John 1:1

John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.

Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.

Look at the difference between these two sentences.

1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.

Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.

In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.

So it literally says:

John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.

Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.

So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.

In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.

Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:

So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.

In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?

To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE man

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:

a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.

See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.

In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.

Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adam

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adam

Notice that the second example is still the correct one.

To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).

So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.

The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.

Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.

One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.

Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion

This topic has 26,009 replies, 117 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 3 hours ago by DesireTruth.

Viewing 20 posts - 22,381 through 22,400 (of 26,009 total)

←1 2 3…1,1191,1201,121…1,299 1,300 1,301 →

Author
Posts
June 1, 2021 at 7:26 am#871095
Lightenup
Participant
Mike,
For another:
You said: As Kathi will attest, I’ve been arguing for years that those who want Jesus to be the very God he is the Son of do so because they have a personal desire to place Jesus in a higher position than he placed himself.
You have been arguing this but nobody here has been claiming this.
June 1, 2021 at 7:27 am#871096
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: Regarding this passage, think of the “companions” as the other Davidic kings…
It is speaking of the Son in His Messianic role, according to thee flesh.
At what point was Jesus ever lesser than the other Davidic kings so that he had to have God place him higher than them? Besides, since there nothing in the scripture that clearly supports your idea, we’re left with a scripture saying that somebody’s own God placed that somebody higher than other persons – which means he wasn’t higher than them before the placement. Now, can that be said in any circumstance about God Himself? Nope.

LU: The “companions” are not the angels. The bulk of the chapter is showing His superiority to the angels, the Son was never one of the angels.
See my last post to Berean. The Son is indeed, by very definition, an angel of his and our God, Jehovah. Btw, verse 4 says he BECAME better than the [other] angels to the extent that the name his and our God gave him was better than theirs. Did God ever BECOME better than the angels?
LU: The Son actually created the angels in the beginning, way before He became flesh and after He became flesh He was given sole authority over the angels.
No… his and our God created all of the angels – including Jesus as the first-created one of them. Also, your claim above means that there was a time when the one who created the angels (Jesus) didn’t have sole authority over them – and so after he became flesh somebody else had to GIVE him that authority over the angels that he himself created. Now does that really make sense to you?
June 1, 2021 at 7:30 am#871097
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: If you put a ball under a ceiling light, the light is above the whole ball.
But the light isn’t above any people living upside-down on the bottom of that ball, right?
June 1, 2021 at 7:34 am#871098
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: You have been arguing this but nobody here has been claiming this.
If by that you mean that none of you have explicitly said, “Mike, you’re right that I purposely twist scriptures because of my personal desire to place Jesus higher than what he himself taught us about himself”, then you’re right.
But neither has Gene or Jodi ever said, “Mike, you’re right that I purposely twist all the scriptures that teach about the preexistence of Jesus because of my personal desire to have Jesus be no more or no less than I am – which makes me feel empowered to accomplish the things he did.”
😉
June 1, 2021 at 7:39 am#871099
Lightenup
Participant
Mike,
You asked:
But the light isn’t above any people living upside-down on the bottom of that ball, right?
The light is above the whole ball.
Another example, If I stick pins straight into a globe in every nation, and put the globe under a tabletop, the tabletop is above the globe and all its pins at the same time, the floor is not above the globe and all its pins or even any of its pins. The table is above the whole globe.
June 1, 2021 at 7:42 am#871100
Lightenup
Participant
Mike,
The Father and the Son are one, does not mean one person. Nobody argues this unless they are modalists which I don’t believe anyone here is.
June 1, 2021 at 7:46 am#871101
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: From your favorite translation, the NET Bible.
Now if only there was such a thing as a “genitive of subordination” in the Greek language. But there’s not. It’s simply the genitive form of “every” and the genitive form of “creature”, ie: of every creature.
The Greek words could say, “I’m the boss OF you”, and you could say that, based on the context, it’s a “genitive of subordination”, meaning I’m the boss OVER you. But there is no special mark in the Greek text to say that. And in Col 1:15, there is nothing whatsoever in the context to imply that it means anything other than Jesus was the first creature every created. That is it’s most logical and natural meaning, and it’s only those personal desires I mentioned before that cause you (and the NET scholars) to reject that most natural meaning.
So you see, the NET scholars don’t have to explicitly state those desires. You can see them through their actions – like presenting a personal desire as if it’s some actual Greek language rule or something. Likewise, your actions over the past 15 years speak volumes about your personal desires.
June 1, 2021 at 7:51 am#871102
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: The light is above the whole ball.
Another example, If I stick pins straight into a globe in every nation, and put the globe under a tabletop, the tabletop is above the globe and all its pins at the same time, the floor is not above the globe and all its pins or even any of its pins. The table is above the whole globe.
Ah, but the floor IS above the people who are living upside-down on the bottom of the ball. When they look UP – they see the floor ABOVE them. They don’t look down at the grass and say, “Hey, there’s God sitting above us.”

