The following is taken from The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecies: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, eds. Michael Rydelnik & Edwin Blum, published by Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL 2019, pp. 739-746. All emphasis will be mine. 

Proverbs 8

The Messiah: Personification of Divine Wisdom

SETH D. POSTELL

Proverbs 8:22-31 has long been regarded as an important passage for the Christology of the Church. For many throughout Church history, this passage referred to the preincarnate Son of God, Divine Wisdom, who is the Father’s eternal delight and through whom all things were created. In modern times, however, the majority of Christian commentators have rejected the Christological interpretation. Bruce Waltke, in his recent commentary on Proverbs, states emphatically, “The notion that Wisdom is eternally being begotten is based on Christian dogma, not exegesis…. Augustine, Calvin, et al. erred in that they wrongly interpreted Wisdom as a hypostasis of God that they equated with Jesus Christ and not as a personification of the sage’s wisdom.”¹

The thesis of this article is that Prv 8:22-31 does in fact refer to God’s eternal Son, through whom the universe was created. The goal of this exposition is to invite God’s people to emulate the Father by joining Him in the delight of His Son. The first section of this article will examine how Prv 8 was interpreted in early Jewish and Christian sources. The second section will look at the place of Proverbs within the Hebrew canon and also set the context of chap. 8 within the book itself. There it will be argued that the messianic interpretation is substantiated by the innertextual testimony of Prv 30:4-6. The third section will offer an exposition of the passage.

THE PROMINENCE OF PROVERBS 8:22-31 IN THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

The prominence of Prv 8 in the effective history of interpretation, both Jewish and Christian, is amazing. Before looking at how this passage influenced the Targums and Rashi in their interpretation of Gn 1:1, it is crucial to recognize that Prv 8 has not only been interpreted, it is an interpretation. There is an obvious correlation between this portion of Scripture and the early chapters of Genesis. Most striking of all is the appearance of “beginning” (v. 22; reshit) in the opening colon of this poem. In Prv 8:22, the “beginning” chronologically precedes “the beginning” of Gn 1:1. In other words, if Gn 1:1 is understood temporally (“In the beginning”) then Prv 8:22 personifies this as One who was with God before the beginning.² The “beginning” One is with God before the works of old (8:22b), before the depths (8:24), before the heavens were fashioned (8:27-28), before creation.

Proverbs 8:22-31 has many other words besides “beginning” (reshit) in common with the early chapters of Genesis. 3 These lexical similarities indicate that Prv 8:22-31 should be understood as a poetic (and theological) interpretation of Gn 1:1. It is clear from the Aramaic Targums and Rashi that this interpretation was taken seriously. In fact, Prv 8:22-31 proved to be an interpretation so powerful that subsequent interpreters did not read Gn 1:1 apart from the interpretation offered in Prv 8.

The Fragmentary Targum (FT) likely preserves a pre-Christian interpretation of Gn 1:1, and reflects an understanding of the creation account informed by Prv 8. The FT uses the single word reshit in Gn 1:1 twice, once temporally and the second nominally. Thus, the word reshit is first included to mean “in the beginning.” Then, with its intertextual connotation connecting it to Prv 8, it is identified as the personification of wisdom. Therefore, the FT reads, “In the beginning (reshit) with wisdom (reshit = chochmah) God created the heavens and the earth.”⁴ This interpretation of the creation account has been noticeably influenced by the wisdom literature in the OT.⁵ There are many clues within the opening and closing chapters of the Pentateuch to suggest that such a reading is also consistent with the final composition of the Pentateuch itself.⁶

More remarkable than the FT is the famous Targum Neophyti (TN). This Targum, even more expansive than the FT, includes yet a third interpretation of reshit: “In the beginning, with wisdom, the Son of the LORD⁷ created the heavens and the earth.”⁸ To many modern readers, this extraordinary pre-Christian interpretation appears fanciful. Several lines of evidence, however, suggest that this Targum offers an interpretation that is attentive to the details of Gn 1:1 within the final composition of the Pentateuch and also identical to the interpretation of the creation account provided by the book of Proverbs.

