God the Son:  Hands-on Creator of all things!

 

 

Hello Wrench.  Yes, I do agree that it's time to refocus our attention on the main points most relevant to our discussion. This means that I'm not going to intersperse in this letter, though from time to time I may paste something in for consideration. I didn't realize that we were over 330 pages in Microsoft Word... but as I was going back through to proof-read and edit, I thought I was never gonna get to the end of it, ha!  As Dave Sherrill said, "them's a bunch of words"... J

 

I will focus on three main points in this letter. Revelation 3:14, John 1:3, and Col. 1:15-17.

 

We are pretty much finished with Rev. 3:14 as far as the Lexical context is concerned. There remain a few points to settle. First we saw that the meaning you contend for is not well supported in the Lexicons. Only one that I could find acknowledged that the "first in the series" meaning is "linguistically possible" at Rev. 3:14 (BAGD), and yet their scholarly opinion is that the orthodox meaning is to be preferred. Certainly commentators acknowledge that the word "arche" can and does mean "first in the series", but none that we've seen so far, nor any of the lexicographers have indicated that they think it means that at Rev. 3:14.  I reminded you that this is logically difficult for you. How do you take advantage by pointing to their credibility when they say your meaning is "linguistically possible", but reject the same credibility when the source adopts a different meaning.

 

Your response to this was first to claim that all my sources were trinitarians, which was proven wrong. Grimm/Thayer was overseen by one who was probably a unitarian (Thayer), and another who was definitely a unitarian (Abbot).  We somehow crossed signals and got into a lengthy and somewhat ridiculous exchange about whether the sources were "biased", where you started off claiming that corruption based on bias was a probability in Grimm/Thayer. I obviously argued that this would be difficult to establish, and you say you took that to mean I was denying even the possibility.

 

This seems strange because in every letter I wrote, I carefully worded myself in the following manner "corruption based on personal conviction (bias)"…etc, which was in itself an acknowledgement of personal convictions. The question is whether their works were corrupted by such personal convictions (bias). I repeatedly reminded you that if you claimed "corruption based on bias" as an explanation for the poor support your view has in the Lexicons, the burden is on you to show such "corruption" right where you claim it occurred...in order to verify your explanation. Every time I reminded you of this...you would scurry  back to the possibility square again. Finally, though, you saw that you would eventually have to show specific examples of such corruption in order to verify your explanation.

 

The bracketed remarks in 3:14, as I've said before, most likely supplement Grimm's references, for Thayer says that whenever he brings a different opinion in, he includes representative discussions from both sides...and nothing like that appears here. You've tried to track down the references to see if they disagree, but so far you've not been very successful in finding what you're looking for. I've also reminded you that should one or more of the bracketed references indicate a disagreement or different opinion, it still would not prove that Grimm succumbed to his personal convictions (bias), for the info may not have been available to him at the time. And now in this latest response you ask if I know anything about the references, and if I'm "holding out on you", ha...I laughed when I read that.  No I wouldn't do that, Wrench, though I tried once to help you and got accused of being dishonest out of it J  What is the old saying, a good deed never goes undone?

 

Here is another example of you asking me for help, and let’s notice how you reacted when I tried to help you.

 

You ask about Abbot, namely “What exactly was the variant-verse notation that he contributed, and what would that have to do with anything doctrinally?” Thayer doesn’t elaborate beyond mentioning that these were the result of an investigation later given to “the learned world” and published in Tischendorf’s “Critica Major”. I know that Abbot was a very highly respected scholar in the area of textual criticism of the NT manuscripts, even though he was known to be unorthodox in his personal beliefs. Hence, then, I would aver that he probably went through Thayer/Grimm’s manuscript with the latest discoveries of textual variants or disagreements based on the interpretation of the same,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wait a minute, Ray, I think you are adding something there. Nothing was said about “disagreements based on the interpretaion of the same”. Your just inventing that. What was said was “variant verse-notation”. Nothing about “textual” variants or “disagreements” over them, it was simply “variant verse-notation”. Now, once again, I would like to ask. What does that have to do with anything doctrinally? How can you take from “variant verse-notation” that even Abbott agreed with the “source” rendering from Grimm. There is no way that “variant verse-notations” amount to what you want it to here. It sounds to me to be not much more than a variant on how to notate verses. Notation is defined as a system of signs, figures, or abbreviations used for convenience in recording something. It doesn’t have to do with text as much as it has to do with how the verse is notated when it is cited. It certainly doesn’t have to do with interpretation.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Ok, wrench, I don’t know how to switch the font color back to black for this little insertion, so I’ll just do it in blue with a slightly larger font size. Please notice that my very first statement in reply to you was: “Thayer doesn’t elaborate beyond mentioning that these were the result of an investigation later given to “the learned world” and published in Tischendorf’s ‘Critica Major’…I know….Ok, can you see that after making it clear what was “elaborated upon” by Thayer in the preface. I then said “I know”???  What does that mean? I thought that’s what you wanted me to do was share with you what I knew, I didn’t know you wanted me to go out and do your homework for you, or that you would accuse me of inventing something if I didn’t. 

 

For Goodness sakes,  Wrench,  it’s hard enough to find the sources you DO appeal to in the course of your presentation, than to go back out and research this stuff all over again just to keep you from accusing me of inventing something. I would think that you’d have been grateful for me sharing with you what “I know”, and that you would have taken that as a clue or something to work with in the course of doing your OWN homework about Abbot. Instead I get accused of inventing something, now isn’t that a fine howdy-do?  My time is limited too, friend. But since you did make the accusation, I went searching through my files,  and back to the Library, and so now I’ll try to provide you with the specific references I had previously studied,  information which had contributed to what “I Know”. When I said I knew that Abbot was a very highly regarded scholar in the area of textual criticism, you can verify this in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, published in 1950 by Baker Book House, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 4 & 5 under the entry “ABBOT, EZRA”….I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up by quoting a couple quotes so that at least you’ll see that I didn’t just “invent” what I know.  Here goes

 

“He was a scholar of rare talents and attainments. He stood first and foremost among the textual critics of the Greek Testament in America; and for microscopic accuracy of biblical scholarship he had no superior in the world…(please don’t accuse me of leaving out important info just because I’m trying to save a little time and effort by using the ellipis)…so I continue with the quote a little later in the article… “His most valuable and independent labors, however, were devoted to textual criticism and are in part incorporated in Gregory’s Prolegomena to the Ed. Viii. Critica major of Tischendorf’s Greek Testament; the chapter De versibus (pp. 167-182) is by him, and he read the manuscripts and proofs of the entire work. His services to the American Bible Revision Committee were invaluable.  The critical papers which he prepared ON DISPUTED PASSAGES were uncommonly thorough, and had no small influence in determining the text finally accepted. His defense of the Johannnean authorship of the fourth Gospel (the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; External Evidences, Boston, 1880; reprinted by his successor in the Harvard Divinity School, J. H. Thayer, 1888) is an invaluable contribution to the solution of that question.”

Ok, I hope that helps you to see that I didn’t just invent something about Abbot or pull it out of “thin air”.  And now I’ll quote one of his footnotes in his defense of the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel so that you can see his particular area of expertise firsthand,  remember now…this is just one example from one of his footnotes: Here goes:

 

“It may be satisfactory to refer here also to the places where this expression occurs in some other writers, who have been erroneously cited as authorities for monogenes theos in John 1:18.  See pseudo-Ignat. ad Philad. C. 7 (the larger recension): Const. Apost. Iii. 17; v. 20; vii. 38, 43; viii. 7, 35; Arius. Ap. Athanas. De Syn. C. 15, Opp. I. 728e, but not ap. Epiph. Haer. Lxix. C. 6. Opp. I. 73^rd, pleres theos, monogenes; Asterius. Ap. Athanas. De Syn. C. 18, p. 732b; Eunomius, Expos. Fid. C. 3. And Apol. cc. 15, 21, 26 (ap. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Tom. Viii.); Greg. Naz. Epist. 202, ad Nectarium, Opp. Ii. 168e;  Gaudentius, Serm. Xixl, in Migne’s Patrol. Xx. 990b; Ferrandus, Epist. Iii. Cc. 2, 7, 9-11; v. 2, 5; vii. 12; in Migne, lxvii.”