June 1, 2021 at 7:52 am#871103
carmel
Participant
Hi Gadam,
YOU: It may be about the virtue of wisdom only, or
it may be about the virtue of wisdom and Jesus. But the context will not allow this text to be about Jesus alone.
Yes, Gadam,
Ezekiel 28:12 And say to him: Thus saith the Lord God:
Thou wast the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
The above scripture is directed to Lucifer, the light bearer! FULL OF WISDOM, IN
“THE WORD” JESUS, THE SON OF MAN TO BE, HIDDEN IN LUCIFER.
When God created Lucifer, THE BEGINNING, the first-ever creature of light, He engrafted
“THE WORD” Jesus, the Son of Man to be, THE BEGINNING OF ALL BEGINNINGS, in his heart, eternal life!
John1:1 IN THE BEGINNING WAS “THE WORD” ……
To be more precise A CREATURE WITH ONE HEART SHARED BETWEEN GOD IN “THE WORD” JESUS, AND LUCIFER, TWO ENTITIES IN ONE EMBODIMENT OF LIGHT. MALE AND FEMALE, in the same way, WE HUMANS ARE A SOUL AND A FLESH!
Lucifer visible and Jesus invisible, one the physical light and one the spiritual light, respectively, both WISDOM, both THE MORNING STAR.
THE PRIMORDIAL LIGHT. Manifested by Jesus on Mount Tabor.
The fact that both Jesus and Lucifer are, angels, morning stars, brothers, and sons of God. Lucifer created by God through Jesus who was emanated from God on God’s first-ever words LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Scrptures:
Song of Solomon 8:1
1Who shall give thee to me for my brother, SUCKING the breasts of my mother, that I may find thee without, and kiss thee, and now no man may despise me? 2I will take hold of thee, and bring thee Into my mother’s house: there thou shalt teach me, and I will give thee a cup of spiced wine and new wine of my pomegranates.
Ezekiel 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut 3For the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to EAT BREAD before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.
Galatians 4:14 You despised not, nor rejected:
but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
Lucifer believed in his autonomy and never accepted God’s plan of the kingdom of the Son, and TO BE SUBJECT TO A MAN, THOUGH DIVINE, APART ALSO SUBJECT TO A WOMAN, HIS MOTHER! Thus He rebelled and opted to be the female entity in the human process of the world. TO BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH.
THE MALE ENTITY IN THE HUMAN PROCESS OF THE WORLD.
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
June 1, 2021 at 8:01 am#871104
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: Mike,
The Father and the Son are one, does not mean one person. Nobody argues this unless they are modalists which I don’t believe anyone here is.
Kathi, you believe in two completely different Gods. You just don’t know how to align two Most High Gods with the scriptures, and so you invent stuff like “the complete YHVH” or whatever to merge your pantheon into a single Hebrew God/Creator. And from the inside of the fantasy, it’s clear that you are unable to see how ridiculous you make yourself sound.
For example, I’m still waiting for why Wisdom/Jesus would tell us about all the things someone he referred to as “HE” created. Why would “YHVH the Son”, who is THE (singular) CREATOR (singular) tell us that someone else (YHVH the Combo – which includes Jesus) was the CREATOR (singular) that made all those things in Proverbs 8? And why would YHVH the Son refer to YHVH the Combo as a “he” instead of a “we”?
You have never been able to make your pronouns match your doctrine – and it often leads you down a road of pure and utter nonsense. Tater has called you out on this for years, and you have never been able to explain it.
In your mind, we have ONE Creator, right? And that one Creator consists of two different Gods/persons, right? Yet you never say things like “THEY created this or that”, right? (Don’t you wonder why scripture never speaks of our Creators, or says “THEY created this or that” either?)
So who created? There is one Creator. And this Creator is identified all throughout scripture by the pronoun “HE”. Who is it? Who is it that Jesus was calling “HE” in Proverbs 8?
June 1, 2021 at 8:41 am#871106
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: Mike,
Proverbs 8 does not mention the word “God” but instead “YHVH.” Wisdom is “possessed” by YHVH, meaning YHVH had wisdom there before His first work. Therefore, wisdom couldn’t be His first work if He existed before His first work. Wisdom was and is a member of YHVH, the Unity, and it was through that member that The YHVH Unity created all things. That member delighted in the creation of YHVH which He was a member of.
