Sunteți pe pagina 1din 38

Page 1

Was Jesus Created?


(By Lesriv Spencer – May 2, 2018. Last update, Jan. 17, 2019)

(Unless otherwise indicated, the Bible version used throughout this article is the New International
Version or NIV. Other quoted versions: ASV = American Standard Version; CEV: Contemporary English
Version; Darby = The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby; D-R = Douay-Rheims Bible; ESV = English Standard
Version; GNT: Good News Translation; JPS = Jewish Publication Society -Tanakh; LXX = Septuagint;
NABRE = New American Bible, Revised Edition; NASB = New American Standard Bible; NEB: New English
Bible; NETS = A New English Translation of the Septuagint; NJB = New Jerusalem Bible; NIrV = New
International Reader’s Version; NLT = New Living Translation; NWT = New World Translation; NIVIHEOT =
The NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament; RSV = Revised Standard Version; TCBL = The Complete Biblical
Library; YLT = Young’s Literal Translation. Added emphasis is shown by bold letters or underlines.)

Table of Contents (Ctrl-click to follow link)

– Introduction.
1. Was Jesus the Creator of the universe?
2. Isaiah 9:6, How is Jesus the “Everlasting Father”?
3. Micah 5:2, Is Jesus said to be “from everlasting?
4. John 1:1, Was the Word “God”?
5. John 1:18, How is Christ “the only begotten Son (God)”?
6. John 8:58, Is Jesus the Great “I am”? The Eternal?
7. Colossians 1:15, Meaning of, “the firstborn of all creation.” (NASB)
8. Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
9. Revelation 3:14, Meaning of, “the beginning of the creation of God.” (ASV)
10. Final Words.
_____________________________________

Introduction:

If you live in a country where Christendom predominates the religion sphere, you will find the
doctrine of the Trinity being taught throughout mainstream churches and top educational
facilities. One belief commonly held within this group of believers is that Jesus Christ is God
himself, the Supreme Creator, uncreated, eternal. But is there any truth to this? Or is it perhaps a
case of people reading into the Biblical text more than Scripture itself warrants? Let’s examine
some of the Scriptures often quoted which are said to support the teaching that Christ is
“uncreated,” “eternal.” A sample of a claim for each theme or Scripture is noted, with a rebuttal
thereafter:

1. Was Jesus the Creator of the universe?


Page 2

CLAIM (by Barne’s Notes on the Bible): “The work of ‘creation’ is uniformly ascribed in the Scriptures
to the Second Person of the Trinity. See Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 1:10. By this is
meant, evidently, that he was the agent, or the efficient cause, by which the universe was made.
There is no higher proof of omnipotence than the work of creation; and, hence, God often
appeals to that work to prove that he is the true God, in opposition to idols….The Being,
therefore, that "created" all things must be divine; and, since this work is ascribed to Jesus
Christ, and as it is uniformly in the Scriptures declared to be the work of God, Jesus Christ is
therefore equal with the Father.”

FACT: Albert Barnes makes some hasty assumptions here. First, the words “the Second Person
of the Trinity” are nowhere to be found in the Bible. They are not found in any Biblical
concordance. It is a man-made belief. Then the author claims that this person “was the agent, or
the efficient cause, by which the universe was made.” There is Scriptural support for the concept
of Jesus as the agent used in the creation process, but not so much for the unscriptural notion of
“efficient cause” by Greek philosopher Aristotle. Another assumption Barnes makes is that “there
is no higher proof of omnipotence than the work of creation.” He reasons that if Christ
participates in the creation, he is omnipotent, hence, must be God. Here, Barnes limits what God
is capable of. Barnes makes it sound like God is unable to endow someone else with the powers
to be to get things done within his company. He overlooks the fact that even humans did mighty,
impressive miracles by the power of God without them ever becoming “God.”

There is no doubt that Jesus Christ is a much higher authority than any human being. ‘He was
there in the beginning with God.’ (John 1:2) So, he knows better than any one else who was the
one who created the first human pair. According to Jesus himself, God did. He said: “But at the
beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:6) The Greek here uses a verb
indicating third person singular, literally, “he made them.” Thus, Jesus did not say in first person,
“I” made them. Christ assigned the credit of creation to God. Also, at Matthew 19:4, Jesus is
reported as saying: “...At the beginning the Creator made them male and female.” Again, Jesus
ascribed the creation of the first human pair to God. Would the real creator attribute the powers
of creation to someone else? Thus, the Sovereign Creator, in the main, was someone other than
Christ. Isn’t this in conflict with other Scriptures which say that through Christ everything was
made? At first glance it may appear to be so, but careful wording in Scripture eliminates any
potential errors. Jesus acknowledged that the ultimate source of life and energy springs from
the Father of the universe. God created Adam and Eve through the agency of Jesus, who
assisted God like “a master workman.” (Proverbs 8:30, ESV) Through judicious use of Greek
prepositions (shown in brackets below), the Biblical authors were able to communicate the role of
both God, and of his Son, in the creation activity. The following Scriptures shed light on the
matter.
John 1:2,3, “He was with God in the beginning. Through [dia] him all things were made; without him
nothing was made that has been made.”

1 Corinthians 8:6 says: “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom [ex hou] all things came
and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom all things came and
through [dia] whom we live.”
Page 3

Colossians 1:16, “...all things have been created through [dia] him and for him.”

Hebrews 1:2, “But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,
and through [dia] whom also he made the universe [Literallly, the ages; the epochs].”

These four passages are often quoted by traditionalists as evidence that Christ is the Creator of
the universe. The Bible writers were evidently careful with their wording. Observe how the
authors used two notable prepositions (dia and ek) in their statements, one, and only for the “one God,
the Father, (ek),” and another for the Son (dia). They ascribe the creation to God, the Father as the
source of it all… from (ek) whom all things came. In the case of Jesus, it was by Jesus through [dia]
whom all things came.

Scholars Barclay M. Newman & Eugene A. Nida, had this to say of “dia” used at John 1:3 of Jesus’
role in creation: “The Greek phrase through him indicates that the Word was the agent in
creation, but at the same time the context clearly implies that God is the ultimate source of
creation … Similar expressions are found in Paul's writings and in the Letter to the Hebrews …
The Greek text indicates clearly that the Word was the instrument or agency employed by God in
the creation.” (A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John. United Bible Societies: New York, 1980, 10.)

Is this an isolated conclusion? No.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology under “dia” (Means or Instrument):
“In 1 Cor. 8:6 the function of God the Father as the source of creation (ex hou ta panta) is
distinguished from Christ's role as mediator of creation (di’ hou ta panta)….“ (Editor, Colin Brown,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978, Page 1182, Vol. 3.)

Dana & Mantey wrote: “ ‘All things were made through him.’ Jn 1:3. Here God the Father is
thought of as the original cause of creation, and the λόγος [lógos, Jesus] as the intermediate
agent.” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1955, 162.)

Another scholar, E. Lohse, sums up the prepositions used of Christ in relation to creation
succinctly:

“It should be noted that έν (in), δία (through), and είς (for) are used [of Christ], but not έκ (from
[=out of]). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ [prep. “ek”] οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians
8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation.” (E.
Lohse, A Commentary on th Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, note 125. Hermeneia Series;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971, 50. Emphasis added.)

This brings up a question: Why would God use someone else as an agent in the creation work if
he was more than capable to do it all himself? Simply because he wanted to. It “pleased” him.
(Ephesians 1:9; Colossians 1:19) And that is his prerogative. After all, he is God, he can do whatever
he wants.

Barnes then assumes Christ is the “equal” of the Father for his participation in the creation
process. How could he say that Christ is God’s equal, when Scripture never places Jesus at the
same level of God? The exalted Christ is depicted in Scripture under the dominion of God
throughout. 1 Corinthians 11:3 states: “The head of Christ is God.” What does this mean exactly?
Page 4

Simply that “God has authority over Christ.” (GOD’S WORD Translation) That, “God is supreme over
Christ.” (GNT) This means that whatever Christ accomplished in association with God in the
creation of the universe was done under the direction of God. How could Christ be the Grand
Creator if Christ himself was dependent on God?

Besides, just because two individuals share something in common, it does not mean they are
equal or the same person. In Psalm 45:6 the King (Solomon?) was addressed as “God” (or, “divine”)
for holding a royal position of power in representation of God’s throne. At Hebrews 1:8, those
same words were applied to Christ, the ‘greater Solomon’ for his future role as Messianic King.
(Luke 11:31) Now, does this mean they were both equal, or the same person? More importantly,
Christ indicated that the works he did were assigned by the Father. (John 5:36) Jesus said: “I
always do what pleases him.” (John 8:29) And: “I love the Father and do exactly what my Father
has commanded me.” (John 14:31) By the way, the Father never has to take a command from
someone else. But Jesus could, for he said: “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

As for Hebrews 1:10 which Barnes referred to, The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968) observes: “The next quotation [of Heb. 1:10-12], taken from Ps[alm] 102:26-
28, attributes to the Son the work of creation; the Ps[alm] itself addresses these words to God.
Since the author [v. 2] has spoken of the Son as the mediator of creation, this is not surprising.”
Thus, none of the three Scriptures Barnes cited proves that Christ is the Supreme Creator. They
do show however, that Jesus had a mediatorial role in the creation of all things. The apostle Paul
distinguished between God and Jesus Christ throughout his epistles, as he did in the first
chapter of Ephesians. There, Paul speaking of both God and Christ, said it was “God, who
created all things.” (Ephesians 1:9)

Isaiah 9:6, How is Jesus the “Everlasting Father”? “And he [the royal son of David] will be
called… Everlasting Father [ă· vî·‘adh].

CLAIM (by Barnes’ Notes on the Bible): “The word rendered ‘everlasting,’ ‫‛ עד‬ad [’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ], properly
denotes ‘eternity,’ and is used to express ‘forever;’ see Psalm 9:6, Psalm 9:19; Psalm 19:10. It is
often used in connection with ‫‛ עולם‬ôlâm, thus, ‫ עולם ועד‬vā‛ed ‛ôlâm, ‘forever and ever;’ Psalm
10:16; Psalm 21:5; Psalm 45:7….There could not be a more emphatic declaration of strict and
proper eternity.” Various translations appear to support this claim. – Everlasting Father, ASV; ESV;
Amp; ISV; LEB; NET; RSV. – Father of Eternity; – Eternal Father (CEB; CEV; JB; NASB; NWT); – Father for
ever, Dutton’s Basic Bible; BBE. But is this final?

FACT: The full statement above is only partially true. What’s missing? This: Although the Hebrew
word “ ‘ad ” may carry the meaning of everlasting in various contexts as indicated, it does not
always mean “eternity” as implied above. In other words, it cannot be used by itself as proof that
Jesus is eternal. The Hebrew word for the most part refers to the unforeseeable future, not to the
past.

The Complete Biblical Library (TCBL) observes: “ ‘adh = unspecified time, forever. […] With the
Page 5

exceptions of Job 20:4f and Hab. 3:6, 'adh always refers to the unforeseeable future. The noun
‘ad is often used with reference to persons and things that are not eternal, but temporal.” (Vol.
Nun–Ayin, # 5911. pp, 381, 382) Also, TWOT (‘ad, 1565a), Vol. 2, p. 645.

The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament says of the word (#5703, pp. 5696-7): “A noun
meaning eternity … The word's references to mountains that would be shattered (Hab. 3:6); the
sun and the moon (Ps. 148:6) may show that the word sometimes means less than eternity or
only an apparent eternity.”

This is made evident at Proverbs 29:14, where it says: “If a king judges the poor with fairness, his
throne will be established forever [Hebrew: lā·‘aḏ].” Was the author’s intention here to imply that
such king will live eternally? No. The appropriate sense is conveyed by the Easy-to-Read-Version:
“he will rule for a long time.” Or, ‘his throne will always be secure,’ as it reads in GOD’S WORD®
Translation & NirV.

Also, when king David said in Psalm 61:8 (NLT): “I will sing praises to your name forever [Hebrew:
lā·‘aḏ],” Are we to understand from this that king David was eternal? Again no. The corresponding
meaning is shown in the NET Bible: “I will sing praises to your name continually [as long as I live –
VOICE].”

Observe how various Bible versions reflect the appropriate meaning of the term at Isaiah 9:6:

The Latin Vulgate: the Father of the future age


Douay-Rheims: the Father of the world to come
Septuagint, ABP: father of the [about to be eon] = (“father of the age about to be”)
2001 Translation: And the Father of the Age that is Coming
The Sacred Bible (Ronald L. Conte Jr., 2009): father of the future age
Septuagint (Elpenor's Bilingual (Greek/English) O. T.): father of the age to come
Septuagint (Orthodox England): Father of the Age to Come
Scripture 4 All: Father of-future
Concordant Literal Version: the chief of the future
Rotherham: Father of Futurity

The Bible versions above make no reference to an eternal Christ. They instead emphasize a
futuristic “father” working on behalf of loyal subjects to their well-being. The statement by
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible that “there could not be a more emphatic declaration of strict and
proper eternity” is just deficient interpretation. Actually it is over-interpretation. It puts demands
on the Hebrew word ’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ beyond its basic meaning, and worse, is not in harmony with the
whole of Scripture, which never equates the Messiah with the Supreme God. Barnes overlooked
these important words at Isaiah 9:7: “The Lord All-Powerful will make certain that all of this is
done.” (CEV, Literally: “The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.” – ASV) In similar fashion,
messianic Psalm 110:1 tells us: “The LORD [Jehovah, ASV] says to my lord [Messiah]: “Sit at my right
hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Both Psalm 110:1 and Isaiah 9:7
indicate that the lesser “lord” (the Messiah) is dependent on the Lord All-Powerful (YHWH) to get
things done, it implicitly means that Jesus is not equal to God. And if he is not God, then he is
Page 6

not eternal.

