God the Son

Ray's August 7, 2000 Reply to Wrench

 

 

Ray Goldsmith

alka1@sssnet.com

 

 

Hello Wrench: Let’s take a look at this latest attempt of yours to wipe the slate clean and re-explain things. You start by saying that you think we approach Biblical interpretation differently, which is true, and we will address this point momentarily. Then you complain that “we end up in so much rhetoric involving what the scholars have had to say on the subject. We talk more about the scholars and their words than we do about the Bible and what it has to say, so it seems.”

 

Well, anytime a dialogue occurs between two sincere people who disagree on the Bible’s teachings, the scholars’ opinions are bound to be introduced.  If you don’t do it, I will, and if I don’t do it, you will.  In doing this we both acknowledge that the scholars have credibility in their area of expertise. So I see nothing wrong with comparing the opinions of others, as long as we remember that at the end of the day we will be held individually accountable to God for what we choose to believe…hence the biblical warning “take heed”.

 

You say you perceive my illustrations (Amish horses/blinders, airport/train illustration, tunnel vision, short-circuiting as being accompanied with mocking and sarcasm.

 

I’m sorry you perceive it that way, but I would like for you to show me specific examples of the mocking and sarcasm that you refer too, because I can assure you that I did not INTEND that.  My real intent was to avoid the usual mundane and monotonous “that’s beside the point”, the very familiarity of which often gets lost or goes unnoticed.  I honestly meant them as benign attempts to inject a little humor into the situation while making my point clear at the same time. I remember always stopping to remind you that my laughing was not intended as ridicule, and that I was not waxing superior or arrogant,  nor did I mean to imply that I thought I knew everything. And above all, I was careful to say that I didn’t think you do these things consciously, but that water runs downhill.      

 

You know, Wrench, I’m sure that if ANYONE would compare our dialogue with others we’ve seen on the internet, they would have to say that ours has been pretty civil so far.   But please understand that these kind of illustrations are very normal for me. It’s my way of arguing, and not intended as a personal attack, but as a means to drive a point home  and park it in the garage. If you see me standing at the airport waiting on my train to land, tell me about it, and if you’re right I’ll head for the train station . But if you’re wrong, I’m going to show you where J

 

It is not that I think word usage elsewhere is unimportant, but only that when push comes to shove, context elsewhere can even over-rule word usage.  This is what most scholars  seem to be seeing as the case in Rev. 3:14.  In fact even a context that does not use the

word “arche” is capable of ruling out one or more usual meanings for the term elsewhere. It is simply the nature of linguistics. 

 

I don’t mind the attempt to condense our letters, but I think the points we’ve been see-sawing back and forth on for some time should be addressed.  This helps us both recognize when we’ve been tilting at windmills with a point.  Sometimes a point can be see-sawed back and forth until one party finally sees that things are not looking so good, and any attempt to keep the point going will further erode the perception of his position.  So we should try to find a way to condense without dropping see-saw points in mid-air. 

 

You mention that our letters seem like we are writing volumes, but as I’ve said, I think a lot of that perception comes from the cutting and pasting we do in order to provide a context for our points as we go along…thus we end up with a lot of repetition. This may be easy for the writers because of the cut & paste procedure, but the reader gets the impression of a cumbersome volume.  So condense, yes, but we should be sensitive to the impression one may leave by appearing to wipe the slate clean to re-explain things while dropping see-saw points in mid-air at the same time.  Perhaps we could keep the dialogue going by, instead of cutting and pasting whole paragraphs, just narrating the other side’s point, and dealing with it.  Sometimes whole paragraphs can be narrated in one or two lines. This has the condensing effect without seeming to drop everything in the middle and starting over.

 

One thing I thought was a little unfair, Wrench, was when you wanted me to deal with the seven points from various sources (scholars’ publications..like Kittel’s, Vines, & Strongs). You obviously didn’t mind if I dealt with YOUR points, but when I noticed a few things in the process of looking into your points, and presented them, you suddenly balked at dealing with them “because it would swell our letters ever further”, which says to me that you don’t mind ME dealing with your points from certain reference works,  but you don’t want to be held accountable for what ELSE that same source might say.  Apparently swelling our letters was not so much of an issue when you decided to present YOUR points.  This was so obvious it was comical.  Reminds me of the factory worker who went to payroll to complain that they had shorted him a dollar on his paycheck. The clerk checked the figures and said “Yep, you’re right, we did short you a dollar, but I noticed that last week we overpaid you a dollar and you didn't complain about that. The man replied “well, I’ll let you get away with one mistake! …LOL!

 

You mention time constraints because you are co-moderating Edgar Foster’s board and will be moderating the Bowman/Stafford debate (good luck!),  and that you’ve started other discussions while waiting on a response from me. Well, what can I say, Wrench, except that they were your choices to make. The work related time constraints are perfectly understandable, though, and one can easily sympathize with that. Ok, so much for the preliminaries, let’s go into your points.

 

 

CONTEXT:

 

 You begin by describing in your own words what you feel makes up a context, and I don’t have a problem with your description, but I’d like to add the following. Context in interpretation means having a grasp of what’s going on…comprehending the situation that may have affected a person’s meaning. Are they in the middle of an argument? Is this a narrative? Normal conversation? Why was this letter written…and under what circumstances…etc? These may be ascertained from the immediate array of words, but

sometimes not.  Sometimes one needs to go beyond the immediate array of words to answer the above questions. I think you described what makes up the immediate context. Thus we may say that words are to the context like the sand is to the beach. When there is a difference of opinion, however, usually one or more of the above have received short shrift.

 

Many times in the immediate context, a word does not determine it own meaning. Take our English word “right” for example.  By itself one could not know it’s meaning. Only by the surrounding words can one determine its intended meaning at any given time. By itself we would not know if it means “opposite of left” or “opposite of wrong”, or a number of other meanings,  but if we surround the word with others it takes on a meaning… thus,  “make a RIGHT hand turn. From the surrounding words we know it means “opposite of left”.  Or, “you’re not wrong, you’re RIGHT!”  Once again it was not the word itself which determined its meaning, but the surrounding words.

 

Sometimes the surrounding words leave the matter open as to the specific meaning or emphasis.  When this occurs neither side in a disagreement can gain an argument of independent value from the immediate context. This seems to be the case in Rev. 3:14 regarding the meaning of the title “the beginning of the creation of God”. It is not stated predicatively, but is applied appositionally as a whole unit, the ultimate meaning of which cannot be determined with certainty from the words in the immediate context. This critical limitation was pointed out very early in our correspondence, Wrench, but at the time you did not understand the meaning of the terms predicate and apposition.

 

 

CAN A RANK & FILE WITNESS INTERPRET THE BIBLE?

 

Although I can appreciate how the rank & file witness would like to believe that he or she “interprets” the bible, unless some radical changes have occurred recently within the group, the WT Organization does not consider anyone not belonging to the “anointed class” as qualified to interpret the bible. This is uniquely the job of the faithful & discreet slave. Note what the WT says in the WT magazine of 1-15-83

 

“ Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: ‘This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe.” This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous”

 

Do you see what I mean, now?  You are to depend on them and not make up your own mind about what to believe.  In fact note what they go on to say in the same article:

 

“  If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?” No, we cannot!—Compare Acts 15:2, 28, 29;  16:4,5.”

 

I have just said that the WT doesn’t consider you qualified to interpret the bible, Wrench, and now note this from the WT magazine of 12-01-81:

 

“   But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his ‘faithful and discreet slave’, made up of spirit-anointed ones, to HELP Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives.  Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.—Compare Acts 8:30-40.”

 

You see, Wrench, you really aren’t allowed to “interpret” the bible.  So it turns out that what you’ve really been doing is just jumping in and trying your hand at defending what THEY SAY the bible means.  

 

 In fact did you know that there was once a time when the WT taught that even the anointed class on earth was not the interpreter, but only the “Supreme Court” in heaven (Christ Jesus)?  They also taught that invisible angels were stationed at the temple in Brooklyn to pass along such instructions from Christ to the remnant there, and they would in turn set the table for the domestics. Note the WT teaching in the WT magazine dated 7-1-43:

 

“   To such remnant of faithful servants of Jehovah God Christ Jesus has entrusted all ‘his goods’, or earthly interests of the Kingdom.  This does not signify that the faithful remnant or society of Jehovah’s anointed witnesses are an earthly tribunal of interpretation, delegated to interpret the Scriptures and its prophecies. No; Christ Jesus the King has not entrusted that office to them. THE SUPREME COURT STILL INTERPRETS, thank God; and Christ Jesus, the Court’s official mouthpiece of interpretation, reserves to himself that office as Head of Jehovah’s ‘faithful and wise servant’ class.  He merely uses the ‘servant’ class to publish the interpretation after the Supreme Court by Christ Jesus reveals it.”

