Logos’ Origin in John 1:3-4
Baptist Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson, noted in his Word Pictures in the New Testament that there are two ways of punctuating and reading John 1:3-4. The old Greek manuscripts did not have punctuation, which at times allows more than one way of reading a particular passage, particularly the exact point where a sentence ends and a new sentence begins. This is because often in Greek a sentence begins with a dependent clause rather than the independent clause which forms the nucleus of the sentence. At times, a certain dependent clause could potentially be the ending clause of one sentence, or the beginning clause of a new sentence. When the text makes sense when read either way, the choice of how to punctuate the sentence is entirely up to the translator. This is where sometimes translator bias creeps into the translation. Most English translations render these two verses as follows:
3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (NASB)
The underlined words in the above translation are the last part of the sentence in verse 3, which follows the Majority Text and Textus Receptus added punctuation.
(Majority Text & Textus Receptus)
3 Πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν. 4 Ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Literally: 3 “Everything through Him originated, and without Him originated nothing what originated. 4 In Him life was, and the life was the light of men.”
However, Robertson pointed out that this translation is “doubtful” and was not how this passage was quoted by the earliest Christian writers. He writes: “It is doubtful also whether the relative clause “that hath been made” (ho gegonen [ὃ γέγονεν]) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen [ὃ γέγονεν]. The early uncials had no punctuation.”
The Nestle-Aland Critical Text, which most modern translations usually follow (except on rare occasions), places the words ὃ γέγονεν (“what has originated”) as the first words of a new sentence which comprises verse 4. This is in agreement with the earliest quotations of this verse and the opinion of textual scholar B. F. Westcott. Yet most modern versions do not follow their own underlying text here. The NA28 Greek edition reads as follows: (Note the placement of the period.)
[3] πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν [4] ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
Literally:
3 “Everything through Him originated, and without Him originated not one thing. What has originated 4 in Him life was, and the life was the light of men.”
Here are a few examples from the earliest Christian writers. Irenaeus (2nd cent.) quoted this passage as follows: “…there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men.
Clement of Alexandria (2nd cent.) quoted verse 4 as follows: “He that is illuminated is therefore awake towards God; and such an one lives. ‘For what was made in Him was life.’ ‘Blessed is the man,’ says Wisdom, ‘who shall hear me, and the man who shall keep my ways, …”[1]
Again, commenting on 1 John 1:2, Clement wrote: “’The life was manifested.’ For in the Gospel he thus speaks, ‘And what was made in Him was life, and the life was the light of men.’” [2]
Here is a quote from Origen (3rd cent.): “John also, who lived after him, said, ‘That which was in the Logos was life, and the life was the light of men,’ which ‘true light lighteth every man …”[3]
Hippolytus (3rd cent.) wrote: “’For all things’ he says ‘were made by him, and not even one thing was made without him,’ and ‘what was made in him was life.’”[4]
For these reasons, in the LGV[5] I have translated John 1:3-4 as follows:
3 Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated. 4 What has originated in Him was life, and the Life was the light of men.
Besides the fact that this is the way the ancient Greek-speaking Christian writers understood these verses, there is another reason to reject the reading in most English versions. It creates a redundant statement: “nothing came into being that has come into being” (NASB). The addition of “ὃ γέγονεν” (what has originated) adds nothing at all to the sentence but is completely redundant.
Another point worth noting is that the word translated “originated” in verses 3 and 10 in reference to the creation is in the aorist tense, referring to merely historical events. However, in the clause, “What has originated in Him was life,” the perfect tense is used. This means that “life” (which is external to God) had its origin and continues in the one called “Logos.” This statement explicitly references the origin of the one called Logos, as a new “Life” which did not exist before. John’s prologue does not merely indicate that Logos was “with God” (external to God) in the beginning of creation week, but He originated (as a new Life) from God at that time. It should be observed that when Eve was created out of Adam’s body, He called her name “Eve,” which in Hebrew means “Life.” Eve (Life) was the very first human “life” produced out of Adam. This also perfectly corresponds with the statement about “Wisdom” being begotten in Proverbs 8:22-31 (LXX) as “the Beginning“ of creation. The Hebrew reads “Yahweh acquired Me the beginning of His way.” The Hebrew word translated “acquired” is the same word Eve used when her sons were born, “I have acquired a man from Yahweh” (Gen. 4:1). Note Paul’s statement about the Son in Colossians 1:15,18, “He is the image of the invisible God, first-produced of all creation,” and, “who is the Beginning,” and Jesus’ statement about Himself in Revelation 3:14 as “the Beginning of the creation of God.”
This raises the question of why most Bible translations do not follow the ancient reading of this verse or the modern Nestle – Aland Greek edition they claim to be translating. As Robertson pointed out, John Chrysostom and those after him read this verse as it is in most of our English Bibles. John Chrysostom, arch-bishop of Constantinople from AD 397 – 407, served and wrote shortly after the Council of Constantinople (AD 381). The earlier Council of Nicaea (AD 325) declared that the Son was “begotten” out of God, thus affirming that He was of the same divine essence or nature as God. However, the Council of Constantinople clarified this to mean that the Son was begotten “before all ages” (in eternity past) and was interpreted as “eternal generation,” a continuous “generation” from all eternity. This excluded the earlier view that the Son was “begotten” as “the Beginning” of the creation week (Wisdom of Prov. 8). If John 1:3-4 was punctuated and interpreted in the manner it had been understood since the very beginning, it would contradict the new creedal dogma of “eternal generation.” This explains why writers beginning with John Chrysostom adopted this reading. Today, almost all English translations are heavily biased towards Trinitarianism and its “eternal generation” dogma simply because the translation committees consist mostly of Trinitarians. The circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Trinitarian bias is the primary reason that most English translations (which are virtually all based on the Nestle-Aland Critical text), do not follow the punctuation of that Greek edition in this instance because it would cast doubt on the “eternal generation” of the Son concept.
If John 1:3-4 is punctuated and read as it was in the first centuries of Christianity, and as the latest scholarly Greek editions punctuate indicate this passage, this necessarily pinpoints the Son’s origin out of God as being “the Beginning” of creation week. Solomon’s description of “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8:22-31, who was “begotten” by God and made “the Beginning of His ways for His works,”[6] being the only-begotten Son of God. John’s prologue includes the fact that the Son had a point of origin of His conscious living Person as distinct from God.
When John 1:3-4 is read as it was understood by Christians who held this view regarding the Son, this passage supported His origin “in the beginning.” Consider the implications of this within the larger context of verses 1-5.
John 1:1-5 (LGV) 1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated. 4 What has originated in Him was life, and the Life was the light of men, 5 and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not take hold of it.
Notice the intentional contrast between what originated “through Him” (Logos) and what originated “in Him.” Verses 1-3 place the one called Logos in the beginning with God, and the one through whom God created absolutely everything. Of course, “everything” does not include Logos (the Son) since He was the agent through whom everything was created. However, verse 4 claims that “life” itself originated “in Him,” making Logos the very first “Life” apart from God.