In essence, “the Lord All-Powerful” will make certain that this “Prince of Peace” will have a long-
lasting rulership, even “forever.” The Almighty One will make him a “Mighty God” so he can
accomplish his kingship fully. How should we then understand the words "Eternal Father" of
Isaiah 9.6 when referenced to the “Prince of Peace”? The NIV Study Bible notes: “Everlasting
Father. He will be an enduring, compassionate provider and protector (cf. 40:9-11).” Therefore,
any attempts to connect the expression “Everlasting Father” of Isaiah 9:6 to ‘the eternality of the
Son’ of the Trinity doctrine are not sustainable.

3. Micah 5:2, Is Jesus said to be “from everlasting? (Or v. 1), “whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.” “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” (NASB)

CLAIM (by Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible): “ ‘Whose goings forth are from of old ...’ This means
far more than the fact that, ‘the new king will come from a good old family!’ As Keil said:
‘We must reject in the most unqualified manner the attempts (by commentators with a dread of
miracles) to deprive the words of their deeper meaning...we must not exclude the idea of eternity in
the stricter sense.* He who is to be born in time at Bethlehem hath an eternal existence.’ ”#

[*C.F. Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 480. Eerdmans Publishing Company; # W.J. Deane, The Pulpit
Commentary, Eerdmans, Vol. 14, Micah, p. 67.]

FACT: This daring assumption does not hold up under honest investigation. The Hebrew
expression (ûmôtsā ’ōthâv miqqedhem mîmê ‘ôlām) translated ‘goings forth from of old, from
the days of eternity’ in some versions is not equivalent to “eternity in the stricter sense.”
The meaning of the expression is clearly shown by these two Hebrew-English Interlinears:

ESV-Interlinear-OT: “and-coming-forth-of-him from-old from-days-of ancient-time”


NIVIHEOT: “and-goings-out-of-him from-of-old from-days-of ancient-time.”

“Antiquity” is what is implied by the literal translations above, not “eternity.” Other versions,
instead of saying, ‘his goings forth,’ read: “his proceedings” (TCBL; exeGeses Companion Bible);
“his comings forth”; “his origin(s),” etc. Expressions like, his proceedings and his origins, are
not ones you would want to associate with the eternal God. Hence, none of these
expressions are indicative that “he who is to be born in time at Bethlehem hath an eternal
existence.”

The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word (Hebrew motsaah) in his Lexicon are
“origin, springing” (Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, #4163, translated by S. P.
Tregelles. Milford, MI.: Baker Book House, Mott Media, 1979, p. 458.)
Page 7

A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word
as used in Micah 5:2 as “origin.” (William L. Holladay, Editor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Reprinted
1986, 187.)

“Origin” is also the meaning presented by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Harris,
Archer, Jr. and Waltke. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1980, 393 [#893d]) And by another:
Lexicon In Veteris Testamenti Libros (by Koehler/Baumgartner. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985, 505) . Origin
and springing are concepts we don’t associate with the eternal God, but we can
appropriately link them to created beings.

The expression ‘from the days of eternity’ appearing in Micah 5:2 (NASB) translates the
Hebrew mîmê ‘ôlām = from the days of antiquity. ‘Ohlam’ relates to “time” and is derived from
a root verb meaning “to hide, conceal.” It means “long duration, antiquity, futurity,”
according to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. ‘Ohlam’ can mean eternity or
simply antiquity depending on the context. The term generally indicates undefined time.
See: TCBL (“ ’ohlam” - #5986, p. 413). This may explain why early editions of the NWT often
rendered the term as “time indefinite,” as it did in Micah 5:2.

ôlām is often used of “the old days” (Deuteronomy 32:7), even within a person’s own life time
(Psalm 77:5), and can mean for the rest of a person’s life (Exodus 21:6). It has also been used
in relation to the Sabbath and the Covenant. For example, the indefinitely ‘lasting’ Law
covenant came to an end with Jesus’ death and the start of a new covenant. (Exodus
31:16,17; Romans 10:4; Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:15) And the indefinitely ‘lasting’ Aaronic
priesthood similarly came to an end. (Exodus 40:15; Hebrews 7:11,12,18)

The word has also been used in relation to God. (Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 90:2) In this case it would
mean forever or everlasting. Thus, the context is what determines the proper translation. Though
the Hebrew word ‘ôlām was probably not used in a technical, philosophical sense of ‘eternity,’ it
does refer in some contexts to all time (Psalm 90:2), to time as far back as one can go (Ps. 93:2).

NAB: “Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times”


RSV: “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days”
NIV: “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times"
NEB: “one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by”
NJB: “whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old”
YLT: “And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity”
JPS Tanakh 1917: “Whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days”
JPS Tanakh 1985: “One whose origin is from of old, From ancient times”
2001 Translation: “Whose [roots] are from the most ancient times. And from the days of the ages.”
NET Bible: “one whose origins are in the distant past”
NWT-2013: “Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.”
Leeser: “whose origin is from olden times, from most ancient days”
Rotherham: “whose comings forth, have been from of old, from the days of age-past time”
GOD’S WORD® Translation: “His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.”
Page 8

The Bible versions above point out the antiquity notion of the Messiah, not its “eternity.”
And this is done to reinforce the thought that God has prepared the Messiah for a long,
mighty, and peaceful government bringing blessings to all of God’s people on earth.

There is something else that Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible overlooked that is important.
Micah 5:4 says: “And he [i.e., the ruler of Israel] shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the strength
of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God: and they shall abide; for now shall he
be great unto the ends of the earth.” (ASV)

If the promised “ruler” from Bethlehem (Messiah) was God as traditionalists claim, there would be
no need for the text to say that this Messiah ‘would stand up and shepherd in the strength of
Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God.’ (ASV) The text says that YHWH is God,
the Messiah’s God, in fact. The context only assumes that the Messiah’s “origins are from of old,
from ancient times,” that is, ‘from long ago,’ not eternity. Furthermore, it would be pointless to
speak of God Supreme having an ‘origin, springing ... from long ago’ if he always existed. Nor
would it be fitting to speak of the Messiah’s “God,” (Literally, “YHWH his God”) if he himself was God
almighty.

TCBL concluded: “Thus, Micah 5:2, which speaks of the Messiah as One ‘whose goings forth
have been from of old, from everlasting’ does not necessarily refer to the fact that the
Messiah has existed for all eternity, though that is clearly revealed to be true elsewhere in
Scripture.” (No Scriptures were provided as basis for the last part of the statement. Thus, the
concept of “eternity” for the Messiah falls under the “wishful thinking” category of traditionalists.
(See, “ ’ohlam” - #5986, p. 413.)

We must conclude then, that Micah 5:2 is an inadequate sample to promote Jesus Christ’s
eternality. If anything, the context depicts the Messiah under God in greatness and authority.
This Scripture is no declaration of Jesus’ “eternality.” But what about John 1:1? Does it not prove
Jesus is eternal? Let’s see!

4. John 1:1, Was the Word “God”?


Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god, and god was the logos

Claim (by Craig S. Keener in The IVP Bible Background commentary New Testament*): “By declaring that
the Word ‘was’ in the beginning and especially by calling the Word ‘God’ (v. 1; also the most likely
reading of 1:18) John goes beyond the common Jewish conception to imply that Jesus is not
created (cf. Is 43:10-11).” (*Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1993, 264.)

FACT: This claim is based on flawed assumptions. It is absurd to suggest that words like “was,”
“beginning,” and “God” in relation to Christ as the Logos would prove that Christ is the uncreated
God Almighty. To verify whether the words “was” or “beginning” confirm Jesus’ eternity or not, all
one needs to do is open a Greek-English Concordance and check how these words are used
Page 9

throughout the New Testament. The Greek en rendered “was” in John1:1 appears 315 times in
the Greek text (Englishman’s Concordance), from which we can readily observe that the majority of
such occurrences have nothing to do with Jesus‘ eternity claim. The verb eimi the source word
for en is so common (2462x*) that it would be preposterous for anyone to claim that everyone or
everything linked to the verb are eternal. (*The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament,
John R. Kohlenberger III, Edward W. Goodrick, James A. Swanson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, §1639,
p. 258. UBS4 Text.)

For example, in Matthew 1:18 we read according to Kenneth S. Wuest’s translation: “Now the
birth of Jesus Christ was thus.” (The New Testament – An Expanded Translation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Reprint 1981.) The Greek literally says: “Of the but Jesus Christ the origin thus was [Greek: en].”) In
this text “was” is associated with the origin or birth of Jesus, not eternity. So too, the word
“beginning” is often used in connection with the start of something. The Free Dictionary defines
beginning as “the act or process of bringing or being brought into being; a start: the beginning of
the universe”; the point of time or space at which anything starts; the first part; the source or
cause: What was the beginning of the dispute?”

In Genesis 1:1 in the Greek Septuagint, the word “beginning” appears in reference to the creation
of heaven and earth: ‘the heaven and earth were made in the beginning.’ Is there any basis, then,
for anyone to argue that the heaven and earth are eternal for its link to the beginning?

In Mark 1:13 we read of Jesus: “And he was [Greek: en] in the wilderness forty days.” In this verse
the action “was in the wilderness” lasted only forty days, not forever. Further, at John 8:44 we are
told of the Devil: “He was [Greek: en, as in John 1:1] a murderer from the beginning.” In both of
these texts, the Greek en is the exact verb form appearing in John 1:1. Should we assume that
the Devil was uncreated, eternal for the sole reason that “he was a murderer from the beginning.”
‘Beginning’ here must refer to a point in time long ago, not eternity.

In John 15:27, Jesus tells his closest disciples toward the end of his ministry: “For you have been
with me from the beginning [Greek, arche].” The verb forms [Greek: este = “have been”] in this verse,
and [Greek: en = “was”] in John 1:1 share the same root word, eimi. The meaning of “the beginning”
in this verse cannot indicate eternity, the disciples being creatures as they were. Nor does it
indicate Jesus’ eternity either. The meaning of arche (beginning) here calls attention to a point in
time, of limited duration, likely pointing to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, a few years at most.

In Revelation 17:8, we read: “The beast, which you saw, once was [Greek: en], now is not,
and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction.” Could anyone rightly claim
this beast was eternal? It is amazing that otherwise intelligent scholars are able to come up
with such frivolous conclusions. Any efforts to employ common Greek verb forms with the
intention to prove Jesus’ eternity is fruitless. It is a case of appealing to logical fallacies, if
not desperation.
Page 10

With good reason A.T. Robertson, wrote in his Grammar under Doubtful Imperfects: “Hence we
need not insist that ἦν [en] Jo. 1:1 is strictly durative always (imperfect). It may be sometimes
actually aorist [which views the whole of the verbal action as punctiliar, or a single, unitary event] also.”
(A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934,
p. 883.)

Finally, the last part of the verse is often the most quoted, “the Word was God,” in favor of the
belief that Jesus Christ and God are co-equal in every sense. However, many scholars argue that
the Johannine statement is a more of a description of the Word, rather than an identification of
the same. A ‘tool’ provided by a group of scholars in the United Kingdom for Bible translators
worldwide, called The Translator’s New Testament, explains this matter well: “There is a distinction in
the Greek here between ‘with God,’ and ‘God.’ In the first instance the [Greek] article is used and
this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to
believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second
use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine’. The translation for the whole
sentence then is ‘what God was, the Word was’ (NEB).” (The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973)

The above explanation is a fine one indeed. However, one could go further. When a Greek
nominative noun does not have the definite article, as it does in the last part of John 1:1, it is
normally translated with an indefinite article. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament states:
“There are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in Greek, but there is a fundamental principle
underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a
normal usage.” (Dana & Mantey 1955, 141) It is this “normal usage” for the use of the Greek article
which prompted N. Clayton Croy, assistant professor of New Testament at Trinity Luther
Seminary at Columbus, Ohio, to write confidently: “Greek does not have an indefinite article
corresponding to Engish ‘a’ or ‘an’. When a Greek noun lacks the definite article, it normally will
be translated as indefinite.” (A Primer of Biblical Greek, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 15.)

This is exactly how the translators of the Egyptian Sahidic Coptic of some 1,700 years ago dealt
with the Greek of John 1:1 in their language. The Coptic language, unlike Greek, does have an
indefinite article within their grammatical toolset, just like in English. And how did the Coptic
translators rendered the Greek of John 1:1c? Like so*: “and the Word was a god.” At the time
when the Coptic was translated, common Greek was still a living language, and hence,
understood better than it is possible today. (*Arranged in contemporary English.)

Of course, the presence of the Coptic translation does not bode well for traditionalists. Hence,
the Coptic translation has been mostly kept “under wraps,” so to speak, by mainstream
scholarship. Also, some efforts have been made by some individuals to undermine the Sahidic
Coptic translation, but the facts themselves are open to scrutiny.

Some translate John 1:1c as: “the Word was divine,” or “the Word shared his [God’s] nature.”
Others render it: “the Word was Godlike,” or “the Word was a god.” These last two readings are
most criticized by traditionalists, because they make a clear distinction between Christ and God,
an unwelcomed thought to many a Trinitarian. Thus, one recent translator avoids being explicit
by translating the text: “In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD,
and the Logos was god.” (David Bentley Hart's New Testament: A Translation. New Haven and London:
Page 11

Yale University Press, 2017, p. 536. Underline added.) This scholar adds: “….Standard translations
make it impossible for readers who know neither Greek nor the history of late antique
metaphysics and theology to understand either what the original text says or what it does not
say. Not that there is any perfectly satisfactory way of representing the text’s obscurities in
English, since we do not distinguish between an uppercase or lowercase g to indicate the
distinction between God an [a] god. This, hesitantly, is how I deal with the distinction in my
translation of the Gospel’s prologue, and I believe one must employ some such device….”
(Brackets his, although Hart is opposed to the “a god” reading in the main text.) The rendering “god” in
small letters (vs “GOD”) appears to be used as an adjective, so it is like saying “the Word was
divine.” Many scholars fail to acknowledge this important distinction in their English translations
of John 1:1.

