Live Discussion on “Preexistence” with Anthony Buzzard.
I was invited by Carlos Xavier to a live discussion with Anthony Buzzard at “Focus on the Kingdom” YouTube channel. The live discussion took place on Saturday, January 21 at 2:00pm. The topic was: “Did the Son of God originate and exist prior to His birth in Bethlehem?” I took the affirmative position, and Anthony Buzzard took the negative position. The notes I used can be downloaded at the following link: Anthony.pdf. I would be interested in comments, both pro and con. I am willing to answer questions, including from Biblical Unitarians who disagree with me. Please post your comments or questions below.
I would like to thank Carlos for the invitation and his gracious attitude throughout our contacts. I would especially like to thank Anthony for taking the time to engage my arguments, especially during the question-and-answer section. I enjoyed the dialogue very much.
77 thoughts on “Live Discussion on “Preexistence” with Anthony Buzzard.”
Looking forward to that – will be praying for you
Great Tim!
Good luck and may God bless.
/Anders
Go get ’em, Bro!!!
That’s great P.Tim. will be praying for you.
Looking forward. May God give you the wisdom to explain the truth. Thanks.
Tim,
Well done on your conversation with Anthony Buzzard. Though Anthony has many decades of proving wrong the Trinity, it seems to me that the presupposition of Subordinate Unitarianism (Apostolic Unitarianism) as merely a stepping stone to Trinitarianism may have made Buzzard overconfident in his ability to argue his points/counterpoints.
I intend to listen to the discussion again and add more on my thoughts, but I wanted to quickly reach out and congratulate you on our shared understanding from the Scriptures.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with you. Anthony has long insisted that any form of “preexistence” is a slippery slope to Trinitarianism. But that is just not true. I wish I could have commented on Anthony’s last statement, but I was cut off, regarding which “scholars” agree with me. I would have listed John’s own disciple Ignatius, Barnabas of Alexandria, Justin Martyr of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, Tatian of Syria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Eusebius of Caesarea. Unfortunately, those scholars have been so demonized by Biblical Unitarians BECAUSE they held to precisely this form of monotheism, that it probably would not have made any difference.
Tim,
While Sir Anthony continued to appeal to authority, it would have been helpful if you would have been about to answer that our belief is not new.
Michael
Yes, in retrospect I should have quickly stated that the earliest Christian writers agree with our view. Actually, we agree with them would be a more accurate way of putting it.
If I had thought of it when Anthony first mentioned “scholars,” I could have given him one very important scholar who agreed with this view, Sir Isaac Newton. https://4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Evolution_008.pdf
Agree Tim. Once he spoke with Anthony after taking you off seemed convenient for the closing arguments. Someone did mention in comments that early church writers agree with you.
One other commemt I have regarding the “Word” not being a person. You pointed out in Revelation that His name is Logos. If it was mentioned I just missed it as I I need to watch it back, but Hebrews 4:11-12 also allude to the “Word” being a male entity with eyes.
Randy,
I considered that point from Heb. 4 while I was preparing my notes, but it would have taken too much time to defend it from the text, since probably Biblical Unitarians are not familiar with it. The statement in Rev. 19 is very direct, needing no explanation from the context. I was given 15 minutes to present my entire case, so I crammed as many points in as I could and tried not to get side-tracked.
Tim, it seems you argued that God’s wisdom and word had a specific beginning, “origin.” So if I may restate Anthony’s question, was God without His wisdom and word before Proverbs and John 1?
When asked about wisdom with prudence you seemed to agree both were abstract personifications. So was wisdom both a person and personification at the same time in Proverbs 8?
Lastly, is that the preexistent Jesus “shouting in the streets” in Prov. 1.20?
Thanks for your time.
Carlos,
Thanks for the clarification questions.
“Wisdom” by definition is an abstract concept. In relation to God, He obviously has always possessed “wisdom” as an abstract attribute of His being. However, if Proverbs 8:22-31 is only about a personifcation of wisdom as an abstract quality that God has always possessed, it clashes with the fact that “Wisdom” claims to have been both “acquired” and “begotten” by God at the beginning of the creation. (The word “acquired” {qanah} is the same as when Eve stated, “I have acquired a man from the LORD” when she bore Cain (Gen. 4:1). It means that God did not possess THIS particular “Wisdom” from eternity. These statements require that the “Wisdom” in this passage is a new possession of God which occurred at the time of creation. It cannot be merely God’s abstract quality of wisdom which He has always possessed.
I agree with Anthony that this is presented as a “personification.” When read in a straightforward way, one could easily conclude either of two understandings: that there was a real Person named “Wisdom,” or it can equally be understood to be an allegorical way of speaking about wisdom as a quality of God. So yes, it was intended to be understood as both or either. This is part of the “enigma.” Why? For the same reason that Jesus spoke to the heard-hearted Israelites in riddles: “11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that `Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.'” (Mk. 4:11-12 NKJ). My main point (citing Prov. 1:6) was to show that this is a riddle, an enigma to be solved. This means there is more to it than meets the eye. The solution is given in Prov. 30:1-4 (the Son of God who ascended and descended as the Messenger of Yahweh). But it is more clearly revealed by Paul’s interpretation in 1 Cor. 2:7-8, and his using Prov. 8 as the basis for his statements in Col. 1:15-20.
The “shouting in the streets” of Wisdom is the equivalent of what is said of Logos in John 1:10: He was in the world, and the world originated through Him, and the world did not know Him.”
Tim, you won on walkover!
I found Anthony’s arguments almost non-existing. He ended almost in despair with “nobody agrees with (you) Tim”, which is a bad argument for at least two reasons:
* It is not true.
* It is appeal to authority.
/Anders
Thanks Anders,
I would not call it a “win” since it was not technically a debate but a “live discussion.”
I was hoping to talk some technicalities of Greek grammar with Mr. Buzzard, but it seemed to me that he didn’t know what I was talking about. I was disappointed that I got no intelligible reply to the points I raised about his translation which I believe are demonstrably false. https://onegodtranslation.com/bible/
1. Regarding the predicate nominative clause “and Logos was God”: Mr. Buzzard translates John 1:1 as: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was fully expressive of God Himself.” This is an impossible translation of that clause. The predicate nominative clause has two possible meanings, (a) the predicate identifies the category to which the subject belongs, or (b) the predicate is identical with the subject. It is obviously not “b,” since then the “Word” and “God” would be interchangeable terms, and it would identify the Word as God Himself (the Father). If it is “a”, then the “Word” is of the same class or category of whatever the word “God” means. “God” is a concrete, personal noun. It is NOT an abstract noun. So either the “Word” and “God” are identical and interchangeable, or else “God” is the class or category in which the Word (Logos) belongs. This is the correct sense in John 1:1. I kept insisting that “God” is a concrete, personal noun, not an abstract noun. Consequently, “the Word was God” must mean that the Word has the same kind of concrete, personal sense: what God was the Word was. But that point was totally ignored.
Biblical Unitarians make exactly the same mistake as Trinitarians regarding the word “God”: It can mean whatever they need it to mean in any particular passage in order to prop up their theology. For Trinitarians, “God” is a concrete personal noun when it refers to any of the three Persons. But in passages where God is said to be “one,” it becomes an abstract noun “divinity” so that it can be shared by three persons. For Biblical Unitarians the opposite is true. In the “one God” statements it is a concrete, personal noun. But in John 1:1, where “Logos was God,” suddenly they pull out from the Trinitarian playbook, and here “God” is abstract.
2. I then questioned his translation of Rev. 3:14, where Jesus calls Himself “the Beginning of the creation of God,” a clear reference to “Wisdom” in Prov. 8:22. Anthony’s translation intentionally avoids this connection by rendering this as “the ruler of God’s creation.” The word in question is ἀρχὴ which is feminine and abstract (meaning either “beginning” or “rulership”), but He translates it as though it was the masculine concrete noun ἄρχων, which he translated correctly in Rev. 1:5, “the ruler over the kings of the earth.” The difference can be illustrated as the difference between the “president” ἄρχων (concrete noun) vs. the “presidency” ἀρχὴ (abstract noun).
This kind of manipulation of the text is common in his translation in the passages that refer to preexistence.
Tim, in the discussion you said “the word ‘God’ throughout the Bible refers to some person.”
But as you know things like trees are fashioned into “a god” in Isa. 44:15 and Paul calls the stomach ho theos in Phil. 3.19.
Carlos,
The Bible is clear that the “gods” of the nations are “demons” (Lev. 17:7; Deut. 32:17; Psalm 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20-21), which are real conscious beings. The “idols” were physical representations of their “demon gods.” Jesus was the “image of the invisible God,” a visible “image,” and thus he was also called “God.” You can point to a statue of George Washington and say “that is George Washington.” That is not true in the strictest sense. But it is true that the image of a thing can be called that thing. In the same way, the pagan created “images” out of wood or stone as visible representations of the demon god which they worshipped. But even if you do not accept that the “image” of a “god” can be called “god,” the fact remains that the term Elohim / Theos is ALWAYS a concrete term. It is never an abstract concept. In Phil. 3:19 the expression “their god is their belly,” this was a metaphorical way of saying they worshipped food. Terms can occasionally be used as metaphors, but that does not change the definition of the word “God” so that its definition is “a belly.”