Paul stated that it is “God who gives life to all things.”[7] Certainly this would be true of God giving life to “the only-begotten of the Father,”[8] something essential to the language of “begetting.” Since “what has originated in Him was life,” this “Life” was God’s doing alone. Everything else “originated through Him” (Logos, the new Life). That “life” originated “in Him” means precisely the same thing that Paul meant when he wrote as follows:
Col. 1:15-18 (LGV) 15 He is the image of the God who is unseen, first-produced of all creation, 16 because through Him everything was created, what is in the skies and what is on the land, the seen and the unseen (including thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities). Everything has been created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before everyone, and everything has been established together through Him. 18 And He is the head of the Body (the assembly), who is The Beginning, …
It is hard to deny that John’s prologue was intended to reinforce Paul’s above statement, especially since after Paul’s martyrdom John took over the supervision of the churches of Asia Minor which Paul had established.
There is much in John’s prologue which parallels Paul’s statement above about Christ, demonstrating that John’s intent was to support Paul’s earlier teaching. This includes all of the following points:
A. The Origin of the Son:
Paul: “first-produced of all creation” … “who is The Beginning”
John: “What has originated in Him was life”
B. The Son existed with God at “the beginning” of Genesis:
Paul: “And He is before everyone”
John: “In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, … He was in the beginning with God”
C. The Son was the Agent “through” whom God created all things:
Paul: “because through Him everything was created, what is in the skies and what is on the land, the seen and the unseen (including thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities). Everything has been created through Him and for Him, … and everything has been established together through Him.”
John: “Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated.”
D. The Son was the one seen as “God” because God has never been seen:
Paul: “He is the image of the God who is unseen”
John: “and Logos was God.” “Never before has anyone seen God. The Only-Begotten Son, the one being unto the Father’s bosom, that one declared Him.”
Unitarians reject all of the above points from both Paul and John and seek to explain them away by exegetical gymnastics. Trinitarians accept B, C, & D but they cannot allow point A, either Paul’s statement, “first-produced of all creation,” or in John’s statement, “What originated in Him was life.” Both statements indicate that the Son of God had an origin at a distinct point in time, the very beginning of creation week. This is totally incompatible with Trinitarianism which is why the NKJV/NIV/HCSB/CEB add the word “over” in Col. 1:15, “firstborn over all creation” rather than “first-produced of all creation” as the text is literally translated. The preposition “over” is not in the text nor is it implied by the genitive case of “all creation.”[9] This addition to the text has the effect of eliminating the idea that the Son had an origin in time. The same is true when most English translations mistranslate John 1:3-4. The correct translation of this text is equally problematic for Unitarians. They acknowledge that the Son had an origin but deny that it was at the beginning of creation week.
There is absolutely no valid exegetical reason to take “first-produced” in Colossians 1:15 as a term referring to dominion over the modifying genitive (all creation). Nor is there any legitimate reason to place the period in John 1:3-4 where it is located in most versions. Both Trinitarians and Unitarians use this cover given to them by incorrect modern translations in these two passages. For Trinitarians, the faulty translation of these two verses allows them cover for their “eternally begotten” concept allowing for the Son to be co-eternal with the Father. For Unitarians, this allows them to claim that the Son did not exist until His birth in Bethlehem. However, proper exegesis and sound hermeneutics requires that we take these two statement literally, and that they provide positive linkage to the “begetting” statements in Proverbs 8 and Psalm 2:7. Both Colossians 1:15-20 and John 1:1-18 provide absolute proof that the Son of God was begotten (produced) first in relation to all things produced within the creation (thus overthrowing Trinitarianism’s “eternal generation,” while at the same time tying His production to the beginning of the creation, thus proving preexistence. This fact is literally the proverbial stone that kills two birds at once. The fact is, the earliest Christians got it right, and virtually every other theological system which departed from this initial understanding of Colossians 1 and John’s prologue got it wrong and remain in serious error on the most important doctrine in the Bible — who is Jesus.
Go to: The Son personally came down from Heaven (John 3:13)
[1] Clement, The Instructor, Bk. II, ch. ix
[2] Clement, Fragments, III.
[3] Origen, Against Celsus, Bk. VI, ch. v
[4] Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, Bk. V, ch. iii.
[5] www.4windsfellowships.net/LGV/LGV_John.pdf
[6] Verse 22 LXX
[7] 1 Tim. 6:13
[8] John 1:14
[9] Some attempt to justify the translation “over all creation” by claiming that it is a “gentive of subordination.” However, a genitive of subordination is only possible when the noun that the genitive noun modifies requires subordinates, such as “God,” “king,” “governor,” or “master.” (See: Wallace, GGBB, p. 103-104). For example, in the clause “king of Israel,” the noun “king” requires subordinates and cannot be understood apart from the king’s counterparts, his subjects. Consequently, the addition of the genitive noun “of Israel” provides the limits and scope of the king’s dominion. However, the noun πρωτότοκος lit. “first-produced” does not imply a dominion or subordinates. It literally means first produced (sequentially). This term was used 135 times in the Old Testament (LXX) and 8 times in the New Testament. In every case it refers to being the first sequentially produced. When modified by a genitive, it means the first produced in relation to the genitive noun which defines the group of which his production was the first. It carries no inherent meaning of having dominion over others within that group. It is true that the “first-produced” child of a parent was given priority regarding favor from the father, especially regarding the inheritance. But this did not translate into his becoming sovereign over his siblings. It is used once metaphorically in Psalm 89:27 (LXX) where God says of David, “I will make him the firstborn.” But this was because David was the youngest of Jesse’s sons, when the oldest would be expected to have such an honor of being chosen king. This itself did not give David dominion, but rather indicated that he was the recipient of the greatest favor from God who exalted Him to be king ahead of his older brothers. This word was also used twice in the NT of Christ being the “first-produced from among the dead.” But again, “first” does not imply the highest rank, as in having sovereignty over the rest who are to be raised at His coming. Rather “first-produced” points to being the first sequentially to be resurrected to immortality as stated in Acts 26:23, “that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead.” Consequently, this term always indicates being first in sequence regarding production (first in origin as a mortal, or first in origin as an immortal in the resurrection). In the case of the Son of God, it refers to the ultimate “first-produced” by God in relation to the entire creation. As John states, “What originated in Him was life.”
49 thoughts on “Logos’ Origin in John 1:3-4”
Tim,
This is fascinating. Life “originated” in the Son as he was begotten by the Father. Is it the second clause of verse 4, “and the life was the light of men” speaking of the “life” distinctly as the Son and “the light of men” as the acts of creation that manifest and reveal the knowledge of God to mankind?