Thus, if the non-traditional renderings of John 1:1 are correct, as I believe they are, it would
mean that Jesus Christ is divine, Godlike, but not inevitably eternal, in harmony with Colossians
1:15, which says of the Christ: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.”
(RSV) Jesus himself said: “I live because of the Father.” Can we imagine the Supreme God ever
uttering these words?

It is not surprising then to find scholars disagreeing with others on the subject, and even
expressing inner conflicts on this Scripture. Rudolf K. Bultmann accepts the traditional
translation of John 1:1, but at the same time sustains that in the New Testament, “Christ is
looked upon and worshipped as a divine figure … as a god, but not simply as God.” (Essays,
Philosophical and Theological. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1955, 279.)

The Jewish Authors of the Bible were brought up in monotheism, the belief in one God, and not
within the triads tenet of the Gentiles. (1 Corinthians 8:5,6) To the Jewish people, there was but
one God, and their Biblical writings bring out that heavenly beings are “sons of God,” that is,
they belong to the heavenly family of godlike ones. (Genesis 6:2) Hence, Jesus Christ, described as
“the only begotten Son of God,” was sent by God to do his will, was divinely powerful,
represented as “Mighty God” before his people. (John 3:18, NASB; 13:16; 16:5; Isaiah 9:6)
William Barclay (Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow ), communicates
the main thought of John 1:1 succintly: “When John said the word was God he was not saying
that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in
mind, in heart, in being that in him we perfectly see what God is like.” (The Gospel of John, rev. ed., 2
vols. 1:39. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) The Biblical author of Hebrews conveys a similar idea in
the opening verses of chapter one. (Hebrews 1:1-4) The Apostle John in his Gospel stresses more
than anything the import the Logos brings to the world by means of his intimate association
with God. (John 1:2,18; 5:24; 20:31)

In short, John 1:1 is one of a handful of texts in the Bible whose interpretation is considered ‘not
settled’ by a segment of the scholarly community. Thus, it is a poor choice to use as “evidence”
that Jesus is eternal.

5. John 1.18; 3.18, How is Christ “the only begotten Son (God)”? “No one has seen God at any
time; the only-begotten Son*, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].” (The
Page 12

Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby, Ontario, 1988. *Others: the only-begotten God)

Traditionalists like to appeal to this verse as evidence that the Son is “God,” since some Bibles do
say at John 1:18, the only-begotten God, instead of the only-begotten Son from Darby’s version. For
instance, the NIV and some other versions read: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and
only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him
known.” Why do these versions read differently from Darby’s translation, which has instead, “the
only-begotten Son”?

This is due to uncertainty as to which of the three main variants is most likely the original. Some
manuscripts read, “only-begotten god (p66, ’Aleph*, B, C, L, syrhmg,p),” others add the article to this,
like so: “the only-begotten god (attested by p75, ’Aleph1, 33, copbo),” both based on “Alexandrian”
traditional sources. The third one says “the only-begotten son (A, CC, Vg),” known by many early
church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, Alexander, Eusebius Eastathius, Serapion, Jualian, Basil,
and Gregroy-Nazianzus) and attested by Old Latin and Syriac Versions. The latest consensus of
scholars favors the “only-begotten god,” on the grounds of antiquity, but this is not a foregone
conclusion. I am inclined to favor the reading “only-begotten son” over the “only-begotten god,”
mostly on the premise of established Johannine usage, and also seems to fit the context of
John’s prologue more satisfactorily. (John 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9)

A good discussion on the subject is presented by Bart D. Ehrman on his book, The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture. (Oxford University Press, 2011, Revised Edition) Ehrman writes: “It is on internal
grounds that the real superiority of ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός [the only-begotten son] shines forth. Not only
does it conform with established Johannine usage, a point its opponents readily concede, but
the Alexandrian variant, although perfectly amenable to scribes for theological reasons, is
virtually impossible to understand within a Johannine context.” (Ibid, p. 93) Ehrman concludes
that the Alexandrian reading represents an orthodox corruption: “The variant [only-begotten god]
was created to support a high Christology in the face of widespread claims, found among
adoptionists recognized and opposed in Alexandria, that Christ was not God but merely a man,
adopted by God.” (Ibid, p. 96) This will be debated for years to come.

Also, the The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, comments:
“[monogenēs theos] can only mean ‘an only-begotten God’; to render ‘an only-begotten, one who is
God’ [like the NIV does], is an exegetical invention. It can hardly be credited of [John], who is
distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression. An only-begotten God corresponds to the
weakening of monotheism in Gnosticism.” (F. Büchsel. Translator: Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1967. Vol. IV, p. 740, footnote 14.)

Another matter of contention has to do with the meaning of the Greek word monogenēs, a
compound word of two elements: monos and genēs. Monos is generally accepted to mean “only.”
But genēs is disputed. It has often been defined as begotten, born, while some others claim that
genēs does not come from the Greek word gennaō (beget) but from genos (kind), thus, unique, the
only one of a class or kind.

Since this text speaks of Jesus Christ, traditionalists tend to favor the idea that Jesus is God in
every sense, much like they do with John 1:1. The thought of Jesus being begotten or born from
Page 13

God is not attractive to them, while the concept of Jesus being unique, one of its kind, the one and
only, is definitely more pleasing to their ears. This second interpretation is also easier to
reconcile with the popular (but extraneous) Trinity doctrine that equates the Son with the Father.
This doctrine claims Jesus is the “unbegotten” “uncreated” Son of God.

Traditionalists reason that if Jesus Christ is called God, then he must be the Eternal One. They fail
to notice that the term “god” in Scripture is used in various ways, and applied both to heavenly
beings and humans who serve as God’s representatives. (Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6; John 10:33-36) The
context too has to be taken into account for the final readings.

Admittedly, the Greek word monogenēs can mean “the only one of its kind” in a non-filial
relationship, but it generally means “only-begotten” when used in a filial (father - “son”)
relationship, as is the case here. Although many believe that monogenēs means ‘only,’ ‘unique,’
and not ‘begotten,’ the fact is that the compound term (monos + genēs ) is stronger than just
saying “monos.” Monos appears 114 times in the New Testament, so it is not like John had no
choice but to use monogenēs.

The International Bible Encyclopedia explains: “Scholars are divided over the legitimacy of the AV
[=Authorized Version] rendering ‘only begotten’ in the six passages mentioned above [Jn. 1:14,18;
3:16,18; He. 11:17; 1 Jn 4:9]. The position against the AV translation was stated clearly by D. Moody,
who insisted that monogenḗs means ‘one,’ ‘only,’ or ‘unique’ rather than ‘only begotten.’ […] A
contrary position has been argued by C. K. Barrett, J. B. Bauer, F. Büchsel, R. H. Lighfoot, B.
Lindars and R. Schnackenburg. While admitting the linguistic strength of the preceding view,
these scholars have argued that in the Johannine passages monogenḗs denotes Jesus' origin in
addition to His uniqueness. Jesus is not only the ‘only’ Son of the Father: He is the ‘begotten Son’
because He derives His being from the Father.” […] While those who translate monogenḗs ‘by only
begotten’ can make sense of monogenḗs huiós (“only begotten Son”; cf. Jn. 3:16,18; 1 Jn 4:9), they
run into enormous theological difficulties with monogenḗs theós (“only begotten God”) …
Discussions about the origin or derivation of the Son in relationship to the Father should be
conducted along theological rather than linguistic lines.” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Vol. III.
606)

Similarly, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel), states: “The μονo- [mo·no-] does not
denote the source but the nature of derivation. Hence μονογενής [monogenēs] means ‘of sole
descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The ref. is to
the only child of one's parents, primarily in relation to them. μονογενής is stronger than μονος,
for it denotes that they have never had more than this child. But the word can also be used more
generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of ‘unique,’ ‘unparalleled,’ ‘incomparable,’ though
one should not confuse the refs. to class or species and to manner. […] In [John] 3:16,18; 1 Jn. 4:9;
[John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the
relation of the only-begotten to the Father. [...] In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 μονογενής
[monogenēs] denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He
is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In Jn. μονογενής denotes the
origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten. [...]
Page 14

“ It is not wholly clear whether μονογενής in Jn. denotes also the birth or begetting from God; it
probably does, Jn. calls Jesus ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ [the one having being generated out of the
God], 1 Jn 5:18. Though many will not accept this, he here understands the concept of sonship in
terms of begetting. For him to be the Son of God is not just to be the recipient of God’s love. It is
to be begotten of God. This is true both of believers and also of Jesus. For this reason μονογενής
probably includes also begetting by God.” (F. Büchsel. Editor: Gerhard Kittel. Translator: Geoffrey W.
Bromiley, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967, Vol. IV, pp. 738, 740, 741.)

The Abridged edition of TDOTNT above summarized the meaning of monogenēs thus: “He [Jesus] is
not just unique; he is the Son, for combined with huiós [son] the term describes his
origin….Whether or not this implies actual begetting by God is debated by some, but 1 Jn. 5:18
definitely teaches this, for sonship is here presented in terms of begetting.” (G. W. Bromiley. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans. 1985, 607.)

The evidence in favor of the meaning “only,” “unique,” for monogenēs is far from settled. Some
Trinitarian scholars are questioning whether the trend to explain monogenḗs in relation to Jesus
Christ, as “only,” “unique,” or “one of a kind,” is the right approach. If monogenḗs meant “only,”
“unique,” as claimed, how would the term apply only to Jesus? God has many sons. Are not the
other “sons of God” unique in their own ways? (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) As ISBE notes: “He
[Christ] is the son of God in a sense in which no others are.” (International Bible Encyclopedia Online)
What sense would that be? A logical interpretation would be that Jesus Christ was the only living
being in the universe directly created by God. It is not by perchance that Christ is called “the
firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15, D-R; YLT; KJV; ASV; NASB); and “the beginning of the
creation of God” (Revelation 3:14, D-R; KJV; Darby; ASV; NASB). These two Scriptures are discussed
further below.

The concept of ‘the Son been generated by God,’ as the above reference work states, is one
which, ‘many will not accept, but John at 1 John 5:18 understands the concept of sonship in
terms of begetting.’ Edward Robinson in his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament defines
the Greek term as: “only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.” (1885, p. 471) The English
Standard Version, renders the Greek monogenēs theos as “only God.” In doing so, the translators
ignored the meaning of the second part of the compound word mono-genēs theos of the
expression which means, only-begotten God. The ESV as well as other Trinitarian translators are
reticent to accept the fact that “μονογενής is stronger than μονος.” (Ibid, 738)

Greek Professor Paul R. McReynolds of Pacific Christian College (Fullerton, CA), is one scholar who
did not disregard the lexical meaning of monogenēs theos, for he translated it as “only born God.”*
(John 1:18; 3:16,18) McReynolds gives in the Concordance of the book the following definition for
monogenēs as: “only born, unique.” Interestingly, professor McReynolds places “only born” first in
his definition of the compound word mono-genēs relating it to descent, birth. (*Word Study Greek-
English New Testament, Carol Stream, IL.: Tyndale, 1999.)

In 1 John 5:18, we are told that Christ was “born [a form of gennaō] of God.” Observe that the Bible
author, John, who also wrote the Gospel that bears his name, chose here (1:18) the word gen·na'ō
(beget) in relation to Christ instead of genos (kind) as traditionalists suggest for mono-genēs. Being
“born of God” does not refer to his human birth on earth, but to his ultimate derivation from
Page 15

above, that is, as being generated or fathered by God in heaven. Various Bible versions in 1 John
5:18 seek to avoid the expressed thought of Christ's begetting by the Heavenly Father, by
replacing it with “Son of God” or some other reading more pleasing to the mainstream faithful.
(See: Contemporary English Version; Easy-to-Read Version; God’s Word; Good News Translation; The Living Bible;
New Century Version; New International Reader’s Version; New Life Version; NLT; The VOICE; Worldwide English
NT) Are Bible readers able to recognize the shrewd manipulation of these verses by
traditionalists in an effort to sway the interpretation in their favor? Notwithstanding, the
majority of the 97 occurrences listed of gennaō in the New Testament are related to the “birth” of
a son generated by a father as shown by McReynolds’ publication above. (§1080, pp. 1090-1091 –
Gennaō = “I give birth.”)

In harmony with 1 John 5:18, where Christ is said to be “born from God,” a form of γεννάω
(gennaō, related to birth) is used at Psalm 2:7 in the Septuagint. Psalm two is a royal psalm of
messianic import. This psalm is frequently quoted in the New Testament, where it is applied to
Christ as the Son of David and God’s anointed. Of the royal Son, God says: “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5) As much as traditionalists try to
avoid the thought of Jesus ever being “born” or ‘brought forth’ by God, the idea is there in
Scripture. “And though no one has ever seen God, this ‘only generated god’ (the one in the favored
position of the Father) has explained Him. (2001 Translation – An American English Bible)

The expression “only-begotten” is never used of God the Father in Scripture either, but only of
the Son. If these Biblical expressions had the meaning that traditionalists attribute to them, one
would expect them to be used repeatedly for God and Spirit as well. But they are not! Not even
Trinitarians use these expressions in reference to God the Father. When Jesus prayed to his
Father (a reasonable act from creature to Divinity), he called God, not mono-genēs (the only-begotten)
God, but ton monon alēthinon theon = “the only true God” (monon is the accusative form of monos, John
17:3). Hence, if mono-genēs meant “only,” “unique,” “one of a kind,” Jesus would have used this
word in this text. Rather, he used “monos.” Why? Because Jesus’ Father is not “only-begotten,” he
is the Father of “the only-begotten Son” Jesus Christ. God the Father is the Supreme Creator,
uncreated. The Father is never called “the firstborn of all creation,” or “the beginning of the
creation of God.” (Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14) Neither can the “spirit” be called this way. These descriptions
belong only to Jesus Christ.