The reason that Trinitarians can escape the “one God” statements of Scripture is because they play fast and loose with the term God. When it refers to one of the “persons,” they use it as a concrete personal term. When they are presented with the “one God” statements, they make the word “God” abstract, a “divine essence/nature” shared by three persons. Unitarians will never put a dent in Trinitarianism simply because you cannot call them out on this because you do the same thing in John 1:1.
The word “God” means the Person who is sole Sovereign in a particular setting or dominion. Obviously this fits God Himself as the ultimate Sovereign over the entire creation. It also fits the Son in Psalm 45:6-7, where the Son is called “God” because a Kingdom is delegated to Him in which to be “God” by His own God. Pagan “gods” are called this because they each feigned sovereignty over some aspect of nature (the sun, the Nile, fertility, etc), and through this deception they caused mankind to fear them and worship them. The essential meaning of the word “God” deals exclusively with a being who holds sole sovereignty. It says nothing about essence or nature. Otherwise, the demon gods shared the same divine nature as God. Or the Man Jesus shared the same nature as God, or demon gods. The true and essential meaning of a word is that which is its core, what is common to every time it is used. “God” is NEVER abstract.
We agree that “there is one God” in the ultimate sense, the one eternal being who is the source of everything that exists, the Father. But the first commandment says “You shall have no other gods before Me,” and the Shema is a further expansion on this point. This statement acknowledges many “gods” which were the demon gods of the nations. I stand on my statement that the word “God” is always concrete (never abstract), is always personal (referring to a being with sole sovereignty in a particular context). Can it be used metaphorically for food (belly)? Of course. But that does not change the meaning of the word. The word “God” does not absorb Paul’s metaphorical usage, so that “God” now can mean “belly.” If so, then the predicate nominative statement, “And the Word was God” could be translated “and the Word was a belly.” My contention is that in John 1:1, the clause “the Word was God” CANNOT mean that the Word was something abstract. It must mean that the Word was a Person (a Sovereign), the essence of what the word “God” means. There is no legitimate way to get around this fact.
Tim
Tim,
You say that “god” is “defined by referring to a being with sole sovereignty in a particular context. ”
When Logos was begotten in the beginning, over what/whom did He receive sovereignty?
In Psalm 2, the “Son” was promised, on the very day He was begotten, the inheritance of the whole earth and that He will rule all nations. He was appointed “God” in this sense from the very beginning of creation week. (Psalm 45:6-7 reinforces this and refers to Him as “God” who has been appointed by His “God”). He is the one called “God” who commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and threatened him with death if he ate. Also, He is “God” because “He is the image of the invisible God.” Just as the images of the pagan gods (who were demons) were also called “gods,” so too can the “image of the invisible God” be called “God.”
Understand completely Tim and you are right Rev 19 is clear and direct.
Having watched this back with our fellowship, Anders is spot on with the walkover win comment. It seems Mr Buzzard relied solely on his “I’ve done this professionally for years” rather than preparing to address your objections to his renderings. Then again, you can’t prepare against the truth of Gods word, it is beautiful.
Very well done and thank you for your humility and thoroughness.
Randy
Thanks Randy.
Thanks once again for your time. Since you said you love to answer questions 🤓, the following are some leftovers from the Discussion.
1. Who is the angel of the Lord in Matt 1.24?
2. Why did God say He never begat any angel in Heb. 1.5?
3. Could you explain how God’s wisdom and word are creations with a beginning, “origin” (Mat 1.1, 18)?
4. Did Mary conceive and give birth to the body/flesh of the Son only?
5. How do you explain around 100 explicit statements of God creating “by Myself” (e.g., Isa 44.24)?
6. How can the same person have two beginnings, origins?
7. Why are all the verbs of the Genesis Creation singular in form if the “Let us” includes the Son?
8. If Jesus pre-existed as “a spirit being” can you explain 1Cor 15:46 (“the spiritual is not first but the natural then the spiritual”)?
Thanks again for your time.
Carlos, thanks for joining us here, and thanks for your professionalism is orchestrating the discussion. I am happy to answer any questions and follow up questions.
1. The “messenger” of the Lord in Matt. 1:24 who appeared to Joseph was no doubt the same “messenger” who told these things to Mary, and who appeared to Zacharias. Luke 1:19,26 says it was “Gabriel.”
2. Heb. 1:5 does not say that God did not beget an “angel.” This question suffers from the same false presupposition as the first one, that the term ἄγγελος describes a particular kind of being. It does not. It only means a “messenger,” and Jesus is called ἄγγελος in Mal. 3:1 LXX; Gal. 4:14; Rev. 1:1-2. Whether that is human or heavenly messenger is determined individually by the context. If you read Heb. 1:5 carefully (esp. in Greek), you will see that the question posed is actually this: “To which messenger did He formerly say, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’?” The adverb ποτε means: “of past time once, formerly” (Friberg Analytical Greek Lexicon). While this can be interpreted as intending to exclude “messengers” by implication, it’s literal sense is to enquire as follows: Which one of the “Messengers” did God formerly say this to? It does not exclude “messengers,” it asks, which one? But either way one interprets this statement, the fact remains that ἄγγελος does not describe a kind of being.
3. The terms “Wisdom” and “Word” are titles, thus used as proper nouns. The same Person carried both titles and more. It is clear from John’s statement in Rev. 19:13 that “Logos” is one of Jesus’ names. Wisdom’s origin is stated in Prov. 8:22,24-25, by the statements: “Yahweh acquired me as the Beginning of His way, before His works of old.” Then in vss. 24-25, Wisdom is twice said to have been “begotten” by God. Both of these require an origin at the beginning of creation. Logos’ origin is given in John 1:3-4, which is punctuated incorrectly in most versions due to Trinitarian bias. If you check the punctuation in the Westcott-Hort, Nestle Aland, and UBS Greek editions, you will see that it reads as follows: “Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated. What has originated in Him was life, and the Life was the light of men.” So “life” that is external to God originated in Logos (Logos became a living being). Then Logos is called “the Life.” In 1 John 1:1-3, Jesus is called “Logos of Life,” whom the disciples saw, heard, and handled. Regarding Matt. 1:1 the γενέσις (lit. “generating,” describing the act of generating) of Jesus as Son of Abraham and Son of David is exclusively in view. Then His genealogy from Abraham to Mary is given. Verse 18 then goes on to narrate how He was “generated” as Abraham’s and David’s Son (human). Mr. Buzzard is not correct that this term is used in conjunction with “Son of God.”
4. Yes, Mary generated the flesh of Jesus as God’s miracle without a male. The “holy Spirit/Breath” that came upon her was the “Breath of Life” of Logos, just as Adam’s flesh body, created from dust, had the “Breath of life” breathed directly out of God Himself, giving Him life, consciousness, and even the ability to speak without learning language. Another point germane to this question is the manner in which the dead are to be raised. Ezekiel 37 describes this as the reassembling of the decayed flesh and bones, and then the “breath” re-entering them, so that dust once again becomes living flesh. But the resurrected (new) person “preexisted” long ago, but now had a new “origin” or “genesis.” The same “breath of life” which was received again to God when the body returned to dust is to be returned, and consciousness then continues as though it had never been destroyed. If this can happen to Abraham in the resurrection and it remains the same person, why cannot flesh from Mary be animated by the “Breath of Life” of the one called “Logos,” “Wisdom,” and God’s “Messenger?” This was precisely how the earliest Christians interpreted this verse.
5. The “alone” statement in Isaiah 44:24 is explained by Deut. 32:12. The context of Isaiah 44 shows plainly that this statement was intended to exclude the pagan gods as having any part in the creation. Deut. 32:12 says plainly that “Yahweh alone” led and carried Israel through the wilderness and into the Promised Land. Yet He did this by the “Messenger of Yahweh” according to Exod. 23:20-23 & Judges 2:1-4. So “God alone” statements do not rule out His personal Agent, only the foreign gods.
6. I explained this by the illustration in John 2 about the water that “became” wine (using the same verb as in John 1:14 “Logos became flesh”). The wine had a distinct “origin” which occurred at the wedding. But the wine also “preexisted” since creation as water. So, the wine had two distinct origins.
7. I am not sure which verbs the question refers to. If it is all of the “Let there be…” (commands), they must be singular because the thing that originated was singular, and there must be agreement in number and gender. The point I made was that the words “let us make” and “our image” and “our likeness” are plural in Hebrew, and the Jewish Temple scholars who translated the LXX rendered them as plurals in Greek. But they also correctly translated “Elohim” (which is plural in form but singular in meaning) as singular in Greek “Theos.” This proves that they understood that Elohim has singular sense, but the plurals in v. 26 were understood by them to have more than one person in view. The interpretation in the LXX shows the “Jewish” way of understanding that verse. Making these terms as singular in sense is not correct.
8. In 1 Cor. 15:46 Paul was speaking about the resurrection. We are first “natural” like Adam and Jesus, but in the resurrection we become “spiritual” like Jesus is now. The word “spiritual” does not mean immaterial, but rather that which has been transformed by God’s Spirit. Paul also spoke in the same book about the “carnal” and “spiritual” members of the church. He did not mean that some were material and others were phantoms or immaterial ghosts.
Carlos, please tell Anthony that if I was given time to address his last statement about which scholars taught the view I presented, I would have said: Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas of Alexandria, Justin of Caesarea, Irenaeus of Lyon, Tatian of Antioch, Theophilus of Syria, Tertullian of Carthage (before he converted to Montanism), and Eusebius of Caesarea, to name a few. More recently, it would be Sir Isaac Newton, then Barton W. Stone one of the founders of the Stone Campbell Restoration Movement.