OK, Wrench, this should help you to see that my “aver” was not something I just invented. I knew what he did best, and made my judgment accordingly. In castigating me you say you looked up the word “notation”, but did you look up the word “variant”? That might have helped. Or better yet “variant verse”, J. So since you broke into the middle of my paragraph, I’ll allow it to take back off and I may have something more to add a little further down in your complaint. Here goes the rest of my paragraph now:

 

or other new discoveries that may bear on the meaning of the NT text. Interestingly he mentions that his investigation was published in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s “Critica Major”. I know that Dr. Tischendorf was the finder of the Sinaiticus manuscript “Codex Sinaiticus” so named because he discovered it at at St. Catherine monastery on Mount Sinai.

As I recall he was part of a team sent from Leipzig University in Germany to the Holy Land to look for ancient manuscripts. While talking to one of the attendents at St. Catherines he noticed a couple waste baskets full of what looked like Greek manuscripts…he casually reached down and picked a page up and discovered that it was indeed part of an ancient bible writing on parchment (LXX). Years later he went back to get the rest, this time representing the Russian Czar. He suggested that the monks should donate as a gift to the Czar the rest of the ancient manuscripts they had. He showed them the published LXX he had recently done, and the monk replied “we have one of those too”…and quickly set before him sure enough a copy of the LXX, but guess what was with it? Yep, the Sinaiticus manuscript in Uncial script…I think this is the only manuscript that contains the entire NT. Even the Vaticanus is missing some. So, since this all occurred right around the same time that Grimm published his first edition (1840-1860), the study of that manuscript would be contemporaneous with both Abbot and Thayer. Both Abbot and Thayer were experts at other ancient writings contemporary with bible times. So, given his zeal for fighting against the Trinity, if he were aware of some evidence, biblical or otherwise, that either denigrated the orthodox view, or supported his own personal belief, it’s very hard to think that he would not have made that unambiguous.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Abbot never got the chance, Ray, that is all too apparent from what Thayer has to say about him. “Variant verse-notation” was surely not an avenue for correcting anything in regard to Rev. 3:14. And since we still don’t know what Thayer was, there is still no evidence that the Unitarian side of the fence was blown away by Grimm’s extra-biblical research. In all honesty, Ray, do you think that a Unitarian would be blown away by that when we all know that the most common meaning of the word was “beginning”? They would have to be Unitarian idiots to think that Grimm’s reference to some thing in the eight century bc and Clement of Alexandria would be so strong that nothing else could fit at Rev. 3:14. Do you really believe they wouldn’t have something to say in relation to the meaning “source” with such a glaringly obviously alternative that has all the scriptural precedent in the world? Do you expect ME to believe that? When I said that “bias” was probable in relation to Grimm, you automatically think that I am trying to say that it was an unfair prejudice on his part, but if you look up the definition of bias, Ray, it can simply mean a mental tendency. Now you can not deny that it was Grimm’s mental tendency or preference that caused him to choose “active cause” as his meaning because if he would have relied solely on the scriptural examples he wouldn’t have chose that option. It was his belief in the Trinity that caused him to choose “active cause” or “source” It was his preference or mental tendency, not necessarily his “unfair prejuduce”. I’m not saying that Grimm was purposely corrupting something, but I am saying that it was his predisposition, his bias in that sense, to the Trinity that caused to him to render it the way he did. Bias is not ALL negative, Ray, because you and I both have it, everyone does, to one degree or another, you just seem to think it is always a bad thing. When I said bias was responsible for Grimm’s rendering, I am saying it was his mental tendency because of the trinity that caused his choice to be what it was. You are making a stand against this bias comment because you think it means Grimm was corrupt. BIAS does not equate CORRUPT. If you come to appreciate that maybe we can put this dead horse to rest.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Abbot certainly “had the chance” and he had pen in hand. And now I’ve even shown you that he had the expertise to do so.  The one thing you can’t seem to fathom, Wrench, is the possibility that although he may (may heck, DID) disagree with the Orthodox interpretation of Rev. 3:14, perhaps he knew of nothing to legitimately counter Grimm’s understanding.  Not that he was ignorant of the “arche with a genitive” examples, but that he just knew they did NOT contain the same referents and subject material, and therefore they would not hold up against Grimm’s decision based on other NT passages that DO talk about the same referents and subject material, and DO indeed seem to back up Grimm’s entry. He doesn’t have to agree with Grimm, Wrench, but he does have to weigh the evidence he’d like to use and consider if it will hold up. See my point?  You are completely sold out on the “arche with the genitive” examples,  and so you can’t imagine how they can’t have influenced Abbot like they do you. The reason is because you are oblivious to the strength of the other NT examples that do contain the same referents and subject material. You know, one would think that the very fact that the WT Society hasn’t even used these “overwhelming” examples of yours would cause you to sit there and rub the hair on your chinny-chin chin.  Doesn’t that tell you something? How clear and overwhelming can they be if the WT Society didn’t even recognize their value?  Please try to focus just on that one point for a few minutes, ok?  If Stafford’s examples are so dog gone strong and overwhelming, why hasn’t the WT already used them?

 

So if you have a mind to get on Abbot’s case and call him a wimp, remember to apply the same criticism to the WT, for they’ve done no different than him, right?  You know, once a person has something cemented in his mind, it’s next to impossible to drag him away from it, it doesn’t make any difference HOW strong and unanswerable the evidence is. I think it’s just human nature. A man convinced against his will, is a man who will remain unconvinced still.  You say we still don’t know what Thayer was.  I stumbled across something the other day, Wrench, that will surprise you. You know I’ve got some pretty strong evidence that Thayer probably was a unitarian,  and nothing to prove or even strongly suggest that he was a Trinitarian. And so the other day I was glancing through a file of photo-copies I have accumulated of various relevant material, and came to a copy of page 28 of the Society’s brochure “Should you Believe in the Trinity”. Well, guess what I noticed? 

 

The WT Society actually quotes Thayer at the top of the page, then highlights that quote in huge print in the middle of the page. Here’s what the quote reads: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself”. Now from this we may safely conclude that Thayer was not a Trinitarian.  So no wonder he couldn’t sign the Orthodox Creed and remain on as a Professor at Andover. And almost immediately after resigning his chair at Andover, he takes over for the Unitarian Ezra Abbot at Harvard. Hmm…. Maybe you should try to find out something about this quote in SYBT and if you can get a copy (of the original quote of Thayer himself), send me one. I happen to have a copy of all the references in that brochure from the WT Society, and this one is listed as reference # 125, and reads as follows:  “Joseph Henry Thayer’s personal copy of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer’s handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved.”  So this pretty much settles the issue for us as to whether he was a Trinitarian or not, wouldn’t you say? Ok, let me continue on with my own original answer to you about Abbot. Here goes:

 

Years ago I found and photocopied several pages of Abbot’s “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel”, and he was quite vocal in his denial of the Trinity. It’s also important to understand the he and Thayer were friends and neighbors, so to speak, being professors at nearby Colleges…hence there may have been some influence there as well. So although you may think he was “sounding a little wimpy when it comes to standing up for what he believed”, perhaps the real explanation is that the evidence he needed just wasn’t there for Rev 3:14.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That is just ridiculous, Ray. The scriptures ar FULL of examples where “arche” means “beginning”. It is full of examples, as Barnes pointed out in his examples, where arche followed by a genitive carried the meaning of “beginning”. What, pray tell, was the lack of EVIDENCE? There was evidence galore to give “arche’ another meaning at Rev. 3:14. Any novice Unitarian student could figure that out. If Thayer was a Unitarian, he truly dropped the ball, unless those references reveal something redeeming in his favor) And if Abbot would have had the opportunity to go through Grimm’s work and add his “remarks”, which he didn’t, I think we would have seen something from him concerning Rev. 3:14.