There are at least four textual factors that support TN interpretation of Gn 1:1: (1) the poetic and literary qualities of Gn 1:1 lend themselves to a poetic interpretation;⁹ (2) rishonah, (“at first”) rather than reshit (“beginning”) is the proper Hebrew word for initiating temporal sequence in Hebrew;¹⁰ (3) the appearance of reshit in the poetic eschatological seams of the Pentateuch (Gn 49:3; Nm 24:20; Dt 33:21); and finally, (4) the interpretation of Gn 1:1 offered by the book of Proverbs. Rashi, following in the tradition of the Targums, refers to Prv 8:22 in his interpretation of Gn 1:1. He writes, “For the sake of the Torah [by the Torah] God created the heavens and the earth.”¹¹ Proverbs 8:22 left an indelible mark on the Jewish interpretation of the creation account. Proverbs 8 also proved to be an important passage for the Christology of the early Church fathers. Among the Church fathers who understood Prv 8:22-31 as a reference to the Son of God are Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Augustine.¹² Proverbs 8, however, was also wielded as a textual weapon by the Arian heretics, largely because of the Septuagint’s rendering of the Hebrew kanah (“possess,” “create,” or “beget”) as ktizo (“create”). The Arians used this verse to argue that the Son of God was created (see below for the response to this exegetical claim).¹³

… The book of Proverbs, throughout, praises wisdom and its importance in the horizontal and vertical directions (toward man and God). In the canon, Proverbs anchors Job’s pursuit of a mediator into God’s promises to the house of David. Furthermore, a great place of prominence must be attributed to Prv 8:22-31 within the Wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible. It offers the answer to Job’s pursuit: God’s firstborn Son, God’s eternal wisdom, is the mediator between God and men.

The book of Proverbs displays certain compositional features essential for interpretation. Sailhamer divides the book into four major sections: Title (1:1), Prologue (chaps. 1–9), Body of the Book (chaps. 10–24; 25–29), and Conclusion (chaps. 30:1-33; 31:1-9; 31:10-31).¹⁷ Brevard Childs calls attention to two important passages in the final composition of the book: Prv 8:22-31 and 30:5-6. Childs calls chap. 8 “the most striking development of the ‘self-revelation’ of wisdom (cf. Job 28; Sir 24)…. [I]ts hermeneutical effect for interpreting the whole book is worth exploring.”¹⁸ Childs further suggests that Prv 30:5-6, a passage rich with intertextual references, many of which are directly related to the coming Messiah,¹⁹ serves to ground wisdom theology into Israel’s Sacred Scripture.²⁰ If Childs has correctly identified Prv 8:22-31 and 30:5-6 as holding a place of prominence in the book, then 30:4 is all the more striking, for this verse binds Prv 8:22-31 and 30:56 together. Here, the hypostasis of Wisdom (chap. 8) is firmly rooted within the framework of God’s promises contained in the Sacred Scripture. “Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His [S]on’s name? Surely you know!”²¹ This verse, according to Sailhamer, is an intentional allusion to Prv 8:27-30, for the purpose of “raising the question of the identity of the One who is with God and who brings wisdom from God to the human race.”²² The answer is provided by the author: it is God’s Son, the promised Messiah.

AN EXPOSITION OF PROVERBS 8:22-31

Proverbs 8:22-31 may be divided into two stanzas. Verses 22-26 emphasize the supernatural nature of Wisdom and vv. 27-31 highlight the participation of Wisdom in the creation of the world. Several features of the Hebrew text suggest that reshit should be translated, not temporally (“the beginning”), but as a reference to the firstborn Son. First, several words are used in the Hebrew text, all of which suggest “birth” or “begetting” language.²³ For instance, though kanah is used synonymously with the verb “create” in certain places (see Gn 14:19, 22), it first occurs in Gn 4:1, referring to birth. The abundance of lexical connections linking Prv 8:22-31 with the early chapters of Genesis likely forms the backdrop for interpreting kanah in v. 22. Genesis 4:1 reads: “I have begotten (kanah) a man with the LORD” (author translation). This verse appears to mirror Prv 8:22.²⁴