If anyone else sends you questions, please tell them to come here and ask them, and I will answer them dirrectly.
God Bless, Tim
Tim, I would add to that list of names of Unitarians who believed in preexistence, Thomas Emlyn and possible Samuel Clark, who lived also during the time of Isaac Newton.
Michael,
You apparently know more about these men than I do, so I will take your word on that. One of the problems we face is that the term “Unitarian” is understood differently by different people and groups. Probably most Unitarians would call us “Unitarians.” The issue of temporal preexistence really has no effect on whether we believe the essential core of Unitarianism, that there is one true God, the eternal Father, and all other beings exist only because of Him.
I do not like to use the term Unitarian for the same reason I do not like to use the term “Arian” even though our theology is much closer to Arianism than to Biblical Unitarianism. Both terms carry too much baggage, and we do not neatly fit either category. Also, the term “Unitarian” was coined as the antithesis of “Trinitarian,” and that view was developed in opposition to Trinitarianism. Our view was not developed in opposition to anything. It is undeniably the view of the earliest Christians with close linkage to the Apostles. When we first came out of Trinitarianism, I took the advice of someone who said that it is better to coin your own term for what you believe and teach, than to let your opponents name it, because it will be something disparaging. So for the last 7 or 8 years we have been using the term “Apostolic Monotheism,” because this is the view handed down by the Apostles to their disciples who articulated it succinctly.
Tim, I agree with not liking the terms Unitarian or Arian. I typically only use unitarian when discussing christology with Biblical Unitarians, as it is a know term that they accept and approve of. Typically, I do not claim a name at all, but I am aware of and have used the term Apostolic Monotheism in the past.
Thanks for the answers. Some quick follow ups, clarifications and extra ones from me.
2. You say “the fact remains that ἄγγελος does not describe a kind of being.” What about the context showing the writer speaks about “spirits” (vv. 7,11), I.e., not humans?
3. If “in 1 John 1:1-3, Jesus is called Logos of Life” why is he referred as a “what” “which was from the beginning” and not “he”?
Side note: Do you agree the Greek pronouns in John 1:2-4 can be translated “it” and not “he” or “him” (as all English translations from the Greek before KJV show)?
4. So Mary gave birth to impersonal flesh?
5. Where else in the OT is the person of the Son said to have acted as Yahwehs’ agent in Creation, like your “Messenger of Yahweh”of Exod. 23:20-23 & Judges 2:1-4?
6. How is your wine example not a false parallel or non-sequitur? In other words, you’re comparing apples with oranges, wine with a person.
7. I meant “He created” or “God created” verbs 4 times at least in Genesis 1.
Extra questions from me:
9. Did Jesus retain any memories of his former self?
10. How do you explain the fact that pros ton theon is never used to show a person “with God”? For example, Heb 2:17; 5:1; Rom 17:15 “things with God”; Acts 24:16 “conscience with God,” etc.
Carlos,
Thanks for the follow ups. I enjoy the dialogue.
2. That is a very good observation from the context. Good catch. But it must be the context that determines whether the “messenger” is a heavenly one or a human one. Establishing that the “messengers” in Heb. 1 are not humans does not change the outcome, IMO. The question asked in v. 5, “to which of the messengers did He (God) formerly say, ‘You are my Son’ …” can mean one of two things. It can mean that God said “You are My Son” to one of the “messengers,” and this passage was asking which one? Or it could be understood as a way of excluding by contrast the “messengers” who are the “spirits” you mentioned in v. 14. Obviously, the “spirits” there refer to a certain class of being, just as demons are also called evil “spirits.” But our view is NOT that the Son was a “messenger” of the same kind of being as those mentioned in v. 14. The only thing the Messenger of Yahweh (who was authorized to use His name) and the “spirits” here have in common is that they were used as “messengers.” But so is the mailman. Our view is that the Son was “begotten” out of God Himself, and thus of the same “kind” as God since kind always begets like kind (Ps. 2:7). The spirits who were also “messengers” (what we call angels) were of a different kind, created by God through His Son (Col. 1:15-16), not begotten out of God. We cannot place the “Messenger of Yahweh” who bore God’s name and spoke in the first person as God and Yahweh in the same class as the “angel-spirits” either in nature or in authority. Also, did you notice that verses 2-4 already makes this very clear distinction. First the Son is introduced as, “whom He has appointed heir of all things” (based on Psalm 2) “through whom He fashioned the ages.” He is then identified as “the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person.” I think any Jew reading this would immediately associate these words the Messenger of Yahweh who spoke as God in the burning bush, who came down on Mt. Sinai and gave the Law to Moses (Acts. 7:38), and later spoke with Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend. This is also who Paul in Col. 1 called, “the image of the invisible God, the first-produced of all creation.” In Rev. 3:14 Jesus claimed to be “the Beginning of the creation of God.” Since Heb. 1:4 says already of Him, “having become so much greater than the messengers,” He has already been contrasted with them before the statement was made in v. 5, “to which of the messengers …” etc.
3. In 1 Jn. 1-3, “that which…” is in the neuter gender because it includes all that they heard, saw, and handled regarding the “Logos of Life,” not merely to Him as a person. It cannot refer exclusively to “Logos” directly because “Logos” is a masculine noun in Greek, and all pronouns must agree with their direct referent in gender and number. So it refers to the things that they learned about Him by their close contact with Him. Here is a question for you. Why is the one to be delivered by Mary called “that holy thing” (neuter) in Luke 1:35 and why is “begotten” τὸ γεννώμενον in the present tense, (lit. “that holy thing [currently] begotten”, and not in the future tense, since Mary had not even conceived yet?
Regarding the pronouns in John 1:2-4, there are two types of pronouns in those verses, οὗτος is a demonstrative pronoun which means either “this one, or this thing” depending on gender, and αὐτος/αὐτοῦ/αὐτῷ which is a personal pronoun (he, she, it). They are all singular masculine. However, they must be masculine because the noun “logos” is always masculine in gender, not because it is saying that “logos” is a person. That cannot be determined by the pronouns either way, simply because the rules of Greek grammar require that all pronouns that refer to the masculine noun “logos” in any context must also be masculine. There are two things that require that “Logos” is a Person in this chapter. The first is the predicate nominative construction, “Logos was God.” Since “God” is always a personal noun, it always refers to a person that can be described by the meaning of the word God (a sole Sovereign). “Logos was God” cannot mean anything other than “Logos” was a part of the class described by the word “God.” The second proof is in vss. 10-12. “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him.” The words, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (lit. “through Him originated”) are identical to the statement about Logos in vs. 3, everything δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (through Him originated). The masculine personal pronoun αὐτοῦ in vs. 3 can only refer to “Logos” (masc.) in vs. 1. In verse 10, the masculine personal pronoun αὐτοῦ refers to the one who came into the world, was rejected, but received by some, the one in whose name we must believe in vs. 12. Someone might try to argue that the one “through whom everything originated and without whom nothing originated” was God’s “plan” or something He said, and argue that in vs. 10 the one “through whom the world originated” is a different entity (even though exactly the same phrase is used). But that is so strained, as to be virtually absurd. Also, normally the referent of a pronoun is introduced BEFORE the pronoun. If you just begin a new topic by saying, “He did this or that” without first identifying who you are speaking about, but waiting until two verses later to identify him, this is extraordinarily bad writing. So, the bottom line is that the clause, “the Word was God” is rock solid proof, and verses 10-12 add very convincing evidence that the one in whose name we are saved is the same person as “Logos” in vs. 1.
4. Yes, Mary gave birth to a flesh child animated by the breath of life from Logos, just as Adam was flesh from dust animated by the breath of life from God.
5. I pointed out in my presentation that the plurals in Gen. 1:26 absolutely require a second Person who is both God’s Agent in creating man and the exemplar (along with God) for forming man. God and this Person must be of the same “kind” because man was made in the image of both. That a plurality of Persons was meant by Moses is proven by the fact that the Temple scribes who translated the LXX rendered these as plurals in Greek. One cannot argue that they were just being slavishly literal to a Hebrew plural forms that had a singular meaning simply because they also always translated the plural form “Elohim” which has a singular meaning (when referring to the one true God) as singular in Greek. So they clearly understood the difference. Wisdom is portrayed in Prov. 8 as God’s Agent in creation, a “master-craftsman” working beside God, and who also “delighted in His presence” (as also “Logos was with God”). You may argue that “Logos” is not this particular second Person, but in Col. 1:15-20 Paul described Christ as “the image of the invisible God” (the Messenger of Yahweh) and the “First-produced of all creation” and “the Beginning” (both references to Wisdom in Prov. 8), and then claimed that absolutely everything that exists NOW was created “through Him” δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, exactly same as in John 1:3,10. The preposition διὰ with an object in the genitive case (as is αὐτοῦ “Him”) refers to agency, instrumentality. God had to use something or someone that actually existed to be His agent in creating. It cannot mean “because of, referring to, on account of, etc.” That idea is expressed by διὰ with an object in the accusative case. (See: Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 368-369). In other words, Christ had to be present in order to be the agent through whom everything was created that currently exists, both in heaven and on earth, the seen and unseen. Everything I see “visible” is from the original creation.