You know that I have been looking for these references high and low, Ray. Do you know what they are? If so, why don’t you share them with me? If you don’t and I can’t find them, then I’m afraid they are not going to be pertinent to our discussion if we can’t access them.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

 

In the absence of specific examples of corruption based on personal conviction, you cited a couple Commentaries (Barnes and Beckwith) which also acknowledge the “first in the series” meaning for the word “arche”,  yet both of them adopted a different meaning from yours…explaining that the New Testament elsewhere ruled out the meaning you contend for. I pointed out that this is logically difficult for you to “cash in on”, for how can you point to the credibility when a scholar acknowledges that your meaning is “linguistically possible”, and reject the same credibility when he adopts a different meaning.  You attempt to portray Beckwith as “struggling” with terms (source…instrument…agency), yet I showed where we do not struggle with such terms at all.  They make perfectly good sense within the framework of the Trinity. Christ is the “agency of true Deity” or “intermediate” in the creation of  “all things”, and He was this “intermediate agency” NOT from the standpoint of being ultimately an original creature, but as a member of the Godhead (Jehovah)…as depicted for us in John 1:1c through 1:3.

 

When examining these two Commentaries I discovered that they both identify Jesus as the Alpha & Omega of Rev. 22:12-13, and Barnes was specific in showing from this the “originator” meaning for “arche”.  You pointed to the Grimm/Thayer lexicon, saying that even Grimm lists 22:13 as “first in a series”, which of course would have you do some “fancy” interpretation to keep from suggesting that God the Father is a creature, ha.  However, Grimm elsewhere affirms the Almighty God as the source.  He just doesn’t think it has that emphasis in 22:13. And Barnes elsewhere affirms that Christ was the originator of all creation, but doesn’t see that emphasis at 3:14. Interestingly the WT Society agrees with Barnes in 22:13, for note what they say in the “Aid” book page 666

 

 

 

“As the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13), he brings to a successful conclusion that which he begins. (Rev. 1:8; 21:5, 6)”

 

Now we might wonder how the Alpha & Omega could be thought of (by Grimm) as the “first in a series”, and I would suggest that such a comparison simply compares things in existence.  Hence, of all things in existence, the Alpha & Omega was first.  This does not mean or make the Alpha & Omega a creature, for the comparison is not restricted to things that have come INTO existence, but only things IN existence. However Barnes and the WT Society see this as having the originator meaning. And I’m sure you know, Wrench, that we will go into the identity of the Alpha & Omega at some point, for it will likewise be decisive in our discussion.

 

You accuse me of “exaggerating” in my reply to your claim that the Orthodox interpretation of 3:14 is “unprecedented”, and then immediately confess that you have a hazy comprehension of the terms I used.  Obviously the confession casts a shadow across your accusation.  I have no motivation to “get more Greek on  you”,  as you put it, but I do have a desire to make sure you understand the points I’m trying to make. When something is predicate or predicated it means its being verbalized, whether the verb is present or implied. When something is “attributive”, it’s something attached or something he or she or it is called. This difference is bedrock in understanding the NT Greek, and is learned in the first semester. Many Greek idioms rely on one or the other of these. The usual example used to aid the initial understanding is the following in English; there is a difference between saying “the word is good” and “the good word”, the first is verbalized and makes a direct statement about the word (predicate), and the second is “referred” or “attributed”…or “called”; The attributive is saying “not just any word, but the GOOD one.

 

The term apposition refers to a phrase placed in concurrence with a preceding phrase…and supplements or adds to…or is a further extension or description of the preceding phrase. The genitive case is sometimes used like this (epexegetic).

 

There was no exaggeration, Wrench.  In fact you may have been tempted to accuse all the scholars through the centuries of being “biased” against your view, for Stafford’s examples of “arche with the genitive” have created nary a ripple in the scholarly community when it comes to the interpretation of Rev. 3:14.  But the one thing that discouraged you from making such an accusation was the fact that the WT Society also has not used these examples to support their view, which of course is the same as yours.  Thus you saw that it would not be “feasible” to make such an accusation, and the best you could do was convince yourself and argue that it was simply unknown and undiscovered until Stafford…etc.  However, the more we look into this, we discover that these scholars were not unaware of these examples (note Barnes and Beckwith), but were not impressed by them.  In other words, they did not think such examples negated the clear teaching of the N.T.

concerning the SAME referents and subject material. 

 

Passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17 were considered to be much more determinative and decisive in the matter. As I explained very early in our discussion, Wrench, these contain predicate statements about the same referents and subject material.  And the fact that the WT Society has not used them (Stafford’s examples) in the past limits your ability to credibly accuse your opponents of anything sinister. So when I say your priorities are wrong, I am agreeing with the reliable scholarship throughout the centuries who have likewise  regarded John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17 as being the decisive factor at Rev. 3:14.

 

 

John 1:3

 

Both John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17 stand as obstacles to your interpretation of Rev. 3:14 because of the precise language that they use. In order to discuss this I think it would be better if we have the first three verses of John 1 before us. So I will quote them here from the NWT…

 

1.       In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

2.       This one was in [the] beginning with God.

3.       All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

       What has come into existence.

 

Now at the beginning of our correspondence I had no idea what was in Greg’s book, and only had the bible and my previous experiences with JWs to go by. Your first attempt to explain this passage was, as I now know, to adopt an explanation set forth by Stafford on pages 315-320 of his book. You had apparently become convinced that this explanation was to be “preferred”.

 

The problem for anyone who claims that Jesus was the first of Jehovah’s creations is twofold in this context. First is the failure to mention or even imply a “coming into existence of the logos” in an otherwise fairly comprehensive and specifically relevant context,  and second is the generic and unambiguous language that appears in verse 3, language which if taken naturally would seem to rule out such an idea. Not only does it say that all things came into existence through him, but it then says that there was nothing that ever came into existence that didn’t do so through him, not even one. Obviously, if everything that came into existence did so through him, how could it be said that he himself came into existence?

 

I’m going to have to digress a little here, Wrench.  Now that we understand the problem JWs are confronted with in this passage, your initial explanation was to connect up the beginning of Genesis 1:1 with the beginning referred to in John 1:1,  and THEN take the  “all things” of verse three in a controlled sphere, thus allowing for the coming into existence of some things before the “all things”…it being believed that Genesis 1:1 restricts itself to just the physical creation. Such a view would then have John saying “all things after Christ came into existence”, came into existence through him…with no exceptions. This was thought to at least account for the “no exception” clause.  When you presented this as an explanation, my first reaction was to try to find out what the Watchtower’s official position or order of creation was. That is when I determined that your explanation was not in agreement with that order, and so I pointed it out to you.

 

You then replied that this was your “preferred” view, and you obviously were not very comfortable with the WT Society being included in the mix. But I was having none of that, because I am quite familiar with the hierarchical structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and knew full well that the “Slave” is considered God’s Authority on such matters…in fact God’s ONLY Authority on earth.  So if this was their official position and you were out of step with it, this would have to be resolved.  I did have a hunch that you were probably following Stafford here, but without his book on hand, the best course for me was to ask you to resolve this discrepancy.

 

You came back complaining at first because I had brought the WT Society into it, and then you admitted that your “preferred” explanation reflects a departure from the WT’s previous position, but in an obvious attempt to carry water on both shoulders, you indicated that although you preferred to connect the two beginnings (made better sense to you),  you didn’t want me to get the idea that you couldn’t defend the other explanation…(so far so good?)  You offered a rather unclear quotation from the “Knowledge” book that you thought justified a new way of looking at John 1:1.  At this point we might wonder why you or any other JW would be looking for another explanation from the established one? I think it is obvious that there was some dissatisfaction with the WT’s official order of creation, because it “complicated” the rank & file’s understanding of verse 3.

 

After receiving Stafford’s book, I quickly discovered what was going on. Think about this, Wrench.  If Stafford was completely satisfied with the WT’s official order of creation, it seems reasonable that he would have jumped on it like stink on you know what, and you couldn’t have separated him from it with a crow-bar. But when he voluntarily looks around for another explanation, we can be sure that there must have been some dissatisfaction on his part with the previous explanation of John 1:3.  Be that as it may, you’ve now come full circle, and you have decided to skedaddle back to Seattle, with a renewed appreciation for the WT’s official position. So now you are no longer claiming that the “all things” of John 1:3 is  restricted to “only the physical creation”,  and this of course means that you are no longer denying that the “all things” of Col. 1:16-17 is the same as the “all things” of John 1:3.

