A Brief
explanation of the Origin of our Messiah
YHVH, Jahovah, Trinity,
Jesus Christ, Savior, Saviour, head of the church, One God, Holy Spirit, Yeshua, Yahweh,
Yahveh, HaShem, Ha shem, Adonai
|
Major Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over a few years of attempting to get people to
dig past the surface of some subjects I have found that most are simply not
inclined to do so. They are usually
content with their understanding and think that they are sufficiently
enlightened. I can't help draw a
parallel with our Laodicean brethren.
"Because you say, 'I am
rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing' - and do not know that
you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked-" (Rev 3:17) As a wise man once said, "You don't
know what you don't know you don’t know".
Not
that we should be "carried about
with every wind of doctrine," (Eph 4:14b), but we should not shrink
from searching the scriptures as the Bareans did (Acts 17:11). Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying
"Our critics are our friends.
They show us our weak points."
If
you have no weak points you will not be challenged and you will probably not
be able to improve your understanding.
However if someone thinks they know what you know and yet does not
agree with you. You have an opportunity
to improve either your own understanding or your presentation of your
understanding. Why would you shrink
from either? Either way you win!
A few
years ago I was challenged on the origins of Jesus Christ. When young I was told He was one of the
Trinity. Later I was told the Trinity
was a fabrication. After some research
I found the Trinity to be without solid foundation in scripture. My new understanding had Christ eternally
existent with the Father. I was
thoroughly schooled in this belief and accepted it, more or less.
I
must admit I had some reservations about what I was taught in regard to one
particular scripture. It simply did
not say what I was told it said. As a
matter of fact it really didn't fit at all with Christ being eternally
existent with the Father. To a large
degree it contradicted that opinion.
That scripture is still used by those that taught me. They explain it by paraphrasing it and in
the process they simply edit out the objectionable part.
I
have written an extensive article going deeply into what the Bible really
says about this subject. If you're
really interested in that it is available with some other long documents in the downloads page. However I realize your time is important
and most people do not have lots to spare, so I will attempt to make this
brief. Consider if you would the
following:
“For as the Father hath life in himself, so
He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.”( John 5:26) Some simply ignore the second half of this
verse. It plainly says the Father gave
Christ the kind of self-existent life that the Father has. He did not have it of himself. So the Father always had "life in himself". The Son did not.
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live
because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me."
(John 6:57) Jesus Christ was alive
because of the Father! This is not
talking of human life because it is life that the humans Jesus was talking to
did not already have. The life being
talked about here is eternal life.
This is reinforced in the next verse. "He who eats me will live forever" (vs 58).
"Father,
I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they
may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the
foundation of the world.” (John
17:24). God gave Christ the
glory that he had before his human life as Jesus. He did not have it on his own.
"He is the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation; for by him all
things were created…." (Col 1:15-16a) The context of this area of scripture is
establishing the authority and exalted station of Jesus Christ. Yet one of the best things that Paul can
say about Him is that He is the firstborn!
This verse really speaks volumes when it is closely
examined which I will not take the time to do here. Let me summarize by pointing out the
following: He is the image of God. His
whole character and apparently appearance reflects the Father. Did He have no redeeming qualities of His
own?
The word 'over' in Colossians 1:15 would be
appropriate to put in italic font. The
word does not appear in the Greek text.
Actually 'of' would be more consistent with the Greek. This is visible in the KJV. Christ is the firstborn of the
creation. Could the firstborn of the
creation not be part of the creation?
However the Trinitarian translators have difficulty with this concept,
so they hope using 'over' will suffice to explain their difficulty.
Actually by referring to Christ as the 'firstborn',
Paul appears to be countering the thought that He might not be the firstborn,
but maybe the second or third! He has
to reinforce the statement with proof, i.e. "for by him all things were created". In other words He had to be the first,
because He created everything else.
So how can he be created if He created all things,
"and without Him nothing was made
that was made" (John 1:3b)? First,
Jews often use what is called 'block logic'.