6. It is not apples to oranges. It is apples to apples because the comparison I was making is that one thing that is a concrete noun was transformed into another thing that is a concrete noun. Where it becomes apples to oranges is when Anthony argued in the debate with Bill Schlegel that the water to wine and stones to bread was evidence of the alleged “plan” becoming “flesh.” “Plan” is an abstract noun which has no actual ontological nature and existence (just an idea in the mind of God) becoming a “flesh” person (a concrete noun).
7. God is singular because He was the cause of all things. There are many things that the Messenger of Yahweh actually carried out which were later said to be God’s (singular) doing it. This is explained by the concept of agency, God doing things “through Him” (just as in Acts 2:22). The plurals in Gen. 1:26 require at least two persons. The singular in vs. 27 means God did this through His Agent, the second Person.
9. Yes, Jesus had memory of His former existence as Son of God. (No doubt He was not able to process it all as an infant). But I think John 3:12-13,31-32 & John 6:46 makes this point clear, not to mention passages like John 3:13.
10. Whether the word “God” is the object of the preposition πρὸς is irrelevant. What is determinate is whether πρὸς is used with a stative verb and the object is in the accusative case (see Wallace, GGBB, p. 359). Yet, consider 1 John 2:1 where this construction is used and Jesus is the one said to be “with the Father”, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, “an advocate we have with the Father.” The stative verb is ἔχομεν (we have), followed by πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (with the Father) who is God. So this is an example of exactly the same construction as in John 1:1, (“Logos was with God”) where “with” is πρὸς, God is in the accusative case, the stative verb is ἦν (was). In 1 John 2:1 Jesus (the advocate) is the one with Him, at is right hand no doubt enjoying the “glory I had beside You before the world was”. I would advise you not to use that argument against Trinitarians.
Just wanted to extend Carlos a welcome. Thank you, sir for hosting that discussion.
My pleasure.
For Tim (or Carlos since my question is regarding what Unitarians believe about the emptying)
In Philippians 2:5-8, if the Son of God did not pre-exist the incarnation, then what is this passage all about? What did He need to empty Himself of?
Randy,
I leave that to Carlos or whoever to answer, since what I have heard and read makes no sense to me. I am not saying it is nonsense, just that I do not grasp how it can account for all of the peculiarities of that passage.
First, note Paul’s’ subject is the historical, human Messiah Jesus not some preexistent person.
As a result, the human Jesus “emptied himself,” as per the context meaning of all “selfish ambition, pride,” self-interest, etc.
Therefore, “existing in the form of God,” (during his earthly ministry) he didn’t misuse the authority, power, teachings God the Father gave him!
Alternatively, note the parallel between Phil 2.8 and Isaiah 53:8 where the servant of the LORD in “In his humiliation justice was denied” him.
Phil 2:7-8 says the Messiah “poured” or “emptied himself by becoming obedient unto death” and Isa 53:12 says the servant “poured out his soul [i.e., himself] unto death.”
According to the TDNT the Greek phrase translated emptied himself [Phil 2:7] is an expression “not attested elsewhere in Greek…an exact translation of [the Hebrew of Isa 53:12, his soul…he poured out].”
In other words, “the use of Isa 53.12 shows that the expression he emptied himself implies the surrender of life, not the kenosis of the incarnation.”
For more see: https://youtu.be/G6Y1JNYhzJc
Carlos,
Thanks for that. I agree that “Christ Jesus” is the subject. But I do not understand how this can be an exact parallel to Isaiah 53:8. First, the LXX says παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτου lit. “He handed over to death the soul of Him.” Youngs translates the Hebrew as “he exposed to death his soul.” The Jewish Publication Society Translation has “he bared his soul unto death.” I am no expert in Hebrew, but my Bible program translates this form of העֱרָ֤ה as “lay bare, make naked.” It is the form of the word found in Lev. 20:18,19. Also, Paul almost always quotes the LXX not the Hebrew. I see no resemblance between Phil. 2:7 and Isaiah 53:12. The resemblance only occurs in vs. 8, AFTER He “became in the likeness of men.” This passages speaks of two distinct and sequential descents from a higher to a lower state, the first was when He “emptied himself,” by which He “became in the likeness of men.” Then, only after “being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (ESV). This is the part that parallels Isaiah 53:12. This is why I cannot accept the Biblical Unitarian interpretation of that passage because it confounds the sequence of events which are absolutely required by the tenses of the main verb and the participles. He first emptied Himself to become man. After that, having been found in the fashion (schema) of a man, He then humbled Himself to become obedient unto death. It seems to me that you are conflating two different descents which the Greek will not allow. Again, in Phil. 2, He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and becoming in the likeness of men.” The verb ἐκένωσεν “emptied” is in the indicative mood, the main verb. This is followed by “the form of a slave taking (λαβών)” aorist participle, and “in the likeness of men becoming (γενόμενος)” aorist participle. The main verb “emptied” is explained by the two following participles. In other words, He “emptied Himself” by “taking the form of a servant” and by “becoming in the likeness of men.” The word γενόμενος is the aorist participle form of the verb γίνομαι (to become, same as in Jn. 1:14, “and Logos became flesh”). This means that He was not “in the likeness of men” before He “emptied Himself.” Also, in Isaiah 53, He “laid bare His soul unto death,” means His death. But in Phil. 2:7, the self-emptying results in His becoming in the likeness of men. Can you give me the reference in TDNT where you got this from? I have the whole 10 volume set.
I have an electronic copy of TDNT so it’s hard for me to find.
But I notice an almost verbatim quote with other references in The Servant of God by Walther Zimmerli, Joachim Jeremias (2009, pp 97-98).
Thanks Carlos, I will try to find it in my TDNT set.
I noticed that the Greek word translated “emptied” in Phil. 2:7 (κενοω) was used twice in the LXX (Jer. 14:2; Jer. 15:9), and by Paul alone in the NT (Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; 1 Cor. 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3, Phil. 2:7). It was not used in Isa. 53 which makes me a bit skeptical that he had Isa. 53:12 in mind since Paul typically uses the LXX in his OT quotes.
The Jewish Publication Society translates the Heb. verb in Isa. 53:12 as “he bared his soul.” But I also notice that some English translations have “poured out His soul.” I don’t know which is correct, so I will have to look deeper into this.
But even if we accept that “poured out His soul” is a good translation of the Hebrew, it is clear that in Isa. 53:12 this expression refers to His death. But in Phil. 2:7, “emptied Himself” is not death, but rather “taking the form of a servant and becoming in the likeness of men”. Then after “having been found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death.” The pivotal point here is His “becoming in the likeness of men.” Before that point, He was “in the form of God” and had “equality with God.” After that point in time, He was “found in fashion as a man” after which He became obedient unto death.
The NASB translates this accurately and clearly and shows the sequence of events.
Philippians 2 (NASB) 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
I honestly cannot see how this can be interpreted any other way.
I have a lot of work to do today, so I will check in later today. (BTW, if you submit a post and it does not appear, it is because I have to approve all posts, and I can only check in periodically).
God Bless.
Carlos,
I found the TDNT comments on kenos in Phil. 2:6. It is in Vol. 3, on p. 661. Rather than typing out the whole thing, I took a picture of the entire section and uploaded it to our server. It is at the following link.
https://4windsfellowships.net/TDNT_Kenos.jpg
I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but I do not think it accurately reflects the TDNT.
See TDNT, Vol 5, pp 711-12.
Specifically footnote #445 on p. 711:
“The use of Isa 53.12 shows that the expression [he emptied himself] implies the surrender of life, not the kenosis of the incarnation.”
Carlos,
Thanks for providing the reference. That is helpful.
That passage you provided claims that the expression in Phil. 2:6 “emptied Himself” is an exact translation of the Hebrew העֱרָ֤ה … נַפְשׁ֔וֹ (poured-out … soul) in Isa. 53:12.
However, the verb העֱרָ֤ה only means “poured out” with a niphal stem ( נִ prefix). Here it has the hiphil stem (הִ prefix) which means “to make naked.” It is the same word, but the different stems make the difference. I am getting this info from my BibleWorks program, Version 10, the Leningrad Hebrew OT. The only other time this word appears exactly as in Isaiah 53:12 is Lev. 20:18,19 where it refers to uncovering the nakedness of a woman. Also, since the LXX does not interpret the Hebrew as being poured out, but rather the soul being “betrayed,” I would have to say the claim of this being an exact equivalent to Phil. 2:6 cannot be sustained. The Hebrew of Isaiah 53:12 is exactly as it is translated in the Jewish Publication Society translation: “Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Young’s Literal Translation translates the Hebrew as: “Because that he exposed to death his soul.”
I think the TDNT quote I provided above which deals specifically with Phil. 2:7 and the meaning of the Greek word “kenos” argues strongly against your view. I don’t think a supposed connection between Phil. 2:7 and Isaiah 53:12 is convincing. Phil. 2:6-8 has to be interpreted on its own merits using sound exegetical and grammatical principles. I agree there are clear parallels between Isa. 53 & Phil. 2:8, but not vs. 7. There is nothing in Isaiah 53 about His being “in the form of God” or contemplating “equality with God” which is given as the reason He “emptied Himself” and “became in the likeness of men.”
Just to clarify, are you saying the TDNT has misread the Hebrew so that Isa 53:12 should read ”to make naked”?
I don’t see any translation or commentary make this claim. The closest is “bared his soul” or “laid bare his soul,” a Hebrew idiom for death, as you know.