 

Since receiving Greg’s book, I’ve continued to look through WT literature and have discovered that the order of creation presented in both the Aid and Insight Volumes has actually been the WT’s view at least as far back as 1927 when J.F. Rutherford published “Creation”.  The same order is presented in the 1941 publication “Children”, so you were definitely correct in recognizing this as their official view. I am curious about one thing, though.  When I asked you to check and clear up whether the WT was intending in the Knowledge book to repudiate their previous order, you immediately balked and suggested that they didn’t mean to do that.  I’m still curious to find out, Wrench, for Stafford presents the view gathered from the Knowledge book as the “Witnesses’ present understanding” (JWD 316), for notice what he says:

 

“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 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)”  The reason the Witnesses at one time thought John 1:1 was referring to the origin of the Word was because of the use of arxn (arche, ‘beginning’) in Revelation 3:14 and the LXX of Proverbs 8:22.  However, the entire context of Genesis 1:1 shows that the creation of the physical universe is in view, not the creation of the heavens where God resides, nor his heavenly creatures, and thus it does not refer to a so-called ‘absolute beginning of time.’ The heavenly hosts had apparently already been created some time prior to Genesis 1:1 (and, hence, John 1:1 as well),…”

 

Note Stafford’s words above “can be gathered from the following”…what does he mean by that?  When he says “…the Witnesses’ present understanding”, is he speaking for all Witnesses?  Well, he’s not speaking for you any longer for you’ve returned to the previous understanding.  But if per chance he is indeed speaking for all Witnesses, then you are at the present time in error.  I would think that you’d want to clear this up yourself. I know I would if I were in your shoes. I hope you can see why I’m emphasizing this.

 

Now let’s consider the passage and perhaps we may discover what it was that induced Stafford to adopt a different explanation, and also what induced you to accept that different explanation as your “preferred” view. In setting forth this explanation, Wrench, you point out that there is nothing unnatural about your interpretation. Is that true?

 

Let’s compare your explanation with the Orthodox explanation to see which of them gives the best account of itself in light of the information in the text. First the passage says in verse 3,  “all things came into existence through him…”,  and how do you explain this? You say “this means all things AFTER the logos was created”,  but then the question comes up, well just where does it say in this context that the logos had a beginning or was created? Immediately we see the problem. In order to understand the “all things” as referring to everything after the creation of the logos, the coming into existence of the logos must first be assumed.  Then you arbitrarily decide to take the “all things” as following the assumption. However, if your position requires you to assume the conclusion at the outset, it cannot be rightfully regarded as the “natural” meaning of the words. Especially since the Orthodox conclusion can be reached strictly from the information in the text, and does NOT need to be assumed.

 

Your explanation is an example of faulty deductive logic. Deductive logic begins with the conclusion, then interprets the evidence in agreement with that conclusion, then returns to the conclusion with a satisfied mind.  In full contrast, the Orthodox view can be reached strictly from inductive logic. Inductive logic moves strictly from the evidence to the conclusion, and in John 1 the Orthodox conclusion that Christ was not the first creature results naturally from the clear words of verse 3,  “all things came into existence through him…and without him did not even one thing come into existence…” So, since no restrictions are present in the text, we give them the generic meaning, and we deny any exceptions because that is what it says. So all things without a single exception requires the conclusion that the logos was not that first thing, for IT came into existence through him! 

 

So there’s no way to legitimately argue that your explanation results from a “natural” understanding of the words in the text, if you are required to assume the conclusion in the first place, and you are. This defective procedure is called “begging the question”, or making what you would prove, the presupposition of your exegesis. It is therefore exceedingly obvious that the Orthodox interpretation gives the best account of itself from the information in the text, and it doesn’t have to “assume” its conclusion at the outset, and therefore has a much better claim to a natural understanding of the words.  It is therefore the superior explanation.

 

You see, friend, that is why Stafford has abandoned this “old interpretation” and traded it for the new.  He knew that it is simply ridiculous to try to convince himself that by assuming the conclusion at the outset, this view is still a natural understanding of the words in the text. But what does Stafford see as an “improvement” over the old view?  Ah, well, he sees that the begging of the question in this new view isn’t nearly so obvious and is somewhat hidden by the apparent ability to account for the “no exception” clause. Yet, when you get right down to it, even the new view requires him to assume the coming into existence of the logos, even if he restricts the “all things” of verse 3 to just the Physical universe…for he still can’t find in the text of John 1 the coming into existence of the logos,  and so it must still be assumed,  and he must still arbitrarily claim that “all things” follows the assumed creation of the Logos.

 

Now that we understand why the Orthodox view is to be regarded as the superior view in John 1:1-3, your plea that you only need the possibility is unacceptable. These words understood naturally, refute your view, and so it is your burden to prove that your view is required.  No possibilities allowed here, Wrench, if you leave these words to their natural meaning, they already refute the WT’s claim that the logos was the first creation.  So you can’t afford to leave it in that condition. Why? Because your view requires you to beg the question by assuming the conclusion at the outset. In contrast,  the Orthodox interpretation results from the natural meaning of the words AS THEY ACTUALLY  APPEAR IN THE TEXT ITSELF!

 

Now do you see why the scholars have all rejected Stafford’s “arche” arguments, and have instead taken passages like John 1:3 to be decisive at 3:14?  And the advantage John 1:3 has is that the information is presented predicatively, and has direct relevance to the same referents and subject material. It is a losing case for you, friend.  You seemed to foresee these problems with your view, hence your discussion about circular reasoning.  But the one thing your discussion failed to address was what I covered above. If one view must assume its conclusion at the outset, then arbitrarily take the “all things” in agreement with it, and the other view can be reached without assuming its conclusion, and reached strictly from the evidence in the text, the latter has a much better claim to adherence to the “natural” meaning of the words.  It is this advantage which has caused the scholars to see these passages as decisive in the interpretation of Rev. 3:14.

 

And it was the obviousness of this advantage that induced Greg Stafford to look around for another explanation. But as I said before, Greg doesn’t exhibit much enthusiasm in setting forth this “new idea”, and really who can blame him? He can find absolutely nothing in the context of John 1 that clearly connects up these two beginnings as you yourself at first attempted.  Look at the bottom of page 316 and you’ll see what I mean, for there he points to the context in Gen. 1, but does he show specific points of connection? Does he? You bet your bottom dollar he would if he could, and the only reason he didn’t is because he couldn’t.

 

Since you’ve returned to the WT’s official order of creation, to your credit, you try to defend the view that the “beginning” in John 1:1 makes reference to the creation of the Logos. This is of course presented by the WT Society in both the “Aid and Insight Volumes” (but Gregg Stafford rejects it). Let’s therefore examine this context to see if such a conclusion is warranted.

 

Now I’m not interested at this point in entering into a discussion pertaining to the best or correct way to translate 1:1c, for such if need be will occupy us at a later time. What we will do is take the verse one clause at a time to see if anything in there even remotely suggests a coming into existence or creation of the Logos.

 

Beginning with the first clause it reads: “In the beginning was the word”.  The clause starts with a preposition “en”.  This preposition can have a wide range of semantics, and may refer to a duration of time, or a specific point of time. For example the NWT renders the same preposition “at” in 2^nd Thessalonians 1:7, where we read that a sudden switching of roles will occur, where Christians who are suffering tribulation will receive “relief” and those who had been persecuting them will receive judgment “at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels”. Note that what will occur in an instant is the sudden switching of roles…hence “at” not “in or during.”

 

Now in your previous attempt to explain this passage you had taken the prepositional phrase as durative (period of time), but since you now believe this refers to the creation of the Logos, perhaps you may be inclined to understand it in a less durative sense. But what is actually being said in this clause?  To determine this we need to understand the exact force of the verb. Since I have no way to reproduce Greek characters on my keyboard, I will use a double “ee” to represent the “eta”, to distinguish this verb from the preposition. So we have the verb “een”, which is the 3^rd person singular, imperfect, of the verb “eimi”.

 

In order to understand the points I’m about to make, I have to make sure you understand a couple basics of Greek grammar.  Perhaps you will already be familiar with the following, and if so please forgive me for wasting time. In the present tense the Koine Greek does not distinguish between a meaning that is durative or a meaning that is punctular.  For example in the present tense the Greek does not distinguish between “ I am running” or “I run”, the former being durative or continuous (lengthened out) and the latter being punctular. Only the context can help decide the best way to bring it out in English. This is known as verbal aspect.  However, in the indicative mood,  in past time the Greek makes a sharp distinction between these two kinds of meaning (aspect). The difference is so strong as to deserve a different designation. So the imperfect tense is past tense continuous or customary, while the aorist is past tense punctular. So in past tense we would use the imperfect to say “I was running”, but the aorist to say “I ran”.