We do well to consider the full meaning of Greek compound words related to our discussion. For
instance, if we look at a similar compound word in Matthew 18:9, monophthalmos = “one-eye (or,
one-eyed).” (monos & ophthalmos) in contrast to duo ophthalmos = “two eyes” in the same verse in
various versions, we’ll find that they all acknowledge the presence of a compound word ( monos-
ophthalmos) by assigning a distinct definition for the two expressions.

In addition, you can see below how the Septuagint (LXX) dealt with the “monos-” element
combined with another word attached to it. Furthermore, you can see how this concept is
carried over to Modern Greek.

LXX:
Page 16

mónorchis = one testicle (Leviticus 21:20).


monoḗmeros = one day; a day ( Wisdom of Solomon 5.14).
monókerōs = one horned; “unicorn” (Job 39.9, The Lexham English Septuagint).
monomachéō = single combat (1 Samuel 17:10).
monophagía = eating alone (4 Maccabees 1:27).
monophágos = eating alone (4 Maccabees 2:7).
monótropos = living alone; solitary (Psalm 68:6).
monózōnos = one girdle; “a band of troops” (NETS); “ lightly armed ” (2 Samuel 22.30, Lexham).

Modern Greek:

monogamía = one mate (or, one marriage partner)


monokúttaros = one-celled
monódrama = single play, one [person] drama
monóprakto = one-act play
monódromos = one-[way] street
monoetḗs = one year
monographía = monograph
monóklino = single-[bed] room
monokommatikós = one party
monópeto = single breasted
monomelḗs = one member, one person
monokómmatos = one piece
monóphylos = one-leaf
monochromía = monochrome
monócheiras = one-handed
monóchordos = one-stringed
monosántalos = [wearing] one-sandal
monóstichos = [of] one verse
monótrochos = one-wheeled
monópleuros = one-sided
monólogos = single speech, or play (a long speech by one person)

The above list shows that it is standard practice to attach additional meanings to monos by using
another word to it. Take off the second part of the words in the list above after mono-, and what
do you have? Just an adjective with a narrow meaning. It would be a mistake to conclude that all
the compound words above have the simple meaning of “one,” “only” or “unique.” Monoḗmeros
does not mean just “one” or “only,” but “one-day.” Monóphylos does not mean only, it means “one-
leaf.” Monótrochos does not mean only, it means “one-wheeled,” and so on. But this is exactly what
translators want to do with John 1:18. When you throw in the theological aspect into the
quotient, the stronger compound word monogenēs thus becomes weaker in meaning in some
Bible versions… from “only-begotten” to “only” Son. The idea of “begetting” is washed away in
translation. Therefore, the rendering of “only born” by McReynolds in his interlinear at John 1:18
is faithful to the original meaning, and is superior than saying, one, only [son] or unique.
Page 17

The NIV and a host of other versions have evidently altered the meanings of these expressions.
They don’t want people to believe that Jesus had a beginning, that he was engendered or born by
God, thus, translations for monogenēs like “only-born,” and the “only-begotten” Son of God are
rejected outright. They prefer to say that he is the “only Son, ”the unique Son,” expressions which
are easier to adapt and explain by way of Trinitarian dogma = the Second Person of the Trinity,
the Son. Again, the words “only Son, ”the unique Son,” can be applied equally to angels
individually (called “sons of God” in Scripture), since each angel can be unique in their own way. But
the angels were not created directly by God, they were created through the agency of the Son.
Angels are not “only-begotten” in the sense Jesus Christ is.

Regardless, all these expressions, “the only Son,” “the unique Son,” “the only begotten Son [or,
God]” found in John 1:18, and in John 3:18, do not in any way indicate Jesus’ eternity. On the
contrary, it shows Jesus derived his existence from God. (John 6:57) Even if we take monogenēs to
mean only or only son, it still falls short of describing Jesus next to God. For God is son to no one.

As The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, stated above: “Though many
will not accept this, [John] here understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting….In Jn.
μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.” Are we willing to
“accept” the Biblical meaning of “only-begotten” for the Son of God over the creedal notions of
fourth century C.E.? If so, there will be no problem understanding the literal Biblical descriptions
of Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation”; “the beginning of the creation of God” considered ahead.
(Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14)

6. John 8:58, Is Jesus the Great “I am”? The Eternal? (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί = before
Abraham to become, I am)

CLAIM (by English Standard Version – Study Bible): “The words ‘I am’ in Greek use the same
expression (Egō eimi) found in the Septuagint in the first half of God’s self-identification in Ex.
3:14, ‘(I AM WHO I AM).’ Jesus is thus claiming not only to be eternal but also to be the God who
appeared to Moses at the burning bush.”

FACT: This conclusion is flawed for various reasons. First of all, Jesus at John 8:58 did not use the
“same” Greek expression found in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 as claimed. Jesus did not say,
“Before Abraham was born, I AM WHO I AM”? Neither did he say, “...I am God,” or “...I am YHWH”?
Besides, the Greek reading found at Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint focuses not on the “I am [ego
eimi]” which is used as a linking verb to the words carrying the greater meaning (hο ōn). This is
shown by Brenton’s translation of the LXX at Exodus 3:14: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am
THE BEING [hο ōn]; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING [hο ōn] has
sent me to you.” (Capital letters his.) Also: A New English Translation of the Septuagint reads: “And God
said to Moyses, ‘I am The One Who Is [hο ōn].’ And he said, ‘Thus shall you say to the sons of
Israel, ‘The One Who Is [hο ōn] has sent me to you.’“ (Editors: Albert Pietersma & Benjamin G. Wright.
By the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Capital letters theirs.)

And we have not even begun to consider the original Hebrew reading of Exodus 3:14, which
Page 18

should further pull one away from the “I am” notion promoted by traditionalists. With good
reason, Trinitarian advocate James White conceded: “It could fairly be admitted that an
immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is unwise.”
(“Purpose and Meaning of ‘Ego Eimi’ in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ.” Disclaimer: James
White, however, sees a connection between John 8:58 and the “I am [he]” sayings in Isaiah, but that is
another subject for another day.)

This is what Jesus actually stated at John 8:58, “Before Abraham was born, I am.” The Jews
brought up the matter of his age in the previous verse. So logically, Jesus would address this very
issue in his answer to them, by letting them know that he was in fact older than Abraham, that
he pre-existed Abraham. There is a piece of information that many people seem to be unaware
of. It is this: The verb eimi in the phrase “I am [ego eimi]” can be “used on its own [without a
predicate], as a verb of existence”, as in John 8:58. This is what the book Fundamentals of New
Testament Greek points to. (By Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew B. O’Donnell. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010, 72.) This would indicate that the phrase “I am” at John 8:58 does not demand the
interpretation of a divine title by Jesus, as is often asserted.

Another relevant issue to consider in Bible translation work which incidentally holds true at John
8:58 is that “Greek tenses do not correspond precisely to English tenses.” (Disciples’ Literal New
Testament, Michael Magill, Beaverton, OR.: Reyma Publishing. Appendix: Details about this Translation.
Notes on the Greek Translation: “Verbs,” 2011, 458.) Greek tenses frequently are time-indifferent,
except by implication from their relationship to their context. A translator cannot simply
transport the original tense forms into other languages consistently and accurately, especially
so in the presence of an “idiom,” like is the case in John 8:58. For instance, Jesus’ words as they
appear in Greek contain a verb in the present tense in combination with an adverb adjunct
indicating past time. This grammatical construction is quite common in ancient, Biblical and
modern Greek. What this means is that the words “before Abraham” is a temporal indicator
pointing to past implications. So if we combine this element of past time with the “I am” phrase
in the present tense as many translations are tempted to do in this verse, we end up with non-
standard, ungrammatical English. This regrettable inaccuracy occurs because most translators
seek to convey the idea that in John 8:58 Jesus is the God of Exodus 3:14. But think about this:
Would you say in English, for example, ”Before I went to visit my doctor, I am sick.” Just because
in Greek one can rightly combine a present verb with an expression of past time, it does not
mean that it is correct to do so in the English translation. In practice, Bible translators adapt
Greek idiosyncrasies to English idiom throughout the New Testament. Why not do so at John
8:58?

This Greek idiom of John 8:58 is described as “The Present of past Action still in Progress” by
grammarian Ernest D. Burton in his book, Syntax of Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek. He concludes:
“English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases.” (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1976
Impression, 10.) In other words, at John 8:58 we could translate literally using the English Perfect
Indicative as did Greek scholar K. L. McKay: “I have been in existence since before Abraham was
born.” McKay argues that Jesus' response in John 8:58 “would be most naturally translated ‘I
Page 19

have been in existence since before Abraham was born,’ if it were not for the obsession with the
simple words ‘I am.’” (“‘I am’ in John's Gospel”, Expository Times 1996, 302.) One could argue there are
other ways that the Greek idiom of John 8:58 could be translated, as illustrated by the following
Bible versions, which describes an action started in the past, continuing into the present at the
moment of speaking:

“I am older than Abraham” (Greber*); “Before Abraham existed, I was” (Twentieth Century New
Testament, 1904); “I was alive before Abraham was born!” (Simple English Bible); “I was in existence
before Abraham was ever born!” (Living Bible); “I came into being before Abraham” (21st Century New
Testament); “I existed before Abraham was even born” (The Clear Word); “I already was before
Abraham was born” (Worldwide English New Testament); “I was before there was an AbraHam” (2001
Translation); “The truth is that I existed before Abraham was born!” (Translation for Translators, 2008);
“Before Abraham existed I was” (Open English Bible, 2016); “I have been in existence since before
Abraham was born” (The Source New Testament, A. Nyland, 2007). (* “[Greber’s N.T.] Translated from the
German into English by a Professional and corrected by a committee of American clergymen….” – The
English Bible in America by M.T. Hills, 383.)

These versions understand that the verb eimi in Jesus’ words “I am” is used to convey life or
existence, not employed as a divine title to promote the concept of eternity. The “I am [he]”
expression may also hint that Jesus was the one sent by God (and not someone else) to fulfill his
will that men of all sorts be saved. It is unthinkable that Jesus Christ would use an explicit divine
title (“I am”) with unbelieving Jews, and not with his closest disciples, in view of his statement at
Mark 4:11,33,34. To his disciples in private, Jesus told them that ‘their God was his God.’ (John
20:17) Doesn’t this indicate that Jesus and his disciples shared the same God in worship?

The fact is that the simple act of pronouncing the common words “I am” does not make one
God. In Isaiah 47:8,10, the Lord God says to the King of Babylon: “Your wisdom and knowledge
mislead you when you say to yourself, ‘I am [Heb: ’ă·nî ; egó eimi, in LXX], and there is none besides
me.’” This Babylonian king was far from being God. In John 9:9, we have a situation where a man
born blind kept saying to others: ‘I am [egō eimi] the one.’ Was this man God? No, he was not. The
apostle Paul also stated: “I am what I am.” (1 Corinthians 15:10) Even Presidential candidate
Donald Trump, vowing not to change, twitted during his campaign: “I am who I am.” (August 14,
2016) This makes it plain that having someone declare “I am” does not make such person God.

Even if Jesus echoed the same words of God (I am) which appears in various places in Scripture
(notably in Isaiah) as sustained, it does not mean he was claiming to be his equal. Jesus himself
said to others: “For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all
that I have spoken.” Also, “These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent
me.” (John 12:49; 14:24) As God’s representative, he could rightly say in his name that ‘he was the
one’ sent by God: ‘I am the one = the Son of man, the Messiah, the promised Savior of the world.’
(John7:28; 8:42) Some take the reaction of the Jews (for seeking to stone Jesus for committing
“blasphemy”) as evidence that Jesus was claiming to be ‘the God’ of Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint.
It should be noted that the charge of “blasphemy” could be brought up for lesser transgressions
Page 20

than for someone just claiming to be God. McKay said: “The claim to have been in existence for
so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction [in
v.59].” (“‘I am’ in John's Gospel,” 302) C.K. Barrett rightly noted that the Jews' reaction in verse 59
“does not mean that Jesus had claimed to be God.” So the Jews’ response to his words at John
8:59 are certainly not conclusive, since they often made wrong assumptions. (The Gospel According
to St. John, 2d. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978, 352) Should we base a doctrine on false
assumptions by a group of humans who rejected the Lord Jesus Christ?

The point is that John 8:58 does not say whether Jesus is eternal or not. Nor does it say that he
was God Almighty. It simply indicates that Jesus Christ was already alive by the time Abraham
came into existence. The Jesus’ declarations (“I am [he]”; “I am the one”) of John chapter 8 may
additionally insinuate that he was the Promised One, the Sent One, the Messiah, the Son of God. It
should be noted that other “sons of God” (or, angels) preceded Abraham’s existence as well.
(Genesis 6:2; Psalm 148:2,5) Were they eternal?

Not to be overlooked is the fact that Jesus himself declared at John 6:57 that ‘he owed his life to
the Father.’ On this, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology under “dia” (Cause or
Ground), said: “...Jn. 6:57a, the Father is the source of the Son’s life, as in Jn. 5:26….” (Editor, Colin
Brown, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. Vol. 3, 1183) In Scripture, everything starts and ends with the
Father, because no one can be the source of the Father’s life. God the Father is eternal. But Jesus
Christ is said to have a “father.” Also, Jesus, the Son of God, declared: “The Father is greater than
I.” (John 14:28) Logically, someone who claims to be less than God cannot claim at the same time
to be fully God. There is no such thing as a “God-man.” This expression is not found in any Greek-
English Concordance. Such concept is the invention of creative philosophers of a later era. Jesus
Christ is elsewhere described as “the Lamb of God”; “the Son of God”; “the Holy One of God”; and
“the way” to the Father. (John 1:29; 1:49; 6:69; 14:6) All these statements imply subordination, they
do not portray Jesus as ‘the One God over all.’ (Compare to Ephesians 4:6) The apostle John who
knew Jesus in a way we never could, summarized his gospel thus: “But these are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in
his name.” (John 20:31) The correct understanding and translation of John 8:58 should not go
past this statement.