Carlos,
The statement you quoted is in the TDNT right where you said. But the article was not attempting to interpret Isa. 53. It was quoting an excerpt from H. Wheeler Robinson’s 1955 book, “The Cross and the Servant,” pp. 57, 104 which dealt with the “suffering servant.” So I would say that Wheeler made the mistake, not the TDNT. The TDNT article in which this quote is found was explaining the meaning of the Greek clause “servant of God.” The TDNT only attempts to interpret NT Greek language, not OT Hebrew.
Yes, “laid bare HIs soul” is an idiom for death, no doubt. But the point is that the words in Phil. 2:7 “emptied Himself” is absolutely NOT an equivalent of “laid bare His soul,” not even close. It sheds zero light on why Paul used the words “emptied Himself” in Phil. 2:7. If that was an equivalent, then Phil. 2 would be saying that Jesus “laid bare His soul unto death” and in doing so he “became in the likeness of men. After this (his death) He then “humbled Himself and became obedient unto death.” That interpretation makes nonsense of Paul’s statement.
This is what happens when you surf for scholarly quotes to support your position. You pick and choose what seems favorable and reject everything that opposes your position. Then you string your cherry-picked quotes together as though that proves your point. That is an entirely subjective process and proves nothing. It because of this kind of heavily biased argumentation that I began my presentation talking about biases and objectivity.
Actually the TDNT quoted from Jeremias not Wheeler. Regardless, so you’re suggesting the TDNT published a quote without correction due to them not being skilled in Hebrew?
I cannot tell you why they published that quote. I can say that the TDNT is a theological dictionary of the New Testament and specializes in Greek not Hebrew. Also, that one line in the quote from a book which you are hanging your entire interpretation of Phil. 2:6-8 upon, is completely contradicted in the TDNT article on “kenos” in Phil. 2:7. That quote was NOT analyzing the grammar of Phil 2:7, nor was it analyzing the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:12, or even considering possible textual variants in the Hebrew text. It simply made a passing remark about similarities between the two passages, which in the opinion of the writer of that book, drew a parallel between the two passages.
The various articles in the TDNT dealing with specific words or clauses are often written by different scholars who come from different theological backgrounds. It is not uncommon in the TDNT to find contradictions. This is why your cherry-picking of quotes to form the foundation of your argumentation is a fallacy and completely subjective. In a discussion like this or a debate, it comes down to saying “my scholar is better than yours.”
The only way to be objective is to stick with the primary sources, the Bible itself, its underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, and make your case from the text of Scripture instead of cherry-picking quotes from scholars that agree with you while ignoring all who do not. You prove nothing except that you are unwilling, or do not know how, to be objective. That kind of argumentation might persuade some people who do not have good critical thinking skills, but to be frank, it is dishonest.
The noted similarities and parallels with the servant figure of Isaiah have been popularized by Trini scholars since the 1950s. See Kuschel, Born Before All Time and James Dunn of course.
Recently, I presented the findings of Dr. Walter Hansen, a graduate of Wheaton College, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Wycliffe College.
In his commentary on Philippians (published by Eerdmans in 2009) Dr. Hansen makes the following observations:
* In Phil 2:7 Paul says the Messiah was in the “form of a servant.” And Isaiah 52:13-14 says “Behold my servant, his form marred beyond human likeness.”
* In Phil 2.8 Paul says the Messiah “humbled himself” and Isaiah 53:8 says the servant of the LORD in “In his humiliation justice was denied” him.
* Phil 2:7-8 says the Messiah “poured” or “emptied himself by becoming obedient unto death” and Isa 53:12 says the servant “poured out his soul [i.e., himself] unto death.”
* in Phil 2:9 Paul says “God has highly exalted” the Messiah and Isaiah 52:13 says the servant “will be exalted and lifted up, and will be very high.”
* And finally the hymn ends with the famous “every knee will bow…every tongue confess” from Isa 45:23.
Carlos,
I agree with all of Hansen’s points except the 3rd. I clearly see a parallel between Phil. 2 and Isaiah 53:12. What I do not see is the linkage between “emptying Himself” and that passage, simply because of the sequence of events. Isaiah 53 is parallel to Phil. 2:8, but not to verses 6-7. The reason is that what comes between these is that He “became in the likeness of men.”
People see what they want to see, and the connections between passages are in the eye of the beholder which is colored by his theological filters. Our anchor must be firmly fixed on the grammar and syntax of Phil. 2:6-8. That is where one’s interpretation stands or falls. If you wish to make your case for your view from this passage, you will need to provide a clause by clause exegesis that is consistent with sound principles regarding the Greek grammar and syntax, not give the biased opinions of other people. “Appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy and won’t get any traction with the audience of this ministry.
One more point worth noting is that the early Christian writers appealed to Isa. 53:8 (LXX) as a reference to His preincarnate generation as Wisdom.
Isaiah 53:8 (LXX) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.
In my presentation I made it very clear that we understand the NT to unlock and clearly reveal what is concealed in mystery in the OT.
So just to be clear, you said Jesus preexisted as “a spirit being.”
Yet, in the Bible this is either a holy angel or demon.
You also claimed “to be called” is not the same as “to be.” But Matt 5.9 and Luke 6.35 proves that “to be called” = “to be.”
Carlos,
I too appreciate your facilitating the conversation between Anthony and Tim.
While I do not speak for Tim, I do not remember the conversation being as simple as denying that “to be called” was not the same as “to be”.
If I recall, this part centered around the appeal to some Catholic authority by Anthony in Luke 1.35, where, at the birth of Jesus, it was stated, “that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God”?
I believe the point here is that “to be called” does not necessitate a first point of existence.
An example of this is seen in 1 Jn. 3.1, “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!”
Here, we have people who previously existed, that are “to be called” the children of God. I believe our argument would be that just because Jesus is to be called the son of God, does not indicate his initial existence.
Another example would be Jn 1.42, “Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah.[fn] You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone).” This does not mean that Cephas did not previously exist, only that previously he was not called, Cephas.
I would say the same about the son of God. In the Old Testament, he was not directly called the son of God, but the messenger of the Lord, and in John’s gospel, he is called the word of God. But, Solomon did present the riddle that God had a son (Prov. 30.4). Tim presented the mysterious nature of the Father and Son, stated in the NT (Col. 2.2).
When compared to the birth of John the baptizer, Elizabeth stated, “he shall be called John” (Luk 1.60), this indeed was the beginning of John’s existence, but the words “to be called” are not formulaic of initial existence, only at most, the beginning of being called by some new name.
Michael
All I’m trying to do is to identify what category of being Jesus was, I.e., God, angel, human.
And the title messenger of YHWH is applied to either a human or angel.
So what was Jesus?
Carlos,
I thought I was clear. The Son was begotten out of God’s own Person. In John 8:42 (Gk.) Jesus said, “I issued forth out of God.” I stated before that “kind begets like kind.” So the Son was of the God “kind” whatever that consists of. Then God used His Son as HIs Agent both in creation and in interaction with mankind, including all of the covenants. So He was NOT of the “kind” as the other “angels.”
Carlos,
If I remember correctly, I said that the Son was “spirit” in exactly the same way that John 4:24 says that “God is spirit” (not “a spirit”). But Anthony kept insisting that I was saying that He was “a spirit.” So I conceded his wording just to move on. Please do not misrepresent me.
I see what you are attempting to do, confine “a spirit” to angels or demons, thereby rehabilitating your exegesis of Heb. 1:5. But it won’t work, because you missed the fact that Jesus is even called “the Spirit” in 2 Cor. 3:15-17 “15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
Because we believe that the Son was begotten out of God, and “God is Spirit,” the expression we use is that His Son was also “spirit.” By my own definition, the Son was only “spirit” in the same sense that God is “spirit.”
The word “spirit” is literally “breath” or “wind.” It is only used of God, the Son, angels, and demons as a metaphor. Metaphors are intended to apply some aspect of the literal sense to something else. “Wind/breath” is invisible yet can produce effects, sometimes very powerfully. This is why Jesus said in John 4 “God is Spirit.” He also compared the “Spirit of God” to the wind for this exact reason (Jn. 3:8). So if you are attempting to establish a particular ontological “nature” or “essence” or “kind” for the word “Spirit/Breath” you will fail because God, His Spirit, God’s Son, angels and demons are all said to be “spirit,” but they do not share a common ontological nature. This proves that the metaphorical use of “pneuma” in Scripture says absolutely nothing about ontological nature. It only indicates that the entity described by this term is generally invisible, yet able to interact within the creation in some way.
2 Cor. 3:15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Michael,
Your first example of 1 John 3:1 makes our initial point . The problem is you stopped halfway through the verse!
“Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. And that is what we are!”
To be “called” = “what we are”!
Carlos,
You ask a couple things that Tim explained in the discussion with Mr Buzzard. The Messenger of YVWH is of the same kind as YVWH.
Question for you, what is God?
Your answer to that question explains what the Son of God was in the OT.
Then…..
Your question of “what was Jesus” has also been clearly stated by Tim. He was in every way like His brethren, a human being, having emptied Himself of His equality (in kind not authority) with God.
Regarding 1 John 3:1…..what were we called prior to becoming children of God?
If you could clarify what you mean by the Son being “the same kind as YVWH”? I’m sure you don’t mean the Son was YVWH.
Also, are you saying he preexisted as a human being? “He was in every way like His brethren, a human being…”?
And prior to becoming children we were not and we were not called either. The point is now we are both “called” children of God because “we are,” as 1 John 3:1 clearly says.