In addition to the use of kanah, several other “begetting” words are also used in this passage. In vv. 24-25, the author uses the word cholal, “to bring forth, to travail [in childbirth]” (see Isa 51:2; Job 39:1; Dt 32:18). Another word that resonates with “child” imagery is sha‘ashuim (“delight;” vv. 30, 31). This word is used seven times in the Hebrew Bible, not counting the two references in Prv 8:3031; five times for the Torah (see Pss 119:24, 77, 92, 143, 174), and twice for Israel as God’s delight (Isa 5:7; Jer 31:20). Particularly helpful is the reference in Jer 31:20: “Isn’t Ephraim a precious son to Me, a delightful child?” This reference to a “delightful child” in Jeremiah may shed light on the enigmatic ’amon in v. 30. Though this is translated as “master workman” or “craftsman” in the HCSB, NASB, ESV, NIV, and NKJV, Harmut Gese convincingly argues for another translation: “a child sitting on the lap.” He writes:

The frequently discussed question of the meaning of ’mon in v. 30 seems to me to be answered best with the basic signification of the root ’mn (qal): “to hold on one’s lap.” God is imaged here as sitting on a throne in the act of creation while wisdom seated on his lap, as his child, shares the royal position (cf. wisdom as companion, Sap. 9:4), even the masculine form is explained in this explanation because it avoids an otherwise obscene idea. ²⁵

Gese’s explanation is consistent with the other “begetting” words in the passage. For the reasons mentioned above, and considering the innertextual connection to Prv 30:4, a likely translation of Prv 8:22 is: “The Lord has begotten me, the firstborn [Son] of his ways.” It is also worth noting that the word nisachti (“I was established” NASB) in v. 23 is used in only one other place in the Hebrew Bible, Ps 2:6: “I have installed (nisach) my king upon Zion, my holy mountain.” The JPS retains this royal imagery: “From the distant past I was enthroned.”²⁶

An important question any exposition of Prv 8 must tackle is whether or not Wisdom is created or eternal. To answer this question, it is important to keep the following in mind: (1) the LXX wrongly rendered kanah as “create,” rather than “beget,” causing the Church fathers a terrible, but unnecessary, headache; (2) this passage is a poetic interpretation of the creation account; poetic imagery must never be pressed too far; and (3) Wisdom exists, here, before creation. With respect to this third point, Franz Delitzsch writes, “[S]ince to her (wisdom) the poet attributes an existence preceding the creation of the world, he thereby declares her to be eternal, for to be before the world is to be before time.”²⁷ Finally, as Athanasius pointed out, it is inconceivable to think of a time when God was without His Logos or Wisdom.²⁸ For these reasons, Prv 8:22-26 must not be understood as the creation of Wisdom at a point in time. Rather, because Wisdom precedes creation, it must be regarded as uncreated, and, as a consequence, eternal.²⁹

The second stanza (vv. 27-31) emphasizes Wisdom’s unique relationship with God. Although these verses do not clearly spell out Wisdom’s active participation with God in creation, information provided in Prv 3:19 by implication informs this conclusion. The primary point of this passage, however, is not Wisdom’s instrumental role in creation. Rather the emphasis lies in the joyous exchange between Father and Son in the process of creation. In v. 30, Wisdom is portrayed as a child sitting in His Father’s lap, laughing, playing, and bringing rapturous delight to his Father’s heart throughout the creation event. One cannot but think of v. 18 in John’s Prologue (“in the bosom of the Father” HCSB footnote) where, as Gese writes, “there appears the description of wisdom on God’s lap, the ’mun, known from Prov. 8:30.”³⁰

The conclusion of this passage (v. 30) holds profound implications for those willing to heed Wisdom’s invitation (Prv 8:1-4). Not only does Wisdom bring joy to the Father’s heart, but for those who heed the call, Wisdom can bring divine delight to the sons of men (v. 31). The good news is staggering: by virtue of God’s Wisdom, the sons of men may participate in the delight of God!

CONCLUSION

Proverbs 8 provides a glimpse of the Father and His Son behind the veil of man’s finite experience. It celebrates the Father and the Son prior to, and throughout, the creation jubilee. This passage has played a formative role in both Jewish and Christian theology. It was foundational to a reading of the creation narrative as something much more than a solo sung by a lonely, apathetic God. Rather, God sang the creation song in Triune harmony, His Son laughing, dancing, and playing in His lap as each day unfolded. Although a Christological reading of Prv 8:22-31 has fallen on hard times of late, Targum Neophyti and the Church fathers correctly understood Prv 8 as a reference to the Son of God, the promised Messiah. Treier rightly says that the Christological reading “does not finally complicate the interpretation of Prov. 8 but presents instead the resolution of a mystery latent in the text.”³¹ This key passage points the way to participation in the Father’s delight for any genuine seeker of God. Those who desire to enter into this joy are invited, provided they can each answer just one simple question: “What is the name of His Son? Surely you know” (Prv 30:4).³²

1. Bruce Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), n. 104, 409.

2. “Beginning” being understood as a reference to the undefined length of time in which God created the universe. See John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1999).