Therefore, John 8:58 does not confirm the popular doctrine that Jesus was claiming a divine
name, or doing a self-identification with God Almighty. Neither does this text indicate that Jesus
is eternal, it mainly proves that Jesus preexisted Abraham.

7. Colossians 1:15, Meaning of “the firstborn of all creation.” (NASB)


“Who is image of the God the invisible, firstborn of all creation.”
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως

CLAIM (by Holman Christian Standard Bible): “The title firstborn does not mean that Jesus was
created (v. 16), but indicates His priority of rank as supreme over all the created order. Christ is
Page 21

supreme over creation because He is the Creator. He is the one who created everything.” (Vv. 15
&16. Bold letters theirs.)

FACT: There are a few things this Bible version is not telling you. Is it possible to be a “firstborn”
without ever being produced? How does the Bible use “firstborn” throughout Scripture? Does
the Bible really say that Jesus was the Universal Creator? Does the expression “all things” or
“everything” exclude Jesus from being created?

The NIV Bible and various other versions changed the wording of the verse from, “He is the
firstborn of all creation” as found in (ASV; RSV; NRSV; ESV; NABRE) to this one: “He is the firstborn
over all creation.” (Italics added.) Mainstream churches are known for condemning “cultish”
groups for allegedly “altering” Scripture to their beliefs. However, Colossians 1:15 is a good
example of mainstream religious groups doing the very thing they condemn the “cults” of –
altering Scripture to suit their beliefs. In Colossians 1:15, they changed the most likely meaning of
a Christ being “of” creation (a normal meaning of the genitive construction) to one far less likely,
namely, that Jesus is “over”, “above” all creation, preeminent or supreme over all creation. They
justify this change on the premise that Christ created “all things,” hence, he could not be part of
the creation itself. We’ll examine these claims below.

I mentioned before (See, Was Jesus the Creator of the universe?) that Jesus Christ himself spoke of
someone else as the Creator when he said that ‘he (God) created the first human pair.’ (Matthew
19:4) And Paul differentiating between God and Christ in the first chapter of Ephesians, said it
was “God, who created all things.” (Eph. 1:3,9) The Bible teaches throughout that God the Father
(not the Son) is the Creator. (Genesis 1:1; 1:27; Psalm 146:5,6; Mark 10:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation
4:11; 10:6) The word “father” is always associated with begetting, linked as a source of life for
children, shown in the genealogical account of Matthew chapter one, where some translators
use the word “begot,” like so: “Abraham begot Isaac.” (New King James Version) Or: “Abraham
became the father of Isaac.” Hence, when we read that God is the Father of all mankind, the first
thing that naturally comes to mind is that God made human life possible, that he is the ultimate
source of all life. When we read the Scriptural statement that God is the Father of Jesus Christ, his
Son, we can’t help but think that God generated or produced the Son Jesus Christ who humbly
acknowledged: “I have life because of the Father.” (John 6:57, NABRE) Thus, we need to harmonize
these clear statements with those of Colossians.

At Colossians 1:19 we read: “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in
Him [Jesus Christ].” (NASB) The “fullness” made to live in Christ by God’s will, most likely refers to
‘the immensity of the divine perfections, attributes and wisdom’, as various commentators have
noted. According to Colossians 2:10, Christians too are able to obtain this fullness: “And in Christ
you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.” (Col. 2:2,3;
John 1:14,16; Ephesians 3:19) Hence, the “fullness” of God made to dwell in Christ and his followers
cannot, and should not, be explained by creedal language from post-Christian era.

How could Jesus be God eternal, as claimed, when he at one time did not have the “fullness”
which “by God's own choice” was made to dwell in Christ? (NEB) And why didn’t Jesus own this
fullness of ‘divine attributes’ in the first place if he was, as claimed, the “grand creator”? Once
again, Colossians 1:19 implicitly makes a distinction between God and Christ.
Page 22

At Colossians 2:12, Paul says that it was “God, who raised him from the dead.” Jesus Christ died,
but God cannot die. (Habakkuk 1:12; 1 Timothy 1:17) How could Christ be the “Creator” if he was
fully dependable on someone else to raise him from the dead? (Psalm 22:1; Mark 15:34) Col. 2:13
says: “God made you alive with Christ.” Isn’t this Scripture saying implicitly that Christ is not God?
Colossians 3:1, tell us that the glorified “Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” If Jesus was
the Supreme Creator, why would he have to sit in “a position of authority second only to God’s”
on the heavenly throne? (See the 1985 NIV Edition note to Mark 16:19.) These Scriptures distinguish
God from Christ. God always shows up in Scripture ahead and above Christ in everything. The
book of Colossians is no exception. God, then, is the Supreme Creator, not Christ. It is God who
makes Christ ‘first in all things.’ (Col. 1:18, YLT)

Now, does not the Bible say that Christ created ”all things” or “everything”? There are two points
to consider to this question. First, as we discussed in the link above, God created everything
through Christ. This is indicated in the Greek text by the preposition dia with the meaning
through used in relation to Christ. The book Greek for Everyone explains: “Direct agency, which
indicates the ultimate agent of an action (e.g., “by God”), usually occurs with the preposition ὑπό
[hypo, and sometimes by ek as in 1 Cor. 8:6, apo & para] + a genitive-case noun…. We find
intermediate agency, when a secondary agent performs an action (e,g., “through the church”),
present when we have the preposition διά [dia] + a genitive-case noun.” (A. Chadwick Thornhill,
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016. 36. Bold letters by author. Brackets & underlines mine.) The same idea
appears in A.T. Robertson’s Grammar (Robertson 1934, p. 820-g).

Various prepositions, έν (en), δία (through), and είς (for) are used of Christ in Scriptures when
addressing the act of creation. In Colossians 1:16, a Greek primary preposition δία (through) was
used denoting the channel of an act. Christ was the agency through which God made everything.
As 1 Corinthians 8:6 indicate, God is the source of creation “from [ek] whom all things came,” and
Christ is the mediator of all creation, “through [dia] whom all things came.” “Ek” is never applied
to Christ in these descriptions. “Ek” is only applied to God, the Father. The following Bible version
depicts God correctly, within context, as the direct agent of creation, and Christ as the
intermediary of the creation act:

“When God created everything that is on the earth, he did it by having his Son do it. He created everything
that people can see, and also everything which is in heaven that people cannot see. In particular, his Son
created all ranks of important spirit beings. And he ranks above everything, because God created
everything by the work of his Son.” (Translation for Translators, 2008) Thus, God appears above Jesus Christ.
God is the Grand Creator.

Does the expression “all things” exclude Jesus Christ from creation?

The word “all” as in “all things” does not always indicate the absolute sum of everything. As used
in Scripture, “all” is not always inclusive. “All” is often used, both secularly and Biblically, as a
hyperbole, an exageration. “All” is often used in Scripture metaphorically to denote
comprehensiveness: “many”; “a great number”; “a majority.” Here are a few examples where the
Greek word for “all” does not include everything or everyone under the Sun. In Colossians 1:20,
Page 23

should we include Satan among “all things” reconciled through Christ? Logically, Satan and Jesus’
Father are to be excluded from the group of “all things” reconciled through Christ. Acts 2:4
describes the miracle of Jesus’ followers gathered at Pentecost speaking in other languages. It
literally says in part: “And all [pantes] were filled with holy spirit and they began to speak in
different tongues.” Was “all” of Jerusalem or Judea included in this ‘filling’? The NIV Study Bible
answers: “All…. Could refer either to the apostles or to the 120.” That still a far cry from the
totality of Judea being there, not to mention the world.

When Paul wrote at 2 Timothy 1:15: “You know that everyone [Greek: pantes = “all”] in the province
of Asia has deserted me….” Did every single inhabitant in Asia turned away from Paul? No. Only
those claiming to be “Christians” did. I should say most Christians did, because in the next verse
(16) Paul said that Onesiphorus did not leave him. So not “everyone” or “all” literally abandoned
Paul. There were exceptions to the Biblical use of “all.”

Here is another example at Mark 16:15* found in some Bibles: “Christ's followers are told to
‘preach the gospel to every [pasē] creature.’ Would this include dogs and cats? Of course not. Yet
they are obviously ‘living creatures.’ Actually, the gospel is to be preached to every human being,
but human beings make up only a fraction of the creatures God has made.” (*Mark 16:15 does not
appear in some manuscripts. This sample was provided by Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible,
under “Illustrations of Bible Idioms – “Emphatic Generalization.” Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1982. )

And in Genesis 3:20 in the Greek Septuagint, we read of the first woman, Eve, that “she is the
mother of all [pantōn] the living.” (NETS; cf., The Lexham English Septuagint) Should we argue that Eve
was the mother of God? Of Jesus? Of angels? Of Adam? Of all animals?

Of even greater importance, Colossians chapter one states that Christ received “the fullness”
from God “so that he himself may become first in all things.” (1:18,19, NET Bible) Is Jesus then God
Supreme? Not according to the apostle Paul. He explained elsewhere that the expression “all
things” [panta] under Christ does not include “God” among them. Paul wrote: “For he ‘has put
everything [panta] under his feet [Christ’s].’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ [panta] has been put
under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under
Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:27) The same Greek word (a form of pas) is used here, and in the book of
Colossians chapter one, for the English equivalent “all” or “everything.”

Since the Greek word for “all” is not always inclusive or all-embracing, words such as “other” or
“else” are sometimes added in translation to “all,” “everything,” or “everyone,” to smooth things
out in English without violating Greek grammar. In fact, Greek sometimes assumes the word
‘other’ is implied. Scholars Blass, Debrunner and Funk, in their Grammar state: “...ἄλλος [allos] is
sometimes omitted where we would add ‘other.’” And: “The omission of the notion ‘other,
whatever’...is specifically Greek.” (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, The University of Chicago, 1961, pp. 160, 254.)
Page 24

An example of this is Acts 5:29 in Greek: “Peter and the


For the scripture says, “God put all
things under his feet.” It is clear, of apostles said...“ where the obvious meaning is “Peter and
course, that the words “all things” the other apostles said...” Accordingly, various
do not include God himself, who translations, including various modern Greek versions,
puts all things under Christ. add “other” to this text when the original Greek did not.
– 1 Corinthians 15:27, GNT.
Many other Biblical examples could be provided to show
that the phrase “all things” cannot be used as proof that
Christ was not created. As Paul himself defined the Greek
word for “all” in 1 Corinthians 15:27, a translator may feel justified in adding “other” to the
context of “all things” in Colossians chapter one (v. 16), as the 21st Century New Testament did: “In
fact it was he [Christ] that formed all other things in heaven and on earth….” The “other” is
implied. Those who object to the presence of the word “other” at Colossians 1:16 should be
reminded that some scholars have done something similar by adding “else” to the Greek “all” in
verse 17. (See NLT; CEV; NAB, 1970, to name three.)

Charles H, Spurgeon wrote about the Biblical meaning of common words like “world” and “all”:
“The words ‘world’ and ‘all’ are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very
rarely that ‘all’ means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that
Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and
has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile (see also 1Ti 2:1-2)” (Particular Redemption,
Pensacola, FL.: Chapel Library, 2014, p. 15. Sermon 181, delivered on Lord’s Day morning, February 28,
1858, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.)

Jason D. BeDuhn gives this response to those objecting to the use of “other” in Colossians
chapter one: “So what exactly are objectors to ‘other’ arguing for as the meaning of the
phrase ‘all things’? That Christ created himself (v. 16)? That Christ is before God and that
God was made to exist by means of Christ (v. 17)? That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to
God (v. 20)? When we spell out what is denied by the use of ‘other’ we can see clearly how
absurd the objection is.” (Truth in Translation – Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New
Testament, Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 2003, 85)

Another indication that the NIV Bible altered the meaning of “firstborn of all creation” by
replacing it with “over,” is seen at Colossians 1:18, where the translators kept the typical genitive
construction making Jesus part of the group of dead ones: Christ is said to be “the beginning and
the firstborn from among the dead.” It shows that Jesus died, an impossible act for God eternal.
Therefore, the genitive “of” or “from” points to the subject as either being created in verse 15, or
that he died in verse 18. Altering the normal translation procedure for the genitive (both partitive
in nature = of, from) between these two verses into a subordinated clause as some call it (firstborn
over all creation), reflects a theological tendency. By this means the verse is intended to prove that
the Firstborn, Jesus Christ, is not a part of the creation of God.

A look at an early translation from the Greek to the Coptic of Egypt (the Sahidic, from 3rd century
C.E.) throws more light on this matter. It is instructive to note what the Coptic translators saw at
Colossians 1:15 when they rendered the Greek text into Coptic. Did they see a “genitive of
Page 25

subordination,” or a partitive genitive? The Sahidic Coptic translated the phrase as ΠϢΡΠΜΜΙСЄ ϢΡΠΜΜΙСЄ ΡΠϢΡΠΜΜΙСЄ ΜΜΙСЄ СЄ
ΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜСШΝΤ ΝΙΜΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜΤ ΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜΙСЄ Μ using the partitive construction. The use of ΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜ.СШΝΤ ΝΙΜΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜΤ* marks this clearly as a partitive
construction in the Coptic (“the firstborn of all creation”) which makes Jesus Christ part of the
created order. “Over” used in the NIV text would be expressed in the Sahidic Coptic with the use
of ЄϪΝ-ΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜ-, which incidentally is not used at Colossians 1:15 in the Coptic text. “N- marks...partitive
relationship (the relationship of individual to class...)” (* Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar, 164)

Even scholars acknowledge the original phrase of Colossians 1:15 can indeed indicate that Christ
was included within the created universe. Nonetheless, in their Trinitarian mindset, they believe
“context” overrules the literal sense of the word “firstborn.” For instance:

1). J. B. Lightfoot, in his discussion of Paul's reference to Christ as “the firstborn of all creation”
admits: “At first sight it might seem that Christ is here regarded as one, though the earliest, of
created beings.” Nonetheless, he concludes that it has two meanings: ‘the meaning of priority to
and sovereignty over all creation.’ He rejects the interpretation that Christ is here included
among the created order. (Saint Paul's Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 144-146.)