Also, in the NT, when you see the word “Lord” you should be careful to distinguish that word from Lord and LORD in meaning. For instance, the sovereign “Lord” who created the heavens and the earth through the Son, would be YHVH or LORD. As Prov 8 tells us, Wisdom was the craftsman for YHVH as a possession of YHVH or member of YHVH.
It is up to the context to help you see if YHVH is who is meant by the term “Lord.”. Heb 1:10 is a perfect example of that where an OT passage is quoted which is about YHVH, and the Father identifies the Son as that YHVH.
I do hope that helps, LU
You hope that helps??? It’s pure nonsense. This is exactly what I was just talking about. From the inside, you can’t even see how utterly ridiculous your post above even is.
LU: Proverbs 8 does not mention the word “God” but instead “YHVH.” Wisdom is “possessed” by YHVH, meaning YHVH had wisdom there before His first work. Therefore, wisdom couldn’t be His first work if He existed before His first work.
Just so you know, Proverbs 8:22 says, “Jehovah possessed/created me as the first of his works…” So it’s not the passive “wisdom is possessed by YHVH before His first work” as you post above. The first work of YHVH was to possess/create wisdom/Jesus. So either God had no wisdom in the beginning, and performed his very first act by possessing/acquiring/creating it – or God had no Jesus in the beginning, and performed his very first act by possessing/acquiring/creating Jesus.
Understand? The very first act of God was to actively (as in take action to) possess or create Jesus. If Jesus was already there, why didn’t God already possess him? And if Jesus was not a possession of God at the time, why would God spend his first act enslaving Jesus by possessing him? You see? It’s nonsense.
On the other hand, if Jesus didn’t already exist, and God CREATED him as the first of God’s works, then everything falls into place. Why is Jesus God’s firstborn son? Because he’s the first son that God produced… by creating him as the first of His works! Why is Jesus the firstborn of every creature? Because he was the first creature God ever created as the first of His works! Why is Jesus the beginning of the creation by God? Because Jesus was created as the FIRST of God’s works!
See how everything just falls into place? Do you also see that the ONLY thing keeping it from falling into place for you is your personal desire for Jesus to NOT be a creation of God? And as an added bonus, when we properly translate “quana” as “create” in Prov 8:22, it also aligns with the following verses that speak of how Jesus was “born” before God did X, and was “given birth” before God did Y. Can you really not see how all of these scriptures tie together to teach us that Jesus was God’s first creation, and then God created all the other things through His firstborn Son?
LU: Therefore, wisdom couldn’t be His first work if He existed before His first work.
And now you’re making the same mistake Berean’s author did. You’re saying that X can’t be because of Y – when Y is completely unscriptural in the first place! If you’d drop the unscriptural Y – then X most certainly could be, right? There is no scripture in the Bible that tells us Jesus has always existed. In fact, we can also add Micah 5:2 to the ones I put together for you above, and we have yet another scripture speaking about how Jesus didn’t always exist – but instead his ORIGIN was from days of old, ancient times. Which makes it yet another scripture that perfectly aligns with the fact that God created Jesus as the first of His works!
Btw, who are you referring to with the pronouns “his” and “he” above? Is YHVH a “he”? Or a “they”?
LU: Wisdom was and is a member of YHVH, the Unity, and it was through that member that The YHVH Unity created all things.
Why did Wisdom, as a member of the YHVH Unity, refer to the one who created as “he” in Prov 8?
June 1, 2021 at 8:51 am#871107
Proclaimer
Participant
LU: Therefore, wisdom couldn’t be His first work if He existed before His first work.
I’ve said this many times. If Trinitarians could rightly distinguish between an attribute and a person, then they wouldn’t be confused and consequently wouldn’t need to invent doctrines like the Trinity to explain this confusion
Of course this would be applicable to Binitarians, Quadtarians, and Quintarians etc too. Maybe even Zerotarians
June 1, 2021 at 8:55 am#871108
Lightenup
Participant
Mike,
See the word “before.”
June 1, 2021 at 8:58 am#871109
mikeboll64
Blocked
gadam: I think you are struck with one aspect of this nature of Jesus where you repeatedly quote Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15. I agree there is ambiguity of these verses…
No there isn’t. See my last post to LU above. They all align perfectly when translated correctly – as opposed to purposely mistranslating them because of personal desires for Jesus to be something he never claimed to be.