3. See reshit (v. 22; Gn 1:1); shamayim (v. 27; Gn 1:1); ’aretz (vv. 23, 26, 29, 31; Gn 1:1, 2, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30); ‘al pney tehom (v. 27; Gn 1:2a); tehom (vv. 24, 27; Gn 1:2); mayim (vv. 24, 29; Gn 1:2); yom (v. 30; Gn 1:5); `asah (v. 26; Gn 1:7); yam (v. 29; Gn 1:10); ‘adam (v. 31; Gn 1:26); terem (v. 25; Gn 2:5); `afar (v. 26; Gn 2:7; 3:14, 19); kedem (v. 22; Gn 2:8). See also ma`yan (v. 24; Gn 7:11; 8:2); kanah (v. 22; Gn 4:1; 14:19, 22; Dt 32:6; Ps 139:13).

4. Miqraoth Gedoloth, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Pardes, 1957).

5. See, for example, Ps 33:6, Prv 3:19, and Job 28.

6. John Sailhamer cogently argues that the Pentateuch is a wisdom composition. See “A Wisdom Composition of the Pentateuch?” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, 15–35 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).

7. Some have suggested that “the Son of God” was a Christian gloss, but a careful look at the actual manuscript of TN proves this to be untenable. The spacing in the verse reveals (1) the da (“of”) is original; (2) the wa (“and”) was obviously a gloss that was later erased because it was not original.

8. Alejandro Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Tomo I, Génesis (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientícas, 1968), 3 (emphasis added).

9. On the literary qualities of Gn 1:1 see Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 6; Shimon BarEfrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984), 203; and John Sailhamer, Genesis, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 35.

10. See Rashi’s comments in Miqraoth Gedoloth.

11. Miqraoth Gedoloth (words in brackets provided).

12. See J. Robert Wright, ed., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, vol. 9 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 59–71.

13. Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, vol. 18a (Doubleday: New York, 2000), 279…

17. Ibid., 350.

18. Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 554.

19. Several key messianic passages are quoted and/or alluded to in vv. 1-6, including Dt 30:12-13; Nm 24:3-9; 2Sm 23:1-7; and Ps 18:50. See Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 16–31, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 474.

20. Childs, 556–57.

21. Prv 30:4 NASB (capitalization provided).

22. Sailhamer, NIV Compact Commentary, 354. 23. See Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 96.

24. “I have begotten a man, the LORD” mirrors Prv 8:22: “The LORD has begotten me” (author translation).

25. Hartmut Gese, “Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology: The Consistent Development of Biblical Theology,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 3 (1981): 31.

26. Complete Tanach with Rashi software (Brooklyn: Judaica Press, Davka Corporation, 1999).

27. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Pentateuch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 133. The phrase “before time,” is considered by some to be philosophically problematic. Perhaps a better expression might be, “before the existence of any created thing.”

28. Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” Discourse 1.24, Athanasius: Selected Works and Letters, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 320.

29. See the exposition and theological evaluation by Daniel J. Treier, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 44–57. Treier notes that those who argue for the language of creation see wisdom as created. This is also problematic since wisdom is part of the attributes of God and must necessarily be part of His eternal being (p. 49).

30. Gese, “Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology,” 54.

31. Daniel J. Treier, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, 51.

32. Author’s translation.

FURTHER READING

PROVERBS 30:4: THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE SON

Was Jesus a created being after all?

Jay Hess¹

The Jehovah’s Witnesses2 (hereafter abbreviated as J-Ws) hold to an Arian-like theology insisting that the Father alone is the One True God with the Son being Michael the archangel who is above all other angels. Angels, including Michael, are said to be gods, inferior to the One True God by virtue of their having been created. The Holy Spirit is truly God but is not distinct from the Father; “it” is God’s Power, sometimes on loan to Jesus.