Adam,
The statement, “and the Life was the light of men,” refers to the newly begotten Son as “the Life,” (see Psalm 2:7). John introduced his first epistle with the following words: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word (Logos) of Life. So John viewed both “Logos” and “Life” as proper names for the Son. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”. He told Martha, I am the resurrection and the Life”. Col. 3:4 says of Christ “who is your life“. So the statement in John 1:4, “and the Life was the light of men” means that the newly begotten Son [Life] brought “light” to mankind. This refers to the Son’s interaction with mankind, beginning with His interaction with Adam in Eden, as Melchizedek (priest of God Most High) in His interaction with Abraham, and as “the Angel [Messenger] of the LORD” in His interaction with Abraham, Moses, and Israel. That the Son also brings “light” into the world as Son of Man is a theme that is found elsewhere in John. The idea that the new “Life” (“the first-produced of all creation”) was God’s personal Agent in HIs interaction with mankind is expanded in verse 18.
Also, note the statement in v. 5. “And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” This refers to the fact that He was concealed in mystery, and Israel did not comprehend who He was, even though it was He who carried them in the wilderness.
Tim,
If everything except life was created through the Son, who breathed life into man´s nostrils in Gen 2:7? The Father or the Son?
Anders,
That is an excellent question, especially since Genesis states, “Let Us make man in Our image and after Our likeness.” There is no question that both the Father and the Son were involved. Gen. 2:7 says that the “Lord God” breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Job 27:3-4 says: “As long as my breath is in me, And the breath of God in my nostrils, My lips will not speak wickedness, Nor my tongue utter deceit.” Yet, the one who walked with Adam in Eden, and who appeared to Abraham and Moses is also called by these titles. And since John states that “all things originated through Him,” my best guess at this time is that God did this through the Son.
I think it is important that John, in his first epistle, begins with a statement that harmonizes with the opening words of his Gospel.
1 John 1:1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life — 2 the Life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal Life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us.
Tim,
This is a really interesting article – thanks for all your digging. I just want to clarify the statement: “the Son of God had an origin at a distinct point in time, at the beginning of creation week”.
Given that John 1 verses 1 and 2 both state (Hebrew repetition?) that the Logos was with God “in the beginning” and that verse 3 says “Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated” and given that time is part of the creation (time-space), this surely means that time originated through the Son?
It seems difficult to reconcile John 1:1-3 with the idea that the Son was begotten at some point in time after the very beginning.
Steven,
Time as part of this creation (six days) originated with the begetting of the Son. Proverbs 8:22-25 speaks of the origin of the one called “Wisdom.” The Jewish Publication Society translation (JPS) translates the Hebrew as follows: 22 “The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;” The word translated “brought forth” is “begotten.” Also keep in mind that the Hebrew word which is above translated “everlasting” (olam) does not mean infinite time. The LXX agrees with vs. 22 as, “The Lord made Me the Beginning of His ways for His works.”
Jesus referred to Himself as “the Beginning” in John 8:25. “Then they said to Him, ‘Who are you?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘The “Beginning!” and that which I am saying to you'” (LGV). In Col. 1:18, Paul wrote of Christ, “who is the Beginning.” In Rev. 3:14 Jesus called Himself “the Beginning of the creation of God.” It was the begetting of the Son itself which establishes the very beginning of measured time, the six days of creation. In Moses’ statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and in John’s statement, “In the beginning was the Word,” these expressions refer to the whole creation week. However, the statement in Prov. 8:22 (LXX) and the others quoted above refer to the beginning instant of “the beginning” (creation week).
Gday Steve how’s it going. As you know I consider time to simply measure the passing of events and therefor to have always existed; even before the beginning of creation. I mean Father existed before the Son was begotten and was probably doing something. I know many Christians believe that God exists outside of time and can see the past and the future at will. I don’t believe this.
Dave,
I agree, time is simply a measure of the passing of events. However, I see this as strenghtening the conclusion that time started with Creation Day One.
“Events” are PHYSICAL “things”, and God is Spirit and not physical. Therefore, when He creates the physical universe, time starts to tick. Otherwise, He would be influenced by Newton’s laws of motion (and other physical laws). But these laws come from God and are set in action by Him at creation. And voilá, time starts ticking.
Anders,
I agree that “time” is a component of the physical creation. It involves the sequence of physical processes and measurement of intervals between physical processes. I think it is a mistake to attempt to project anything at all that is part of this creation onto God Himself and the reality in which He exists and operates apart from the constraints and physical laws which He established to govern this creation.
While the Son was “begotten” out of God, and as far as we understand was of the same “kind” as God, all that we know about Him is related to this creation and to time which is a part of this creation.
One of the mistakes the early Christians made (which has led to the changes in theology concerning God and His Son and development of Trinitarianism) was beginning to view God through Greek philosophical concepts concerning the creation and time.
Tim,
Thanks for your reply. So, in essence, you would agree with the Nicene statement that it is an error to claim that ‘There was a time when he was not’?
Steven,
I would agree with that statement only IF the term “time” is limited to this creation, beginning with Day one. However, the creed was meant to stand in contrast to Arius and to condemn Arianism (which held that the Son originated at the beginning of Day one, but was created not begotten). I suspect that the intent of the anathema, which condemned all who said there was a time when the Son did not exist, was to use the word “time” as not limited to this creation.
Yet this may be too simplistic also, because part of the controversy between the Alexandrian Trinitarians and Arius concerned whether the pre-incarnate Son was of the same substance/nature/essence/kind as God. Arius said no. The Trinitarians said yes. However, the earliest Trinitarians (such as Tertullian) stated that before the begetting of the Son on Day one, the Son did not exist and that God was not a “Father” because as yet He had not begotten a Son. So the earliest Trinitarians actually agreed with Arius that the Son had an origin of His person. However, the difference between the early Trinitarians and Arius had to do with whether the Son’s substance, essence (which was out of God Himself) was eternal prior to this substance or essence being begotten as a distinct person. Part of the controversary concerned Proverbs 8 and the Son being called “Wisdom.” The Trinitarians claimed that God has always possessed “wisdom” but that He begat “Wisdom” as a being distinct from Himself. Because Arius claimed that the Son was of a different substance/essence/nature/kind, he claimed that God created that new substance out of nothing, just as He created matter out of nothing. So, when Arius said there was a time when the Son did not exist, he was essentially saying that the Son was not begotten out of God’s own person, that His impersonal essence had a beginning.
The problem with the Nicene Creed is that it was interpreted differently by different groups at the time. Even Eusebius who was not a Trinitarian signed the creed, but with a different understanding than what is commonly supposed.
G’day, Dave!
I’m a bit uncomfortable with the notion of time having always existed – I think that, to some degree, it parallels the idea of the universe having always existed. Not that ‘science’ is the answer to all things, but there is so much we know from science that intrinsically links time with the created universe.
I like the way Anders put it – “Events” are PHYSICAL “things”, and God is Spirit and not physical.
