers that are programmed by a person, an “it” cannot guide, and it cannot speak. These are not the only attributes the Holy Spirit possesses which only apply to a person. The Holy Spirit has emotions and therefore can be grieved (Eph 4:30). We can enjoy communion with Him (2Cor 13:14). He jealously yearns for us (James 4:5). Because He has intellect, He can teach, speak, convince us and remind us. We can lie to Him, something one can only do to another person (Acts 5:3-4).
Once we see that the Son of God, the eternal Word, is a distinct person who is eternally with God and yet also God; and once we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit (also called God in Acts 5:3-4) is also a person whom the Father sent to glorify the Son, the many passages alluding to God as Triune make the doctrine of the Trinity an undeniable conclusion. That is why the Early Fathers affirmed the Triune nature of God well before the Nicene creed.
There are many more passages which Knoch altered in order to deny the Trinity, but space here will not allow me to give more examples. All considered, I can no longer in good conscience recommend the CLV, in spite of some of its good points. If one decides to use it anyway it should be used along-side of other more scholarly translations, or better yet, comparing it with the texts in their original languages. For a more extensive defense of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, I recommend reading my blogs, The Triunity of God, and The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Trinity.
[i] https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-watchtower-and-universalism-almont.html
[ii] https://agatheringinchrist.com/articles/ae-knoch-errors-in-doctrine.html
[iii] A representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern informed me that there is a footnote in the CLV indicating that “good” was selected because that was how it reads in the 1QIsaa, which is the most complete of the 20 copies of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves. I do not possess a version of the CLV with footnotes, so I was unaware of their justification for this rendering. However, it is highly unlikely that the original text would have read “good” instead of “peace” since the LXX, which was translated by Greek speaking Hebrew scholars during the same time period as the 1QIsaa, rendered it as “peace,” just as we find in the Masoretic text.
[iv] I was encouraged when their representative informed me that the updated CLV corrected this error, translating it in the present tense, “make,” instead of “made.” Unfortunately, my copy of the CLV, as well as all those I found on the internet, still read “made,” giving the impression that God created evil in the beginning.
[v] According to the representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern, the updated CVOT corrected this as well, changing it from the present, “Perfect are you,” to a past tense paraphrase, “You walked flawless.”
[vi] I was informed that the updated CLV has been corrected to read, “day of your creation,” instead of “day of your being produced.”
[vii] The representative of the CLV here correctly pointed out that feminine and masculine nouns often refer to something inanimate, and in such cases should be rendered “it.” Conversely, we even see that neuter nouns, when clearly referring to a person, should be rendered as “he,” such as “the Lamb of God,” or “the Holy Spirit,” both of which are masculine, even though they are neuter nouns. However, here in John 1, the context clearly indicates that the Word is a person who was with God in the beginning. Furthermore, Knoch is inconsistent when he changes the masculine pronoun for “Word” from “it,” correctly rendering it as “Him,” beginning in verse 10