Although the J-Ws have held to an Arian belief since their beginning with C.T. Russell in the late 1800’s (then called “Bible Students”) and have consistently taught their anti-Trinitarian views throughout their books and semimonthly magazines, they have rarely committed an entire publication to the subject³. In their 1983 book Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, which is used to evaluate candidates for membership and baptism, four of the 110 questions focused on ensuring their Arian stand. Their 438 page handbook Reasoning from the Scriptures used in their door-to-door ministry has about 28 pages devoted to refuting aspects of the Trinity. This is the closest thing to an official publication that defines what the J-Ws are to believe. As evidence that they are very misinformed about what evangelical Christians believe, under “Trinity” it says this:

“Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah.- Not a Bible teaching.”

Unfortunately this reflects the same misunderstanding in the mainstream Christian community. In one survey among 60 prospective evangelists in a Southern Baptist church, less than a third professed to believe the Trinity doctrine in contrast to holding to a modalistic view. So it is not a surprise that the Christian theology often heard on the doorstep reinforces the above J-W “Definition.” Sadly, the Christian public is the only source of information about Christianity that the J-Ws ever hear, outside of the Watchtower Society’s propaganda. It is commonly held by the Christian public that the Bible teaches there is only one real God; all others are false, imaginary. Likewise it is assumed that the term “God” is a name (due to the replacement of the unspoken Hebrew Divine Name with “Lord” or “God” – see Judges 16:28 LXX). Consequently, misusing the word “God” would be viewed as taking God’s “name” in vain. All this would seem to imply to the average Christian that a simple way to prove the Trinity would be to demonstrate to the J-Ws that the Bible calls Jesus “God,” the unique name of the only biblical God. One could use Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1. If that fails, use John 20:28. If that fails, use John 8:58. The average Christian assumes this approach should be airtight but J-Ws always seem unaffected. Why?

The average Christian has no idea of how J-Ws think. The J-Ws hold that the term “God” is not unique to the Creator for angels are legitimately called “gods” (Elohim – Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7). Of course Jesus can be called “God” (or “god” since Hebrew does not have an uppercase alphabet). The term “God” cannot be a name. It is a title. As every J-W knows, the only genuine name for God is “Jehovah.” To the J-W the argument is absolutely irrelevant to proving whether Jesus is the One True God. In their translation (the New World Translation) John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning the Word was, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This teaches them that “god” is not unique to any one person but is applicable to the Word who was with another God.

The most popular argument ever heard by the J-Ws is that connecting John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14. They view this as the most illogical presentation of all. God’s personal name never has been “I AM” or ehyeh (Hebrew) or ego eimi (Greek). In Exodus 3:15 God’s eternal name is clearly stated as being “Jehovah.” God’s name could not have been ego eimi for Jesus likely spoke Aramaic in John 8. When Jesus was asked if he had seen Abraham, if his reply truly had incorporated the Divine Name then what is the grammatical structure of this sentence: ‘Before Abraham existed, Jehovah’? It appears something is missing in this sentence. At best the Christian presenting this is viewed as a buffoon.

So what can one say to the J-Ws?

When you put a puzzle together do you start with the edge-pieces? Probably not, you start with looking at the picture on the box. While it is essential to use the right proof-texts – the puzzle pieces that go around the edge – in reaching out to the J-Ws; they cannot imagine what picture those proof-texts supposedly portray. They have been told mainstream Christians worship a schizophrenic God, One God who has three personalities and presents himself in three modes. They acquired this picture from the Watchtower and from talking to Christians in their door-to-door ministry⁴. The scriptures they hear do not appear to ‘fit’ the anticipated picture but seem to reflect a very confused Christian. Instead the J-Ws need to hear, at the very first, a biblical and simple statement that paints the overall picture in terms they understand.

The J-Ws already believe the Father and Son are distinct persons and that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father. Thus their view overlaps with the complementarian model rather than the egalitarian view. Of greater importance is that the Watchtower leadership has given them the impression that the JWs alone have this belief. It is a shock to their world-view when they learn that this is not true. When J-Ws ask if I believe the Trinity, I say “If you mean, ‘Do I believe the Son is a distinct person from the Father and is eternally subordinate?’ Yes I do.” Initially they think I answered “No” because my answer was not modalistic. My response does not fit in their world-view of the Christian public. If what I had said were indeed true, then the Watchtower’s claim would be false.