Yeah Steve, I get that the idea of the passing of events indicates that matter existed before the creation and that this seems to agree with modern science. I try to not let logic get in the way of scripture but since I was very young the concepts of eternity and infinity have interested me. I don’t see any contradiction with scripture, or agreeance with modern science, in pondering that Father was occupied before He begat His Son. I agree it gets problematic trying to describe this using the tools of the physical creation.
Anders, I don’t agree that “events” are only physical things simply because Father thinks with His non physical “mind” and this I would also call events.
Tim, I hope this isn’t delving into Greek philosophy that isn’t my intention. I simply wonder what Father was doing before creating. I enjoy thinking about this in the same way that I enjoy looking into the sky wondering how far the stars are.
Thanks for humouring me gentlemen 🙂
Yeah Steve, I get that the idea of the passing of events indicates that matter existed before the creation and that this seems to agree with modern science. I try to not let logic get in the way of scripture but since I was very young the concepts of eternity and infinity have interested me. I don’t see any contradiction with scripture, or agreeance with modern science, in pondering that Father was occupied before He begat His Son. I agree it gets problematic trying to describe this using the tools of the physical creation.
Anders, I don’t agree that “events” are only physical things simply because Father thinks with His non physical “mind” and this I would also call events.
Tim, I hope this isn’t delving into Greek philosophy that isn’t my intention. I simply wonder what Father was doing before creating. I enjoy thinking about this in the same way that I enjoy looking into the sky wondering how far the stars are.
Thanks for humouring me gentlemen 🙂
Dave,
I do not believe there is any Scripture which indicates that God was occupied with any activity before the instant that He begat a Son, when time as we know it began.
“Time” (especially as defined in physics) is a part of this creation, and is thus affected by the laws of physics (as in Einstein’s theory of Relativity which shows that time is relative, and can speed up or slow down).
There is much we do not know about God, eternity, infinity, for which we have no frame of reference. Delving into things for which we have no information whatsoever is the realm of philosophy. The shortcoming of philosophy, however, is in supposing that man can figure out such things with his limited intelligence, experience, and observation. I happen to think that in our present sinful state we do not have the mental capacity for such things. However, in the resurrection and our glorified state, our capacity will be expanded, and we will never cease learning.
Fair enough Tim 🙂 Your are absolutely correct that my mind cannot fathom what I’m trying to think about. I’m so looking forward to the gathering together.
Tim> However, in the resurrection and our glorified state, our capacity will be expanded, and we will never cease learning.
Anders> Can a universe, simple enough to be understood, contain a brain, complicated enough to understand it?
I suppose that depends on what a human brain that is not subject to the curse can achieve.
Tim,
Though you are admittedly not a fan of philosophizing, I wonder if you might actually agree that it’s an error to state (as Nicea did) “There was a time when the Son was not.”
You wrote:
“Time as part of this creation (six days) originated with the begetting of the Son…
It was the begetting of the Son itself which establishes the very beginning of measured time, the six days of creation.”
If, in your view, time began with the begetting of the Son, then there really can’t be something prior to (a temporal concept) God’s act of begetting, correct? How could there have been a time when the Son was not if you believe time originated with this act of procreation? Moreover, why would it be important to put the Son’s act of begetting within a moment of time (as opposed to a timeless cause) if you have nothing prior to the begetting act? You even said that you “do not believe there is any Scripture which indicates that God was occupied with any activity before the instant that He begat a Son.”
I actually think your view (which I am personally inclinded to believe, and the one I currently defend) works better if you hold to a temporal view of God prior to creation (though upholding that there’s just one moment prior to creation), and not the timeless view of God sans creation as William Lane Craig belives. Yes, I realize there are limitations with understanding philosophial concepts and would never be insistent and dogmatic.
On another note, I’d recommend you check out Beau Branson (an Eastern Orthodox believer) and his work on the Monarchy of the Father. Jay Dyer as well is very good. These are folks who we’d have a bit of common ground with as we seek to expose the errors of Trinitarianism.
I’m also hoping to set up a Unitarian discussion/friendly debate, which you expressed intrest in.
I’m hoping you’ll be able to interact more with some big wigs in these other traditions since there are few matters more important than getting God and His Son right, and the effect is has on our daily walk with Christ.
Brian
Brian,
When I said that “time” itself originated with the begetting of the Son, I was referring only to “time” as an integral part of this creation, that is “time” in relation to physics, relativity, etc.
However, what is outside of this creation, what other kind of reality in which God dwells, is something that I think Christians ought not to speculate about. I think we can be certain that God is not confined to this creation since He created it. So we ought not suppose that He is bound by its natural laws.
I do not have the mind of a philosopher. I prefer to stick within the safety of Scriptural exegesis, understanding what Scripture teaches rather than delving into what it does not address.
Tim,
Do you think this is a good argument from Origen?
One way of countering the Arian interpretation was foreshadowed by Origen, whose Christology makes important use of the concepts of ‘generation’ and ‘eternal generation’. Origen saw the phrase ‘begets me’ of Prov.8:25 as the key to the whole passage. It is clear from several parts of Origen’s work that for him the relationship between the Father and the Son was most fitly described using the verb γεννάω, rather than κτίζω or θεμελιόω . Origen points out that Prov.8:25 makes a significant use of the present tense, ‘begets’ indicating a continual generation. There is a hint of a similar approach to Proverbs 8 in a letter of Dionysius of Rome which Athanasius has preserved. Referring to Prov. 8:22, the Roman bishop insists that the verb ‘to create’ may have different meanings and that in this passage it cannot possibly mean ‘to make’ in the sense of to bring into being’. In support of his argument, Dionysius cites Ps.110 (LXX Ps.l09):3, Prov.8:25 and Col.l:l5. He comments: ‘In many passages of the divine oracles the Son is said to have been begotten (γεγεννηςθαι) but nowhere to have come into being (γεγονεναι).
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/irish-biblical-studies/24-3_099.pdf
Brian
Brian,
Origen was very much into philosophical speculation. Origen was probably the originator of the “eternal generation” idea, which IMO is an oxymoron. The verb “beget/begotten” always refers to an event. To turn it into a state of being verb is a mistake, IMO, and transgresses the norms of exegesis. In Psalm 2:7, “Today I have begotten you” has γεγέννηκά (perfect indicative) and is limited to “today.” The LXX uses the present in Prov. 8:25 (he begets me), which was the translation used by Origen. I do not know a lot about Hebrew, but I do not think the Hebrew supports that. At least the Jewish Publication Society translation renders the Hebrew text as “Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth (past tense).
I agree that “beget/begotten” is how Scripture refers to the Son’s relation to the Father. It does not use the terms created or made. That is a good argument against Arianism. But Origin’s “eternal generation,” which was later incorporated into Trinitarianism is wrong, IMO. It goes far beyond exegesis of the text and makes an argument from the tense of the verb which does not agree with other Scripture and can be explained in other ways which agree with the rest of Scripture. The job of the exegete is to find harmony in all of the Scriptures, not taking an obscure possible interpretation of one word and ignoring all of the remaining Scriptures.