 

And about 11 years earlier we read this from the WT’s publication “Vindication” Vol. 3, page 250:

 

“   It was in the spring of 1918 that the Lord Jesus, as the representative of Jehovah, appeared at the temple, and from that time forward the glory of Jehovah has been there…”

 

Then is referenced Ezekiel 43:6, where Ezekiel hears the Lord speaking to him and a man standing by,  this “man” pictures the heavenly messengers or angels of the Lord used in behalf of the remnant. We read:

 

“   These angels are invisible to human eyes and are there to carry out the orders of the Lord. No doubt they first hear the instruction which the Lord issues to his remnant and then these invisible messengers pass such instruction on to the remnant. The facts show that the angels of the Lord with him at his temple have been thus rendering service unto the remnant since 1919.”

 

So unless some radical changes have been handed down recently, this has been the reality within the group.  Many rank & file witnesses, not wanting to appear that they are given  over to a cult mentality,  have deceived themselves into believing that they check things out FIRST before accepting them as from the Lord and true, but if such is going on it is contrary to the WT’s instruction.  You make a similar statement yourself, Wrench…note:

 

“I do not just read the WT and accept unreservedly what it says without first and foremost, finding evidence for its claims and teachings in the Bible.”

 

Well my friend, if that’s what you’ve been doing, you have been operating contrary to the WT’s instructions. According to the WT Society you’re supposed to have confidence in them as God’s channel and accept as from the Lord and true whatever they set before you and “not be suspicious”. You are not supposed to go to the Bible to see IF such things are true, but to CONFIRM that whatever the WT has said is true.  Note the following that appeared in the WT magazine of 2/1/52, page 80: Read this carefully Wrench…

 

“   Now some may ask, Should we accept as from the Lord and true the food provided through the discreet slave, or should we withhold acceptance until we have proved it for ourselves?  If  we have gained our present understanding of the Bible by feeding at the table set by the slave, if we have been thereby freed from false doctrines and built up in the clean and undefiled worship of God and given a new world hope, we should have some confidence in the slave’s provisions. After being nourished to our present spiritual strength and maturity, do we suddenly become smarter than our former provider and forsake the enlightening guidance of the organization that mothered us? ‘Forsake not the law of thy mother.’ (Prov. 6:20-23) …Are we to be doubtful and suspicious about each new provision? ‘He who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.”

 

Notice, should you accept it as “from the Lord and true” or “withhold” acceptance UNTIL you have proved it for yourself?  What was your statement? You suggest that you withhold acceptance until you “first and foremost” find evidence in the Bible, but they teach the exact opposite from that, and suggest that your procedure indicates that you are suspicious and lack confidence in them! Did you know that they manipulate or “shift” the focus of Scripture to seemingly support the above suggested order of events you’re supposed to follow? They actually appeal to the “noble Bereans” (Acts 17:11) to support their suggestion.  Note from the same article:

 

 

“…Even the Beroeans first received Paul’s preaching ‘with the greatest readiness of mind’, and then went to ‘carefully examining the Scripture daily as to whether these things were so”. (Acts 17:11, NW) This was the first real contact the Beroeans had with Paul’s preaching, yet they received it readily and then studied the Scriptural support for themselves”…etc.

 

Notice how the WT puts a strong emphasis on “receiving it readily”. Do you see this? However, what does it REALLY say?  It says that they went to the Scriptures to see WHETHER those things were so (NWT)…whereas the WT teaches you guys to examine the bible to see THAT those things they told you are so.  They want you to assume that “receiving it readily” is the same as accepting it as from the Lord and true first, but the rest of the verse vetoes such a thought.  The actual Greek word is “ei” and means IF!  Thus there seems to be a discrepancy between the way you say YOU do things and the way the WT suggests they should be done. Please make it clear, Wrench. Do you withhold anything the WT sets before you until you’ve proven it for yourself first…or not?

 

So convincing yourself that you interpret the bible may be a figment that makes you feel good, but it is not in line with the WT’s teaching.  Unless of course, as I said, they have made some radical changes recently. I’ve not attended any of the meetings since September of 99 when I went off work sick, but even with my sporadic attendance I can remember that it was not uncommon for a speaker to cite the WT magazine like the bible to prove or confirm something.  Note how radical the Society CAN be if you should publicly disagree with them about the meaning of the bible. Same article as above and same page, only earlier:

 

“   We should meekly go along with the Lord’s theocratic organization and wait for further clarification,  rather than balk at the first mention of a thought unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and opinions as though they were worth more that the slave’s provision of spiritual food.  Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord’s visible organization and not be so foolish as to pit against Jehovah’s channel their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings.”….etc

 

You see the reality, friend?  You can persuade yourself of whatever you want, but to disagree with the Lord’s “theocratic organization” is foolish, because your own reasoning, if it disagrees with them, is mere human reasoning.  You should accept as from the Lord and true whatever the slave sets before you and not be suspicious!  Accept it FIRST, and then go to the bible expecting to find confirmation that what they said is true…IS true!

 

You may wonder what is the big deal, and the big deal is the frame of mind you’re in when you approach the scriptures.  You are not to go there to see “if” or “Whether” something they’ve said is true, but to confirm THAT what they said is true.  They are very cognizant of something.  Know what it is? They know that once something is accepted as true in your mind, it is human nature to want to retain it, and there is a natural reluctance to give it up.  Hence if they can produce that kind of a mindset in their followers, they know they have a “leg up” in the persuasion department! That’s how it works.

 

You say you know of no other “safe way” to do it, but they say that if you don’t accept whatever they place before you as from the Lord and true FIRST, you are being suspicious of the Lord’s channel. According to the WT, it’s perfectly “safe” to accept what they set before you as true FIRST!  Are they right or wrong? You say that “through the years” you’ve come to trust them a great deal.  On the basis of what?  You acknowledge that they make errors and say they will correct them, but like the others of the rank & file, you seem oblivious to the fact that the WT actually cites the short-comings of other religions as confirming their claim that they are false.  You get a constant dose of this in their publications, and yet you’re expected to adopt a different attitude toward them when they do the same thing.  So the errors of other religions should CONFIRM to you that they are false, but it would be wrongheaded to think so about Watchtower Society.  Give me a break, Wrench!

 

Your statement that you believe them (the GB) to be interested in getting to the truth seems neither here nor there, for you would shrug your shoulders at anyone from a different religion who would say the same thing about their religious leaders, would you not?

 

Please don’t misunderstand me, if you say that this is the way you approach the bible, I will take your word for it, but I think it’s only fair to show you what the WT has had to say about this very thing.  If they are right, you MUST be wrong…or visa versa, unless there has been some radical changes that have recently come about.  What do you say about this? Is the WT right or wrong in the above quotations?

 

You say that very little of what they publish has to do with grammar, syntax, word meaning and usage, etc of the original languages, as this is not their primary concern.  Well, that’s one explanation, I guess, but why should anyone believe it?  It’s your own observation, I know? And if it WERE so, surely Greg Stafford must be a terrible embarrassment to them, certainly counter to their “primary concern”. 

 

I agree with your use of the term “Unitarian”, that it is not necessarily a reference to a member of the Universalist Unitarian religion.  I think I had pointed that out earlier, or it was included in a quotation from Lyman Abbot, in his religious dictionary. If one studies the history of religion in New England in the latter half of the 19^th century, it will be seen that many of the Congregational churches had a mixed membership of both Trinitarians and Unitarians, for many of those who had started off believing in the Trinitarian position gradually abandoned it and drifted away toward the belief that God is a single Person. So although they may not have believed in the Trinity any longer, they often were listed as “Congregationalists” because they had not joined up with the Unitarian organization.  Such may have been the case with Professor Thayer.   At least we have the WT’s agreement that he was not a Trinitarian and wrote against such a doctrine (SYBT, page 28).

 

Ok, now let’s look at your re-explanation of Revelation 3:14. You begin by listing 2 points upon which both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars apparently agree. For number 1 you say Both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that the passage “could mean that Christ was the first of God’s created things”. But that is wrong. Your first sentence here is contradicted by your second sentence. You say that Trinitarian scholars agree, then you turn right around and say “Trinitarians however do not agree that this is what the passage actually means…”. Wrench, they either agree that the passage can mean this, or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

 

 You may be thinking of the parenthetical statement in the BAGD that your meaning is “linguistically possible”, and if so you’ve simply failed to take into account that to use the terms “linguistically possible” while adopting the active cause meaning at the same time, can only have one meaning. They mean to say that the language itself can bear the meaning with those words, but the fact that they ADOPT a different meaning at 3:14 shows that they don’t agree that it can have that meaning there. They are actually not saying anything different than most Trinitarians have always said, namely the language can bear your meaning but not within the Bible. Why? Because of the Bible, it rules it out. You see, Wrench, if they meant that your meaning was possible at 3:14 they’d have just said “it’s possible”, not “linguistically possible”.  Hence the words can have that meaning…but not the passage.