Carlos,
If a human begets a son, that “son” is necessarily of the same “kind” as the parent. Same with animals. It even applies to plants. This principle is made abundantly clear in Gen. 1. Consequently, if God “begat” a Son, who is called by the names or titles Wisdom, Word, Messenger, etc. that Son must be of the same “kind” as God Himself. We do not try to define God’s ontological nature (what He is) because such speculations go beyond what God has revealed. (We only are told specifically about His character traits and given a little glimpse into His power by its demonstration). When we speak of “kind” we are using the term just as it is used in Genesis 1 regarding all procreating things. We mean His ontological nature (what something is, not who someone is). This does not require having the same kind of origin, just as Adam, Eve, and Seth, all had completely different kinds of origins, yet all were equally of the human “kind.”
What we call “angels” are of a different “kind,” created by God through Logos (John 1:3), who is Jesus (Col. 1:16). We know virtually nothing about their ontological nature, except that the word “pneuma” (wind/breath) is applied to them metaphorically.
We teach that at the appointed time, God’s Son (Wisdom, Word, Messenger), was totally transformed in his ontological nature from the God kind to the human kind. In the process, He emptied Himself of all of those uniquely divine qualities which He had inherited from God at the beginning of His existence as a Person. He was the same conscious Person, but now exclusively human. At the beginning of His ministry, He was “filled” with the full measure of the “Breath/Spirit” of God, thus all of His miracles were God accomplishing them through Him. The Son of God had a “beginning,” and His begetting out of God was “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), since He was “the first-produced of all creation” (Col. 1:15), which are references to “Wisdom” in Prov. 8:22. But He had a new beginning (as a new creation), as a human of the seed of Abraham and David through Mary. We also teach that the phrase “Son of God” was meant to point to His origin at creation, and the clause “Son of Man” points to His new origin through Mary. (We do not claim that the disciples understood this distinction early on).
This transformation from Son of God to Son of Man might be compared to the resurrection in reverse. While we are now mortal, but in the resurrection we will be raised immortal (a new beginning but same Person), God’s Son was first immortal but became mortal to redeem us to God so that we can become immortal as He now is after His resurrection. So, having two different kinds of “beginnings” should not be such a shocking concept IF you believe as we do in the resurrection to immortality. Do you not also believe that God will make “all things new?” Is not the restored creation a “new creation,” the “new heavens and new earth?” Would you argue that such terminology rules out a preexistence for the new heavens and earth? or that being raised immortal rules out preexistence as mortal? What we are doing here is consistently applying the same principles revealed in Scripture that God can make old things new again. With His Son, He did the reverse, making the immortal One mortal, so that He could redeem us and then make us immortal like His Son is now after the resurrection.
Regarding your last comment above, the point of Randy’s comment is that being called something different at some point in our lives after a radical change does not mean we had no preexistence. We become children of God through the “new birth.” Thus we have two origins also, and as children of God, we also had a preexistence as not being children of God.
One final point. In the battle against Trinitarianism, Biblical Unitarians are severely handicapped simply because of the denial of preexistence. You are right to oppose the idea of the Son being co-equal and co-eternal with God. But you are wrong to oppose a temporal preexistence. In your paradigm, Jesus is not really the “only-begotten Son” of God. He is merely a creation of God. You cannot defeat Trinitarianism by denying that the Son is literally God’s only begotten Son. You can, however, defeat Trinitarians by showing that they themselves do not believe this, yet it is clearly taught in Scripture.
Looks like you’re using the old C.S. Lewis theory, I.e., God begets God.
And again, the Bible reveals only the one type of spirit being, angels.
The Greek word monogenes is a comound word made up of monos = “unique” or “only one” and genes “kind,” from the Greek gennao.
The latter (gennao) is used throughout the genealogies of both Old and New Testaments to refer to fathers begetting or procreating children.
Hence, the baby Jesus in Matthew 1:20 is described as one who is begotten (gennethen, from the root gennao) in Mary by the power of God’s spirit.
According to standard Greek lexicons the word gennao means “to cause something to come into existence, primarily through procreation.” (See Alfred Rahlfs, Genesis 1926, 39.)
That the Son came into existence via procreation in Mary was the understanding of the Apostle Paul as well, when he says in Gal 4.4a:
“When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son made [genomenon] of a woman.”
The Greek translated “made” is from the verb ginomai which according to Bauer’s Lexicon means “to come into being, existence through the process of birth.”
(Cp. Thayer’s Lexicon: “To become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being.”)
So for the NT Gospel writers the Son comes into being, into existence, inside his mother’s womb and not outside (as the literal preexistence view suggests)!
According to the angels of the LORD who appeared to both Mary and Joseph the Son was begotten, I.e., procreated in the womb.
“The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of gennan) in 1:16, 20 suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the Holy Spirit is the becoming of God’s Son.”
Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p 140.
PS this will be my last post and reply for the time being. Thank you for inviting me, Godspeed!
Carlos,
I have enjoyed the interaction. Thank you for spending so much time engaging us.
Your last post above provides a very clear demonstration of our completely different approaches to interpreting God’s Word. Throughout our conversations, as well as your’s and Anthony’s interactions with Trinitarians, you “appeal to authority.” Often it is an appeal to a certain Trinitarian scholar in an attempt to give validation to your arguments which Trinitarians would accept. But this is a completely subjective process. One can string together cherry-picked quotes from various scholars to “prove” just about anything.
The problem created by the term “mono-genes” (only-begotten) is equally severe for both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians. The early Trinitarians and their creeds concluded that the preexistent Son was “eternally-begotten.” More modern Trinitarian scholars have rejected this because “eternally begotten” is an oxymoron. The verb “begotten” describes the event of procreation, and one cannot be “begotten” without the event of separation from the parent as a distinct person. “Co-eternal” is simply not compatible with “begotten.” So modern Trinitarian scholarship attempts to attach mono-genes to the “incarnation” instead. But in doing so, they face another problem. In Trinitarianism, Jesus was not actually “begotten” by God at the “incarnation,” since He already existed as “God the Son” previously. In Trinitarianism, God the Son just put on a flesh suit. But this is not “begotten of the Father” in any sense, since procreation requires kind begetting like kind. Trinitarian theology has no literal “begetting” of the Son by God, either before creation or at the time of the “incarnation.” The solution was to change the meaning of the term “only-begotten” (mono-genes) to “unique-Son,” removing the concept of “begotten” entirely, and changing “mono” (only, sole) to “unique.” This way Jesus could be shown as “unique” among many “sons of God” who are adopted (not literally begotten), without defining in what way He is unique. To make matters worse, many modern translations follow a particular variant reading which is clearly a Trinitarian interpolation, so that instead of “only begotten Son” in John 1:18, there are a host of conflicting translations. The ESV has “the only God.”. The NASB has “the only begotten God.” The NIV has “the one and only Son, who is himself God.” The NRSV has “God the only Son.” All of these are attempts at forcing Trinitarian theology into this verse. How’s that for Trinitarian scholarship? When the blind lead the blind, both end up in a ditch. The fact is, “only-begotten Son” is the correct reading; it is the majority reading by far, and it is the one attested by the earliest patristic quotes. It requires an act of begetting by a parent, and it refers to the sole person who was begotten by that parent. To take this one step further, an “only begotten Son” must be of the same “kind” as the parent, because kind always begets like kind, a principle established in the first chapter of the Bible.
The Bible is not that complicated so that one must sit at the feet of the scribes and Pharisees to have them explain it to us. The Bible is its own commentary and lexicon. All you need is the Bible to define this term by usage.
Judges 11:34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child (mono-genes – LXX); beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
If “mono-genes” means “unique-child,” then it would require that Jephthah had other children so that this one would be “unique” among them. But He did not have any other children. It does not mean “unique.”
Luke 7:12 And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son (mono-genes) of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her.
Luke 8:42 for he had an only daughter (mono-genes) about twelve years of age, and she was dying. But as He went, the multitudes thronged Him.
Luke 9:38 Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child (mono-genes).
In what sense were these mentioned above by Luke “unique” and/or not actually “begotten” out of the parent? Mono-genes always means the sole procreated offspring from a parent. Even in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s “mono-genes,” (even though he had Ishmael), this was because Isaac was the child of promise through Sarah, who had only one son. Hebrews was following Genesis 22:2 where the Messenger of Yahweh said to Abraham, “Take now your son, your only, Isaac …” He repeated this in verse 12 and verse 16. This was because God had rejected Ishmael as being the heir of the Abrahamic Covenant, simply because Abraham did not wait on God to fulfill His promise but attempted to fulfill it himself through Hagar.
I will stand firm on my previous point, that neither Trinitarianism nor Biblical Unitarianism can accommodate the meaning of John’s use of mono-genes (only-begotten). Wisdom / Logos / Jesus was and is the “only-begotten of the Father” whom God acquired by begetting, who was in the beginning with God, through whom He created all things, who afterward “became flesh” (Jn. 1:14). He is not God’s adopted son (as we are), but He was procreated out of God’s own person just as He claimed in John 8:42 which reads in the NJB: “Jesus answered: ‘If God were your father, you would love me, since I have my origin in God and have come from him’;” The Greek reads: ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω, literally, “for I out of God issued forth and am come.” Jesus used the same language found in Gen. 15:4 LXX in reference to Isaac’s origin out of Abraham’s own body, “… This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come out of thee shall be thine heir.” The Greek requires that the Son actually came out of the Father, and indicates the essence of “begetting” (cf. Psalm 2:7 & Psalm 110:3 LXX; Prov. 8:22-25). This is the real meaning of “mono-genes” which is applied to God’s Son.