gadam: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument hinges on the meaning of the verb qanah, which they translate as produced, or created. There are two reasons to reject the NWT’s rendering. First, most Bible scholars, think that possess is the best translation of the original language. Therefore, Solomon is saying that Jehovah possessed wisdom, not that He created it. If Jehovah didn’t create wisdom, then their argument that Jesus was created disappears.
This argument fails for the same two reasons it failed when Kathi made it.
1. If we translate as “possessed”, then it still means God didn’t originally possess wisdom, because the ACTION of possessing it was the first of his works. You do not take ACTION to possess something that you already have.
2. It obviously means “create”, since the next verses reiterate that same meaning by saying wisdom was “born” and was “given birth”.
So it appears that your author’s argument – not the JW’s – is the one that just disappeared.
June 1, 2021 at 9:41 am#871110
mikeboll64
Blocked
LU: See the word “before.”
The word is a verb, meaning an action. The meaning of the Hebrew you quoted is that God took action A before He took those other actions of ancient times (ie: the ones we all already know about, like creating the heavens and the earth, etc.) So whether “possessed” or “created”, God took action to do that thing before He did the other things. That’s all the word “before” is saying.
From NET Notes…
There are two roots קָנָה (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning “to possess,” and the other meaning “to create.”
Even the meaning “to possess” means to take action to acquire something.
The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of “to acquire”; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning “create.”
See? If you refuse the “created” root, then you are still stuck with the ACTION of acquiring something that you didn’t have before. So it still means God performed Action A before He performed Action B, C, D, etc. So why isn’t 8:22 translated as “YHVH acquired me as the first of his works…”? Again, personal desires come into play…
The older versions have the translation “possess” because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal.
So they changed a word that is the action of acquiring or creating something to a meaning of “I already possess that thing” because of the way it might sound.
Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create”…
So you see why I like the NET scholars so much? They don’t want Jesus to have been created any more than you do. And they fully understand why the other translations use “I already possess it” as opposed to “I acted to acquire or create it as the first of my works”. But then they point out the obvious parallels in the following verses – which pretty much INSIST upon a meaning of “create” in verse 22.
Kathi, why did Jesus, as a member of the YHVH Unity, refer to the one who created as “he” in Prov 8?
June 1, 2021 at 10:27 am#871111
Proclaimer
Participant
“For us, there is one God the Father…”.
For everyone else, there is a long list of gods from Babylon to choose from.
June 1, 2021 at 4:18 pm#871187
gadam123
Participant
Hi Mike,
This argument fails for the same two reasons it failed when Kathi made it.
If we translate as “possessed”, then it still means God didn’t originally possess wisdom, because the ACTION of possessing it was the first of his works. You do not take ACTION to possess something that you already have.
It obviously means “create”, since the next verses reiterate that same meaning by saying wisdom was “born” and was “given birth”.
So it appears that your author’s argument – not the JW’s – is the one that just disappeared.
Again you are struck at this passage in Prov 8. Hebrew religion never imagines the way you are doing here. There was and is no Godly being with one and only God Yahweh in the Hebrew religion. You want to make Jesus another godly being created first by God. I don’t want to buy your strange ideas. Provers is a poetic book and there is much anthropomorphism in this book every where. You can not simply twist the verses to suit your ideas. You are not seeing others views here because you want to prove your dogma.
All the anthropomorphism and poetic license of Proverbs 8 aside, Wisdom is an abstract concept, with no actual boundaries or limitations except what we create for it in our minds. The more we attempt to define it with words, to settle on a ‘proper’ or ‘correct’ translation of this text, the more we limit our understanding of it and its potential in our life. A bit like the collapsed potentiality of observed matter…