 

In other moods the aorist does not signify past time, only (aspect). So we must notice a couple important points about the function of the verb in John 1:1. In the first clause it merely states existence, but it is in the imperfect NOT the aorist. This suggests a manner of continuous or customary existence, as the next clause requires. So we read in 1:1b “and the word was (een) with God (ton theon).  Now a Witness doesn’t have any trouble understanding God’s existence as continuous or customary relative to the beginning, so it is instructive to notice how John builds his case here. He first states the existence of the logos as continuous, then further cements that connotation by making that existence “with ton theon”.  Do you see it, Wrench?  One can no more deduce from this that the logos had a beginning than he can that ton theon had a beginning, for there is just as much evidence for the one in this verse as there is for the other. Please think that through carefully.  In a moment you will see why I took the time to explain the difference between “imperfect” and “aorist” (verbal aspect). So as we move into the 3^rd clause we will find the verb functioning as an equative or copulative verb, meaning that it equates the subject with the subject compliment in a predicate nominative construction. I’m not intending to argue at this point whether “the Word was God” or “the Word was a god” is the right way to render it. Just note for now that “was” in the third clause equates “logos with theos”.  And verse 2 merely restates 1:1b.

 

But when we come to verse 3, suddenly a different verb is applied to the “all things”, a different verb than “een”.  Not only is the verb different in meaning, but this verb is also in sharp contrast to the “imperfect” of eimi in verses 1 and 2, and is “aorist” in aspect. Now what did we say about the aorist aspect? It is punctular and not durative.  So then, in verse 3 an aorist form of the verb “ginomai” is applied to the coming into existence of “all things” …this form is “egeneto”.  This is what is so overwhelming with the Orthodox view of this context.  Note the contrast, Wrench, between the “een” which had been applied to the logos in verses 1 and 2, and the “egeneto” (aorist) applied to the all things in verse 3.  Not only is the distinction maintained between the verbs, but also between the logos and “all things”.

 

So from the above, it should be quite apparent that there is no possible way we can gather a coming INTO existence of the logos from verses 1, 2, or 3.  I want you to look closely at the context of John 1,  Wrench, and notice that the first time the verb “egeneto” is actually applied to the logos is in verse 14 when it says he became flesh.  Do you see this?  Let me ask: Do you think the contrasting verbs and verbal aspects are just a coincidence between verses 1 and 2, and verse 3? Not at all. John wants us to know that ho logos is distinguished from ton theon, but not in the sense that he came INTO existence, for he portrays them both side by each …both relating in the exact same way to the beginning.  Whatever you think to do with the one, can just as legitimately be done with the other. If ton theon’s existence is continuous and customary relative to the beginning, ho logos’ existence is too. Why?  Because they are presented side by each and the same verb is equally applied to them both.

 

We should consider one more thing before moving on, and that is the force of the preposition “dia” in verse 3. This prep is here used with the genitive case and thus means “through or by” with the idea of  intermediate agency. So then, the logos operated as the intermediate agency of true deity in the coming into existence of all things. Obviously JWs would be inclined to take the intermediate agency as a member of creation performing in that capacity, but the context of John 1 presents an obstacle to such thinking. The main point in such thinking remains unexpressed in the text and must therefore be assumed at the outset, as we’ve seen above.  But the Orthodox view doesn’t have to assume anything here, and can be reached inductively from the info in the text to the conclusion, but the conclusion is something the Witnesses don’t want.  The conclusion is that the Logos did not come into existence, but simply as “theos” stepped into the intermediate role and operated in that capacity, NOT as a creature ultimately, but as a member of a plural Godhead…recall “Let US MAKE…in OUR image” (Genesis 1:26).

 

Now in your last letter you were still holding to the claim that the “all things” in Col. 1:16-17 was not the same as in John 1:3, but now you agree that that was wrong, and that they are really referring to the same thing.  But in my last letter I had pointed to a comparison of 1^st Cor. 8:6 with Romans 11:34-36 to show how the plural members of the true Godhead can be distinguished in one verse, and presented as Jehovah in another…by the same bible writer. Of course Witnesses cannot allow this for it undermines their whole case. But the protests seem lame. For example I pointed out that SOTB had tried to escape the connection by appealing to the BAGD which said that the prep doesn’t have to mean “thru” when applying to God the Father. But there is nothing in this context that restricts the application to the Father, for terms are used that are elsewhere applied to Jesus by the same bible writer,  and that with reference to the same subject material!

 

You of course disagreed with this, saying:

 

 “And there is nothing in the context to suggest that the Son is included in this either. It’s merely your wish that includes the Son, certainly not a necessity, so there is no reason to think that they were ‘melding’ something together here that was clearly differentiated elsewhere such as was done at 1 Cor. 8:6.”

 

Yes, there are the same terms here which are elsewhere applied to the Son, even by Paul. For example “Kyrios” is applied to Jesus in 1^st Cor. 8:6 and there the same preposition “dia” is also applied to Jesus concerning the same subject material!  In fact “dia” is applied to Christ in John 1:3, 1^st Cor. 8:6 and in Col. 1:16,  and every time with reference to “all things” . But I have a very interesting question for you Wrench.

 

We’ve already seen you switch from claiming that “all things” in Col. 1:16-17 is different from “all things” in John 1:3…to where you now acknowledge that they refer to the same thing.  Now I’d like to ask you to look again at 1^st Cor. 8:6 and notice that “all things” appears twice there in rapid succession. Would you say the meaning and reference is the same in each case?  Does it refer to all creation the first time? The second time? Hmmm….Please make sure to deal with this question, OK?  Concerning my point about Romans 11:36 you wrote:

 

“You have to keep in mind that in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, there are two in the context and only one in Romans. In both John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 isn’t it true that God is in the ‘active’ role where the Son is in the “passive” role? I don’t see a ‘passive’ role in Romans, but then my greek is poor. It is just God throughout the context, with no differentiation between the Father and the Son as there is in the other two examples of John and Colossians. Are you saying that Paul has to include the Son whenever he speaks of the Father’s role in our existence? I don’t think so. I don’t see any reason why he would have to do so and I think it is presumptuous to think that Romans 11:36 is a melding of what is stated 1 Cor. 8:6. Paul simply spoke of the Father’s role in Romans and he spoke of both the Father and the Son’s role in 1 Corinthians. There is no “weigfht” to your claim, Ray, it’s simply your interpretation and Trinitarians like BAGD would certainly not be biased against you, would they? You claim their estimation is an assumption, well, what is yours other than that? Nothing you have presented carries enough weight to overturn the natural reading of the ‘three’ different verses that touch on the relationship of Christ to creation as being the “beginning” and the “firstborn”, John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 included.”

 

First it is important to understand that I’m not offering this to “prove” the case, but merely as supportive evidence.  You complain that in Romans 11:34-36 only one is mentioned, however, that shouldn’t be much of a hurdle for you as a loyal JW.  In the Gospels when it refers to the faithful and discreet slave, it is presented as one…a single person. But rank & file witnesses don’t have any trouble accepting the WT’s explanation that it really refers to a plurality of persons. By the same token, you shouldn’t have a problem with this being a reference to a plurality of persons, especially since we can go elsewhere in Scripture and see how more than one person WAS involved with the “all things”.  See my point?

 

You further complain on the basis of active/passive, but the complaint fails to understand the perspective of Scripture from one place to another. For example, in one place we read where Christ was “sent” and “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death”, but in another place the same thing is referred to as Christ emptying himself, and taking on the form of a slave. So the same thing may occur in reference to the creation of all things.  In one place it may appear that Christ plays a passive role, such as in Heb. 1:2, but in another place we are confronted with a different perspective, such as for instance “Let us make…in our image” it seems more like a joint effort. So it’s difficult to prove or disprove anything from the perspective of Scripture. 

 

No it doesn’t mean that the BAGD is biased against me, after all we’re not running a cult here, so we all don’t have to agree with the prophet…or slave. We don’t believe God has picked out one earthly organization to speak for Him as his only spokesman. You see, Wrench, the bible warns us that if the blind follow the blind, not only the leaders but also the followers will end up in the pit. That’s why I’m willing to consider the opinions of others, but at the end of the day I realize that God will hold me personally responsible for the decisions I make as to what to believe.