2). William Barclay: “It is perfectly natural to take prōtotokos as meaning firsborn in the sense of
time.” (Jesus as They Saw Him, 1962, SCM Press & 1978, Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids) Barclay
then goes on to impose the “first in place, first in honour” interpretation common with
traditionalists as the “only one real solution to the problem.”

3). C.F.D. Moule: “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως [prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs]. If this phrase [of Col. 1:15]
were interpreted without reference to its context and to other expressions of St. Paul's thought
about Christ, it might be natural to understand it as describing Christ as included among
created things, and as merely the ‘eldest’ of that ‘family’: in Rom. viii. 29 [prōtotokos] does appear
in this included sense….” (In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon: An
Introduction and Commentary by C.F.D. Moule; Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, Cambridge
University Press, 1957, pp. 63, 64)

4). The New Bible Commentary: “The meaning of the word first-born [prōtotokos] is crucial for a right
understanding of Paul's conception of Christ. The real problem is whether or not this word
implies that Christ was included in creation, whether in other words there is any sense in which
Christ can be described as a created being. If the word is considered out of context, it would be
possible to make a case for the inclusive meaning [of being ‘created’] as paralleled, for instance, in
Rom. 8:29.” (Edited by D. Guthrie and J.A. Motyer)

5). Bratcher and Nida likewise admitted that the three-word phrase in Greek, “first-born of all
creation”, “Translated literally (as RSV), it implies that Christ is included in the created universe,’
which is inconsistent with the context of the whole passage.” (“A Translator's Handbook on Paul's
letter to Colossians and to Philemon”; UBS, p. 22)

All five reference works above are obviously Trinitarian supporters. But notice the following
admissions: ‘At first sight it might seem that Christ is regarded as one of the created beings’; “It
is perfectly natural to take prōtotokos as meaning firstborn in the sense of time.” “Translated
literally...it implies that Christ is included in the created universe”; “It might be natural to
Page 26

understand it as describing Christ as included among created things”; ‘If the word is considered
out of context, it would be possible to make a case for the inclusive meaning [of Christ being a
part of the created order].’

Observe how the commentators skirt around the lexical meaning, and end up with a traditional
conclusion. They point to “context” overruling the literal sense of first-born. But “context” here is
loaded with Trinitarian exegesis, a point unnoticed by many church-goers. All five works above
represent some of the best scholarship that mainstream theology has to offer, inclusive of
traditional interpretation. Why then question such interpretations? Well, where is the contextual
evidence to support their claims?

First, let’s look at how the word is used in Scripture. The Greek word under discussion, prōtotokos
(“first-born”) has a simple lexical meaning used consistently throughout Scripture. It occurs 130
times in the Septuagint and 8 times (9x in KJV) in the NT. “Firstborn” is the only lexical meaning
provided by the leading Greek-English lexicons. (Liddell and Scott, BAGD and NIDNTT) It literally
means: “firstborn, earliest born, eldest.” (Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek, Edited by Maurice
A. Robinson and Mark A. House) In the majority of instances, the Greek word conveys temporal
priority, in other words, it carries the meaning of someone born first in time. We are not talking
of just a few occurrences, we are talking of dozens of instances where prōtotokos carries this very
sense.

In only a few places does it have a figurative sense, with the meaning of: ‘foremost’; ‘most
excellent’; or ‘dearest one,’ as in: Exodus 4:22, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith
Jehovah, Israel is my son, my first-born.” (ASV); Psalm 89:27: “Also I will make him [David] the
firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth; and Jeremiah 31:9: “For I am a father to Israel,
and Ephraim is my firstborn.” Manasseh was Joseph's firstborn son, so literally older than
Ephraim. This would mean that Ephraim was elevated to the rank of “first-born” over his older
brother Manasseh. (Genesis 41:51) Do not confuse the firstborn “rights” with the lexical meaning
of firstborn. Manasseh lost the the firstborn “rights,” but he still remained Joseph’s literal
“firstborn.” Of these four texts, Psalm 98:27 is the one mainly appealed to in connection with
Colossians 1:15.

Now, with this in mind, one has to wonder why traditionalists would link a figurative meaning to
the word at Colossians 1:15, and then ignore, and even deny the lexical sense, when the
overwhelming usage in Scripture points to the lexical meaning of prōtotokos. Therefore, I
investigated numerous reference works in search for whatever evidence was available that
would confirm the presupposed meaning of prōtotokos. What I found was actually insufficient,
irrelevant material, or information which only emphasized the figurative sense of a few texts,
over the predominant lexical sense found elsewhere. Some scholars mention John 1:2,3; 1
Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; and Hebrews 1:2 as proof that Christ was the eternal creator.
As indicated before, these texts only prove that Jesus Christ was the means by which God
accomplished his creative works, not that Jesus was the source of it. Thus, they offer no
conclusive proof that Jesus Christ could not be included in the group of created ones. In this
case, it is the weight of prestigious scholarship and tradition which seems to account for the
popularity of such conclusions.
Page 27

Says the Theological Lexicon of the New Testament*, by Ceslas Spicq, O.P.: “Only five occurrences of
this term [πρωτότοκος =prōtotokos] can be cited from the papyri, and all of them from the fourth
century [all non-related to Christ] … So this is in effect a biblical term, used 130 times in the LXX,
usually in the proper literal of the word, firstfruits of a (human or animal) mother's womb.” This
work, then goes on to focus on the figurative sense of NT passages, and concludes: “Apart from
Heb 11:28 (cf. Ps 78:51), the other occurrences of prōtotokos in the NT are figurative. […] In all
cases, prōtotokos is a title of honor, suggesting the privileges discussed above.” (*Peabody, MA.:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994, Vol. 3, 210-212.)

Now, should we hastily conclude like this author did, that the word for “firstborn,” somehow,
unexpectedly, shifted in meaning from the customary Old Testament usage, a “proper literal”
sense, to take on in the main, a different meaning in the New Testament, namely, a “figurative”
one? On what substantive grounds could the author claim that the term ‘prōtotokos is a title of
honor in all cases in the NT’? Where is the evidence?

There is another case where numerous individuals on the internet are quoting the following
quote as definite “proof” that even YHWH is described by Jews as the “Firstborn of the world.” It
appears in Adam Clarke Commentary at Colossians 1:15, “As the Jews term Jehovah ‫עולם של בכורו‬
becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having
created or produced all things…. so Christ is here termed, and the words which follow in the
16th and 17th verses are the proof of this.” I tried to find additional information on this
comment, but I could not find any meaningful material. No other scholar brings this up, as they
surely would in order to bolster the already weak belief that Jesus could only be “the firstborn” in
the metaphorical sense of preeminence, and not in the lexical sense. Notice that the Jewish
reference is vague, no specifics as to the source, background, or time frame is given to support
Clarke’s position. The total silence of other scholars on this piece of information in itself casts
doubt on its merit or authenticity.

There is, however, another instance of various scholars, among them, J.B. Lightfoot and William
Barclay, who go on to cite Jewish Rabbi Bechai (who lived over a thousand years removed from the 1st
century) for calling God “the firstborn of the world.” But sources of a later era are not inspired
Scripture, and Scripture nowhere calls God “firstborn.” Jews are not likely to associate the Eternal
God with the concept of him being “born” first, as the term “firstborn” was customarily used in
Scripture. “God” and “firstborn” are opposites. So much in fact, that not once does Scripture calls
God “firstborn.” However, “firstborn” was used in relation to Jesus Christ a few times. T.K. Abott is
correct when he writes: “Rabbi Bechai’s designation of God as ‘firstborn of the world’ is a fanciful
interpretation of Ex. xiii. 2.” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to
the Colossians, ICC; Greewood, S.C.: Attic Press, 1979, 212)

And more importantly, even if prōtotokos in Scripture is used in some cases metaphorically in the
sense of “honor”, this does not preclude someone from the temporal sense at all, or from being
a part of the group described (creation), a meaning which traditionalists refuse to accept in
relation to Christ. Interestingly, William Barclay, a Trinitarian, made this comment about Jesus
Christ: “If we wish to keep the time sense and the honour sense combined, we may translate the
phrase: ‘He was begotten before all creation.’” (William Barclay's Daily Study Bible, Edinburgh: The Saint
Page 28

Andrew Press, 1959.) We can take this a bit further, and amend Barclay's comment this way: “He
was begotten before all other creation,” a concept within the bounds of translation for the Greek
word for “all.” William Tyndale described Christ at Colossians 1:15 as the “first begotten of all
creatures.” (David Daniell Edition, Yale Univ. Press, 1989.)

Rolf Furuli of Oslo made this assessment: “With all their ingenuity [of Trinitarians, that is], those
seeking a meaning other than ‘the one who is born first’ are able to list just one example, and
that is Psalm 89:28 [LXX], ‘And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.’
This Psalm however, does not give a new lexical meaning to prōtotokos, but simply tells about the
result of God putting the mentioned person in the position of a firstborn (compare 1 Chr 26:1 and 2
Chr 21:3).” (The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, Huntington Beach, CA.: Elihu Books, 1999,
250. See also, T.K. Abott's argumentation in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the
Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 11.)

The few Scriptures traditionalists use to support their contention that Christ is “preeminent,”
“most distinguished” over all creation, do not prove that Christ is eternal at all. It only proves
what God did through Christ. Well, look at the evidence.

First of all, Israel, David and Ephraim (in Ex. 4:22; Ps. 89:27; Jer. 31:9) were given the status and
privileges of “firstborn.” When in Psalm 89:27, David was ‘placed’ as ‘firstborn of kings,’ having
received a most favored and exalted position (“the highest of the kings of the earth”), was he now
disconnected from ‘kingship’? Did David as “king” become more “preeminent” than his
descendant king, Jesus Christ? Is Jesus' “preeminence” then, greater than his Father's?

Furthermore, there are two passages in the Septuagint (Psalms 2:7; 110:3, only in LXX) which speak
of the begetting of the king-messiah by God: “I have begotten [a form of gennao] you.” So this
example of king David in LXX being placed in the position as ‘firstborn of kings’ after ‘being
begotten by God’ only proves that the phrase does not exclude someone from being brought
forth or begotten. And this text is ironically the one favored to support the idea that Christ as
“firstborn” was not created. (Compare with 1 John 5:18)

What's more, Exodus 4:22; Psalm 89:27 and Jeremiah 31:9 are not even true parallels to those
texts in the New Testament where Christ is designated as “the firstborn.” The NT does not use
the title firstborn to indicate a ‘placement’ of Christ to a preeminent position. He is simply called
“firstborn,” and any implications of greatness or privileges resulting from this designation are
willed by God. (Colossians 1:19)

Consider the various instances of the word firstborn in the New Testament:
Mt. 1:25, (KJV), “[Mary] brought forth her firstborn son: and he [Joseph] called his name JESUS.”
Luke 2:7; “[Mary] gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him.”
Rom. 8:29, “that [Christ] might be the firstborn among many brothers.”
Col. 1:15, “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
Col 1:18, “[Jesus] is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.”
Heb. 1:6, “when [God] brings the firstborn [Jesus] into the world.”
Heb. 11:28, “so that the Destroyer [the angel] of the firstborn might not touch them.”
Heb. 12:23, “the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.”
Rev. 1:5, “from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead.”
Page 29

Do any of these Scriptures say unequivocally that Jesus is the Supreme Creator? Not one! The
Bible speaks of Christ as “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), and as “the beginning of
God's creation.” (Revelation 3:14) These are simple statements which indicate that Jesus Christ was
the first being created directly by God in the universe, a very high honor indeed. Because of this
high position, God willed that Christ be acknowledged as ‘the most distinguished creature of all,’
where other creatures would ‘bow down in reverence’ before the “firstborn” Christ. (Hebrews 1:6)

Since Israel, David and Ephraim as ‘firstborns’ were never “eternal” in the first place, it follows
that the metaphorical meaning of firstborn as “preeminent” does not rule out a firstborn from
having a beginning or end. Yet, those who appeal to Colossians 1:15 to negate the concept of a
beginning for Jesus Christ fail to mention that everyone spoken of as “firstborn” in Scripture,
whether the subject was literally the first son born in the family (the majority of cases), or were
simply being honored by receiving “firstborn” status (a minority of cases), the fact is – all had a
beginning. They were all creatures. None were “creators,” none were “eternal.” Is there actually
anyone in Scripture called “firstborn” without a beginning? None! If so, why would the title “first-
born” when applied to Christ in itself, automatically, distinguish Jesus as uncreated, when every
other Biblical reference of “firstborn of” indicates the opposite?

A prominent Bible translation, the Good News Translation (GNT, Aka, Today's English Version) produced
by Robert G. Bratcher and linguist Eugene Nida (American Bible Society) are known for advancing
“dynamic equivalence” theories in the Bible translation field, some of which have filtered down
to other versions of the Bible. But it is not only in the linguistic field where Bratcher and Nida
have made a mark, the translators (both Baptists), have also influenced other Trinitarian Bible
translators in promoting theologically-motivated renderings, such as Colossians 1:15 under
consideration.

So while the Revised Standard Version and others read literally at Col. 1:15: “He is the image of the
invisible God, the first-born of all creation,” the Good News Translation* promoted this one: “Christ
is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things.”
In effect, the GNT offered a paraphrase which distorted the original Greek reading. Nowhere
does it say that “the first-born of all creation” could not be included in the group of created
beings. It is only in the whimsical mindset of a traditionalist, where such preconceived idea could
be brought to appear in the translated text like that. (*The GNT was not the first version to render
Col. 1:15 this way, since the Twentieth Century NT; Worrell NT; and the New English Bible, read similarly.
However, since the publication of the GNT, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of
translations moving away from Paul’s description of the Christ as ‘of creation’ to ‘over creation,’ a
regrettable tendency.) The rendering, “superior to all created things” in the verse is not accurate
translation by any means. In fact, it is not even “dynamic equivalence” of the original, but a
distortion of it.