To say that wisdom was ‘possessed’ by God helps to form an understanding of what wisdom is, but to then say that the words ‘created’ or ‘made’ are therefore the wrong translation unnecessarily limits our potential to fully understand the origin or nature of wisdom. Likewise, to attribute a value or measurement such as ‘first’ to the creation of wisdom in relation to the rest of creation is a pointless attempt to reduce the beginning of the universe to an ordered sequence of events. What if someone could prove somehow that wisdom was created first? Does this increase our understanding or knowledge of wisdom, or does it simply enable us to make judgements against everything else in comparison?
Wisdom is a fundamental part of what God is. All translation attempts of this single quote collectively paint a more accurate picture of wisdom’s origin, and in turn a more accurate understanding of God. Is it necessary then, to judge which specific words would best sum up our understanding, or to engage in a futile discussion about ‘which of them would be the greatest’? Does understanding even require words, or is our use of words simply to prove our wisdom to others?
Wisdom can be understood as the acquisition of knowledge and understanding in life, gained first hand through life experiences, and second hand through learning and education. It encompasses all the knowledge and understanding we both have as well as seek about the past, present and future.
- “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. 24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water; 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, 26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. 30 Then I was constantly[e] at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, 31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind. (Prov 8:22-30)
When the universe was in its infancy (regardless of how it may have been formed), the author suggests here that wisdom was ‘witness’ to the experiences of the universe coming into being. The point being made here is that wisdom began or emerged with subjective experience itself – including not just the experience of humanity, or even of ‘life’ as we currently understand it, but the experience of all matter from the beginning. And it is this full knowledge and understanding of the universe which we are invited to seek:
- I raise my voice to all mankind. 5 You who are simple, gain prudence; you who are foolish, instruct your minds. (Proverbs 8:4-5)
The call of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is to continue to seek and share knowledge and understanding of the past, present and future through our collective experiences and our connection to each other. Even now we are ‘simple’, we are ‘foolish’ – the wisest among us cannot individually acquire all available wisdom in one lifetime. But so many of us can’t even manage to see what is right in front of us, because we judge one word better than another, and then we close our minds (and the minds of those we teach) to other possibilities.
Humanity can only attain access to true wisdom collectively – not as individuals, as a chosen people or even as a religious group, but as ‘all mankind’ – interacting with all life and all matter: past, present and future.
This starts with an open mind and an open heart – recognising that in attempting to relate our experiences to others we unwittingly define, measure and limit both our understanding and theirs; and recognising that just because one description is judged by someone to fit best, it doesn’t render all other possibilities false.
Hope this will answer your posts above.
June 1, 2021 at 7:00 pm#871189
gadam123
Participant
The great Christian controversy behind Jesus’ origins is Prov 8:22-30;
a. The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way: God used wisdom and intelligence in the design of the universe. If we represent wisdom as a person, then it can be said that wisdom was with God in creation. In the beginning, before there was ever an earth, God used wisdom in making something out of nothing.
i. A phrase from Proverbs 8:22 (The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way) became a key support for the teaching of an influential heretic in the early church. Arius of Alexandria spoke for and promoted the idea that Jesus Christ was not God (much in the way modern Jehovah’s Witnesses believe). Arius used this verse from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which puts the phrase like this: The Lord created me at the beginning of His way. Arius argued that Jesus is the wisdom of God, and this verse spoke of His creation. If Jesus was created, then He had a beginning and was not eternal, and if not eternal, then not God.