“I do not have the mind of a philosopher. I prefer to stick within the safety of Scriptural exegesis, understanding what Scripture teaches rather than delving into what it does not address.”
Tim, I think you agree with Solomon ( after much philosophising in his younger days 😀 )
“I do not have the mind of a philosopher. I prefer to stick within the safety of Scriptural exegesis, understanding what Scripture teaches rather than delving into what it does not address.”
I think that’s a wise approach, Tim.
God has chosen to reveal to mankind a great deal about Himself and His Son, using human language and human concepts (such as procreation terminology). Throughout the Bible God teaches by using metaphors and examples, which provide us with similar concepts from our own lives in order to understand higher truths. Yet, He also has limited this revelation. I like Sir Isaac Newton’s perspective, that revelation is limited to the Bible and nature. It is man’s responsibility to “search out the matter,” and to seek after God. Humility will drive someone to try to fully understand what God has revealed. Pride drives man to go beyond what God has revealed, speculating in realms above what has been assigned to man, so that he can pretend to be wise. Romans 1 has something to say about this, as does 1 Cor. 1-2.
Tim> I like Sir Isaac Newton’s perspective, that revelation is limited to the Bible and nature. It is man’s responsibility to “search out the matter,” and to seek after God. Humility will drive someone to try to fully understand what God has revealed.
Anders> This is why I believe discussing time is within the limits of what can be discussed with humility. “Nature” (through science) has has a lot to say how time BEHAVES, even though nobody knows what time (nor space) IS.
I agree, Anders, as long as whatever “time” we are discussing is limited to an aspect of the physical creation and not projected outside of this creation. Science can do nothing at all to enlighten man regarding anything that is external to this creation. It can only dig deeper into how the creation works. Newton had the right perspective regarding the limits of science and concluded that observation of the creation proves God’s existence as well as His essential interaction within it to sustain it.
Whether there is some other kind of “time” that is not linked to this creation, and its natural laws, can only be known by divine revelation. It cannot be known by philosophy or science. Greek philosophy attempted to see beyond what is revealed in the creation and divine revelation. All such speculation is futile, imo.
Science, when it turns a blind eye to God, is really at a dead end when it comes to origins. It has concluded:
1. One upon a time there was nothing,
2. Nothing exploded into everything.
Tim,
Many take Psalm 2, with respect to its Messianic elements, to refer to the enthronement of Jesus as King at the time of His Resurrection and the complex of events that follow (Ascension, Session, and outpuring of the Spirit), thus they’d argue for a metaphorical begetting in this particular case.
The context of the Psalm appears to lend credence to this view by the use of גֹויִם (ἔθνη) in verse 1 (thus referring to the time of the Roman Empire). Furthermore, if this is a begetting prior to Day 1 of creation, what’s the point of the temporal “Today” (as you said “time” is limited to the physical creation) and the allusion to nations (as an inheritance) who are not yet in existence?
Still pondering, why is it important for the begrtting of the Son to happen in time? If we know nothing about the realm of time outside of this creation, and we can’t trace the Son’s begetting to within time/physical creation, why couldn’t it have been a “timeless” affair? I don’t see how we can positively affirm that there was a time when the Son was not if we abide by your understanding of time.
Please, if you will, clarify your view on these points.
Thanks,
Brian
Brian,
I see no specific connection between the term ἔθνη (nations / gentiles) and the Roman empire. This term was used scores of times in the OT (LXX) beginning in Gen. 10:5 which refers to the confounding of the languages and separating of the people as ἔθνη (nations / gentiles). IMO, the opening statement, “Why do the nations [ἔθνη] rage and the people plot a vain thing” fits much better with passages such as Zech. 14:2, “For I will gather all the nations [ἔθνη] to battle against Jerusalem; …”. This passage not only describes the nations raging and plotting a vain thing (as expanded upon in Rev. 19:19), but also the installation of Messiah as King on Mt. Zion at that time.
The proto-amillennialists (anti-chiliasts) in early Christianity (such as Origen) imagined that the reign of the Son was now, upon a heavenly “Throne of David” on a heavenly “Mt. Zion,” and this reign began upon Jesus’ resurrection and ascension (then the destruction of Jerusalem). In this paradigm, the “Kingdom” was entirely “spiritual” — a heavenly reign — an allegorical fulfillment of the 1000-year reign of Rev. 20. They denied that Jesus will literally and bodily return to earth to reign in restored Jerusalem. Thus they denied the realization of the Abrahamic Land inheritance.
So if one wants to associate Psalm 2 with the resurrection/ascension by allegorizing the words “begotten” and “Mt. Zion” (as well as the “Throne of David” in Isa. 9:6-7 / Luke 1:32), then I guess it is possible to disassociate it from the end of the age. But that is a huge mistake, IMO.
The clause, “This day I have begotten You” refers to a point in time when the Son was literally “begotten” out of God, and when God initially made the promise of the inheritance to Him and what it will consist of. His begetting cannot be a timeless concept, simply because the word “begotten” is an action verb, and the perfect tense requires both a point in time when the action occurred as well as a continuous state which is the result of the action. “This Day” is what is called “Day one” in the creation account, and is the reason that John repeatedly called Jesus the “only-begotten Son,” the “only-begotten of the Father,” the “only begotten Son of God,” etc. (Jn. 1:14,18; John 3:16,18; 1 Jn. 4:9). All of these terms demand a point in time. The term “Today” was the day of His begetting. Yet according to this Psalm, it was on that same day of His being “begotten” that the Father told Him, “Ask of Me and I will give you the nations as Your inheritance and the ends of the land as Your possession.” So the PROMISE of the inheritance of the entire earth was made to the Son from the very beginning, even before the “ends of the earth” originated on the 3rd Day, and the “nations” originated in the loins of Adam on the 6th Day.
It cannot be a “timeless” begetting because:
1. “Today” which is a “day” (of which there were none before “Day one”) must be linked to time as we know it.
2. “Begotten” is an action verb not a state of being verb.
3. Prov. 8:22 (LXX) says that God made the one called Wisdom “the Beginning,” and this term was then applied by Jesus to Himself in John 8:25 (Douay-Rheims, LGV) and by Paul to Jesus in Col. 1:18. He is not “the Beginning” of Himself. He is “the Beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). He is “the Beginning and the End.” (Rev. 22:13). DAYS, as part of this creation, began because Moses called the first day “Day one” using the cardinal number “1” as opposed to using the ordinal numbers (2nd, 3rd, etc. as he did with the remaining days of creation).
BTW, Psalm 2 deals with both “the beginning and the end,” the “alpha and omega,” the “First and the Last.” And the Son is BOTH.
Rev. 22:12-13 (NKJV) 12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
Thanks, Tim.
I could be wrong about verse 1 of Psalm 2. I heard the argument that since ἔθνη means foreign nations or foreign peoples this mainly became a pejorative shorthand for the Roman Empire during New Testament times. I will do a bit more digging to see if this point holds any water.