That is they generalize. They
don't necessarily address all the details of a matter, especially if… Second
it's common sense that if he was the firstborn of the creation he certainly
was part of the creation, and… Third, because as mentioned in the
paragraph above, the Colossians already knew he was created and Paul had
already acknowledged that, and was demonstrating that He was first created. So Paul didn't need to clarify further that
Christ, Himself, was an exception to Christ having created all things.
Everyone is agreed as to the meaning of 'firstborn' in
Col 1:18, "firstborn from the dead". Why do we have such difficulty
understanding what 'firstborn of the
creation' means?
"…These
things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the
creation of God" (Rev 3:14).
This statement means exactly what it says. The syntax and usage of the Greek does not
allow secondary meanings for the Greek word 'arche', beginning. Even though I suspect the translators of
the KJV and NKJV winced when they accepted this translation, they really had
no choice if they were going to be honest.
Although even most Lexicons will indicate 'source' could be used,
their own words when closely examined prove this is not so.
“As being
faithful to him who made him as Moses also in the whole of his house.”
(Heb 3:2 Emphasized Bible). This verse
directly says Christ was faithful to God that made him. I had to use a
different translation here. Virtually
every other translation bows to the doctrine of the Trinity. The translators use their own
interpretation of what Hebrews might be saying rather than directly
translating the text.
The Greek word 'made' here is " poiew
". It is a general word meaning
make or do. Many KJV marginal references
will verify this. 'Appoint' which most
translators place here is not a general word meaning make or do. It is a specific word that might be applied
to one aspect of make or do. The Greek
English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott, which is the world's most
authoritative Greek - English Lexicon, contains examples of over fifty subtly
different meanings poiew can take.
They have never found an example in Classical or Koine Greek where
'appoint' is an appropriate meaning for poiew. This is also reflected in the
Lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich, which is also highly respected.
"But when
He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:…." (Heb
1:6) The original Greek here does
indeed indicate that God is bringing the firstborn 'into the world', a metaphor for 'to life', at least the second
time. The first time would not
have been at Jesus birth to Mary.
There is no indication He had to die in order to be born of Mary, so
there would have been no need for the Father to bring Him 'to life' at that
time. We assume his senses were
somewhat limited in the womb, but He would have been alive the whole time He
was there.
The first time then that God brought Christ to life
would have been when He was created.
"Who alone
has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or
can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen" (1Tim
6:21). This says either the Father is
the only being that cannot die, or that He owns the key to immortality and
may or may not confer it upon whom He wills.
This is clearly speaking of only the Father who no man has seen. Jesus Christ either received immortality
from the Father (see John 5:26) or He doesn't have it.
All the above scriptures either deal directly or have
direct bearing on Jesus Christ's early history. They show Him as a reflection of the
Father, drawing his immortality, glory and very life from the Father.
"Who hath
ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his
fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the
ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Prov 30:4). Some have said there is no indication in
the Old Testament that God had a son.
It seems that is incorrect.
Paul calls Christ the 'firstborn' as a token of honor
and because He was the firstborn and only begotten, (created) directly of the
Father. He didn't use this term
because he couldn't express the thought that they both existed together
through the ages.
Unlike the direct relevance of the above scriptures,
the typical scripture used to defend the belief that Christ existed forever
does not deal directly with His origin, but often depends on implications
that, for the most part are unfounded.
"In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
(John 1:1). Certainly the Christ was a
special being. He was there "In the beginning" with the
Father. This is generally, and
probably correctly, assumed to be at the creation of the universe. If it is not at the creation of the
universe one can only speculate as to when it was. Supposedly this means Christ was
"pre-existent”.
Of course Satan was also alive at this time. "He
who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning…."
(1John 3:8ab). So Satan is
'pre-existent' too. Actually the devil
must have been alive for some time before the beginning because, "You were perfect in your ways from the day
you were created, Till iniquity was found in you" (Eze 28:15). So before the beginning Satan was alive and
well, perfect actually. By the time of
the beginning He had sinned.