Unlike Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians, we are proclaiming the Son of God who was literally “begotten” out of God, the “only-begotten of the Father” who “became flesh” (John 1:14) in order to become completely mortal and die for us (Heb. 2:9; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:9-10,14-17). Carlos, you are denying the greatest expression of God’s love to man by giving His “only begotten Son” to become what we are in order to die. You are denying the greatest possible example given for us to follow when Paul said in Phil. 2:5, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus …”
I think the biggest take-away from the video discussion and this continued discussion is the stark contrast between the methods being employed by both sides. Our process of defining terms by biblical usage (including the LXX), interpreting progressively, and allowing the NT to interpret the OT, leads solely and absolutely to the conclusions we have outlined. Your process, cherry-picking scholarly sources (which are all colored by theological biases), does not necessarily lead to your conclusions, simply because one can prove Trinitarianism using exactly the same process. One process is objective, yours is entirely subjective. The readers can decide for themselves which process they wish to have their theology defined by.
1 Cor. 1:18-24,27-29 (NASB) 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
God Bless, Tim
(Due to the poor formatting of the blog template, I will add my thought here instead of above. It seems that this topic is also being discussed in the newest comments, so I will continue anew.)
I think the BU and Carlos’ argument is that when we are called “children of God”, we became for the first time, children of God. So, when the moniker “son of God” is applied to Jesus in Luke 1.35, He, for the first time became the “son of God” (Carlos, correct me if I am wrong).
The fine point here is that just because someone is called something for the first time, does not require that person to have come into existence at that time, e.g. “children of God”, and Simon called “Peter”.
But, again to Carlos’ point, we, of the Apostolic Monotheistic belief, believe that before Jesus was incarnate, He existed as the Son of God (though not openly called so), and after His incarnation, He was both Son of God and Son of Man, though not in the way of some hypostatic union.
Due to the mystery surrounding the Son in the OT, He was not directly called “Son of God”, but was the Plurality in Genesis, the Messenger of the Lord, Wisdom and the Word; all names that were directly attributed to Jesus in the NT. But there was the allusion to the coming revelation of the Son of God (cf. Prov 30.4), and with the advent of Jesus, did clarify the mystery, and explain riddle.
While it is wise to deeply study the OT for understanding, we should never forget that the Jews (who knew the OT), misunderstood Messiah, and this seems to have been intentional on the part of God. We can only understand the mystery of the Father and Son through the additional light provided in the NT; we must remove the veil that the Jews wore when reading the Law, Prophets and Writings.
So then, the Son of God, while being the Son of God preincarnate, was not openly called Son of God. Only after His incarnation was the Son of God openly revealed, for the first time.
Carlos, if you really want to understand what we believe regarding Luke 1:35, the following article explains it well.
https://www.4windsfellowships.net/blog/why-the-human-jesus-was-called-son-of-god/
Michael,
Your Peter example is a false parallel. We’re not talking about someone changing their name, what Luke and Matthew describe is how the Son came to be (gennao, Mat 1:18).
And Luke says as a result of God’s miraculous power, by His spirit, he will be called Son of God.
Thanks, Michael, for clearing that up.
Tim, excellent job on supporting your argument. You were sincere, respectful (even in the face of constant interruption), completely knowledgeable, with the Scriptures to support. You acknowledged the points you both agreed on and attempted to explain the ones you didn’t. A true apologist. I believe Mr. Buzzard is so locked into his “doctrine” that the thought of even looking at another possibility is foreign. I can relate…as an ex-Trinitarian I before would never have believed I possessed anything other than the truth, even though there were questions I could not get answers, except it is a “mystery.” It wasn’t until I found your ministry “Answers in Revelation” and your teaching at “Oasis” and now “4 Winds” and through prayer and study that God revealed the “wisdom” He promises when we ask and truly seek. You mentioned during the discussion the different doctrines (Trinitarianism, heavenly destination, ect) you once believed but have since changed your opinion. And I remember the lesson on the holy Breath when you announced that you no longer accepted that idea. I am sure your change came because something was stirring in your mind, because you prayed and sought counsel of other believers and because you looked deeply into the original Scriptures. It is that humility that confirmed to me your ministry as being approved of God. You are not looking for fame or fortune…you are obeying God’s command to “make disciples.” I am sure many pastors “know” the truth but stick with what they preach because to deny this might mean an end to their career or status. Thank you for truly “seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.”
I do have a question but I will submit under the proper topic.
Thanks, Dave, for the kind and encouraging words.
Phew that was an intense read.
I have never doubted that Jesus was with Father God when He made our world because it was logical.
In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
(Joh 1:1)
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.
(Joh 8:58)
John knew Jesus better than any human.
Thanks Tim and Carlos.
Thanks to all for the discussion! I find a good disagreement, with a fair amount of back and forth, to have a good affect on my understanding. It is much more profitable than a bunch of patting each other on the back about what we believe.
I really like how Barton W. Stone sums up a good “change of mind and doctrine,” in his “Address to the Christian Churches of KY, TN and OH,” referenced in an earlier of Tim’s posts on this blog…..
(pgs 2,3) “Do not all Protestants acknowledge that even the first reformers from popery were once wrong? And that every man reformed was once in an error? Do not all agree that it would be uncandid to attach to them their former errors, and exhibit them thus clad to public odium?
It has been deemed disgraceful in every age for a man to change his opinions, or to depart from public sentiment. This was a reason why the primitive christians, among Jews and Gentiles, were so much despised and persecuted by their countrymen. This was one reason why the reformers from popery shared the same fate–why Wesley and others were so much hated and rejected. I am very far from thinking it a disgrace [iv] to give up an error for the truth. Speaking thus, I express the real judgment of every christian. For what christian will join with Jews and pagans to condemn the primitive christians for relinquishing their former opinions? What Protestant will now blame the reformers, Luther and others, for departing from the errors in which they had been raised. Shall we commend them for their conduct? shall we applaud their firmness–and yet execrate the same things in our contemporaries?
The disgrace attached to a change of opinion has ever stood in the way of reformation from error. That man, who loves and pursues truth for truth’s sake, must expect to lose the favor and smiles of his friends, and bear unmerited reproach and scorn.–“
Thanks, Tim, for the reminder. I for one have “lost favor and smiles of friends and bear unmerited reproach and scorn.” But so also did all of the Apostles of Jesus.
Luke 6:26 (NASB) “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets.”
Very much enjoyed that Tim F.
Thanks for posting it.
Hello and God bless you all.
Let me introduce myself. I am a former seventh day adventist, but at this moment do not identify myself with any denomination nor organized movement. Maybe some of you know that seventh day adventists today are trinitarians(or some kind of tritheists), but it was not always like that. I will try to go straight to my concern but it is necessary you know some details first. In my searching for truth I discovered that the seventh day adventist church was not always a trinitarian church. The pioneers of the SDA church came along from different denominations and started a movement that ended up in the great disappointment of 1844, but afterwards some of them continued studying to know why the disappointment occurred and kept pushing forward until the SDA was stablished in 1863. All (or most) of the SDA’s pioneers were not trinitarians but held a view that’s identified in some circles as a “semi-arian position”. In short they believed that Jesus was begotten of the Father(God) in the eternity past out of the same substance of God(The Father) himself. Ellen G. White taught this very thing, and you can find more information about it in her book Patriarcs and Prophets chapter 1. As a modern SDA trinitarian, I didn’t know about the history of my church, because this is something you don’t hear about, and maybe you can imagine the reason. A big change from a Non-Trinitarian church to a Trinitarian church may cause many to leave the church or to try to return to the “old ways”. That’s exactly what has been happening in the SDA Church in the last decades. Many have found this history that has been hidden on purpose and have tried to return to the ways of “the pioneers”. And that’s exactly what I did also when I found myself in a church that has not been clear about the fundamentals teachings of the initials members of the church. Today you can find on youtube and on the internet many Pastors and lay members that have been disfellowshipped from the SDA Church because they found about this and have tried to reform the church from within. Big names like Daniel Mesa, Nader Mansour, David Barron…etc are a few names if you are interested to know what they teach about this very subject, that by the way, IS VERY SIMILAR to what you are teaching.
In my search for truth on the internet I watched many debates online, and remember when I saw the one with Anthony Buzzard/I don’t remember the other guy’s name vs James White/Michael Brown. Since I still was a trinitarian at that point I didn’t agree with Anthony Buzzard because I held a view of a pre-existing Jesus before his incarnation. When I found the history of the SDA Church and read the many quotes of Ellen G. White about Jesus begotten in the eternity past and not being COEQUAL with God the Father, I was forced to not believe anymore in the trinity. I then started a way of studying the Bible by myself and to keep looking for what others were teaching about this mystery of the trinity. I found a guy named Chris Lasala who believed something VERY SIMILAR to what a semi-arian position looks like, and that guy mentioned a youtube channel called The trinity Delusion. I looked after that channel and found very interesting the reasoning(of brother Kel) against the trinity. That’s when I found for the first time someone who didn’t believe in the preexistence of Jesus, but had many arguments with a lot of weight against it. I then looked after and found Anthony Buzzard and Carlos Xavier YouTube channels because I remembered the debate I watched online once, and got many jewels of information on their youtube channels respectevely. But then I found that they do not agree with brother Kel(the guy from The Trinity Delusion channel) in some points. I also found that there are many Biblical Unitarians that don’t agree with each other. And I found myself in disagreement with brother Kel and Carlos Xavier and Anthony Buzzard in some points.