 

But again let me remind you that I did not offer the above as “proof”, but only as supportive evidence to the natural understanding of passages like John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-17 and Rev. 22:12-13.  You point out that I took the BAGD’s estimation an assumption (it is), and so you ask “what is yours then”.  Well, if I presented it to prove my case, you’d have a good point, but since I didn’t, you don’t. All I can do is put the goods in the window and let the punter decide. So I’ve presented my case here for supportive evidence, I’ve dealt with your complaints, and asked you to make some comparisons of Scripture, and I asked you one good question. I’m willing to commit this therefore to your personal integrity to decide for yourself if I’ve presented a good case or not. Just please don’t measure it with the wrong yardstick, and remember that I presented it as supportive evidence not “proof”.

 

Next you make a nonsensical statement where you seem to have had a momentary lapse of mental coherence…note:

 

“There is a difference between make and create, Ray. I find it significant that that scripture didn’t use the word create. It was certainly available, wasn’t it? The Father created that which was needed for the Son and Him to make all things.”

 

According to the Watchtower Society the only thing the Father created was the Son. Have you thought of something else? Actually the terms are used interchangeably both in the immediate context of Genesis 1:26-27, and elsewhere in the bible. And the same interchangeable use appears in WT literature. Maybe a simple quote from the immediate context will convince you of this fact. So here is the way it reads in the NWT of Genesis 1:26-27:

 

26. “And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness…

27. And God proceeded to create the man in his image…”

 

*************

 

You rattle off a list of complaints about trinitarians and their interpretive ways, things that really seem to upset you. Let me just paste your words in:

 

“Well, that’s why we are here, Ray. The way I see it is when people have to appeal to the unprecedented or the remote options or to the unlikely to hold on to their doctrine time and time again, that would feel like a struggle to me, and so far, from what I have seen, that is what the trinitarians do over and over. When it comes to defending their doctrine they more often than not find themselves opting for an unlikely meaning or an unprecedented one altogether or for some remote explanation that doesn’t fit with anything else. I think that is called ‘special pleading’ their case. I wouldn’t mind if a teaching opted for a remote meaning in a case or two, I am sure that can happen, but it seems to me that this remote, unprecedented, and unlikely stance has to be taken many, many times by trinitarians to hold on to their doctrine. I don’t see them as allowing the scriptures to form their doctrine as much as they try to form the scriptures “around” their doctrine.”

 

I think I understand the frustration you feel, but most of your complaints are either subjective in nature, or discovered to be not what you thought they were when scrutinized. For example we discovered that what you thought was “unprecedented” was actually according to the natural understanding of the words of Scripture elsewhere in the New Testament. John 1:1-3 for instance where you had to assume the conclusion at the outset then arbitrarily take the info in the text in agreement with that assumption. Then when we examined the examples you cited for “arche with a genitive” we discovered that the one thing missing from them was the main thing, same referents and subject material!  No wonder you were so at a loss for an explanation as to why such “clear” evidence had produced nary a ripple in the scholarly community for all those centuries…even in the WT Society. See what I mean, Wrench?  We scrutinize your complaint and what do we find? The devil is in the details. But even so, you continue along, undaunted, in setting forth your litany of complaints.

 

You say trinitarians  “more often than not” adopt unlikely meanings or unprecedented one or a remote explanation that doesn’t fit with anything else. Well now, that’s a subjective statement if I’ve ever seen one. You seem oblivious to the fact that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Hence, what may seem “unlikely” to you is a sure thing to someone else.

 

 

With regard to Barnes’ notes and how he acknowledged the “originator” meaning in scripture for “arche”, you reply as follows:

 

“All I can say is that it is too bad Barnes wasn’t consistent. Too bad he is not around to ask him to clarify what he meant. But now, we have to ask ourself, was he careless in his explanation of Rev. 22:13 or was careless in his words about “arche” earlier. In my opinion, since he spent nearly two pages on his rejection of “source” for arche that he would feel his error lied in his explanation of Rev. 22:13 but, I guess we will never know without getting it from him.”

 

I’m not surprised that you would find Barnes in error at Rev. 22:13, and we will be getting into this passage before long. We will try to navigate our way through the confusion which has reigned among Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the identity of the Alpha & Omega through the years, a confusion not only among the rank & file in the field, but also among the leadership at Bethel.

 

Let’s now go into our discussion concerning Col. 1:15-17, but since I’m trying to follow your responses to me as we move through this letter, some switching back and forth between the main subjects will be unavoidable.

 

Col. 1:15-17

 

We had reached the point in our discussion about “prototokos” in Col. 1:15, where you had adopted a faulty thought process, not that you recognized it as such, but faulty nonetheless. Recall that initially you maintained the position that  the “all things” in verses 16 and 17 were different from the “all things” of John 1:3, where you had arbitrarily restricted the “all things” of John 1:3 to only the physical creation,  but claiming that the “all things” in the Col. Passage was “more extensive”. 

 

Your current position is that they refer to the same thing. Hence, then, since they do refer to the same thing, let’s also recall that in your attempt to explain the context of John 1:1-3 you have no choice but to assume the creation of the logos at the outset, then arbitrarily take the “all things” as only subsequent to that assumed creation. As I pointed out earlier in this letter, such a line of reasoning begs the question by assuming the conclusion at the outset, and such reasoning is illogical because it makes what you would prove, the presupposition of your exegesis. Now let’s see if you follow the same line of illogical reasoning in your explanation of Col. 1:15-17.

 

We read in Col. 1:17 that “he is before all things”. So the question is pregnant for Jehovah’s Witnesses: how could Christ be “before all things”, and still be a creature himself?  The Witness has no choice, he must assume that the “all things” here is not a reference to “all creation”, for if it is, Christ would have to be regarded as a non-creature at the time he was “before” the “all things”. But a better way of wording the question will help you to see what you really need to have already established BEFORE you assume the all things doesn’t mean all creation.  Consider this question about “he is before all things” in verse 17, how could he be “before all things” and still be a creature? How could he be “before all things” and not be God? The only way you can do this math, Wrench, is to regard him as the FIRST creation, not just taken apart from the category at some later time after creation began. Again, if was “before all things”, but wasn’t God, the only way, for you, that could be true is if he was the FIRST creation.

 

So, when you arrive at verses 16 and 17, it’s not enough for you to think that all you needed was to show he was “a part” of creation…no, you must have already established that he was the FIRST creation to account for verse 17. You appear to be thinking that all you need is just to prove that he was “part” of the category at any time,  then he can be assumed as taken apart from it (the math you do at verses 16 and 17. That’s why you are having a hard time understanding the point I’m making. Before the subtraction you do with the “all things” to claim it does not mean “all creation”, you have to account for how he was before “all things” without being God, and the only way you can do that is to assume he was the FIRST creation, then all OTHERS followed (hence the NWT’s rendering). Now do you see this? Hopefully you do now. This has to be an accomplished fact when you arrive at verses 16 and 17 (in your mind) to do that math you do. So is it?  Is it already proven that he was the FIRST creation when you arrive at verse 16?

 

Well, you’ve tried to prove something from verse 15,  but what WAS it you tried to prove from verse 15?  Did you prove he was the first creation, or just that he was “part” of the category?  Please think about it, Wrench?  What did you prove from verse 15?  Yet I’ve been trying to get you to understand that proving he was “part” of the category just isn’t enough for you.  Why? Because the Orthodox view can accommodate that and still maintain that he was not an original creature, but only dovetailed INTO the category later in history, So to justify your assumption that “all things” doesn’t mean “all creation”, you must first have already proven that he was the first creation when you come to verse 16, otherwise you can’t account for “before all things” and still keep him in the creature category.

 

If all you end up establishing from verse 15 is that he was “among creation”, I’ve already shown you how we can accept that without believing that he was an original creature. He was “theos” before “all things without exception” came into existence, but later after the category had run its course for quite some time, he entered or dovetailed into the middle of it, and took that nature of a slave (fellow-creature with angels Rev 19 and 22).  Hence, when you come to Col. 1:16 and 17 you do the exact same thing you do at John 1:1-3, you assume that he was the first creation, and THEN do your math.  You didn’t prove it from verse 15. See my point? The only thing you may have ended up establishing from verse 15 is that he was “part of” the group. Yet when you come to verses 16 and 17 you assume that he was the first creation, not just “part of it”, though you mistakenly THINK you have proven he was the “first” by the term “firstborn”. I hope from this you can better understand what’s needed for you when you arrive at verses 16 and 17, and whether you’ve really proven that or not.