Actually all the Angels were around at the beginning
too. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?… When the
morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
(Job 38:4a, 7). So Christ being
'pre-existent' says nothing about how he came to be. Satan was there at the beginning too, yet
he was created.
"Before the
mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God " (Psalms
90:2). This scripture may actually be
referring to the Father rather than Christ, but it points up a problem with
most Old Testament scriptures that are used to show that Christ lived
eternally in the past. According to The
Complete Word Study Old Testament in their Lexical Aids section under the
word adh, "Hebrew has no special terms for the past, the present,
the future, or eternity."
The fact is the ancient Hebrew language cannot
definitively express the concept of eternal existence. The word typically translated eternal
simply means a long time. It can be a
short long time or a long long time.
The context is what determines the length. So, translators often use 'eternal'
whenever God is involved. Often when
doing this they ignore other context.
For instance, Psalms 90:2 uses typical Hebrew
parallelism. In other words it repeats
in some other way the point it is trying to make. In this case it is reinforcing how old God
is by saying that He existed before the mountains or the earth was
formed. This is definitely impressive,
but it does not definitively say God, El, intended here, existed forever in
the past. Maybe He did, maybe He
didn't. Ancient Hebrew is unable to
communicate that in a single word.
"For this
Melchizedek, ….without father, without mother, without genealogy, having
neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God,
remains a priest continually" (Heb 7:1a, 3). People ignore three things when claiming this
verse dictates an eternal existence for Jesus Christ. First the subject, beginning at least with
Hebrews 7:1, is establishing the credentials of Melchizedek. He appeared as a human being, flesh and
blood. Josephus claims he founded
Jerusalem and that apparently he was a Canaanite (Wars 6,10). So it is this apparent human Melchizedek
that had neither beginning of days nor end of life, i.e. he really didn't
enter or leave the world in the usual way.
It does not address how the Christ came into being.
Second, people assume that Christ is being compared to
this Melchizedek. However the sense of
the Greek for 'made like', would be better served if it were translated 'made
into'. It is not a comparison, but a
literal transformation or construction making Melchizedek, or rather his
function (vs 15), into Jesus
Christ. This verse does not deal with
the origins of Jesus Christ.
Third, Hebrews focuses on Melchizedek’s lack of
genealogy because it wants to contrast it with the strict requirement of the
priesthood of Levi. That priesthood depends on parentage (Heb 7:20-21).
"before
Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). A number of sources indicate this
name carries the meaning of
'ever-living one'. Well, when
was He called the "ever-living one"? Wasn't it after the birth of Moses? (Ex
3:14) Was He the ever-living one at
that time? Even before Abraham He was
the 'I AM" (John 8:58). So
certainly by the time of Moses He was also.
So He was being called what he was.
This does not say He had always lived in the past. Actually it really doesn't even say he
would always live in the future. Jesus
did die after all! So whether or not
the name actually means 'ever-living one' is questionable. He is now the ‘ever-living one’ again and
has been for quite some time. This
doesn’t mean He always had life independent of the Father.
John 5:26 actually explains
how it was that YHVH became the "I
AM". The Father gave Him
"life to have in himself". Exactly when He actually received this is
something about which we cannot precisely speak. Scripture is specific only that He was
alive before the creation of the earth or the matter of the universe. Since he created "everything" surely
this must be so. I would assume that
he was made the 'I AM' before that
time, but scripture is not specific.
"I am the
Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last"
(Rev 22:13). Does this indicate Jesus
Christ had always existed? Why would a
title of "Alpha" or "First", eliminate the possibility
that this being was created first?
Why does a title of "Beginning" eliminate
the possibility that Christ was the beginning of the Creation of God, or the
firstborn of all creation? How does
this eliminate the possibility that this being had a start? It seems really, the opposite is true.
If this being had no beginning, why would 'beginning'
be part of His title? 'Without
beginning' would be much more appropriate.
If this being were not the first of the creation, why would 'First' be
part of the title? 'Always' would seem
more appropriate.