ii. The errors of Arius were many. On this particular passage, he exaggerated the way that wisdom in Proverbs 8 is Jesus Christ. It is wonderfully true that Jesus is the wisdom of God, especially in His work on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:20-24), and that Jesus became for us wisdom from God (1 Corinthians 1:30), and in Jesus are hidden all the treasures of wisdom (Colossians 2:3). Yet it is a mistake to say that Proverbs 8 describes Jesus in a sort of direct correlation. Because Jesus is God, He has and expresses and demonstrates the wisdom of God; but the woman of Proverbs 8 does not directly describe Jesus.
iii. A second – and perhaps more fundamental error – of Arius on this passage was to translate the Hebrew word qanah as created or birthed instead of possessed. While there is some case to be made for the idea of created or birthed, on balance the best translation is possessed. We could say, “Proverbs 8 doesn’t directly speak of Jesus in the sense Arius meant, and if even if it did, Proverbs 8:22 doesn’t say that God the Father created or birthed the Son of God.”
iv. “The verb qanah can mean either ‘possess’ or ‘create.’ The older versions chose ‘possess’; otherwise it might sound as if God lacked wisdom and so created it before the world began. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the meaning of wisdom and chose ‘create’ as the verb. Athanasius read ‘constituted me as the head of creation.’ The verb qanah occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the idea of acquire; but the Septuagint and Syriac have the idea of ‘create.’” (Ross)
v. “The Arians (who denied the deity of Christ) appealed to Septuagint’s ‘created’, to prove that Christ, the Wisdom of God, was not eternal. But our concern must be with the word’s normal meaning, and with the general sense of the passage.” (Kidner)
b. Before the mountains were settled: With poetic beauty, Solomon considered many different aspects of creation and how God used wisdom to design and arrange them all. Wisdom could say, I was beside Him as a master craftsman.
i. The antiquity of wisdom has a real and practical application. If the whole created order is founded on God’s wisdom, then to go against His wisdom is to go against all creation. “When we belong to Jesus Christ and walk in His wisdom, all of creation works for us; if we rebel against His wisdom and will, things start to work against us, as Jonah discovered when he tried to run away from the Lord.” (Wiersbe)
ii. He assigned to the sea its limit: “Wisdom has in mind that the Creator established unalterable laws or ordinances that set the boundaries for the earth that the hostile sea cannot transgress (see Job 38:8-11). The chaotic energy of the sea operates within strict limits.” (Waltke)
c. Rejoicing in His inhabited world: The created world is so marked by God’s wise and good design and arrangement that wisdom rejoiced in it. Especially, wisdom was happy with God’s creation of man (my delight was with the sons of men). We sometimes think that the creation of man was a problem with the design and creation of the world; in a sense, man was the purpose of creation.
June 1, 2021 at 7:44 pm#871190
gadam123
Participant
Lady wisdom in Proverbs 1-9
Proverbs 8:1-36
In this ‘character sketch of wisdom’ (Brown 1996:loc. 412) wisdom is depicted as a person in Proverbs31 1:20-33, 8:1-36,32 and 9:1-6. In the ‘Wisdom speech’ (Murphy 1998:49) in 8:1-36 an encomium is found of wisdom ‘in terms of its paramount status, evidenced by the ordering of the world, all of which functions as a strong incentive to acquire wisdom’ (Loader 2014:367). Although this ‘extended exordium’ (Fox 2008:292) focuses on personified wisdom,33 it is mainly an instructive strategy to present ‘fundamental sapiential instruction by means of credible substantiation’ (Loader 2014:367).34 It is a ‘mythological way to teach the wisdom of Proverbs’ (Goff 2003:43). The way wisdom is depicted in this pedagogical teaching, however, ‘conveys an unusual conception of wisdom and makes powerful claims for this entity’ (Fox 2008:292).
Fox (2008:292) calls 8: 1-36 ‘Interlude35 D’. He divides this ‘neatly structured’ (Fox 2008:292) poem into three sections36: an introduction in 8:1-3, wisdom’s address in 8:4-31 (further subdivided into 4-11, 12-21, and 22-31); and the conclusion of the oratory in 8:32-36. Loader (2014:321) identifies a ‘concentric pattern of chiasmus’ and divides the ‘long poem on wisdom’s inner character’ into four sections. The first (8:1-11) and last (8:32-36) sections form an outer circle and refer to the interrelatedness of wisdom and mankind. The sections of 8:12-21 and 8:22-31 form an inner circle describing wisdom’s relation to the world (cf. Loader 2014:321).