Considering the facts, where are the critics of such distortion and manipulation of the Greek
text? “Cult” critics, apparently looked the other way when the GNT and their followers were
enthusiastically promoting a theological rendering which emphasized the unproven concept of
Jesus being eternal Creator within the text itself of Colossians 1:15. And this without solid
Page 30

evidence. (See: CEV; CJB; NIV; HCSB; NET; NKJV, ISV, and the Lexham English Bible, which render the
passage in discussion as “the firstborn over all creation,” or similarly.)

It is amazing that a faulty translation (like the one GNT promoted at Colossians 1:15) can quickly
become accepted by the masses without nary a challenge by the scholarly community. Make no
mistake, the reading favored by GNT and its copycats is a mistranslation, one modified to fit
Trinitarian dogma. Whereas the genitive reading ‘of creation’ makes Jesus part of the creation,
‘over creation’ sets him apart from it. Some may, in speculative mode, as does grammarian
Daniel B. Wallace, refer to the phrase at Colossians 1:15 as the “genitive of subordination” (where
Christ is said to be over the created order) instead of the “partitive genitive” which makes Christ part
of the creative acts.

Though Wallace promotes the Trinity doctrine in his Grammar at every chance he gets, he
acknowledges that Colossians 1:15 is one of the “Disputed Examples” of this genitive. More
importantly, Wallace also admits that the genitive of Colossians 1:15 may be “partitive” in nature.
(Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 103, 104, 128.) Wallace had
cautioned those using his Grammar in the classroom of the following: “Some who teach
intermediate Greek might want the students to ignore or skim over the exegetical discussions ...
you may disagree so violently with my exegesis that you don't want your students to get too
much exposure to it.” (Ibid, p. xix, “Preface”) One could only wish that more Bible students would
take scholar's exegetical explanations for what they really are: personal interpretations of Biblical
text. These interpretations in themselves may be right, or wrong. Caution is always advised, as
Wallace humbly pointed out.

Nowhere else in Scripture is “firstborn of” used as a “genitive of subordination” (in the sense of
“over”), as it is said that it applies here. Overall, translators reflect the standard lexical meaning
“first-born” wherever the Greek word prōtotokos appears in the text. That is, “first-born” refers to
one who is a part or member of a group, in this instance, part of the creation itself. Instead of
“first-born,” the Concordant Greek Text used the rendering brought-forth in their literal translation:
‘’Before-most brought-forth of-every creation.” (Cp., with Ps. 2:7, YLT)
There are many Biblical references (upwards of 30) where the expression “the firstborn of”
appears in relation to living creatures. In each instance, the same meaning applies – the
firstborn is part of the group. A few instances of such: “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons
of Israel (Numbers 3:45); “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family (Exodus 12:29); “the
firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. (Numbers 8:17) “First-born” also appears at Romans
8:29 where it is stated that Christ is “the firstborn among many brothers,” that is, born before
others being glorified to receive the status of “brothers” among God's family. Christ is thus the
most notable one of God's family. Besides, why would Christ be depicted as one of many
“brothers” if he really was God? If we accept that Christ is “the only-begotten Son of God,” only
then could we reasonably perceive Christ as a “brother.”

Even in the few cases where the context suggests a metaphorical sense for the word, it should
not mean one can detach the firstborn from the group. For instance, in Exodus 11:5, ‘the
firstborn of the slave girl’ represented ‘the lowliest of occupations,’ not spared among the list of
‘firstborns’ who died in Egypt. Isaiah 14:30 speaks of “the firstborn of the poor,” and Job 18:13
Page 31

speaks of a disease as “the firstborn of death.” Now, could anyone rightfully divorce the firstborn
in this text from “poverty,” or, isolate the malignant disease from “death” itself? Not according to
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible, which says at Isaiah 14:30: “First-
born of … poor—Hebraism, for the most abject poor [“the poorest of the poor,” NIV; GW]; the first-
born being the foremost of the family. Cf, ‘first-born of death’ (Job 18:13), for the most fatal
death.” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961, 526) And The MacArthur Study Bible* explains the phrase
“first-born of death” in Job 18:13 thus: “A poetical expression meaning the most deadly disease
death ever produced.” (*Wheaton, IL.: Crossway, 2010)

At Colossians 1:18 Jesus is called, “the firstborn from the dead [Literally, the firstborn out of the dead
(ones)].” With little differentiation, Revelation 1:5 calls Christ, “the firstborn of the dead.” If we
accept traditional reasonings that firstborn can only mean “supreme”, ‘over creation (NLT),’ and
not ‘of creation’ at Colossians 1:15, then this would mean that Jesus was never part of the group
of ‘dead’ ones? Is this a correct assumption? Let's have Jesus Christ himself answer that one for
us: “I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever!” (Revelation 1:18) And who was
responsible for raising him from the dead? Colossians 2:12 answers that it was no other than
“God, who raised him from the dead.” A comparison of Colossians 1:18 with Revelation 1:5,18
proves that this genitive is partitive, indicating that Christ himself was part of the group of dead
ones. Therefore, the NIV application of “firstborn from among the dead” for Colossians 1:18, in
reference to Christ, is most appropriate, whereas in 1:15 it is definitely wrong.

Traditionalists have no problem explaining that “firstborn from [or: “of”] the dead” means: “Christ
was the first to be raised from the dead.” (Nelson's Compact Bible Commentary. E. Radmacher, R. Allen,
and H. W. House. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc. ) Or that, “Christ was the first to rise in an immortal
body (1 Cor. 15:20)….” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, J.F. Walvoord & R.B. Zuck. USA: SP Publications,
1983) And: “In Rev. 1:5, too, the prōtótokos signifies not only priority in time but also the primacy
of rank that accrues to Jesus with his resurrection.” (Bromiley 1985, Abridged Edition, 968.)

However, when it comes to explaining the phrase “firstborn of all creation” of Colossians 1:15,
traditionalists take a different twist. The Bible Knowledge Commentary for instance explains: “Being
firstborn referred more to rank and privilege. Since Christ is God, He is supreme in rank over all
creation.” Did you notice the difference in their explanations of the two phrases? Both are
genitives, that is, the “of” (“from”) case. Are they justified to change the meaning of the genitive
“firstborn of” to one of “supremacy,” in order to disengage Christ from “creation” and bolster his
deity in verse 15? Not if we want to be consistent in explaining these kind of genitives as
“partitive,” indicative of the subject being “part” of the group, as is the norm elsewhere in
Scripture.

If Jesus was not created, as claimed, Colossians 1:15 would be the only scripture where the
subject is not part of the group. But that's not the case, is it? This scripture is no different from
the others. Jesus Christ was literally the first-born of God's creative acts. Jesus himself attributed
his existence to God, the Father. He said: “I have life because of the Father.” (John 6:57, NAB) The
Heavenly Father is the source of all life, including Jesus' own life. This concept is in full
agreement with Revelation 3:14, and with the Scriptural phrase: “the only-begotten Son” applied
to Christ in various places.
Page 32

Furuli noted: “In this [adaptation of ‘firstborn of creation’ to ‘superior over creation’] there is a deviation
from normal translation procedure. Additionally, there is a question about the grammar of
Bratcher and Nida's translation of Colossians 1:15. The three Greek words prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs
make a Greek genitive construction (‘all creation's firstborn’) where the second and third words are
subordinated to the first, as its modifiers. It is questionable for a translator to change the
subordination to co-ordination by making the phrase ‘superior to all created things’ in apposition
to ‘the first-born Son.’” (Furuli 1999, 251)

Furuli went over every instance of the Greek word for “firstborn”, and this is what he found:
“Having gone through all the Biblical passages (in the Septuagint and the New Testament) that use
prōtotokos, I have found no example which has the meaning ‘supreme’ or even something similar,
not even a passage which might be construed with such a meaning! Rather, in all of the
examples used of individuals, in a sense other than were one is ‘placed’ as though he were the
firstborn [Psalm 89:27], they take as a point of departure the notion of one who is born first.”
(Ibid., 250.) It is this last view which is represented at Colossians 1:15 by the 21st Century New
Testament: “He [Christ] is exactly like God himself who is invisible. Of all creation, he [Christ] was
the first to be produced.” By the way, Christ is said to be “the image of the invisible God.” An
image is never equal to the real thing. If you see an image of yourself in a photo, or mirror,
that’s not the real you. The real you is behind that photo or mirror. If you see a shadowy image of
yourself in the water on a sunny day, it is just that, a reflection of the real you who is above the
water. And so on. Referring to Christ as “the image of God” does no justice to Jesus if he is the
One God. No one has ever seen God, but Christ (as God’s image) has, and he has explained him.
(John 1:18; 6:46; 1 John 4:12)

Thus, the first-born is not someone who is self-existing or eternal, but is the result of being
brought forth by someone else. The first-born is not the Creator, but is a product of creation.
Interestingly, we have three well-known phrases in Scripture which point to Jesus Christ having a
beginning or origin, namely: “The firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15); “the beginning of God's
creation” (Revelation 3:14); and “the only-begotten Son” in various places. (John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16,18; 1
John 4:9) These Scriptural statements create problems for the Trinitarians, which they
mistranslate to make them say the opposite of what they really say. In the “firstborn of all
creation” they say that it means that Christ was not ‘the one born first,’ but that he is the initiator
of all life, the opposite.

Colossians 1:15 translated literally does not say in any way that Christ is uncreated, eternal. The
only Biblical “evidence” traditionalists can give for support of their view are a few Scriptures (John
1:2,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2) which can easily be explained away by noting
that the creation work was done by God through Christ. There is no other scripture in the Bible
that says Christ is the creator. Ironically, the Good News Translation which butchered Colossians
1:15, appropriately brought out the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ in creation in the next verse:
“God created the whole universe through him [Christ] and for him.” (Colossians 1:16) This
conclusion fits contextually and grammatically within the Biblical context. It is also in harmony
with Jesus’ own affirmation: “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is
just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” (John 5:30, ESV) In
summary, Colossians 1:15 fails as proof of Jesus’ claimed eternity.
Page 33

8. Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

Although some have used this text to bolster their belief that Christ is eternal, non-created, the
Bible book of “Hebrews” instead zeroed in on the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the
former Jewish one. According to “Hebrews,” the previous complicated Jewish system of laws was
to be done away with, while the benefits of the new, simpler Christian system under Christ as
the Superior High Priest were to be permanent. The words of Hebrews 1:8 are not a statement
about his age or origin, but an affirmation of Christ’s unchangeableness in lieu of the brief span
of man’s life duration and its limitations. It indicates Christ is accessible at all times. We can
count on him to be present and available!

Life Application Study Bible (New Living Translation): “Though human leaders have much to offer, we
must keep our eyes on Christ, our ultimate leader. Unlike any human leaders, he will never
change. Christ has been and will be the same forever. In a changing world we can trust our
unchanging Lord.” (Wheaton, IL.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004)

The Jeremiah Study Bible: “The immutability or unchangeableness of God and His Son Jesus Christ is
a truth taught consistently throughout the Scriptures […]. Christians can trust in God’s promises
to save them, provide for them, and enable them to persevere to the end.” (Nashville: Worthy
Books, 2013.)

The Jewish Annotated New Testament (New Revised Standard Version): “Same … forever, intended as a
reassurance that Christ’s redeeming power would never wane.” (New York: Oxford University Press,
2011) The Wesley Bible: “A truth about the Son to memorize. The unchanging and completely
sufficient Christ holds us steady.” (Nashville: Nelson Publishers, 1990) The CEB Study Bible: “The author
reminds his audience that the same Jesus who was faithful to their leaders in their trials [v. 7] will
be faithful to them as well.” (Editor: J.B. Green. Nashville: Christian Resources Development Corp., 2013)

Matthew Poole’s Commentary: “Or a reason enforcing what followeth, that since Jesus Christ is the
same, as in his person, so in his doctrine, faith, and conversation, which he enjoineth on his
subjects, they should not be carried about with divers and strange doctrines. Jesus Christ
personal is immutable in his care and love to his mystical body, and all the members of it,
throughout all times and ages, he never leaves nor forsakes them; so Christ doctrinal, in his
faith, law, and rule of conversation, Ephesians 4:20,21. The pure, full, and entire religion of Christ
is unchangeable, being simply, indivisibly, and constantly the same throughout all measures of
time, Matthew 5:18; 2 Corinthians 11:3,4; Ga 1:6,7; Eph 4:4,5; 1 Peter 1:23,25.”

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: “Jesus Christ the same . . .—Rather, Jesus Christ is
yesterday and to-day the same; yea, also for ever. Their earlier guides have passed away
(Hebrews 13:7); their Lord and Saviour abides the same for ever. He who is the subject of all
Christian teaching is the same, therefore (Hebrews 13:9) ‘be not carried away by divert teachings.’
Thus, this verse stands connected both with what precedes and with what follows. ‘Yesterday’
carries the thought back to the lifetime of the teachers now no more; what the Saviour was to
Page 34

them, that will He be to their survivors. The whole period since He ‘sat down on the right hand of
God’ (Hebrews 10:12-13) is covered by this word. What He was ‘yesterday and to-day’ He will be for
ever. (See Hebrews 1:11-12)”

The Message Bible at 1:7-9 expressed it well within the context of the book of Hebrews:
“Appreciate your pastoral leaders who gave you the Word of God. Take a good look at the way
they live, and let their faithfulness instruct you, as well as their truthfulness. There should be a
consistency that runs through us all. For Jesus doesn’t change, – yesterday, today, tomorrow,
he’s always totally himself. Don’t be lured away from him by the latest speculations about him.
The grace of Christ is the only good ground for life.” Thus, Hebrews 13:8 does not declare that
Jesus is God eternal.