"who, being
in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but
made Himself of no reputation taking the form of a servant, and coming in the
likeness of men" (Philippians 2:6-7). Was the Christ equal with the Father? Of course Jesus readily acknowledged in
John 14:28 that even after the resurrection He was not equal with the
Father. He also said the Father was
greater than all (John 10:29). There
are over 16 places where the New Testament says the Father sent the Son to
the earth. One does not
"send" and equal, but a subordinate. Philippians indicates
they were similar or equal in appearance. Other aspects are not
addressed.
1Corinthians 11:3 compares a man's relationship with
Christ to Christ's relationship with God.
Men are not equal with Christ, neither is the Son equal with the
Father.
Even after the resurrection, the Christ calls the
Father His God! (John 20:17, see also
Rev 3:12). How is it that after emptying Himself and
going through what must have been a mixed bag of experiences terminating in
an agonizing crucifixion, this one that some think was equal with the Father
now worships Him as God? It seems
Christ had all the agony and is left second best as a result. It is ridiculous in the context of the New
Testament to think the two were equal.
Clearly the Father was superior.
In fact Philippians is telling us Messiah is like God,
but not like the one true God. Like
John 1:1 that distinguishes The God from God Logos, Philippians omits the
definite article when referring to God in this comparison with Jesus Christ. Christ was similar in form, essence or
appearance to a God and was equal in those aspects, but the comparison is not
to The God. The Father did give Him
great glory (John 17:24). He was
willing to give that up and take on the form and essence of man. The Word was with the God and the
Word was divine as well (John 1:1), but as the Son, He is not equal in all
aspects. Philippians 2:6-7 does not
address his origin.
There may be a few other scriptures that some would
use to promote the belief that Jesus Christ lived eternally in the past. However, I can't think of any that are
particularly convincing. At this point
I suspect you are either willing to reconsider the matter or you are
not. However, let me leave you with
one last thought.
There was a debate between confessing Christians
leading up to the Council of Nicea in 325 CE/AD. (This same council debated whether to
celebrate Passover or Easter.) The
debate over the nature of Christ is generally identified as a debate between
the 'Arians' who believed in a created Christ and the 'orthodox' who did not
believe He was created. Let me shed
some light on this debate with a few quotes.
First,
Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt grumbles about Arius and his friends
and in the process tells us that generally the Jewish and Greek Christians
agreed with Arius and his associates that Christ was originally created. “Since, therefore, they back up the impious
opinion concerning Christ, which is held by the Jews and Greeks, in every
possible way they strive to gain their approval; busying themselves about all
those things which they are wont to deride in us, and daily stirring up
against us seditions and persecutions” (Epistles on the Arian Heresy and
the Deposition of Arius, Para.1).
Arius did not originate the belief that Christ had been originally
created. He backed up the Jews and
Greeks. That belief was pervasive
among Christians throughout Greece, Asia Minor and Palestine. This area of course includes Colosse.
From Dionysius of Rome
(Pope 259ce.) Against the Sabellians, para. 2 'Oh reckless and rash
men! was then "the first-born of every creature" something
made?--"He who was begotten from the womb before the
morningstar?"--He who in the person of Wisdom says, "Before all the
hills He begot me?"' (Ps 110:3 and Prov 8:25, NAB or LXX,) Dionysius believed with the 'orthodox' that
Christ was literally born of God and came from His womb. He rejected any thought that Paul might
have been speaking metaphorically in Colossians 1:15.
The fact is the
‘orthodox’ opinion was NOT that Christ had always been a personality of the
Father or always existed independent of the Father, but that he was literally
born of the Father. To them,
being ‘firstborn’ (Col 1:15) was perfectly literal.
The
real debate was over whether the Christ was literally born of God or
figuratively born, i.e. created of God.
In reality neither side won at Nicea, but Constintine suggested that
they accept that Christ was of the ‘same essence’ as God rather than 'made'
of who knows what. As emperor his
suggestion carried significant weight.
Those who believed in a literal birth could accept the 'same essence'
concept so they capitulated, claimed the victory, and things went downhill
from there. The thought that Christ
had existed eternally apart from the Father is nowhere to be found in early
church history.