Both Fox and Loader agree on parsing 8:12-21 and 8:22-31 as subunits of 8:1-36 (8:12-21 as subunit of 8:4-31 in Fox’s case). Whereas Fox (2008:292) interprets both units in terms of chronology (Wisdom’s present state in 12-21 and her past in 22-31), Loader (2014:321) reads it in terms of a relationship between wisdom and the present world (12-21) and the primeval world (22-31). Loader’s larger context is preferable as both sections rather deal with relationships and especially wisdom’s function in a universal context.
Proverbs 8:22-31
This section ‘throws into relief the meditative role of Wisdom between humankind and God’ (Yee 1982:60). It depicts ‘Wisdom as the ultimate mediator between God and humanity’ (Yee 1982:66). However, the ‘character of this mediation is not specified’ (Yee 1982:60). According to Murphy (1998:52), the relationship between Woman Wisdom and the Lord is described in ‘a mysterious way’ in 8:22-31. In Loader’s (2014:345) opinion, wisdom’s origin is described in 8:22-23 ‘with enough clarity and vagueness so as to bring about more of a suggestive reference to Wisdom’s origin than a clear description’ (my underlining of ‘and’). Although Wisdom focuses on humans, she has ‘a divine provenance’ (Goff 2003:44) that gives her an esoteric character.
In 8:22-31 wisdom’s speech enters the cosmic area. Present already at the creation of the world, standing in primordial relation to God, she enounces that she stands in closest relationship to those who attend to her words. She enables them to experience God’s creation in all its splendour.
Fox (2008:292) divides 8:22-31 into three subsections37 dealing with wisdom’s priority in terms of the creation of the world (8:22-26), her presence during creation (8:27-29) and being ‘God’s darling and mankind hers (30-31)’ (Fox 2008:292). Loader (2014:433) calls 8: 22-31 the ‘Second Speech Core’ that corroborates Wisdom’s claims in the previous ‘core section’ in 8:12-21 (cf. Loader 2014:292).
The subsection of 8:22-26 deals with three entities: Yahweh, wisdom and the world (cf. Yee 1982:60). The Lord himself created both wisdom and the world. However, although both are equally creations of God, wisdom has chronological as well as status priority. The intention of the poet ‘was to show that wisdom transcends time’ (Terrien 1981:134). Wisdom was created in a time when the earth with its waters and land had not yet been created. This ‘primordial creation’ (Loader 2014:350) of wisdom not only means that she was first in time, but also ‘implies superiority and excellence’ (Loader2014:350).
Loader (2014:349) compares the way wisdom is depicted in chapter 8 with that of chapter 338. While wisdom is ‘an aspect of the divine being’ (Loader2014:349) in 3:19, it is a creation (in 8:22) right at the beginning when there was only a chaotic and formless primeval ocean. As will become clear in 8:30-31, she is not presented here as a ‘mediatrix through which other things were created’ (Loader 2014:349), a ‘co-creator’ (Loader 2014:361). She is not the source of the rest of the creation.
The topic of 8:27-29 is wisdom’s presence during God’s creation of the world (cf. Fox 2008:281-282; Loader 2014:354). A shift takes place from the ‘”before” clauses in vv 24-26 to “when” clauses in vv 27-29’ (Fox 2008:281). Six creative actions are described in 8: 27-29, all ‘in “when” clauses subordinate to Wisdom’s statement, “there was I”‘ (Fox 2008:282). According to Murphy (1998:55), it is not the depiction of creation that is important here, but rather the39 pre-existence of wisdom. Brown (1996:loc 426) says that here the use of the ‘cosmogonic language is to focus not so much on the process of creation as on wisdom’s position in relation to creation and God’. The phrase in 8:27 there was I (Hebrew sjam ani) refers to a situation, not a localisation (cf. Fox 2008:284). Whereas 8:22-26 deals with situation of not-yet, 8:27-29 deals with God’s creative action. In all of this wisdom is an observant bystander noticing God’s division of the cosmos into three sections of heaven above, waters and land underneath and waters under the earth.
The climax of 8:22-31 is found in 8:30-31, ‘where her relationship to God and to human beings is affirmed’ (Murphy 1998:55). Wisdom exists in relationship to both God and man. She acts independently, neither being an agent in God’s creative activity, nor being equal to the rest of the creation, but superior to them all. There is ‘a decided aesthetic dimension’ (Loader 2014:361) that she brings to God and the world. When God created the world she was beside him ‘growing up in his care and giving him delight’ (Fox 2008:285). She was like a ‘nurseling’ or ‘foster child’ (Loader 2014:360), ‘a little girl playing around on the building site’ (Loader 2014:359). She ‘imbues the workshop of her Father with joy so that he himself also has part in it’ (Loader2014:362).40 Wisdom’s speech finds its ‘climax in the phenomenon of joy’ (Brown 1996:loc. 432). She ‘provides joy by being joyful and playful’ (Loader2014:360) and ‘not only provides God pleasure but she herself also derives pleasure from human beings herself’ (Loader 2014:360).