Hebrews 13:8 then, is not a statement on Jesus’ eternity. The idea is that earthly leaders come
and go (referring to 13:7), but Jesus Christ remains. (Morris)

9. Revelation 3:14, Meaning of “the beginning of the creation of God” (ASV) = ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς
κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ· = the beginning of the creation of the God.

CLAIM: (by ESV Study Bible): “Jesus' self-designation as the beginning of God's creation does not
mean that he is God's first creation (cf. notes on Col. 1:15-17) but that he is the one who began
God's creation (cf. note on John 1:3).”

FACT: Trinitarians claim the phrase “the beginning of the creation of God” (ASV) means Christ
was the ‘beginner,’ not the first one to be created by God, which is the exact opposite of how the
verse reads. They claim arguably that the Greek word archē means, in addition to “beginning”:
“origin,” “first principle,” “foremost,” “sovereign,” as David Bentley Hart does in his translation. (A
Translation – The New Testament, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2017, 502.) However, they
can not change the basic message of Jesus Christ, that he was “the beginning of God’s creation.”
(New Testament for Everyone, 2011)
The ESV Study Bible in support of the traditional view, quotes Col. 1:15-17 and John 1:3 where it
says that ‘through Christ everything was made.’ Nonetheless, it is illogical to conclude that Christ
made everything in heaven and on earth ‘through himself.’ Instead, it says: ‘All things were made
through him,’ which is different. That points to someone else as the Source of creation.
The big question here is, whose creation was it? Jesus’ or God’s? The verse is explicit in declaring
that whatever role Christ had as “the beginning,” what is certain is that he was “of God’s
creation.” Just TWO verses away, the exalted Jesus made reference to heavenly God, as “my
God.” Not once, but four (4) times. (Rev. 3:12) Can we imagine the eternal Supreme God calling
someone else, “my God“ even once? No! Otherwise, he would not be “the Most High.”
Incidentally, Jesus is called in the Bible, “Son of the Most High,” not “the Most High,” as one
would expect if traditionalists were right. (Luke 1:32) It would certainly be odd for anyone to
suggest that “the Son” would be, in the creating process, a greater “source” than the Father, “the
Most High.” Revelation 3:14 points to “the creation of God,“ or God’s creation,” understandably,
God being the source of it all. The Companion Bible states: “It is only by the Divine specific act of
Page 35

creation that any created being can be called a son of God.” Yet, traditionalists struggle to
assimilate this simple concept in regards to Jesus.

But, is there not a chance that Jesus was “the Originator,” the one who began all creation as
Trinitarians claim? No! Let’s examine why the concept of Jesus being the initiator of creation is
the least likely interpretation of all. Archē (55x in UBS4) is not used anywhere else in the New
Testament by traditionalists with the meaning of “first cause,” or “source,” with the exception of
Colossians 1:18 and Rev. 3:14. So why apply a different meaning in these two places just to
evade the plain truth expressed in Scripture.
Archē with the meaning, ‘first cause’ or “source,” is used in Classical Greek, but not in the New
Testament. For the most part (over 75% of uses), archē has the meaning of “beginning.” Other
possible meanings: corner (2x), government, ruler (11x – always used with other expressions denoting
power or authority). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Bauer, Gingrich, Danker, 3rd Edition) lists
“beginning” as the first meaning. But this work admits under “first cause” as meaning # 2, the
following: ‘Revelation 3:14; but the [meaning] beginning = first created is linguistically probable….’
By the way, this source does not provide any Scriptures to support the “first cause” meaning they
give as second definition. If no Scriptures are cited, the authors must then rely on Greek
philosophers for any other input, which may result in a deviation from Biblical expression.
Not only is the meaning ‘beginning = first created linguistically probable,’ but a reading of all of
the occurrences of archē in the NT where it is followed by a genitive construction (as in Rev. 3:14)
will demonstrate that it always denotes a beginning, start, or first part of something. Here are
some instances of archē in the NT and LXX: Mark 1:1; 13:19; John 2:11; Philippians 4:15; Hebrews 3:14;
5:12; 6:1; 7:3; 2 Peter 3:4. Genesis 10:10; 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17; Proverbs 8:22; Hosea 1:2. Some
examples of usage for (archē, beginning) below :
In John 2:11, (archē ton semeion) “beginning of the signs,” the conversion of water into wine by Jesus,
becomes “the first of his signs” in various versions.
Matthew 24:8 (archē ōdinōn), “beginning of birth-pangs” = “the first pains of childbirth.” (GNT)
Hebrews 5:12 (tēs archēs tōn logiōn tou theou), “the beginning of the words of God” becomes “the first lessons
of God's message.” (GNT)
Phil. 4:15 (archē tou euangeliou), “beginning of the gospel” = “the first preaching of the gospel,” (NASB)

In Scripture, Christ is shown as “the beginning of the creation of God.” (Rev. 3:14, KJV) Normally,
“beginning” is used in Scripture in a passive sense, to convey the sense of ‘the first part of
something.’ For instance in Genesis 49:3 in LXX, Jacob speaks to Reuben, his first son out of 12,
when he says: “You are my firstborn [Greek, prōtotokos], my might and beginning of my children
[archē teknōn mou].” (NETS) Was Reuben ‘the originator’ of God's creation in any way? Of course
not! He simply was “the first” of Jacob's children, as another translation expressed it. (Brenton,
LXX) Take note that “firstborn [prōtotokos]” and “beginning [archē]” are linked in meaning.

We find a grammatical parallel to Revelation 3:14 at Job 40:19 in LXX, where it speaks of the
“Behemoth,” an extraordinary beast as “ [the] beginning of [the] Lord’s creation.” (Greek: archē
plasmatos kyriou]. Brenton, v. 14). No one in their sane mind would argue that the Greek here
Page 36

demands the interpretation that this beast initiated the Lord's creation? But that is precisely
what traditionalists would have us believe at Rev. 3:14, namely, that Christ was ‘the originator’ of
creation. What they fail to see is that the verse is already plain enough in stating who is the real
source of creation. The Greek genitive (the of case) points to God as the Creator, not to Christ who
is said to be “the beginning of the creation of [by] God.”

Unlike Revelation 3:14, where there is theology involved, at Job 40:19 (LXX), translators observe
the real meaning of the Greek expression, “ [the] beginning of [the] Lord’s creation.” Scholars have
no problem understanding that this prominent beast was created by God. Below we have the
renderings of various versions of Job 40:19 for comparison purposes with the Greek expression
found in the book of Revelation:

NETS translation (LXX): “This is the chief of what the Lord created.”
The Lexham English Septuagint: “This is the beginning of the creation of the Lord.” (V. 14)
Common English Bible: “He is the first of God’s acts.”
The Message: “Look at the land beast, Behemoth. I created him as well as you.”
NABRE: “He is the first of God’s ways.”
NIV: “It ranks first among the works of God.” (Also: The NET Bible; NWT, 2013 Ed.)
VOICE: “It is one of My most marvelous creations.”
New Living Translation: “It is a prime example of God’s handiwork.”
Good News Bible: “The most amazing of all my creatures!”
The Hebrew Bible: “He is the first of the ways of God” (Robert Alter)

None of these translations render archē (= “beginning”) as the “initiator”, “originator”, “source”, or
“ruler” of God's creation. So why the temptation to assign a different meaning for the same word
at Revelation 3:14? A point of interest is that The Apostolic Bible Polyglot rendered the Greek of Job
40:19 this way: “This is the beginning of the thing shaped by the LORD.” (Italics his.) Notice how
the translator dealt with the genitive expression kiriou. He translated the genitive not as, “of” the
LORD, but “by” the LORD, which shows that Revelation 3:14 which has a similar construction, can
be understood, and also rendered, “the beginning of the creation by God.” NETS renders the text
alike: “This is the chief of what the Lord created.” Even assuming the beast was most prominent
or “chief” in some way, the inescapable truth of the matter is that the animal was still a product
of creation, not the originator of creation.

Whether one takes archē as “beginning” or “chief” as its primary meaning, the inescapable fact is
that the creation was done by the Lord God, not by someone who is said to be “the beginning” of
the creative acts of God. As mentioned previously, the Scriptures of John 1:3; Colossians 1:16 and
Hebrews 1:2 (favorite proof-texts of Trinitarians) only prove what God did through Christ, not that
Christ was the ultimate source of creation. 1 Corinthians 8:6 confirms that. In compliance with
this, the Translation for Translators appropriately brought out the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ
in creation as follows: “God created everything by the work of his Son.” (Colossians 1:16)

Lexicographer Frederick W. Danker defines archē like so: “A multivalent term [having various
meanings] with basic signification of priority – point of derivation or originating moment,
Page 37

beginning, start Mt 19:4; 24:8; Mk 1:1; Lk 1:2; J 1:1; 2:11; Phil 4:15; 2 Th 2:13 v.l. [variant reading]; Hb 7:3. ”
(The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, The University of Chicago, 2009, 56.)

The Greek English Lexicon to the New Testament by William Greenfield defines archē: “A beginning; in
respect of time, beginning of things; commencement of the gospel dispensation; of place, first place
or precedence in rank or power, sovereignty; one invested with authority, a magistrate,
potentate, prince; an extremity, corner, Ac 10.11.” (Revised by Thomas Green. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1970.)

The definition of archē we choose in relation to Christ for a given text and context must always
comply with these two Biblical statements: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus
is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31)
And: “But when it says that ‘everything’ has been subjected [to Christ], obviously the word [panta]
does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah.” (1
Corinthians 15:27, Complete Jewish Bible, Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011)

The Message Bible indicates at Revelation 3:14 that Christ was “the First of God's creation.”
Decades ago, in 1937, translator Johannes Greber rendered the phrase similarly: “the first of all
that God created.” And before that, translator Edward Harwood (1768) rendered it: “The very first
Being that the Deity called into existence.” These translators did not define archē with active
descriptions like, originator, initiator, source, or ruler of God’s creation. They assigned to archē the
customary passive Scriptural meaning, properly, beginning (temporal sense), the initial (starting)
point, the first part of something.

The NIV translates archē in Rev. 3:14 as “ruler” = “the ruler of God’s creation.” “Ruler” is one
meaning of archē, but it is always used in a different context, namely, with other expressions
denoting power or authority within government. In practice, “ruler” is the translation for archōn,
not archē. So the NIV is obviously pushing the pencil here. This is evident at Micah 5:2 in the
Greek Septuagint where both words occur in the same verse. Observe how the translator
discriminates between archē and archōn: “From out of you to me shall come forth the one being
for ruler [Greek: άρχοντα (archonta)] of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning [Greek:
αρχής (archēs)], from [of days eon].” (Apostolic Bible Polyglot, Brackets his. Underlines added.) The New
Testament follows this pattern. Bible authors use archōn for “ruler” and archē for “beginning.”
This is exactly how the NIV renders archōn in Rev. 1:5, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler [archōn] of the kings of the earth.” In all the
writings of John, he never uses archē for “ruler.” He always uses archōn for “ruler,” not archē.
Hence, the NIV “ruler” rendering of Rev. 3:14 is not only inaccurate within its context, it is also a
theologically motivated rendition. How various versions render Rev. 3:14 (hē archē tēs ktiseōs tou
theou):

Tyndale: “the beginning of the creatures of God.” (David Daniell Edition, Yale Univ. Press. 1989)
The Message: “the First of God's creation,”
Translation for Translators: “I am the one by whom God created all things.” (2008)
Greber: “the first of all that God created.”
Page 38

Geneva Bible: “that beginning of the creatures of God.”


NWT 1984: “the beginning of the creation by God.”
Harwood: “The very first Being that the Deity called into existence.”
Matthew Bible: “the beginninge of the creatures of God.”
2001 Translation: “the beginning of the creation by The God.”

10. Final Words:

Scripture repeatedly tells us that Jesus Christ is “the Son of God” or “Son of the Most High.” (Luke
1:32) This scripture says that Jesus “will be great,” but not “the Most High.” It would be absurd to
suggest that declaring Christ as the “Son of God” time after time in Scripture is the best method
to express the idea that Christ is “God.” It is not only redundant, but it takes a lot of mental
gymnastics to conclude that sonship in Scripture in reference to Jesus is equivalent in meaning to
“supreme.” Hence, any translator who seeks to make Jesus equal to the Most High ends up
distorting the Scriptural account. Scripture makes it plain that “God has authority over Christ.” (1
Cor. 11:3, GOD’S WORD Translation) Thus, efforts to make Jesus appear as “the beginner” of all
creation, and God’s “equal” is not only wrong, it also undermines God’s honor, which Jesus
championed before the world: “I honor my Father… I am not seeking glory for myself.” (John 8:49)

None of the Scriptures listed in this article are explicit in claiming that Jesus Christ is the One
eternal God. Trinitarian thoughts are read into these Scriptures. The Trinity dogma is not Biblical,
but is in fact a deviation from Christian teaching. This is acknowledged by Christian and secular
authorities as well:
“The New Testament does not teach the later standard doctrine that Jesus is a distinct, divine
person co-equal, co-essential and co-eternal with God the Father. It exalts Jesus as high as is
possible without compromising monotheism.” (Don Cupitt, Jesus and the Gospel of God. London:
Lutterworth, 1979, 18)

“Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one
person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century
Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it
was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” (The Encyclopedia Americana – 1956, Vol. XXVII,
p. 294.)

______________________________________________________________

This article was composed using the open and free Libre Office Writer, with main Font Noto Sans, size 11 in
Open Document Format (ODF). Libre Office is available for download for Linux, macOS and Windows. A
Development Version (for Online) is being worked on. There is also a Libre Office Viewer for Android.

S-ar putea să vă placă și