 

 

The reality is that they do NOT agree that this passage could mean that Christ was the first of God’s created things. This is another place where it seems that you have lost your way. What Trinitarian scholars have always said is that the word “arche” itSELF could have that meaning, but NOT at Revelation 3:14. And why?  Because the teaching of the NT rules out such a meaning with these referents and subject material.  Beckwith said it, Barnes said it, the BAGD says it, I say it, and other Trinitarians say it.  But the detractors have tried to turn this into a false hope.

 

This is a major deficiency in your treatise as you presented it.  You failed to deal adequately with your opponents’ reasons for rejecting your interpretation of Rev. 3:14.  On that front they are united, and you failed to face that reality in your treatise.You have already re-framed the treatise once, have you not?  And yet it still needs a major overhaul for the reason just named.

 

Your number 2 statement is not quite correct as stated. Why? Because you have overlooked that in your number 1 statement you were talking about and restricting the discussion to scholars’ opinions of “the passage” (3:14), but in number two there appears to be no such restriction, but only what the word CAN mean anywhere. It also seems to overlook that one may be a ruler without being the first in the series, as per Barnes. You have joined the “first in the series” with “ruler” as if one cannot exist without the other. But within Trinitarianism either “active cause/beginner” or “ruler” constitutes a disagreement with your meaning.

 

After citing the two above points, you summarize them by saying that you would think the “ruler” or “beginning” would be the likely meanings given to “arche” at 3:14. The attempt here is a simple counting of noses, but you inadvertently “cooked the books” ahead of time with your stilted reasoning in the two previous points. First you mistakenly assume that because a Trinitarian scholar says your meaning is “linguistically possible” or “the words themselves can have your meaning”, that the Trinitarian is referring to 3:14, when they are not! Next you tried to meld the beginning meaning with the ruler meaning, overlooking that within Trinitarianism the ruler meaning as well as the active cause/beginner meaning constitutes a disagreement with your meaning, and thus the numbers would crunch differently,  and of course that assumes that the whole matter can be logically reduced to a mathematical equation anyway ;-))

 

OK, next you present 3 more points, each of which have already been dealt with in my previous letter.  Then you stop to summarize again.

 

Your 1^st point, as I said before, is subjective. You acknowledge that some “espouse incidences where it ‘might’ mean that, but even those incidences are disputed by some Trinitarians themselves”.  Again, that is wrong. Those who  “espouse” the beginner meaning don’t espouse it (22:13) as a “might” as you’ve characterized it. And it makes no logical difference whether other Trinitarians dispute it, for they may be wrong, just as you may be wrong. Even the WT had to either sharpen the focus or, as you said, correct themselves here, and they still don’t deny that the Alpha & Omega is the source of all creation, do they?  Hence we are in a land of subjectivity at this point.

 

In your 2^nd point you again say that John never uses “arche” to mean ruler, but John was inspired by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the other bible writers. The usual noun for “ruler” in the NT is “archon” and the usual noun for beginning is “arche”, yet even so we find “arche” in the plural with the meaning of “rulers or magistrates” in Luke 12:11 (even in the NWT) and in the NT with “arche” the beginning dwarfs the amount of times it means rulers or magistrates. And also in the NT, the amount of times “archon” in the plural means rulers dwarfs the amount of time “arche” means the same. This does not mean that “arche” couldn’t have that meaning, does it?   Both meanings,  “ruler or beginning”, go to the same verbal cognate, but concrete from different voices.  Substantives which usually carry the ruler meaning stem to the active voice of the verbal cognate, while those which usually connote the beginning meaning stem from the middle voice of the same verb. But there is a lexical cross-over as any Lexicon shows, hence the NIV’s “ruler” at 3:14.

 

In point #3 you argue on the basis of grammar with the genitive expression following “arche”, but as I pointed out before, the argument overlooks the idiomatic use of the expression in 3:14, and that it is NOT predicated but placed in apposition. In such cases the usual rules of grammar do not rule the day, but the overall meaning of the whole unit. Thus either of the three possible meanings would still use the genitive in expression, but since the meaning of the unit cannot be determined with certainty from the immediate context, we must go elsewhere in the NT for such, and this is why your meaning has been rejected by the Lexicons at 3:14.

 

Now we come to your summary of conclusions YOU reach from the above 3 points. Yet I am prevented from going along with your conclusions because of what I presented under each of the points above.  At this point I want to bring out a terrible exegetical mistake you make in drawing your conclusions.  First let me commend you for being sensitive to the influence other contexts may have here, and it’s good to see you now keeping that at the forefront. But even though you acknowledge the other contexts, you nevertheless restrict your conclusions to the points just delineated. And you say you did the same when preparing your original treatise. If so, that is terrible exegesis, Wrench.

 

You have drawn your conclusions in a vacuum from the other evidence, whereas the correct exegetical process is to INCORPORATE all the evidence together and draw the appropriate conclusions from that. What you are trying to do is pick and choose certain evidence, draw conclusions only from that, THEN after you reach your conclusions put the burden of proof on the other evidence. Can you not see how arbitrary that is? The right way is to hold your conclusions in abeyance until all known evidence is given it’s due consideration. I’m glad to see you admit this, but you must not see that it renders your treatise as unacceptable because of the arbitrary manner in which the evidence was handled. The exegete has no right to first compartmentalize certain evidence, draw his conclusions from that, and then put the burden of proof on the other evidence.  When you do this, you are NOT bowing to the authority of Scripture, you are instead manipulating the scripture to conform to the whims of the exegete.

 

You say that this is the procedure you followed when you first prepared your treatise,  However,  the reasons for your opponents rejecting the WT’s conclusion have been in the public domain for a long time, so there is no logical excuse for not having incorporated it into the exegesis in the first place.  So by your own admission the evidence you point to in your treatise was considered in isolation from the reasons given by your opponents for rejecting  the conclusion reached. Can you not see the deficiency?  Can you not see that you should have incorporated and dealt with the evidence elsewhere in the NT as set forth by the opposition?  How else could you meet the goals and standards you set for yourself in the treatise?  I must say that I’m stunned, not that I hadn’t already discovered that you must have done this, but that you would admit it so unabashedly. It speaks not only to your personal integrity, but also to a priceless naivete’.  But it also justifies rejecting the conclusion you reached, and that we must do. 

 

You make a somewhat veiled reference to the issue about Kittel’s and whether you read it wrong, but you don’t really address that. You see, if you’d have answered my previous letter point for point, that would have been on the agenda. You DID read it wrong and you should have addressed that. That fact should help you to see how you may have read the other references you pointed to wrongly, or approached it with a questionable premise. Something can be right in front of you and your mind (or mine) wonders off into the wild blue yonder. Please, Wrench, I’m not feeling the least bit arrogant or superior as I write this. I am very sincere.

 

You point while laughing out loud to the prospect that both Thayer and Abbott “threw their hands up in defeat over Grimm’s awesome display of evidence”,  but again you miss the point. (I could have said you were at the airport again, but I’m trying to be nice ;-).  Indeed Grimm’s classification for “arche” at 3:14 had the entire NT behind it, and that is awesome, certainly more than could be discussed in trying to defend the Unitarian conclusion at 3:14.  They simply could not legitimately contest the reality that Grimm’s classification could be possible, and they didn’t have the room to come against the entire NT in order to justify their own claims. They, like Grimm, simply did not want to encroach upon the province of the dogmatic theologian, yet that’s what they would have had to do. So in regard to your summary,  no WONDER the “active cause” meaning didn’t “pan out”, as you say, you admittedly based your conclusion on insufficient evidence!

 

Before getting into Colossians 1:15, you conclude the previous section by saying the following: “I am not saying that after considering other contexts in the NT that the Unitarian position could not be overturned. I am saying from what we have available from the scriptures and what both camps DO agree on, the evidence at Revelation 3:14 weighs against Trinitarianism.”  But can’t you see the mistake, Wrench? You weren’t SUPPOSED to weigh the evidence in isolation from the other evidence and draw any conclusions yet. You weren’t SUPPOSED to reach any conclusions yet because the other evidence had yet to be considered!!!  Now that, in addition to the fact that you confused what both sides supposedly agree on, invalidates the conclusion you’ve reached in the original treatise as well as in our discussion so far.  You say “I realize that it is more involved per other contexts. But we will get to that, OK?”…Fine, but you’ve already weighed certain evidence in isolation from the other contexts and have already drawn conclusions…bad move because it is premature! Let’s see if you try to put the burden of proof on the other contexts now to disprove the conclusions you’ve already reached ;-))

 

 

CONCERNING COLOSSIANS 1:15

 

You begin this section by asking the question “What do the scholars agree and disagree upon?”  Under your #1 you say that both sides agree that “prototokos” can be applied to someone who was not technically born first, but who was placed as or usurped the position of the real firstborn by some means”.  However, as to the question of whether the application of “firstborn” to one not technically first would require a usurpation is neither here nor there and makes no difference to the argument. As the WT Society agrees, Jehovah was not bound by men’s expectations in the application of this title, whereas your attempt here is to bind Him! The most deadly of diseases was called “firstborn”, not because it usurped or took the place of an earlier disease, but simply because it was the most deadly (Job 18:13). So you are quite wrong as to what is agreed on by both sides.