Proverbs 8:12-21
In 8:12-21 ‘wisdom’s discourse turns from the topic of speech to character’ (Brown 1996:loc. 415). Here wisdom claims to be all-important in the world of mankind. Wisdom introduces herself in 8:12-13 in terms of her continuing ‘prowess and prestige’ (Fox 2008:279). Fox (2008:271) remarks here that wisdom is not identical to cunning, but rather ‘has an abiding connection to it … not precisely equated with it’. She is the medium through whom these qualities are bestowed on those who identify with her. Brown (1996:loc. 415) remarks that ‘the language seems more appropriated to the recipient of wisdom rather than to wisdom herself’. Wisdom is the embodiment of the ‘ideal character of her inquirer’ (Brown 1996:loc. 421). She ’embraces all aspects of human life’ (Crawford 1998:357).
The instrumentality of wisdom is described in the two synonymous parallel subunits of 8:14-16 and 8:17-21.
In the first subunit (8:14-16) ‘[w]isdom commends herself as the fount of statecraft, thus of ordered society itself’ (Fox 2008:271). Wisdom is in possession of counsel, cleverness, and strength (cf. Loader 2014:337). She is the channel through whom these qualities can be obtained by all who rule (cf. the use of the bet instrumentalis in verses 15 and 16).
The subunit of 8:17-21 is in the form of a ring composition: it starts and ends with those who love wisdom (Hebrew ‘ohebay’). Wisdom’s ‘Material Benefits’ (Fox 2008:275), depicted as ‘cleverness, power, dominion, and wealth’ (Fox 2008:278), are conferred upon those who identify with wisdom. In this reciprocal relationship ‘there is a close association between material and ethical concepts, even if the material benefits are the prominent ones’ (Loader2014:340).
Summary
Terrien (1981:137) summarises this section as the ‘call to ethical obedience … integrally articulated upon a feminine personification of wisdom, mediatrix of communion with the transcendent Creator’. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8:1-36 acting like a human, but not being human at all.41 This depiction of wisdom is a didactic strategy to promote following wisdom in one’s life.
The call to wisdom in Proverbs 8:1-11 and 8:32-36 is substantiated by the description of its relation to the contemporary world (8:12-21) and the primordial creation (8:22-31).
In 8:22-31 wisdom is depicted mysteriously as both being lucid and simultaneously obscure. ‘She is a strange being, a personification of mental power’ (Fox 1997:624). She is ‘a mystery … an enigma to scholarly research’ (Lang 1986:113), ‘a fairly vague figure’ (Lang 1986:147). She is a pre-existent creation of God, already present at the creation of the world, not only being very old but also superior to anything else.42 ‘She transcends mundane reality and human minds’ (Fox 1997:624). She was not used by God as an agent to create the world (cf. Fox 1997:628), but was present at the creation giving him delight in what he did. She was not involved in directing ‘the course of events’ (Fox 1997:629). Rather than doing anything specifically, she played her role by being present for God and man. Standing in a reciprocal relationship to God and mankind she was giving joy to all of them.
In 8:12-21 she is instrumental in giving humans possession of ‘cleverness, power, dominion, and wealth’ (Fox 2008:278). Whoever stands in a relationship with wisdom is endowed with material benefits leading an outstanding ethical life. Her invitation is extended to all human beings. She ‘symbolizes the perfect and transcendent universal’ (Fox 1997:630). She is a-temporal and although she operates within the spatial realm, she also belongs to the supernal realm.
June 2, 2021 at 2:25 am#871193
GeneBalthrop
Participant
Adam…..I believe wisdom is one of the seven spirits of God, through which he uses in his creating process. It always existed in the beginning just as the rest of the Seven Spirits of God also did, wisdom is just one of the attributes of God, probably the most important, and is easily seem in all of God’s whole creation. Wisdom being a Spirit attribute, can therefore be possessed and used by us as well as God and angels. Just as all the rest of the SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD CAN BE ALSO. The Spirit of WISDOM, GIVES IT’S OWN ” Specific Cognition ” to our minds, just like the Spirit of truth, and the rest of Gods seven other Spirits do.
I Don’t see it as a being itself, but a type or kind of Spirit, that works in all creation the LORD OUR God have made. Wisdom indeed is a very important, Spiritual “cognition”, we all need to use in what ever we are doing. IMO
Peace and love to you Adam and yours………..gene
Author
Posts