But to the issue of a “timeless” begetting. Are you saying that time began with the begetting of the Son (in the beginning was the Word)? If so, would you agree that there is no way to quanitify a “prior” or “before” this time marker (there is no before time) because we have absolutely no knowledge of this (a world where time doesn’t operate) from a metaphysical perspective? Thus, we would have no way of even knowing if God undertakes any sequence or processes prior to his begetting. Since we have no way knowing anything about the state of affairs prior to the begetting of the Son, how can we be sure there was “a time when the Son was not” in any meaningful sense of the word?
Brian
Brian,
Since “nations / gentiles” was a common term in the LXX, and since we are discussing this term in an OT passage (Psalm 2), I think the understanding of the term ought to be derived from the LXX. While koine Greek was the common tongue, the peculiarities of the language within the NT is most definitely from a Jewish perspective and is derived from the LXX. Yes, this term probably became a pejorative term when used by the Jews during Roman times. But Psalm 2 was written by David a thousand years earlier.
There had to be a “before” sequentially of Day One of creation, since the cause must always be sequentially prior to the event.
In Scripture and in science, “time,” is a component of this creation or physical universe. Can there be some other kind of “time” outside of this universe, that is not affected by the speed of light or gravity (as in Einstein’s equations)? I don’t see why not. But I would not attempt to link what we understand as “time” (which is simply the measurement of sequences of physical processes) with some other kind of “time” which we know absolutely nothing about.
It’s correct to suggest that Father existed before the creation though right ?
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
(Psa 90:2)
It seems like we’re being a bit pedantic simply because we use the word “time” . This always revolves around the Trinity doctrine or that the Son had a beginning imo.
Dave,
In order for God to be the cause of the creation, He had to exist before it sequentially. But exactly what that reality consists of, we have no revelation. “Eternity” and “infinity” are not aspects of this creation.
Personally, I view “time” as a part of this creation, and I tend to think that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity which deals with the nature of “time” is probably correct, that it is not the “constant” in this universe, but rather the speed of light is the constant and everything else is relative. At least thus far, empirical science has only validated Einstein’s equations, not overturned them.
The Greeks thought that “time” was the constant. Many (if not most) supposed that the material of the creation was eternal, that God was within the creation and subject to its physical laws. I suppose the reason for this is because they were pagans, and worshipped demons who pretend to be gods and are also limited within the creation and bound by time. The Greeks and Romans worshipped as gods the sun, moon, and five visible planets. These were visible and obeyed the physical laws. So it is not a giant leap to understand why they thought that the highest of the gods who was the source of the rest of the gods was also confined within the creation. (cf. Rom. 1).
In any case, it was Philo of Alexandria (a Jew) who apparently first introduced into the Greek philosophical arena the concept that God is external to the creation, not bound by its laws, and that He created the physical matter out of nothing and the physical laws which govern it. Thus only God is eternal and nothing in the creation, including the building blocks of matter, is inherently eternal.
I’m not sure why it’s a problem that Jesus had a beginning. Isn’t it intuitive that all sons have a beginning and wouldn’t Father God have used this familial terminology so that we understand it ?
Yes, and yes. That is the point. God used familial terminology regarding Himself and His Son (Father, Son, begotten, only-begotten of the Father) simply because He wants us to understand this based on our human experience. He did not use such familial language and then expect us to invent special understandings of the terms (like eternal generation) that are not consistent with our experience, but are based on human speculation into areas where we have no business. “Professing to be wise they became fools.”
1 Cor 1: (LGV) 18 For the word of the cross is indeed an absurdity to those being destroyed, but to us, those being rescued, it is the power of God! 19 For it has been written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and nullify the reasoning of the intelligent.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Did not God make absurd the wisdom of this world? 21 For since the world did not know God through Wisdom, God determined (in God’s wisdom) to rescue the trusting ones through the absurdity of the proclamation. 22 Since also Judeans demand a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 yet we proclaim the Anointed having been crucified. To the Judeans [He is] a scandal indeed, to the Greeks an absurdity, 24 but to those – the invited, both Judeans and Greeks – [He is] the Anointed, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, 30 But you are out from Him in Anointed Jesus who became for us Wisdom from God, plus also justice, plus also holiness and release, 31 so that as it has been written, “The one boasting, let him boast in the Master.”
Tim,
Yes, Jesus is “the Beginning” of creation (including time). But He is also “the End” which ought to mean that creation will cease (including time). How is that compatible with our belief in a restored earth that will continue also after the Millennium?
Anders,
Time in Scripture is divided into “ages.” Hebrews 1:1-2 (LGV) states, “God, formerly speaking at many times and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, upon the ends of those days has spoken to us in the Son whom He appointed Heir of everything, through whom He also fashioned the ages.”
Scripture also refers to “this age” and “the age to come” (Matt. 12:32; Luke 20:34-36; Eph. 1:21) which is the Kingdom. The “end of the age” occurs at Jesus’ return (Matt. 24:3).
So the Son is the “beginning and the end” of this age, and the beginning of the “age to come.”
Tim,
Paul doesn’t seem to be interpreting Psalm 2:7 as the way that you are interpreting it. He quoted it in Acts 13 and in Hebrews 1 and 5. Can explain his use of Psalm 2:7? Thanks.
Seth,
Hebrews 1:5 & 5:5 quote Psalm 2:7, but do not attempt to interpret it. In Heb. 1 Paul’s point was demonstrating the superiority of the Son to angels. In doing so he quoted Psalm 2 :7 & 1 Chron. 17:13. In both passages the relationship between the “Father” and the “Son” are held up as demonstrating His superiority to the angels. So while this does not necessarily prove that “begotten” is literal, it is consistent with that interpretation.
Regarding Paul’s sermon in Acts 13, his quote of Psalm 2:7 was in support of the fact that God “raised up Jesus.” In know that many think this refers to HIs resurrection. But I think that is a mistake. Note that the resurrection from the dead is mentioned in verse 34, and then Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10 were cited as evidence.
Look again at Acts 13:32-33 (NKJV) 32 “And we declare to you glad tidings — that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: `You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
This does not refer to His resurrection from the dead, but rather that God “raised up” (as in brought to fulfillment) to David the promised Seed. Notice Paul’s preceding statement in vss. 22-23: 22 “And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, `I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ 23 From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior– Jesus–
So Paul’s statement in verse 33 that “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus” is the same as his statement in v. 23, “From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior– Jesus. Then his quoting Psalm 2:7 in support is because of the actual promise that God made to David in the Davidic Covenant (1 Chron. 17:13, “I will be his Father, and he shall be My son;” Jesus was indeed the Son of David. And the promise to David that He would also be God’s Son was shown by Paul to be literally God’s “begotten” Son, (not merely by adoption, as the Jews supposed).