 

#2. Your first statement seems correct that some Trinitarians take the genitive in 1:15 as partitive, but your ensuing discussion seems confused. Jesus would be considered “special” under either side’s presuppositions,  for even Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in his pre-existence and that he became “flesh” or perfect humanity (John 1:14), right? Do you understand that so far? The Logos BECAME Jesus.

 

 Do you remember what the Baptist said about him? Here it is straight from the literal Greek of the KIT “The (one) behind me coming in front of me has come to be, because first of me he was” (John 1:15). So yes, Jesus was “special” no matter what! The Baptist was not even worthy to reach down and undo his shoe latchet.  Remember what he said of Jesus?  “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”…and he said directly to Jesus “I have need to be baptized of thee, and thou comest to me?”  Who was this “Lamb”?

 

He is the Savior when only Jehovah is the Savior, he is the intermediate agency of true Deity, and thus we OWE our salvation to him as well (Rev. 7:10)…and likewise as the intermediate agency of true Deity we OWE our Creation to him too. As Jehovah is God by reason of his Creatorship, so likewise the Logos is God by reason of his Creatorship.   He is the eternal extension of Jehovah (the arm of the Lord…Is. 53). Reach out and touch your arm, Wrench. Is that you? You bet it is, my friend, 100%. It ain’t Kazz and it ain’t Greg, it’s YOU, isn’t it?  Please forgive my paltry attempt to describe the unique nature of the INfinite God while standing on a finite platform. It’s the best I can do. We should not expect every little detail to match perfectly with our own finite reality, for as Jehovah has himself said: “My ways and thoughts are higher than yours” (Is. 55:8-9),  and so although he has used our terms in a condescending way to help us understand SOME things about his infinite nature, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can pigeon-hole him, or hold him hostage to our finite limitations.

 

Many detractors have attempted to argue against the Trinity on such basis…in similar fashion to the Atheists who deny the very existence of God on similar premises…thus God doesn’t measure up, so therefore He must be shipped out!  Have you fallen into this, Wrench, while cutting up with your fellow detractors? I’ll just bet you have ;-))

 

#3.  This has already been responded to in my previous letter.  Paul says in this context that “he is before all things”, and thus we have the same situation as in John Chapter 1, where Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot find a straight forward statement of their premise (the coming into existence of the Logos) in the text itself, so likewise in this context they have the same problem. In both places (John 1 & Col. 1:15-17) JWs must either assume their premise (he was the first creature) or bring in outside disputed texts with the assumption that their view is correct (stacking the deck)…thus they beg the question to prove they aren’t begging the question! That’s why the witness tries so hard to prove from verse 15 that he was the first creature, so they won’t have to admit that they are begging the question in this context. Trouble is, as we’ve seen, they simply cannot prove from verse 15 that Christ was the first creature in the category. Hence, they must come to verses 16 and 17 empty-handed and just assume that he was the first creature…in order to regard the “all things” as “all OTHER things”.

 

If it is illegitimate to assume that he was the first creature, it is likewise illegitimate to deny that existing before all things, he must be true God. Somehow they have to make him the first creature…You really need to go back to my previous letter and answer it point for point, Wrench.

 

As I pointed out time and time again, the partitive genitive does not pose a problem for the Trinitarian view, for we can accommodate the partitive genitive because of the fact that he took on the nature of a creature at the incarnation (John 1:14), and that is all that’s needed to qualify him for the title “firstborn”…if it is assumed that one must be part of the category to deserve the application of the title. And even this is not necessary as the WT Society has admitted that Jehovah is not bound by men’s expectations or customs when applying such titles (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.  1, pp 856). The whole line of reasoning is bogus therefore, and nets the witnesses nothing, nothing at all.

 

4. Concerning “Panta” the burden is on the witnesses here because they have not been able to justify and establish their premise (Christ was the first creature) from verse 15. Hence when they come to verses 16 and 17 it begs the question to assume he was the first creature to regard the “panta” as “all OTHER things”.  The necessary and natural conclusion, if he was “before all things”, apart from proof that he was the first creature, is that existing before all creation he would be true Deity, for only true Deity exists before all creation. The NWT Committee has unintentionally placed a millstone around the necks of rank & files witnesses by inserting the word “other” here. Why? Because now they must admit that if they can’t prove Christ was the first creature,  what is rendered “all other things” would have to taken as all creation…hence they MUST prove that he was the first creature to keep their heads above water.

 

I don’t know how you can deceive yourself into thinking that your view has the favor in Col. 1:15-17, since like in John 1:3 you have to supply your own premise (Christ was the first creature) in order to reason out your view.  You must do the same thing here as you have to do in John 1:1-3.  What?  Assume the premise and then reason AS IF it were so. In John 1:3 to explain your view you have to take for granted that the Logos was the first creature, then assume that the “all things” follows that….you simply cannot find such a statement in that context.  You have the same problem here in Col. 1:16-17, you have to take your conclusion and use it for your premise. But there is no validity in reaching a detractor conclusion from a detractor premise.

 

Now here is why the Trinitarian view has the advantage in both places.  We can reach our view strictly from the evidence in the immediate context each time and in each place. We don’t have to rely on outside disputed passages to supply our premise…you have to do that! And because you have to do that, and we don’t, our view comports better with the natural meaning of the context in both places, and thus both places remain as valid obstacles to your view of Rev. 3:14.  The burden is on you, Wrench, because you wrote the treatise and reached your conclusion without addressing these problems. Do you see the deficiency in your treatise now?

 

So far you seem unconscious of the fact the Proverbs 8:22 is not only a disputed passage, but comes from the Old Testament when God’s revelation was not complete, and thus cannot dictate or decide the meaning of a New Testament passage.  I did NOT say it couldn’t agree with, I said it cannot DECIDE the meaning of a New Testament passage. Not to mention again that it remains under original dispute (it’s one of your three witnesses!) and thus begs the question anyhow. The same thing goes for Rev. 3:14, it happens to be the passage under original dispute and thus cannot dictate at John 1:1-3 (Physician save thyself, LOL!…

 

I see that you do indeed acknowledge the problem of trying to bring in passages which are under original dispute, so this will act as a good foundation when that subject comes up). Don’t get lost now, I’m referring to the question of which view comports best with the natural meaning of passages like John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-17.  If you have to bring in disputed texts from outside just to supply your premise (the logos was the 1^st creature),  and our side does not, the orthodox view has a much better claim to comporting with the natural meaning of the context in both of these places, and so they remain as valid obstacles to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14.

 

Before you return to John 1:1-3 you summarize as follows:

 

“Now, since, individually, I would think that even a Trinitarian would see that Revelation 3:14 by itself and Colossian 1:15 by itself and Proverb 8:22 by itself would weigh against the Trinitarian conclusion based on what the scholars would agree on and biblical usage and meaning, and that is basically all my treatise dealt with, I would think that it would be easily seen that collectively they make a very strong case against the trinitarian position, which is what my treatise layed out.

Now, I know that the trinitarian is going to say that all of that has to be overruled by the other contexts…”

 

Beyond the hazy comprehension you exhibit as to what the scholars agree or disagree on, as I showed under each of your numbered points earlier in this letter, beyond that, if this is all your treatise “dealt with”,  then the conclusion you reached in the treatise is invalid.

Note the procedure of interpretation you followed.  You selected certain passages and drew your conclusion from them. AFTERWARDS, then you hold up that conclusion and assign the burden of proof to any other evidence to disprove that conclusion, assuming to yourself that this is a valid exegetical procedure.  In fact, in your treatise you didn’t even address the opposing evidence.  But now, as a result of our discussion you’ve attempted to assign the burden of proof to the opposing contexts to disprove your conclusion, and that is isegesis not exegesis.

 

This procedure is called compartmentalization and all cults do it, for it is the only way to maintain a false deduction which has resulted from a mishandling of the Word. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not accusing YOU of deliberately twisting or mishandling the Scripture, for I believe that you really have convinced yourself that it’s valid. But that does not alter the fact that it isn’t.  The correct exegetical procedure is to hold in abeyance any conclusion until all known evidence is factored in, and each bit allowed to have it deserved influence, then the conclusion is reached from all known evidence. This is where you took a wrong turn. The opposing evidence against your interpretation of  Rev. 3:14 (John 1:3 & Col. 1;15-16…etc) has been in the public domain for a long time, long before you published your treatise. Nevertheless you prepared your treatise without dealing with that evidence, and thus we see that your treatise is in dire need of a major overhaul.