When they dispute the claim that evangelical Christians believe in the complementarian model I refer them to the book Essential Truths of the Christian Faith⁵ chapter 26 (“The Subordination of Christ”) by R.C. Sproul where it clearly spells out that Christians do believe Jesus is a distinct person eternally subordinate to the Father. Mentioning publications such as this to the J-Ws is very effective in challenging their belief system because it affirms a theological position they already have, yet exposes the Watchtower as misrepresenting evangelical Christians. From personal experience I have found this to be the single, most effective, thing to say to them. Instead of wrangling scriptures I spend the next few minutes attempting to prove R.C. Sproul actually exists and represents more than a handful of Christians

The J-Ws next need to hear an illustration of the aspect of the Trinity they find the hardest to understand, how three can be one. There are three useful biblical examples of composite entities. These illustrations are not meant to define the Trinity but illustrate that the concept is biblical and understandable. The first is found at the very beginning of the Bible:

1. The first couple lived alone in the garden. The two are to be viewed as one.

a. Genesis 2:24 – In the garden, two persons, the man and the woman, “became one flesh.”

b. Genesis 5:1,2:

• “God created man” (singular)

• “He made him” (singular) • “named them Man” (singular) Yet it also says:

• “He created them male and female” (plural)

• “He blessed them” (plural) • “and named them” (plural)

• “they were created” (plural)

Note that the first couple was collectively named “Man.” This was their original name for the woman was not given her individual name “Eve” until after her sin (in Genesis 3:20; see Genesis 2:23). The reference to “man” was interchangeable with “them” and included both the male and the female.

c. Genesis 1:26,27 –

• “Let Us make man” (=“adam”, singular)”

• “God created man” (singular)

• “He created him” (singular)

In contrast the same text also says:

• “. . . let them rule” (plural)

• “male and female he created them” (plural)

Again, the reference to “man” was interchangeable with “them” and included both the male and the female. “Man” meant “mankind.”

d. Mark 10:6-8 – Jesus refers to the first couple and after stating they were one flesh adds “they are no longer two.”

e. Romans 5:12-19 – In saying that sin entered humanity through “one man” it potentially suggests that the “one man” could also include the first woman.

These verses imply that in the creation account singular references to “man” include the two persons in the garden. This is unusual with the more common meaning of the term “man” referring to the primary person in the couple, the male (Genesis 2:21). Likewise, although the term “God” can on occasion mean “Us” and “Our” (“Let Us make . . . Our image . . . Our likeness . . .” – Genesis 1:26) likely the more common meaning is the “Father,” the primary person in the ‘Godkind.’

I then ask the J-Ws if they understand this statement: “In the garden was the woman, the woman was with the man and the woman was man.”

I ask them if they agree with this. Would it be correct to say “the woman was a man” or “the woman was the man?” No.

If one agrees with Jesus arithmetic that they were “no longer two” then how many “man” were in the garden? One.

2. Going to the end of the Bible and note the Bride of Christ. The semblance of one can really signify many.

a. Revelation 22:17 – The “Bride of Christ” is portrayed as if a single person who speaks.

b. Revelation 19:7-9 – The Bride dresses for the wedding.

c. Revelation 21:2,9,10, 27 – In reality she is a city full of people.

d. Ephesians 5:23-27 – The Bride is composed of the entire church – Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19,20; Luke 5:34,35.

e. 2 Corinthians 11:2 – Including the Corinthian congregation – the Greek ‘you’ is plural while ‘virgin’ is singular.

The first illustration showed how two persons were meant to be viewed as one. The second illustration showed how the appearance of one person is in reality a composite of many persons. This next illustration is found in the middle of the Bible (ironically this verse was on the cover of the Watchtower magazine for many years, through 1973):

3. Going to the middle of the Bible (Isaiah 43:10) to see God’s one servant, the nation of Israel.

a. “Witnesses” is plural. They are distinct and separate in their relationship to each other, able to offer independent testimony.

b. “Servant” is singular, collectively unified in their relationship to God.

c. Other examples where “one man” means many: Judges 6:16; 20:1,8,11; Nehemiah 8:1.