Then the reason Paul immediately after this mentioned the resurrection from the dead was because this was the absolute and undeniable proof that Jesus was the Son of God of Psalm 2 & 1 Chron. 17:13. Compare Romans 1:1-4 which makes this point: “3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” Thus the resurrection provided the undeniable proof that Jesus was the Messiah (Son of David) but also that He was the “Son of God” of Psalm 2.
Tim,
Yet, in Acts 13:33 the word ἀναστήσας is used (which in most cases means resurrection from the dead). In the other cases you mentioned its ἤγαγεν (v.23) and ἤγειρεν (v.22). How would you explain this?
Brian
Brian,
The verb used in v. 33 is ἀναστήσας, the aorist active participle form of ἀνίστημι. (You may be confusing it with the noun ἀνάστασις which means “stand again” and usually refers to the resurrection). The verb ἀνίστημι literally means to “stand up.” It is used hundreds of times in the Bible (LXX & NT), and rarely refers to rising from the dead. The only time it does refer to rising from the dead is when the context demands it, such as by the addition of the prepositional phrase, “from the dead” as in verse 34.
As an example of ἀνίστημι used in the sense I described, consider Acts 3:22: “For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The LORD your God will raise up [ἀνίστημι] for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you.”
Also, notice that the word used of God raising up David to be king in vs. 22 (ἤγειρεν – meaning arouse) is then used of God raising Jesus from the dead in vs. 30 and again in vs. 37.
These terms are all used as synonyms in various passages, and all have a wide range of meaning especially when used as metaphors. This is why the English translations render all three terms as “raised up.”
Also, keep in mind that the literal meaning of ἀνίστημι is “stand up.” The idea of resurrection is only implied when it is used metaphorically. Verse 3 translated literally is “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has stood up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'” This is the same word used in vs. 16, “And Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand…”
Below is the footnote I have in the LGV for vs. 33:
“15 God stood up the promised Seed of David. This is not a reference to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, but is a reference to His coming forth from David’s progeny in fulfillment of the promise mentioned in vs. 23. Luke 1:69 states that God “stood up a horn of deliverance for us in the house of David,” and then refers to Him as “the Arising out from above.” (See notes on Luke 1:68-78). The same Greek word ἀναστήσας translated here as “raised up” is used in this sense in Deut. 18:15 (LXX); Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37; Rom. 15:12). See also vss. 22-23
Our God is a genius !
Tim,
You wrote: “In order for God to be the cause of the creation, He had to exist before it sequentially. But exactly what that reality consists of, we have no revelation.” And also “there had to be a “before” sequentially of Day One of creation, since the cause must always be sequentially prior to the event.”
I still wonder why you’re insistent that the there was a “time” when the Son was not (I ask myself the same question), given our limitation in comprehending the essence of reality “before” Day One of creation. I realize a lot hinges upon your interpretation of Psalm 2, but pinning it down to an event where there’s a “before” and “after” seems to be less clear from Scripture.
I’ve come to learn that Eastern Orthodoxy asserts that the Son as a person was caused by the Father (albeit timelessly) but not his “trope” of divinity (as it’s shared with the Father who is the source/first cause/uncaused cause). This is not far off your view, and the only real way to resolve the two (in my mind) is to engage in philosophical/metaphysical discussion.
Re: Your sidenote about Enstein – I’m not following its relevance, since relativity theory is not about time, it is about clocks.
Further, can you clarify what you mean that the Greeks thought that “time” was constant and that God was within the creation and subject to its physical laws? My understanding is the Greek philosophers argued that a perfect being like God had to exist outside of time, as they viewed “time, change, and transitoriness are synonymous terms.” (but God is not transitory, “therefore God cannot exist within time, therefore God exists outside of time, therefore time is a separate creation apart from God, and therefore God simultaneously knows all past, present and future events in one eternal moment.”)
Brian
Brian,
I am not “insistent that the there was a “time” when the Son was not.” What I said was that how one answers that question depends on how the word “time” is being used and understood in that statement. If we mean “time” as part of this creation, and that the Son’s begetting out of the Father was “the beginning” of the creation and thus “time” (as part of this creation), then I would say that there was never a time when the Son did not exist. But if the question presupposes “time” as absolute, NOT limited to this creation, then I would say that there was a “time” (before creation) when the Son did not exist as a distinct Person.
My comment about Einstein and the theory of General Relativity was made to clarify our understanding of “time.” In such discussions we need to distinguish between “time” as explained in physics, which is absolutely a component of the physical universe and is NOT absolute, and a concept of “time” that is NOT limited to this creation and is absolute. I disagree with you that Einstein’s theories were about “clocks” and not “time” itself. While “clocks” are important because we have no other way of measuring “time,” physics is not about “clocks.” It is about all physical processes that are happening simultaneously. This includes everything from how fast electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, to how quickly electrical nerve impulses travel to the brain and how quickly the human brain can interact with the nervous system, how fast a heart is beating, and how long it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. Einstein proved that “time” (all physical processes within a particular system) slows or speeds up depending on gravitational fields as well as motional speed in relation to the speed of light. What he proved was that all of these physical processes can slow down greatly or speed up greatly. So “time” in physics deals with the rate of all physical processes. But physical processes means being part of the creation and the laws that govern it.
By your comment about “clocks,” I suspect that you view “time” as absolute and cannot slow down or speed up, that it passes at the same rate no matter where one is in the universe or outside of the universe. That view is intuitive and is much easier to conceptualize. But that is exactly what Einstein disproved, and empirical science has only confirmed this point ever since. “Time,” as it relates to both the Bible and physics, is completely limited to this physical creation. Unfortunately, most people do not look at “time” in this way, but suppose that it is absolute, and that it extends to eternity prior to the creation. Yet the Bible presents “time” as having a beginning at Day One of the creation week, and that what is sequentially anterior to this “time” is something incomprehensible, eternity. The Bible does not present “time” as a constant before creation week. Therefore, the Bible actually beat Einstein to this idea. The Bible also states that the very first thing God created was “light,” which in General Relativity is THE constant in this physical universe. Everything that is part of this universe is “mutable” (changeable, variable) except the speed of light. Again, Moses beat Einstein to the truth of the matter.
Because of the different understandings of “time” itself among theologians (especially those without much understanding of physics), I think we ought to agree that there is some other kind of “time” (or at least sequences of events) prior to this creation. But since God has revealed nothing at all about what we call “eternity,” except for the fact that He existed, I prefer not to speculate.
The Greeks had many “gods” and had many theories and myths about their origins, usually as the product of intercourse between various “gods” and “goddesses.” They did not believe in “one God.” Some, however, thought that there may be a supreme “God” above all others who is entirely unknown. While Jupiter was the highest known god to the Romans, and Zeus to the Greeks, there was room among some for an unknown supreme God. Paul encountered the monument to “the unknown god” in Acts 17. The various philosophical schools had several competing theories regarding time, and whether the substance of the creation has always existed or not. They supposed that all of the “gods” of which they were aware existed entirely within the creation. As such, “time” passed equally for the “gods” as well as mankind and the entire universe. For more on this, you should research Philo’s (a Jew of Alexandria) contributions to Greek philosophy. Below is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britanica on Philo’s contributions to this topic.