 

So what you do in John 1:1-3, you also do in Col. 1:15-17. What’s that? You start off assuming the conclusion, and then arbitrarily make the “all things” agree with the assumption. So, in both John 1:3 and in Col. 1:16-17,  since you had to assume the conclusion first, you cannot argue that you’re taking the language at face value or “naturally”.  But the Orthodox view can be reached by assuming nothing and moving strictly from the evidence in the text to the conclusion that he, being before all things, was “theos” and not the first creation.  In both places, Wrench, the Orthodox view is demonstrably superior to your view. And you can’t claim that I’m just “asserting” it,  I’ve shown you why I say it. 

 

So when you deal with this, you’re going to have to really deal with the points I’ve mentioned.

 

At this point I want to remind you of the question I asked you to deal with earlier, drawn from 1^st Cor. 8:6.  Do you remember what it was? There the expression “all things” appears twice in rapid succession, so do you think it means the same thing both times?  Does it refer to all creation the first time?  The second time? What I want you to try to do is see if you can sneak your math in here, the same math you do at Col. 1:16-17.  Try it and see if you don’t immediately recognize the obvious arbitrariness in the procedure.

 

Now, continuing with our discussion about Col. 1:15-17,  I’m going to once again challenge what you THINK and BELIEVE you’ve established from verse 15. This is where I think you’re hung up. You really believe in your heart that you’ve proven from verse 15 that Christ was not only “part of” the category of creation, but that he was the “first creation”, and the reason you believe this is because you THINK “firstborn” proves that.  Here’s where you seem to have another lapse of mental coherence.  You can’t seem to get it into your head what it means to prove or establish something.  If only you could get this right, things would suddenly clear up for you like a bright spring day with nary a cloud in the sky. When you have LEGITIMATELY proven something, Wrench, it means that no other explanation is possible. That’s what it means…period!

 

Now then, if you are going to use the word “firstborn” to prove that he was the first creation, then I better not be able to find a single example where it doesn’t mean or emphasize numerical order, because if I do, there went your “proof” down the drain. And you need that here so badly…in order to be able to claim that you are following the “natural” meaning of the words used in verses 16 and 17. If you fail here, you have no choice, then, but to come to verses 16 and 17 empty-handed. Can you pass this test?

 

So I went to the bible and showed where this term doesn’t always carry the connotation of numerical order. And I showed examples that EVEN reveal the mind of God on the subject!  Remember where in Gen. 41:51 Joseph called his “firstborn” Manassah, and in verse 52 he called his second born “Ephraim”. So are we all set with this?  Manassah was first and Ephraim second.  So how does God view such matters? Look in Jeremiah 31:9 and we read “…For I have become to Israel a Father, and as for Ehpraim, he is my firstborn.”. Can’t you see from this that being the first numerically doesn’t mean a buffalo nickel to God, when it comes to applying “firstborn” to someone.  I’m going back through these, Wrench, because you didn’t really take these one at a time and discuss them.

 

Then of course, not to mention Jacob and Esau, we read in Psalms 89:27 that Jehovah would place David as “firstborn” most high of the kings of the earth. Again, David was neither numerically first among the sons of Jessie, nor was he the first king of Israel, but that didn’t deter God one bit, did it? Of course not, for in God’s mind “firstborn” doesn’t need to have a numerical significance. And as I pointed out in my last letter, it will not do to try to escape this from the term “placed”, for when someone is “placed” as firstborn he’s known as such, and Christ in his messianic mediatorial role was “appointed heir of all things”, and besides we can show another example of where “firstborn” doesn’t have anything to do with numerical order, nor anything to do with “placed”…etc.  So this response is bogus. 

 

Look in Job 18:13 and we find the term being applied to the most deadly of all diseases. Nothing about “placed” here. So such would not be a necessity anyway. You know what this reminds me of, Wrench?  It reminds me of a “spite check” in a chess game. That’s when a guy knows he’s about to be mated the next time his opponent gets a free move, but in the meantime he sees where he can check the other guys king three or four times first, so he whups the check on the other guy, and check again, and check again, until he runs out of checks…then it’s the other guy’s turn to move…and so he topples his own king in defeat. The checks didn’t really mean anything, and merely put off the inevitable for a few moves. However there was no doubt about the outcome in either of their minds. It’s the same thing here.

 

In my letter of December 1^st, 99, I presented the following piece of evidence to show how the term “firstborn” had gained a stereo-typed meaning that did not emphasize numerical order during NT times and the generations immediately following. And you completely ignored this and said not a syllable about it. So let me put it before you again and ask you to consider and comment upon it. Here goes:

 

“Apparently in NT times, as well as the generations immediately following, the expression "firstborn of...." became stereotyped.

POLYCARP studied at the feet of St. John, and of course John was contemporary with the Apostle Paul and inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Polycarp died in the year 155. But he wrote an epistle to the Phillipians and I just happened to stumble across this in Vol. 1, page 34:

Chapter VII--..."For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist, and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, if of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. "

 

Note that the subject of the idiom here is left hypothetical (whosoever) by Polycarp. Well then, what's happened to the time-element with the meaning of this title? It has dropped off, and is no longer the emphasis of the idiom. But what has remained? You bet, STATUS. Polycarp's meaning is exceedingly obvious to the most casual observer, Satan would be proud of WHOEVER would do this...like his firstborn son, ha!”

 

A couple of letters ago I quoted from the Watchtower Society to show how they agree that Jehovah cannot be pigeonholed or put on a leash as far as requiring Him to conform to human or finite terms as He does His thing. But you failed to comment upon it, so in my last letter I reminded you that you overlooked to deal with it, and you came back dealing with another point, but not the one I wanted you to face. This time I’m going to place it before you again, only I’ve found an interesting argument from Greg Stafford, presented by him in the same context we are now dealing with…in other words the following quote is RELEVANT to our discussion and subject material. I will first quote Stafford’s comments, and then the WT’s.  Please compare them and offer your comments, OK?

 

JWD page 277:  “The Bible uses human words that, to the greatest extent possible, communicate what is really the case with corresponding items/beings in the spirit realm. Thus, since we are not told that ‘firstborn’ as used of Christ in Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:6, does not convey the lexical sense of temporal priority, and since Jesus is not said to have been “placed as” or “given” the position of ‘firstborn,’ it seems that the best and most natural way to understand the term is to recognize what is true about a father and his firstborn son, and transfer the same sense to Jesus and his Father, especially since that is how they are described to us, throughout the New Testament.”

 

Now we have to give Greg his due here, he’s trying hard to convince us to be persuaded to accept the literal numerical sense to the term “firstborn” and apply that sense in Col. 1:15.  But NOW compare what the WT Society says about the same subject on page 597 of “Aid to Bible Understanding”

 

“By this means Jehovah God made it clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations.”

 

Again, please compare what Stafford says with what the WT says, and see if you can reconcile them, OK?  I’ve shown God’s mind on the subject, and just as the WT says he was not “bound” by “usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations”. How could anything be more clear than this? So, as I have repeatedly stated, when you arrive at verse 16 you have come empty-handed with regard to the necessity (for your view) to have Christ be the first creature. You are really assuming it again, though you THINK            you’ve proven it from verse 15. See my point now? Why is it necessary for you to believe he was the “first creation”? because of verse 17 “he was before all things”…so, how in your view was he before all things and was yet a creature,  if he wasn’t the first one? Think it over. How could he be before “all other things”, and still be a creature, if he weren’t the first one?

 

I’m already on page 24 in Microsoft Word,  I’ve noticed, so if I try to follow your other letters,  we’re going to end up with another book, and I’m sure you don’t want that any more than me. Besides, most of what appears in the extensions is my own typing with your comments interspersed. I believe I dealt adequately with your repeated references to “all things” elsewhere, and I don’t think your interspersed comments changed anything or requires me to revise anything. But if you disagree, just kindly point it out to me in your responding letter and I will gladly take up the point again.  What I don’t want you to think is that I’m skipping over anything to avoid them, because it just isn’t so. I honestly think I’ve covered the main points of our discussion, but I will continue on for a page or two and try to gather up any loose-ends. If there’s something I overlook, just present it to me again, and I’ll do my best to deal with it.