All in all, I left my semi-arian view and I have now a position close to unitarianism. But let me explain what I am trying to say with this long story(sorry about that).
Brother Kel from The Trinity Delusion teaches something that is different from you Tim and from Anthony Buzzard and Carlos. Also I will add what I found myself about this particular subject regarding John 1:1 and the Logos, that brother Kel is in disagreement also.
The first thing that I will mention regarding your positions is that you Tim and Anthony apply John 1 to the incarnation/birth and to the genesis creation account, but the context is clearly not talking about the Logos becoming flesh at the birth(or incarnation) of Jesus, nor God created everything through the Logos(Jesus) mentioned in the Genesis account. The context is clearly showing the New Creation that started at the ministry of Jesus at his baptism. In John 1:4 says the following “in Him/this(Logos) was life and the life was the light of men”. This is the clue that John is using a similar language used in Genesis to describe what is going to take place at the beginning of Christ’s ministry aka THE NEW CREATION. Nobody(any man) was present before the creation of Genesis took place, so it doesn’t make sense that through this Logos(Jesus in a previous state) God created all things and this Logos(Jesus in a previous state) was the light of men, since no man was there to get the light from this Logos(Jesus in a previous state).
Let me take you on to account Tim on this matter. Since you believe that Jesus pre-existed in a different state or form, Why then you don’t see the context regarding John 1 being at the baptism?
If I can prove you that the context of John 1 relates to the baptism of Jesus, THEN you will have to admit that inside Jesus in human form was put the Son of God, and you will end up with TWO different beings at the baptism. In order to do this we must look at the whole context of John( including 1John and Revelation 1, 3, 12 and 19). If you follow up this comment of mine I will expand about this subject in details. If you do that I will prove you that the Logos was not Jesus in a preexistence form, but the Father himself and I will prove you that Carlos Xavier and Anthony Buzzard are mistaken also for believing that the Logos became flesh at the birth of Jesus.
When I saw the notification from youtube that there were going to be a discussion from you Tim and Anthony, I looked forward it and downloaded the video. I then watched and found your position on this subject with a semi-arian view very strong against Anthony’s position, but I realized that most likely it is because he holds a view about the Logos becoming flesh at the birth of Jesus and not at the baptism. I liked it your way of reasoning and you put myself to think and rethink this subject over and over again. Maybe you can prove me wrong on this, but if you have the truth, I will welcome it gladly. I will look forward for your answer.
God bless you abundantly!
(And again sorry for the long post)
Wow,
You need not be sorry for the long post at all!!!
I was on a similar track as you described. So reading your post did strengthen my journey of seeking the truth. And you are leading me to an area deeper. Thank you thank you thank you~~~
You are most welcome 🙂
Hi, Tim,
First of all, I was amused to hear your explanation and that with so much love and respect to Sir Anthony Buzzard. Thank you so very much… I was more or less embarrassed by the little I knew.
You provided enough information so I did understand well what you were pointing at. So my study will go on. But I have a question…
At time stamp 1:06:34 You said g4267 proginóskó was never used in the sense of Calvinistic ‘foreknowledge’. But when I checked the verses which used that word(g4267), I found Romans 8:29. Romans 8:29 seems to tell that God foreknew the body of Christ, the followers of Jesus. When I looked at the interlinear, the form of the word was a bit different. proegnō. (I was using Biblehub.com) Am I missing something? Does the verse mean God foreknew them as the unrighteous prior to having them born again?
Oh, well… This is a big discovery… I am somewhat in a panic if this is the right word… But I am glad anyway.
Thank you again,
Sang,
Rom. 8:29 does not refer to God knowing people before they existed. “Fore-knew” refers to those God knew previously. God knew them (had a personal relationship with them) previous to the present time, not that He knew about them before they existed. It is people like those listed in Hebrews 11, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. Notice that all of the verbs in vs. 30 are past tense. God’s purpose was to gather all of the saints from all ages “in Christ” (Eph. 1:10-11). Yet He is the “First-produced” among them all, which means He was begotten before all of them, including Abel. This is also why Heb. 12:1-3 says that Jesus is “The Founder and Finisher of The Faith,” the Faith of all those named in ch. 11.
Thank you Tim,
I am seeing the context better…
This g4267 proginóskó is the most significant one for me.
Please let me know if you can tell me one or two more of the significant ones if you can pin them.. But I will watch the video few times more. Thank you again~~~
Acts 26:5 is the first time this word appears in the NT, and proves it does NOT mean to know someone before they existed.
“Which knew me from the beginning (proginosko), if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” (Acts 26:5 KJV)
Rom. 11:2-3 (NKJV) 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life “?
Note that Paul used “Elijah” as one of the people whom God “foreknew.” The context shows that “proginosko” refers to God knowing Elijah in past time, not before he existed. The mistake being made by many interpreters is in thinking that previous time which is indicated by “pro-” means before they existed. The correct understanding of “pro-” is “before now,” in times past when God had a personal relationship with them. This mistaken understanding of this term gives cover to Calvinism and to Biblical Unitarianism’s denial of Jesus’ preexistence in 1 Pet. 1:20. The correct translation of that verse is as follows, which actually proves preexistence:
1 Pet. 1:19-20 (LGV) 19 but with the precious blood of the Anointed, as a Lamb without flaw and without spot, 20 having been known formerly, indeed even before the casting down of the world, yet made apparent in the last times for you.”
See the following article: https://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Foreknowledge.pdf
Tim
I believe Anthony’s point about Jesus being the Son of God precisely because of His miraculous conception is correct, but here’s what he’s missing: Indeed, it was precisely because of the miraculous conception that Jesus was the HUMAN Son of God. That fact does not have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not He was the DIVINE Son of God prior to His human existence. Your water-to-wine analogy expresses this, but Anthony didn’t get it.
In John 1:1, “the Word was with the Deity, and the Word was Deity.” The first “Deity” (which has the article) is WHO the Word was with; the second “Deity” is WHAT the Word was. Here, I believe, is an instance when the term THEOS is used in the ontological rather than positional/functional (as pertaining to dominion) sense. As the NEB puts it, “What God was the Word was.”
Understanding the context of Matthew 1 and Luke 1 is only achieved through the words of Jesus and His Apostles . Matthew 1:1, 18 describe the origin of Jesus, but this does not necessarily imply an absolute coming into existence of the Son of God as many have insisted because Paul gives a qualifying sense in Romans 1:3 when he says God’s Son ‘came to be of a seed of David according to the flesh,’ which is in contrast to his having ‘issued forth from the Father before the world was and subsequently coming from beside the Father into the world’ (John 16:27-28) — the same place where he ultimately ascended.
The argument that Luke 1:35 implies the absolute coming into existence of the Son of God by asserting that “shall be called the Son of God” is equivalent to being (to be) the Son of God is an equivocation fallacy. It completely ignores the fact that “to be called” can also mean “to be recognized as” or “to be identified as.” Hence, the phrase “will be called the Son of God” does not necessarily imply that he did not already exist as the Son of God prior to his conception.
The fallacy in this case is to oppose the belief that the Son of God existed in heaven with the Father before the world was, which is widely supported by various passages in the Bible. Moreover, it creates a misleading strawman argument wherein those who dispute this errant interpretation are seen to deny Jesus being called the Son of God equates to him being the Son of God. In reality, they are simply and rightly pointing out that being “called” the Son of God does not necessarily imply an absolute coming into existence.
These maneuvers are frequently used to resist the broader context and weight of biblical evidence regarding the heavenly origin of the Son of God and how he came to be a man of a woman. To arrive at a coherent and accurate understanding of this vital aspect of the doctrine of Christ, it is important to consider all relevant passages in their proper context, and not fall into the trap of selectively using certain verses out of context, such as these, to argument that the Son of God could not have existed prior to his birth on earth.
People have been going back and forth, back and forth, like a squirrel on a telephone wire, between Matthew 1 and Luke 1, trying to unravel the origin of the Son of God. But unless they heed the words of the master himself, who declared, “I came forth out of the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father who sent me,” (indicating that he ascended to where he was before he was sent and came), they’ll be stuck in an endless loop like a hamster on a wheel. Ignoring this crucial insight from Jesus and the apostles would be like a cook forgetting the main ingredient in a recipe – it’s simply disastrous.
In addition, the usage of the phrase “according to the flesh” in Romans 1:3 is comparable to language used in Romans 4:1, 9:3-5 and Galatians 4:23 which reinforces the idea that the phrase is used to distinguish one thing from another. However, the sense of distinction in these verses is different from the one in Romans 1:3, which is specifically referring to the Son of God coming to be of a seed of David according to the flesh. The phrase in Galatians 4:23, for instance, distinguishes between the children of the bondwoman and the children of the freewoman in terms of their birth origins, while the phrase in Romans 1:3 distinguishes between Christ’s heavenly origin and his earthly origin.
The phrase “according to the flesh” in Romans 1:3 refers specifically to the manner in which the Son of God came to be born as a human being, whereas in other instances, such as in Romans 4:1 and 9:3-5, the phrase is used to distinguish between physical lineage and spiritual inheritance. It’s important to consider the context of each passage to properly understand the meaning of the phrase.