The ‘picture’ we are painting is that of a composite God who is often portrayed as a single Creator (Deuteronomy 32:6; John 1:1-3; Job 33:4) yet is composed of three persons (or Testifiers, distinct Minds; John 8:16-18; John 15:26; Romans 8:16,26). Just as some Christians within the ‘Bride’ have a subordinate role (1 Corinthians 6:1-6), within the composite God there is a ranking (John 14:24, 26, 28; 16:13-15; 1 Corinthians 15:28) and consequently some decisions are reserved for the Father alone (Matthew 20:20-23; 24:36 6; Acts 1:6,7).

Since the J-Ws are uncomfortable with the terms nature, essence, and person I use this as a restatement of the Trinity:

“Within the one God, the Maker of all things⁷, are three Testifiers, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

After drawing the above ‘picture’ one can fill in the rest of the puzzle with foundation scriptures focusing on the attributes of God that are clearly unique to God. Avoid discussing the attributes that the J-Ws dispute as being unique to God alone (names and titles: “God”, “First and Last”, etc.).

The J-Ws believe God has these unique attributes:

1) God alone is the Creator.

2) There is no one like God, or who can do what God can do.

3) God alone receives the highest form of honor, “sacred service” (latreia / latreuo – Matthew 4:10).

4) God alone is called Almighty.

Let us address each in turn:

==> God alone is the Creator. After presenting the three illustrations of composite beings above, ending with Isaiah 43:10 . . .

• Continue through the rest of Isaiah showing how God is unique, there is no other (Isaiah 45:5-7,12,14,18,21,22).

• Next show that God, at the beginning, made all things alone (Isaiah 44:6-8,24). Since the J-Ws acknowledge that Jesus made all that there is, this verse should really be applied to Jesus, not the Father. So who really did this making of the universe. If it was not Jesus, but the Father alone, then what is meant here?

• Reinforce that God made the universe all alone (see Isaiah 37:16; Job 31:15; Malachi 2:10; Acts 17:24,26).

• Ask “How many gods made the universe? Was there another god with the True God at the beginning who shared in making all things?” (See John 1:1 NWT)

Either:

1. There was no other ‘god’ present (contradicting John 1:1),

2. God forgot there was another ‘god’ there.

3. The other ‘god’ was so insignificant there was no reason to mention him (also an apparent contradiction to John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16,17; Hebrews 1:2,3)

4. As in Genesis, the one God includes another Person/Testifier who was with God (just as “man” includes another person who was with the male).

A similar but shorter presentation:

• Psalm 102:12, 15, 21, 22, 24-27 – God clearly identified as Jehovah/Yahweh. Yet Christians claim this is Jesus. Ask ‘Do not all Christian groups believe this is Jesus?’

• Hebrews 1:10-12 – Where Psalms 102:25-27 is quoted with the same activity being applied to the Son. (The WTBTS agrees this is Jesus – see Reasoning pg. 414.)

• Isaiah 44:6-8, 24 – Yahweh made all things by himself, alone. Was there a second god there? How many gods made the universe?

==> There is no one like God, or who can do what God can do.

• Psalm 86:8-10 – Among the gods/angels there are none like Yahweh.

• Psalm 89:5-7 – No one among the angels resembles Yahweh. See also Isaiah 46:9; 1 King’s 8:23,60; 2 Chronicles 6:14.

• John 5:18-20 – Jesus does everything the Father does, exactly as the Father does it.

• Hebrew’s 1:3 – “reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being” – NWT).

 ==> God alone receives the highest form of honor, “sacred service” (latreia / latreuo – Matthew 4:10).

• The August 1, 1991 Watchtower, page 9 (paragraph 7) says “Any who use Jesus’ name in their worship but fail to give the greater honor to Jehovah do not manifest a genuine love of the light.”

• John 5:23 – “in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” – NWT

• Daniel 6:26,27; 7:13,14 – The Son of man is to be given ‘sacred service’ – LXX Rahlfs ed. shows the textual variation with latreuousa.

• John 12:26 – Son is to receive “service.”

==> God alone is called Almighty.

• See the paper A Man Who Has Told You the Truth: Abraham and the Angel of the LORD in John 8:31-59 by Gunther H. Juncker (Assistant Professor of New Testament at Toccoa Falls College) presented on November 17, 2004 at the 56th Annual ETS conference.

• John 8:40 – When was it that Abraham did not seek to kill Jesus?

• John 8:56 – When was it that Abraham rejoiced (laughed?) to see Jesus’ day and Jesus saw Abraham? Did the Jews think Jesus was claiming to be Isaac (Matthew 16:13,14)?