 

Now,  with regard to the questions and comments about the WT Organization, and Greg Stafford, and whether he and others have shown disrespect for God’s theocratic arrangement,  I profusely apologize if anything I said really offended you,  Wrench,  for that just is not my motive. I honestly believe these questions and comments, if considered without getting bent out of shape, will help you to see that attempting to maintain the WT’s theocratic structure and defend their teachings at the same time is an exercise in futility.  I see where, instead of giving me an ALTERNATIVE way of looking at things, you just simply cried “foul ball”, and I want to know why you responded like that?

 

 If you really believe in your heart that my understanding is wrong, then offer me an alternative to consider, ok? Don’t just respond “this is garbage” and leave it at that.  Instead say “this is garbage, here’s why this was done…or here’s what I had in mind” or “here’s why he wrote the book”…etc.  You see, Wrench, if you just deal with the point, instead of crying fowl ball, only then will you disabuse me of the way I’m seeing things. Don’t complain that it’s a waste of time, for it only takes a minute or two to give me an alternative scenario to counter mine…give me something else to think about, OK?

 

For example, are you saying Greg published his book because he was perfectly satisfied with the WT’s presentation of their case in their publications? Does that make good sense to you? See what I mean?  Come on, friend, what’s wrong with applying some common sense once in a while, and applying it to our consciences?

 

When I used the word “perhaps” before the quotations from the Watchtower, I wasn’t meaning to agree with you that these guys weren’t doing anything wrong, and you should have known that. I had two things in mind at the time. First, I wanted to acknowledge that “perhaps” the WT hasn’t done anything yet, and second,  I wanted to come across to you a little more conciliatory, hoping from that that you’d be more inclined to enter into my thoughts on what may be in the future with regard to the WT’s patience. But you seem to have completely misunderstood my use of the term, and that is unfortunate.

 

In another place you seem frustrated because as you’re working your way down through my letter, I’m not yet aware that you’ve switched to the other view about John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17, so you complain as follows:

 

“I can’t believe we are back to the “all things”/”physical creation” point. Can’t you see that has changed in this recent explanation?”

 

Not really, Wrench, because you were STILL writing the letter in which the “change” is revealed to me, and I hadn’t got that letter yet, because you weren’t through writing it yet, LOL!  This kind of stuff is no big deal, I get all cornfused sometimes too, ha!  Kind of reminds of the lady from Arkansas who, in writing a letter to her son far away, began her letter by saying “Dear Son, I’m writing this letter slow because I know you can’t read too fast”…J

 

And another spot that I found hilarious was when I had somehow gotten my cut and pastings all screwed up and mixed a couple paragraphs together.  Here was poor old Wrench, trying to figure where he stopped, and I started. When I read that, I lost it…laughing.  Oh, that was so funny.  You were certainly right, me and these word processors just don’t get along very well. You gotta hand it to me, though,  anyone who can type up 330 pages in three weeks is flat putting some time and effort into it. We don’t always have to be serious, Wrench, we can sometimes laugh at the situation.

 

I’m just gonna bring this thing to a close for now, and like I said, if I left something out that you’d like me to deal with,  just remind me in your responding letter and I’ll address it. 26 pages is more than enough at one time. So long and thanks, Wrench,  for hangin in, and Oh, by the way,  if you want me to send that stuff about Thayer, just give me a place, OK?  So long and God bless you, friend.

 

Ray Goldsmith

 

P.S. With reference to your additional referrals, first to Kittel’s,  That the “orginator” meaning is not clearly represented in the LXX is not a brand new revelation, Wrench. We’ve already learned that from the Lexicons. Yet on page 479 they cite a reference to the 8^th century philosopher “Anaximander” as set forth in Aristotle’s Phys., III, r, p. 203b to show an extra-biblical example of  “first in the series” meaning, but interestingly they missed another usage by the same Philosopher, from the same Aristotle’s that illustrates the “originator” meaning as cited by Grimm himself in the “arche” entry.  That I found to be extremely interesting. Also, they DO show an alternative meaning to “first in a series” in the LXX, namely “dominion or power”…a la Barnes, and NIV, which means that based  strictly on the LXX,  it cannot be established that “first in a series” is a necessity. 

 

Now Kittel’s does cite another example from Anaximander which illustrates a very interesting concept with “arche”, it is the concept of taking with the middle and ending as a circle of connotation, which immediately reminds us of infinity, a distinguishing characteristic of God. In fact they even cite a quote from the Greek which translates like this:

 

 “Arche de panton mia kai teleute panton mia kai he autee teleute kai arche”…in English “but the beginning of all things one also the end of all things one and the same end also the beginning”

 

 and what do we have but a description of infinity. This confirms Grimm’s reference to Anaximander beautifully for the “originator” meaning (from infinity).

 

While I was at it, I went ahead and read the entire article…and noticed some things that deserve mention. For example, on page 482 we read:

 

“In 1 Jn. 2:13 f. we have the masculine, but again without a noun, namely, He who was frm before time. With reference to Christ, this includes the assertion of eternity, for that which or he who was from all ages can only be that which or He who is included in the being of God. This gives us pre-existence in the strict sense”.

   b. This is even more plain in the parallel saying in Jn. 1:1f. Here, however, the term logos is used. In a Gospel it is almost impossible not to objectivise the It or He. The loaded term logos is an attempt to express formally what is said more exactly in 1 Jn. 1:1; 2:13 f. Here, then, that which is en arche is that which is ‘before’ all time, or, more correctly,  that concerning which no temporal statement can be made…”

 

And last, notice the following connection with Rev. 22:13, where they identify the Alpha and Omega as “God and Christ”.  Understand, Wrench, that the title “Christ” is a transient title depicting his Messianic role, and tells us nothing at all about his ultimate identity, but Alpha and Omega does! So note what Kittel’s says on page 484 about Rev. 3:14:

 

“It cannot be said with certainty whether arche is used in the same sense in Rev. 3:14. This is not unlikely in view of 21:6; 22;13.  The arche/telos statement in relation to God and Christ (…A/O) is wholly along the lines of philosophical usage…Thus in Rev. the One who sits on the throne, or Christ, is the One who is pre-temporal and post-temporal, to whom the categories of time do not apply.”

 

Next you cite Vine’s under the entry “beginning”, and point out that he mentions “first cause” but only cites Col. 1:18 and not Rev. 3:14 as an example. This is a no-brainer, Wrench. The reason he doesn’t cite Rev. 3:14 is because he know that there is a dispute as to whether it should be understood as “ruler” or “originator”, and so opts to cite an example which is not disputed. Makes sense. However, he’s not by “silence” trying to suggest any support whatsoever in Rev. 3:14 for “first in a series” meaning, which should be obvious to you since he himself is an Orthodox Christian. See my point?

 

Last you cite Strong’s Concordance, and specifically the Greek lexicon entry for “arche”. You say it doesn’t mention “source or origin or cause”, however although this IS an exhaustive concordance,  it doesn’t purport to be an exhaustive lexicon, but it does mention this it’s used in a wide variety of applications of time, order, rank…etc. Hence it may allow for a time BEFORE as per Paul’s statement in Col. 1:17 “he is before (pro) all things”, not that time was a reality before creation but merely that he (like the Father) was before “all things” in timeless existence (compare the two uses of “all things” in 1^st Cor. 8:6). A similar situation can be seen by looking in the KIT at Colossians 2:17, for there the Greek word “soma” is rendered “reality” by the anonymous translation committee, but if you look up that word in Strong’s lexicon, it doesn’t mention that meaning specifically, but just that it is used in a wide variety of ways both fig. and lit. At any rate, I don’t think we should assume that Strong’s lexicon intends to compete with the major lexicons we’ve already consulted, do you?

 

Well, I have to end this thing, Wrench, it’s really already too long, but I wanted to try to cover your inquiries and points. Again, if I’ve left something out, just point it out to me and I will deal with it. So long again, friend,

 

Ray Goldsmith