“In the past, scholars attempted to diminish Philo’s importance as a theological thinker and to present him merely as a preacher, but in the mid-20th century H.A. Wolfson, an American scholar, demonstrated Philo’s originality as a thinker. In particular, Philo was the first to show the difference between the knowability of God’s existence and the unknowability of his essence. Again, in his view of God, Philo was original in insisting on an individual Providence able to suspend the laws of nature in contrast to the prevailing Greek philosophical view of a universal Providence who is himself subject to the unchanging laws of nature. As a Creator, God made use of assistants: hence the plural “Let us make man” in Genesis, chapter 1. Philo did not reject the Platonic view of a preexistent matter but insisted that this matter too was created. Similarly, Philo reconciled his Jewish theology with Plato’s theory of Ideas in an original way: he posited the Ideas as God’s eternal thoughts, which God then created as real beings before he created the world.”
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Philo-Judaeus
This discussion demonstrates the danger of “creeds” and such statements as “there was a time when the Son did not exist” vs. “there was never a time when the Son did not exist.” I think it is better to say that “time” as we know it began the instant of the Son’s “begetting” out of God, which is why He is called “the Beginning.” Whatever reality existed before that “beginning” of “day one” of creation week, we have zero revelation from God. Intellectual discussion of the concept of “eternal generation” is a fool’s errand simply because “begotten” is an action verb describing an event, requiring a point in time, thus making “eternal generation” an oxymoron. Similarly, speculation about the properties of the “divine essence,” and the insistence by the Greeks that what is “eternal” must by necessity be “immutable” in its ontological nature, is equally a fools errand. We have no way of knowing such things, so making them a “law” by which people are judged as either “orthodox” or “heretics” is absurd.
Tim,
I think it’s important to understand that the question “what exactly is time itself” is a philosophical question. Much of physics (which is more interested in clocks, metric systems, etc.) is talking about measurements and not the ontological nature of time itself.
In spite of his theories of relativity, Einstein was content with thinking that time is what clocks measured, and therefore believed that any other notion of time including a philosophical notion of time was really not real, or objective. Einstein believed in a block universe (not a flow of time) and upheld there’s no way to distinguish what makes “now” important from another “now”. He believed that our sense of temporality was an illusion (the distinction between the past, present, and future is just an illusion).
In terms of which moments of time exist it’s clear that Einstein was an eternalist (that the past, present, and future all exist at the same time). “But it is important to note that relativity does not predict that we live in an eternalist universe, rather it allows for an eternalist universe. Relativity makes no explicit testable predictions regarding eternalism versus presentism.”
https://iai.tv/articles/einstein-and-the-block-universe-auid-2065
I personally find presentism more compelling, and further that God is temporal (and has never been “timeless”), but view wouldn’t suggest that relativity is wrong (“although presentism does set boundaries on the solutions to the questions general relativity”)
On the other hand, the two primary theories of time that philosophers debate are the relational vs absolute theories. In short, the absolute theory claims that time is a natured entity that makes change possible. It is the source of moments, and is the thing that unifies a series of moments. Further it is an eternal uncaused substance that is distinct from moments of time.
For the relational theory, time is merely a relationship between events (moments), and events explain the existence of time. Time exists if and only if change exists. Yet, since the definition of an “event” presupposes the existence of time, I personally find the relational view circular and would side with the absolute theory of time.
In fact, Isaac Newton held to this view and thought of time as an attribute of God himself. I think much can be gleaned from thinking through these issues as it relates to the doctrine of God and His Son.
“I think much can be gleaned from thinking through these issues as it relates to the doctrine of God and His Son.”
I do not agree with this statement. I see no benefit in going beyond what God has revealed. I only see danger in speculating about things for which there is no revelation from God. Scripture reveals the relationship between the Father and Son using human familial and procreation terminology. It refers to the time relationships as “today” (which is finite) and “the Beginning.” Christian doctrine can be easily explained to, and easily understood by, anyone who understands the normal meaning of these terms. What benefit do you see in speculating about if, or what kind of, “time” existed before day one of creation week?
Tim,
I will clarify further the intent of my comments above in a bit.
But to another point….
You often point to Proverbs 8 to show that the Son as a distinct person had a beginning.
Based on this text, would you say that God’s wisdom is eternal (having been present in God’s “womb” eternally)? Would you say that the text is poetic and not literal (Since God is devoid of physical parts one might speculate what is truly implied by the Father “begetting”)?
If Wisdom is indeed the Son, isn’t it saying that the Son was there in the Father, with the Father, and then the Father summoned him forth out of Himself in order to use Him to create all things? Also, this summoning forth appears to be before Day 1 of creation. I suppose one could argue that it’s what initiates the commencement of Day 1, but what if it is meant to be understood as an eternal kind of thing (no time marker) that’s before Day 1?
Thanks,
Brian
Brian,
“Wisdom” in Proverbs 8 is used as the name of a person, just as “Word” is used as the name of a person. (Similarly, many biblical names have abstract meanings). My own name, “Timothy” (Timotheos) means “dear/valuable to God”). But it says nothing about my ontological nature. God’s Son is called by these abstract names because of His role in communing with mankind on God’s behalf. Consequently, while both terms are used to refer to a real corporeal being, they say nothing at all about ontological nature.
Of course, God possessed “wisdom” and “word” as abstract qualities of Himself. But again, this implies nothing at all regarding ontological preexistence of the Son within God. When theologians begin to conflate abstract qualities with ontological essence, the logic of their arguments breaks down. This was the mistake of some of the ECF’s including Tertullian and then Origen when speaking about the Son’s origin.
If we stick to the human procreative language actually used in Scripture rather than speculating about concepts that go beyond Scripture, then the Son’s “preexistence” within the Father should be compared to how the Bible describes Abraham’s descendants in his loins, including Levi and the whole Levitical priesthood. (Heb. 7). Going beyond that is IMO unwise and divisive.
Ephesians 4:1-6 (LGV) 1 Therefore, I the prisoner in the Master, plead with you to walk worthy of the invitation with which you were called 2 with all humility and meekness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to preserve the unity of the Breath in the bond of peace: 4 a common Body and a common Breath, just as you were [originally] called in a common Hope of your calling, 5 a common Master, a common Faith, a common immersion, 6 a common God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all.
I agree Tim.
I enjoy pondering what was going on before the creation but I don’t let it compromise my doctrine ( as far as I know ). I think that the “blurring” of the time issue is mostly because of the uncomfortable notion that Jesus had a beginning; and this discomfort for most Christians comes from the long standing presuppositions that the trinity doctrine has caused.
That Jesus had a beginning is scriptural, intuitive, and logical imo .