 

JOHN 1:1-3

 

Now as you return to John 1:1-3 you say “I do not pretend to fully understand all the issues that bear on this passage"”  Well then let’s just do the best we can. Between the two of us, what is the main reason we are here?  Are we at the time specifically disputing the correct translation of 1:1c? No we are not.  We are here because the scholars have pointed to passages like this one and Col. 1:15-17 as obstacles to your interpretation of Revelation 3:14, here mainly because of the natural meaning of John 1:3.  Not only does it say here that all things came into existence through him, but it immediately doubles up on the negative and further clarifies itself by saying that not a single thing that came into existence did so without doing so through him. No exceptions, it says!

 

This reading poses an immediate problem for the witness.  If everything came into existence through him, as it reads, he obviously cannot be included…for the witness is taught that he did not come into existence through himself, but that he did come into existence.  The witness must deny that the logos is here being distinguished from all creation , even from the first creation. This is the problem as it confronts the Jehovah’s witness. What do they do about it?  Let’s take a look at your mindset as you try to deal with this.

 

“This has been offered time and again by Trinitarians as a proof scripture (notice this term) that Jesus is the creator and not the created. It has likewise been offered by you for the same reasons. This is one of your primary ‘contexts’ that you feel should overrule the weight created against the Trinitarian position by the ‘three’ scriptures discussed above.”

 

Now look intently at your term “proof scripture”.  Do you see it? This shows your mindset. You are STARTING OFF assuming that the burden is on this evidence to “overrule the weight created against the Trinitarian position by the three”, but hold it just a minute. Notice that you’ve already drawn your conclusion from “the three”, then you assume that the rest of the bible has the burden to overrule  the “weight created against the Trinitarian position”. No way, my friend, the rest of the Bible doesn’t have the burden here to disprove your premature conclusion. You’ve simply compartmentalized “the three” and now you are arbitrarily holding up the conclusion you drew as the standard and challenging the other evidence to disprove it. How convenient, Wrench ;-))

 

Look again at your term “proof scripture”. If only you could get away with that, you’d be home free. But alas, for the vanity of human wishes, you have taken a logical leap in the dark!  Where?  When you drew your conclusion from “the three” you did so prematurely, having not factored in the evidence in these places. Thus you have no logical right to assign the burden of proof to these passages to disprove your premature conclusion. The procedure you’ve adopted is both illogical and arbitrary.

 

You have the burden to show how these passages, understood the way they are worded, do not present an obstacle to your conclusion that you’ve already drawn. If you leave it the way it’s worded, we must conclude that he’s the Creator.  There are only two categories that he COULD belong to. Either the Creator or the creature. So if all things came into existence through him, the natural conclusion is that he’s distinguished from the first thing that came into existence…and that, my friend, leaves only the Creator category for him. See it?

 

Now YOUR approach to address this is to say “but the all things doesn’t HAVE to mean every last thing” (then you appeal to other places where it doesn’t in order to illustrate). Where have you gone wrong by adopting this approach?  You’re trying to assume that the opposing view has to “prove” that all things means all with no exceptions. But you’ve illogically turned things around…to suit yourself and escape your OWN burden. Why is it your burden? Because you drew your conclusion prematurely…you drew your conclusion in its own vacuum…you made no attempt to factor these passages in when you made your conclusion. That’s why!  Hunker down and think it through, friend.

 

It’s simply not good enough for you to show how it MIGHT not mean “all things”, you have to show that it CANNOT mean “all things” because that’s the way it’s worded, and if you don’t prove that it can’t mean what it says, it WILL mean what it says. All you’ve done is to attempt a switcheroo with the burden of proof, an invalid and arbitrary procedure. 

 

Let’s consider your attempt to reason on this passage.  You begin with the expression “in the beginning”.  First let me take a moment to commend you for obviously trying harder to reason on these things.  The effort is noticeable and I appreciate it. That doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with it, though ;-))  I have no quarrel with your first statement under number 1 about "arche” being a beginning.  But immediately you bring in Genesis 1:1, and I must remind you that you’ve returned to the WT’s order of creation in which they deny this beginning refers to the beginning in Genesis 1:1. I get the impression that you’re trying to throw it out there without really tying yourself down to it.

 

So your appeal to what “the scholars say” about Genesis 1:1 and  John 1:1 is off limits for you, because you’ve chosen to hang with the WT Society on this,  and they say that this beginning is not the same as in Gen. 1:1.  So that’s what we will hold you to. After all, you say you’re convinced that they are God’s authority on these matters. You seem to sense this too, and so although you try to fiddle around with the terms “physical creation” and Genesis 1:1 you refrain at the last moment from making the claimed connection.

 

Under “b” you first cite Rev. 3:14 and I don’t know whether you’re trying to bring it in to prop up the WT’s claim that this “beginning” refers to the logos’ coming into existence or not, but it appears that you’d like to use it in that manner. But you acknowledge that 3:14 is the very passage under dispute and so it would be illogical to do that. But in an effort to whittle away at this problem, you suggest that John 1:1 presents the same problem. Does it?  No, and here’s why.  You have already gone ahead in your treatise and drawn your conclusion without having factored these passages in. And so we are not on equal ground here. The language in John 1:3 is unambiguous, and apart from PROOF to the contrary, it will mean what it says naturally, and that would distinguish the Logos from the first thing that came into existence…as it says, thus placing him in the Creator category.

 

Again, since these words are presented generically  (all things) and it actually STATES no exceptions, the burden falls on the detractors to PROVE it doesn’t really mean all, as it is presented. The mistake you made, Wrench, was to prepare your treatise and draw your conclusion at 3:14 without factoring this into the discussion and consideration. Had you done it right, you’d have had to clear this obstacle first to justify your conclusion. Why then is not John 1:1-3  in the same category as Rev. 3:14?  Because in 3:14 you do NOT have a predication with the title, it is instead applied appositionally, but the info in John 1:3 is presented predicatively…it actually makes a statement about the same referents,  rather than just applying a title. In other words, John 1:3 make a flat out predicate statement, whereas Rev 3:14 attributively applies an idiomatic title as a unit. That is why the Lexicons have rejected your meaning in 3:14, all that we’ve seen.

 

So at the end of the day I would say this: There is no need to draw your conclusion at Rev. 3:14, and thus you have not met the standards and goals you set for yourself in the re-framing of your treatise. You may counter by saying there’s no need to draw my conclusion at John 1:3 either, but then I would re-counter by reminding you that I didn’t publish a treatise, you did. You made some claims in that treatise and that’s what we are addressing, right? Is your treatise defective?  Did you meet your stated goals and standards? Did you factor in and consider all known evidence before reaching your conclusion in the treatise?  The answer to all these questions by your own admission, is a resounding “NO”!

 

Still under “b.” above, after acknowledging that it would be inappropriate to bring in the other “witnesses” in your treatise to prop yourself up in John 1:1-3, you nevertheless think you see one point of agreement with regard to Proverbs 8:22.  Thus you say:

 

“The only point of agreeance among all the above that I can see would be a partial agreeance of what is stated in Proverbs 8:22. Both Trinitarians and Unitarians would agree that  Proverbs  does speak of a beginning and they would agree that the context is clearly creation. They would disagree as to what the ‘wisdom’ would be that was personified. Many Trinitarians would actually agree that the Son was ‘wisdom’ personified at this verse yet they would disagree as to the meaning of the verb ‘qanah’ which is translated ‘possessed’ or ‘produced’ or ‘created’…”

 

What you have just illustrated above is why it would be illogical and arbitrary to bring in this passage to supply your premise in John 1:3 (coming into existence of the logos). By the way, notice that your premise here is also your conclusion…hmmm. The passage remains in hopeless dispute. It would be “stacking the deck” to assume your view is correct in Prov. 8:22,  and then allow that to supply your premise John 1:3. And again this passage appears in the Old Testament when God’s revelation was not complete. But you continue musing about Prov. 8:22 and tying it in some way to John 1:1…note:

 

“  Since there is at least agreeance between some Trinitarians and Unitarians that Proverbs does speak of a beginning in relation to creation that it could be used as a valid reference to qualify for the ‘beginning’ spoken of in John 1:1.  So, at this point, we could state that the phrase ‘in the beginning’ either refers to ‘the beginning of physical creation’, (Gen. 1:1) ‘the beginning of all creation’ (Prov. 8:22), or the absolute beginning of time. (I know of no scripture that specifically addresses this).

    With the three possibilities mentioned above the first phrase of John 1:1 could be termed in the following ways.

1.       In the beginning of the ‘physical’ creation ‘was the Word’.

2.       In the beginning of creation ‘was the Word’.

3.       In the absolute beginning of time ‘was the Word’. …”

 

We may agree that Proverbs 8:22 makes a reference to the beginning of creation, the dispute, though, is whether Wisdom personified is referring to it’s own creation, or whether it makes reference to it’s being “brought to bear” (produced…focused) in the creation of all things.  This discussion is waiting in the wings.

 

You list three specific wordings that you think reflect three possibilities of meanings for the expression in John 1:1 “in the beginning”.  Wow, where should I start? Well, I think we have to take stock of a couple realities that will set some guidelines here. As a loyal Witness, you’ve decided to stick with the WT’s clearly delineated order of creation as set forth in both the Aid and Insight Volumes. You’ve agreed that you regard them as God’s Authority on such matters. You also acknowledged that your previous “preferred” view (Stafford’s view) is based on a “vague” article in the Knowledge book. So this is bound to set some limits of interpretation for you.  The WT’s order of creation in the above publications sees an indeterminate period of time between the beginning referred to in John 1:1 and the beginning in Genesis 1:1, a time during which they say the heavenly angels were brought into existence. Such guidelines from “God’s Authority” would rule out the first possibility for you (assuming of course that you agree with the WT that Genesis 1:1 is a reference to the physical creation, which you do).

 

From your discussion I get the impression that you kind of regret abandoning Greg’s view of John 1:1-3 which attempts to connect up with Genesis 1:1. You make a number of statements that lead me to think that, such as: “In actuality, the viewpoint that the ‘beginning’ refers to the beginning in Genesis 1:1 is probably the better option for the Unitarian to take, since it does not involve begging the question of the Son being the beginning of God’s creation.”.  Of course you still leave yourself some room to stay where you’re at now, but such ruminations indicate that you wish you had stuck with Greg’s view.  But Greg’s view DOES involve begging the question, only it’s not quite as obvious, and as I said…I think that’s probably what led him to prefer that interpretation. You see he still has to insert a coming into existence of the logos into the context of John 1:1-3,  when the context makes no such statement. His view needs for it to be true in order to account for the words in John 1:3 “all things”. So no matter which of the two views is adopted, a begging of the question cannot be avoided by the JW.  He probably thinks that if he can restrict the all things to the physical creation, the latter half of John 1:3 doesn’t look quite as contradictory for the JW conclusion;-))

 

Looking strictly at the way you’ve worded the three descriptions above, it appears that the Trinitarian viewpoint could accommodate any of the three, had the passage actually been worded that way. For example we believe that the Word “was” when the physical creation began (no matter when it began).  Or with number 2…if we take an earlier beginning as the reference, that is also no problem to the Trinitarian view…for we believe the Word is eternal and always “was”…so within Trinitarianism place the beginning wherever you will, and the “was” is the relationship to it. But it’s not only the Word that “was”, but also “ton theon” that “was” too, no matter where we assume the beginning began or what it’s referring to. 

 

You continue to ruminate over the next few pages without drawing any solid conclusions, and so my discussion here will likewise be in a general manner and perhaps I can clear up some areas of understanding that I have that there may be some confusion about.

 

You enter into a discussion about your ties to a religious body (GB) and how they affect your decisions about what to believe and what not to believe. It becomes quickly obvious that you are trying to carry water on both shoulders with the two mentioned viewpoints about the meaning of the expression “in the beginning” at John 1:1. You had strayed from the Society’s established order of creation as set forth in the Aid and Insight Volumes, and had adopted Greg Stafford’s new idea as your “preferred view”, then you abandoned Greg’s view and returned to get back in line with the WT Society.  While still clinging to Stafford’s view you had indicated that even though they weren’t the same, you still had confidence in the WT’s established order of creation, and if need be you could defend that as well, with no problems. Now that you’ve switched back, though, it looks as though you wish you hadn’t done that,  and your confidence is not as intense as it had been earlier with the current position. You’ve already mentioned 2 or 3 times in this letter, for example, that you think Greg’s view is “probably better for the Unitarian”, though you refrain from referring to it as “Greg’s view” (JWD 315-316).

 

The two views are incompatible. If  the established view is the truth, the other is not, and visa versa. You have to remember, Wrench, that they (the GB) do not consider you qualified to interpret the scripture (unless you are of the anointed class). They maintain that you must rely on them for the truth, for the true meaning of the bible.  So if they abandon the established view the next question is, what else might need to be thrown overboard as well.  For example, will there be a need to drop the word “other” that was inserted into the text at Col. 1:16-17 since it would be no longer necessary to regard them as “all OTHER things” now that “all things” can be restricted to the physical creation?  Or can they find some other way to maintain that by denying any connection between the two “all things” in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17, as you had at first attempted to maintain, but have since given it up. Who can imagine how many doctrines might be adversely affected, how many points may thus need to be “adjusted”. It’s like the house that Chuck built.  The GB has to be careful, for they know how important perception is to their survival as the perceived Authority of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

You mentioned that the change in views was based on a vague article in the Knowledge book. That’s interesting.  Why, after having presented the other view with such detail in their major publications for so many years, would they suggest an alternative view in a “vague” manner?  Does that make sense to you?  Why wouldn’t they make the alternative view just as clear and detailed as the other? I suppose it’s possible that certain ones in Bethel may have recognized the difficulties involved in defending the Society’s view about the logos,  with the established order of creation, and maybe they decided to make such a suggestion in the Knowledge book to help the brothers, but deliberately keep it vague or non-committal…just in case ;-), hence the reason I’d like to clear the matter up. Still the question comes up, why would Stafford jump on a “vague” article in the Knowledge book to warrant a change, if all was considered well with the established view? And if it’s no big deal, as you say, why would Stafford point to the Knowledge book at all for justification?

 

It is obvious that you want to keep yourself out of the loop, as far as writing to the Society goes. But as a baptized witness you’d have a much better chance of receiving an answer from them than me. It would seem that given Stafford’s statement in his book about the new view being “the witnesses’ present understanding”, and due to you having abandoned that view, that you’d be most anxious to want to clear the matter up once and for all. Yet you say that you don’t have a question, hmmm. That is indeed strange, you abandon the position that Stafford says is “the Witnesses’ present understanding” and you  don’t have a question.

 

I am known at Bethel headquarters, friend, and they will not answer me. I don’t feel welcome at the local Hall, but when I was on the road I sometimes stopped at different Kingdom Halls and attended the meetings to keep abreast of the situation on a first hand basis. I’ve been off work sick now for about a year. Please consider the aversion you have to contacting the Society about this. What are you worried about? Don’t worry, I’ll figure something out ;-))

 

Under c. of the three choices of meaning you suggest, you think this would be the option of the Trinitarian. Well, as I said earlier the Trinitarian view could accommodate either of the three, had the passage actually been worded that way. Based on the expression “in the beginning” you reason that if the scripture doesn’t explicitly define the meaning and location of the beginning, the Trinitarian position is an assumption “as well”, but that is wrong again.

 

The Trinitarian position allows us the freedom to say, put the beginning wherever you will, but whatever came into existence did so through the logos (John 1:3). This is the generic way it is presented, and it actually clarifies itself by denying even a single exception….nothing came into existence that didn’t do so through the logos. If anyone (JWs or anyone else) denies the natural and generic meaning here, the burden is on them since this is the way it’s presented. Now, our view doesn’t require us to assume he was not created in John 1:1-3,  the passage begins by placing him on an equal footing of continuous existence with “ton theon”…we assume nothing about him coming into existence because it says nothing. Not only does it say nothing about the logos coming into existence,  but it DOES say that all things without exception came into existence through him,  and nothing came into existence that didn’t do so through him. Hence, our conclusion is based on what it SAYS and on the way it says it,  not on what it doesn’t say.  In contrast,  your conclusion is based on what it doesn’t say (he came into existence), and you actually USE that conclusion as your premise for the arbitrary restriction of the “all things”, but there is no validity in reaching a detractor conclusion from a detractor premise.  So it is plain that the orthodox view has a vastly superior claim to comporting with the natural meaning of this context, and thus it remains as a valid obstacle to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14.

 

Some witnesses, conveniently overlooking that THEY have the burden here, have hauled in examples of  “all things” not meaning all (by context), but they fail to see that that’s only half the job. They have the burden to prove it can’t mean what it says where it says it. Just as in a court of law, the side with the burden (prosecutor) does NOT have the liberty to show that the defendant is half-way guilty (or that he COULD have done it, perhaps because others have done things like that) to deserve the verdict. Instead they have the burden to show that he’s guilty of the charge. Any doubt and the verdict must favor the defendant. The same logic applies here. If they charge that it doesn’t mean what it says, they have to prove that. And showing that it MIGHT not mean that isn’t good enough (that leaves a doubt), they have to do the whole job and prove that it doesn’t mean that where it says it. This is where Greg errs, and takes a bunch of you guys with him.

 

The Trinitarian position that the logos was not an original creature is supported mainly by the language in John 1:1-3, and when I say this I’m referring specifically to the identity of the logos as either a creature or true Deity. John 1:3 relates to that issue and the natural meaning of the generic language there locates the logos’ existence as an established fact prior to the coming INTO existence of all things…without exception. This means that nothing that came into existence did so without doing so through him.  Once again you indicate your preference for Greg’s new idea for JWs of equating the beginning in John 1:1 with the beginning in Genesis 1:1,  but somehow I wonder if the main reason stems from the difficulty of the natural language in John 1:3 and the perceived need to restrict the scope of the “all things” in order to accommodate and retain the WT’s conclusion that the logos was the first creature. You say you don’t think you’re qualified to weigh all this out, “in an extensive manner”.  Well, again I think you are underestimating yourself. Also, I’m not a Greek scholar either, but I have studied the language a little,  and I’m satisfied that I can comprehend enough to recognize what’s being said and what isn’t being said in this context.

 

You indicate that you took my metaphoric illustrations as an insult, and if that’s the way it came across to you, I apologize from the bottom of my heart.  It really doesn’t make any difference WHAT my motive was, the bottom line is that it offended you, and I am truly sorry for that. I thought I had made my feelings about you clear in several places. I consider you a level-headed THINKING person, not a loose-cannon.  There’s no doubt in my mind that you are sincere and honest-hearted, but I’m inclined to believe that trying to defend the WT’s conclusions has placed an unfair burden on you. Being tied to a religious authority such as the WT means that you don’t have the freedom to think for yourself. As I said earlier, unless there’s been a radical change recently in the Society’s teachings the Organization doesn’t consider you or Greg (or anyone else not of the anointed class) as qualified to interpret the bible.  I didn’t make that up.

 

And now I’m sitting here smiling as I read your invitation to “bring this” to Edgar Foster’s Greek Theology board and discuss it there, I presume you mean with Greg and Edgar, since you mention that they are frequent posters there. Let me say this. I’m not hard to find, and my letters to you are in the public domain. If either of them wishes to contact me to discuss or criticize anything I’ve said, I will do the best I can to defend myself or what I believe,  as long as they don’t gang up on me ;-)) I don’t know if I could keep up with these College educated guys or not, but I will not submit to Edgar’s “rules” as to what I can say, or whether JWs can be held to the WT’s teaching, or anything of the kind. Feel free to submit anything I’ve said anywhere you want, but if they want to have a real discussion with me, they know where to find me, and so do you.

 

Although I’ve not seen K.L. McKay’s work, from what you say I don’t see a problem with his explanation of verbal aspect.

 

What does the expression “in the beginning” mean or refer to in John 1:1a? According to the WT Society this refers to the creation of the logos as the very beginning of Jehovah’s creative works, in both verses 1 & 2.  Thus, note the following from the Insight, Vol. 2, page 52:

 

“….John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: ‘In the beginning the Word [Gr. Lo’gos]  was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [‘was divine’] AT; Mo; or ‘of divine being,’ Bohmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.’ Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps. 90.2; Re 15:3), The Word’s being with God from ‘the beginning’ must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.”

 

Note first that the WT says that both verses 1 and 2  give the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus. Yet in verse two the noun “logos” does not appear. What actually appears is the demonstrative “houtos…this one”.  But this pronoun finds its antecedent in the preceding verse (logos),  and thus verse two is a repetition of clause 1:1b “this one was in the beginning with God”, and so is referenced the same beginning in both verses.

 

Secondly note the WT’s statement…The Word’s being with God “from” the beginning.

The expression “from the beginning” does not appear in the text but is the WT’s descriptive term,  the apparent idea of which is to infuse a connotation that suggests that the logos’ existence only began at the beginning and he was with God only since then…however, we have an unwarranted interpolation of the word “from”,  which appears in the WT’s description,  but not in the text itself. Nevertheless the WT’s  “from” here tacitly reveals their idea of the application of the imperfect continuous aspect for the verb “was”,  as following the beginning. “Was” is durative and applies to the indeterminate time proceeding “from the beginning” (of Jehovah’s creative works, they assume). This seems to be an attempt to avoid any implication from the verb “was” that the logos’ existence like ton theon’s,  PREceded the beginning and was like ton theon’s in a state of continuousness at the instant the beginning began. They obviously don’t mind ton theon’s existence being in a state of continuousness at the instant the beginning began,  but they cannot allow the logos’ existence to have the same connotation…they had to change that, and they did.

 

Now my own understanding of the expression “in the beginning” is that it refers to the instant of time the first creation began.  Let me try to explain my reasoning on this. This understanding agrees with the WT’s understanding above, except they teach that the first creation was the logos,  and I believe it was the “first” of the “all things” referred in John 1:3. Thus both the WT and myself would be inclined to take the preposition “en” as having a narrow semantic emphasis at this point…somewhat equivalent to our “at”. As I mentioned, the NWT Committee also rendered this preposition “at” when they thought the situation warranted it, such as for instance in 2^nd Thess. 1:7…where the switching of roles will occur in an instant of time “at the revelation”…etc.

 

The reason I’m inclined to take the preposition “en” in a narrow sense here is because of the apparently deliberate contrast between the verb in John1:1-2, and the verb applied to “panta” in John 1:3.  One is stative (existence) and the other is more suggestive of “coming into existence”. The “een” is the imperfect of eimi, and “egeneto” is the aorist indicative of “ginomai” (to become). The first time in this context that such a verb (egeneto) is made applicable to the logos is in verse 14 “kai ho logos sarx egeneto”. Prior to this the only verb applied to the logos’ existence has been “een” as likewise applied in equal measure to ton theon (1:1b).  So it appears from this that the logos’ existence bore the same relationship to creation as ton theon’s…when the first creation began both ton theon and ho logos were in a state of continuous existence. And the first time the logos’ existence is described with “egeneto” is when he became flesh (was born like Abraham).

 

The proposed connection of the beginning in John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 has been given up by you, and you’ve returned to the WT’s established order of creation as set forth in their Aid and Insight Volumes. You’ve indicated that the Knowledge book article offered by Greg is “vague” and I would agree with that, and for that reason the clearly delineated order of creation should be considered the official WT position until we receive a more clear word from the Watchtower Society that they are repudiating the established order. In addition, although Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to restrict the beginning in Genesis 1:1 to the physical creation, we should stop to consider whether scholars who may see a connection of John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 likewise see Gen. 1:1 as being restricted to the physical universe. At any rate, due to the generic nature of the language applied in John 1:3, the burden is on any who would attempt to qualify the “all things” and claim that it doesn’t need to mean “all”.  Thus, to show other contexts where the expression did not  mean “all” is only half the job. They must show that the same is true in John 1:3, and since they have the burden,  they cannot afford to leave it in a “might” situation.

 

Take a look at the following words from you:

 

“I started with the Genesis 1;1 view because of the way I had weighed out the evidence which I demonstrated above.  I never indicated that it was the only view that would work, at least I don’t think I did.  I offered the other view later to show that I think it works just as well, maybe better, but then again, maybe not. You see, I don’t see myself as having to make a decision here since the NWT indicates that connection itself at John 1;2 and the WT makes the same possible connection in the Knowledge book. To me, it is not a problem that warrants me to write a letter to the Society, because I can entertain both views or one or the other without feeling that I am somehow usurping their authority. I would think both Nelson Herle and Greg Stafford have both entertained this view, and that the Society has been given copies of their work, and even reproduced certain points from the books, that if they had a problem with the Genesis 1;1 view being adopted, they would have clarified it by now, especially since Nelson’s Herle’s work has been done for years.”

 

In other words, like Pilot, “I wash my hands of the matter”, huh ;-))  But your words illustrate why I’ve always admired you.  They are a tribute to your personal integrity and they show that your motives are pure.  Nobody with less than pure motives could make the same admissions you make above and present the same personal justifications as you do for following the course you’ve followed. But we need to consider carefully what you say above. It’s hard not to agree with your personal justifications for not wanting to be drug into this apparent discrepancy about the two views, due to the danger of collateral damage to you and your family, which you certainly don’t deserve.

 

But like it or lump it, Greg seems to be speaking for all Jehovah’s Witnesses on page 316 of his book when he says concerning this matter that:

 

“   Whatever the case, the Witnesses’ present understanding of the ‘beginning’ of John 1:1 can be gathered from the following: ‘John 1:1 says that the “the Word” (Jesus in his prehuman existence) was with God “in the beginning”.  So the Word was with Jehovah when ‘the heavens and the earth’ were created. God was addressing the Word when He said: ‘Let us make man in our image.’ (Genesis 1:1, 26)”

 

You yourself admit that the above seems “vague” and I agree.  The statement Greg places in italics is NOT a clear denial that the logos was with Jehovah (JW terms and perspective) millions of years earlier nor is it a straight-forward denial of the WT’s statement in the Aid and Insight Volumes that the Beginning of John 1:1 refers to the logos’ creation…that precedes the Gen. 1:1 beginning by an indeterminate amount of time.  It merely carries the further point that the logos was STILL with “Jehovah” at the later time, which no one denies anyway (if we assume that Jehovah is only the Father). What is NOT denied or repudiated is the WT’s statement in the Aid and Insight Vols. That the beginning in John 1:1 is a reference to the logos’ creation perhaps millions of years (indeterminate) before Genesis 1:1.

 

I will tell you what it looks like to me, and that’s why we need to get this clarified from the Watchtower Society.  It LOOKS like someone at Bethel may have wanted to stir a stick in muddy water (to provide some “cover” for the brothers in the field), and vaguely suggest a lengthening out of the beginning that had been referred to in the Aid and Insight Volumes as indicated by the expression:

 

 “Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps. 90:2; Re 15:3), THE WORD’S BEING WITH GOD FROM ‘THE BEGINNING’ must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works”. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as ‘the firstborn of all creation’, ‘the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14)…..” (Insight, Vol. 2, page 52).

 

However, the Knowledge book article does not clearly repudiate the previous position, but at most only allows the beginning referred to, to be thought of as stretched…so that under such a thought, the beginning referred in John 1:1 would have to be viewed as the beginning of the beginning, and so we’d be back on square one. Why? Because now the verbal aspect of “was” will indicate as clearly for the Logos as it does for ton theon that they were both in a state of continuous existence when the beginning began, and thus the beginning of the beginning would have to be the first of the all things (and could not be the logos…since his existence was already continuous with ton theon’s). Hence under such a thought,  the beginning of the beginning would refer to the beginning of creation non-inclusive of the Logos…and yet the beginning of creation. …And the beat goes on!

 

So although I can’t help but sympathize with you about not wanting to be drug into this, Greg has put you on the spot by presuming to speak for all Witnesses.  If he does, then because you’ve abandoned his new idea, you’ve strayed from current truth and need to return. So far you’ve managed to keep your personal integrity in tact, but now that you KNOW you may have strayed from present truth, you should want to keep your integrity by inquiring from someone (Greg or the Society) as to what’s what here. Why should anyone who puts forth the claims the WT does, be allowed to hide itself in deliberate vagueness…muddy water that they themselves have created?  What a shell game, and doesn’t it make you wonder what’s going on? This should illustrate for you just who it is who’s stretching, pulling, and manipulating things…just to keep their own heads above water!

 

Concerning the example about Jay Hess, you say it was not a problem about his book, but I’m not persuaded of that.  He seems to think it was, because he had apparently gotten along fine until he published the book. He explains that since he wrote the book to defend the WT it was at first accepted enthusiastically by fellow witnesses, but he explains, because it also exposed the brothers to the specific incidences and details, it was given a cool reception by the service department. Some at Bethel wanted him to write articles but the Service dept nixed it…he explains that he would eventually have to conclude that he had been wrong to defend them, and they were guilty as charged according to the guidelines set forth in Deuteronomy 18.

 

 He also in his investigations eventually came to grips with the worship of Jesus, and the Society’s history on that matter, with regard to the “charter”, whereas their charter acknowledges their goal to promote the public Christian worship of Jehovah God and His Son Jesus Christ. Because this had been discontinued by the Society, and he believed and showed the brothers he came in contact with the evidence he’d uncovered on the subject,  he was put on trial for teaching that Jesus should be worshiped. I’m really troubled, Wrench, that you would allow any earthly religious organization to persuade you to refuse to worship the Son,  when you know the bible says he should be honored “just as” you honor the Father, and the failure to do so means that you are not honoring the Father either. You should realize that you can’t dishonor the Father by honoring the Son, but you can by DIShonoring the son or by refusing to honor him! (John 5:23-24)  If all God’s angels are instructed to bow before him “proskeneo”, how could you let an earthly religious organization talk you into refusing to worship him, and persuade you on the basis of their own arbitrary decision to use a different English word at Hebrews 1:6? Your heart is too good for this, friend, it really is!

 

Let me stop right here to ask you a simple question, and please think with your heart and not just your head. Do you honestly believe that God the Father would consider you spiritually “dead” if you chose to bow down and worship the Son? Don’t you know that even the unbelievers will have to bow before him and confess him “kyrios (Jehovah?) to the glory of God the Father some day?  Whereas in Isaiah Jehovah had predicted “to me they will bow down…every tongue confess”..etc.  Why wait till then, it will be too late then, friend. When the Society DF’d Jay Hess for that reason, they were declaring that Jehovah regards him as spiritually dead, and why? Because he was willing to bow and worship the Son of God?

 

When you come to John 1:1b you say you’d think the most natural way to view this is that the Logos was someone different that the one he was said to be with. I don’t have a problem with that, he’s obviously not the Father or the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). As to the specific application or identity of “ton theon” in this context, it does not say beyond the application of “ton theon”.  Hence, it may be a simple use of the Jewish conception of God (Father only) at the time, being used as a foundation for the additional teaching about to be presented. Or it could also single out the Logos from the Godhead and thus be distinguishing him on a (intermediate level) from the Godhead that did not step into that role. Neither explanation poses a problem for the Trinity view. As we see in 1^st Cor. 8:6, the Father & Son are distinguishable, but both equally distinct from all creation.

 

You say you want to know these things…etc.  Well here’s a good example of you bringing something up that if I really took hold of it, could easily swell our letters to 90 pages again, ha.  Yet it’s in the immediate context of John 1:3,  so it’s perfectly understandable why you might want to discuss it.  My reason for not getting too deep into the argument over the correct translation of 1:1c was to keep our attention focused on the specific element of this context that presents an obstacle to your view of Rev. 3:14.  Obviously if we could settle EITHER issue, it would likewise solve the other, ha. So I’ll make a few appropriate statements without going too deep into it for now.

 

Now concerning the use of the term “theos”, sometimes a noun in the singular can have a collective reference (faithful & discreet “slave”), and at other time it may single out an individual servant of God. The same may be true with “theos”, sometimes it has reference to the entire Godhead (Gen. 1:27) and sometimes to an individual member (Gen. 1:26, the speaker).  Also, like the noun “anthropos”, sometimes it can emphasize an individual man, other times it can be qualitative (man in general, men and women). Can you see the difference between saying that someone is a Greek, and saying that someone is Greek?

 

Concerning 1:1c, you write:  “Since scholars on both sides recognize that the ‘theos’ without the article is significantly different than the ‘theos’ with the article, and since both would agree that angels and men were also given the designation ‘elohim/theos’, I don’t think it again to be a leap of logic to for the Unitarian to conclude that the Logos was not ‘theos’ in the same way that the first ‘theos’ was.  Now obviously, the Unitarian difference is quite a bit different than a Trinitarian difference. But, the way it seems to me, the Trinitarian difference has to assign meanings to the word ‘theos’ that I don’t even find in the lexicons or anywhere, from what I have encountered.”

 

Well, if the point you mention about angels and men also being designated “elohim/theos” were all we had to go by, you’d have a great argument that most could rally around. But that’s the typical problem. There’s usually more to it than that. For example, of whom among the others does the bible say that all things with no exceptions came into existence through him? Yet it says that about the Logos.

 

In fact, did you know that the WT says that Jehovah is true God “by reason of his Creatorship”? They do…Insight Vol. 1, page 969.  So as we look at the context where the Logos is called “theos”, guess what we find immediately after the term is applied to him? You bet, we are immediately told that all things came into existence through him without a single exception!  Do you think this was pure co-incidence? Not on your life! That’s what you call paying attention to the context, Wrench.  The WT switches lexical definitions of “theos” simply on the basis of a referential change, and that is flat wrong. Whereas the Orthodox view retains a consistent lexical definition of “theos” both times it occurs in John 1:1, but we recognize an APPLICATIONAL difference…the application is qualitative in 1:1c…like saying in English “he is Greek” when you want to put the emphasis on his unique nature.  What unique nature?  The unique nature that makes God God and nothing else. The unique nature that distinguishes the Creator from all creation. That is how we take 1:1c, and that distinction from all creation is immediately borne out in the context (John 1:3). It’s one thing to TALK about paying attention to context, it’s quite another to actually do it.

 

You say of John 1:2 that it’s a reiteration of what has already been stated, and you think the most natural way to view it is that the Logos was a different person than God. Well, try this: The logos is a different person from the entity that is CALLED God in 1:1b, but since the lexical meaning is true God in 1:1b, a consistent meaning would likewise identify the Logos as God. As Professor Harner had said and the WT forgot to quote:

 

“This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”(JBL, Volume 92, No.1…March 1973, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns…Philip B. Harner)

 

Now notice, Wrench, the definition of theos remains the same with the Greek Scholar, even though the referent switched to ho logos…he says “no less than”.  This is the scholastic source the WT appealed to, and yet they did not mention this. By appealing to this scholar the Watchtower has testified to his credibility, have they not?

 

After quoting John 1:3 you say:

 

“This is the phrase that the trinitarian claims unequivocally that the Logos was the Creator, but, it would seem that conclusion would stem back to what the other two verse have already said and the natural way to view them. Coming into verse three, it would be entirely natural to view the Logos as a different person than the God that he was with. And since both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars would agree that the Logos is put into the position of the “intermediate agent”, it would seem to follow with the natural understanding that the Logos was a different "theos" than Almighty God. (ho theos)”