• Genesis 17:1,15-22 – God Almighty announces the day of Isaac’s birth, Abraham laughs. • Genesis 18:1-14 – Yahweh announces the day of Isaac’s birth, Sarah laughs.

• Genesis 21:1-3,6 – On the day of Isaac’s birth Yahweh, the Speaker of Genesis 17:1 (“God Almighty”) “visited” Sarah (likewise LXX).

• John 8:58 – Jesus could not have been claiming to be Isaac.

• Jesus met Abraham face-to-face and spoke the truth. Abraham rejoiced with laughter instead of seeking to kill Jesus. Abraham looked forward to a prophetic day when Isaac would be born and the Speaker of Genesis 17:1 would return/visit Sarah. When it happened, Abraham rejoiced.

• The J-Ws agree that it was Jesus’ voice who was heard at Genesis 17:18.

• See Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56⁹.

• See Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) for John 8:56.

ENDNOTES

¹ Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 18, 2004 by Jay Hess (107 North Lakeside Dr.; Smithfield, NC 27577; 919-989-9485; jhess@nc.rr.com)

² Members of the WTBTS (Watchtower, Bible and Tract Society).

³ The only publications of any note are two booklets: “The Word” Who is He? According to John in 1962 and a larger brochure Should You Believe in the Trinity? in 1984.

⁴ J-Ws occasionally hear the doorstep illustration that a man can be a husband, a father and a son.

⁵ 1992 by R. C. Sproul – Tyndale House Publishers

⁶ My preferred explanation is that some decisions belong to the Father alone and have not been shown. What has not been shown is not yet known (John 5:20). Knowing can mean having a personal involvement with the thing known (Matthew 7:23). Jesus did not participate in sin so did not “know” sin (2 Corinthians 5:11-21). Jesus does not participate in some decisions that are reserved for the Father alone so those decisions are things Jesus does not yet know.

⁷ The J-Ws agree that God alone is the Creator. While they acknowledge that the Son made all things they are forbidden to call him “Creator.” So one should initially refer to the “Maker of all things.”

⁸ See WTBTS publications: The Watchtower 12/15/1968 p. 762 “. . . maybe you recalled reading something about the number of times that humans heard Jehovah’s voice. . . . you are referred to page 28 of Awake! of August 8, 1962. . . . you will find that there seem to have been three occasions when humans heard Jehovah’s own voice, and they were all when Jesus was down on earth. We read of these occasions at Matthew 3:17; 17:5 and John 12:28.” also see Insight Vol 2 p. 1160 (1988); The Watchtower 5/1/2000 p. 13, par 2; The Watchtower 5/15/1974 p. 298.

⁹ See Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho by R. P. C. Hanson “ ‘Moses is the first witness, informing us of the God who appeared to Abraham by the oak of Mamre . . . another God and Lord below the Creator of the universe, who is also called a messenger (angel) because he delivers as a message to men whatever the Creator of the universe wants him to deliver, the Creator above whom there is no other God. . . . he was one of those three whom the holy prophetic Spirit describes as men seen by Abraham?’ He said, ‘No. But God had been seen by him before the appearance of these three. . . .’ ‘Then,’ said I, ‘how is it that one of the three who was in the tent, who was also the one that said ‘In due season I will return to you and Sarah shall have a son’ (Genesis 18:14), appears to have returned when Sarah did have a son, and the prophetic word there indicates that he was God? Listen to what was explicitly said by Moses: (reference to Genesis 21:9-12) Notice now that he who then said under the oak that he would return (for he knew beforehand that it would be necessary to give Abraham advice about the demands Sarah would make on him) did return, as it is written, and is God . . . I will try to convince you that this figure who is mentioned and described as seen by Abraham and Isaac and Moses is another God than the God who is Creator of the universe, other in number, I mean, not in will, for I do not assert that he ever did anything except what the Creator of the world, above whom there is no other God, intended both to do and to say.” – Justin viewed Genesis 21:9-12 as the fulfillment of Genesis 18:4 however his reference to “returned when Sarah did have a son” could imply the fulfillment is also in Genesis 21:1,2 (‘Yahweh visited Sarah . . . at the appointed time that God had spoken of with him’).

Robert M. Bowman Jr.

1.     They accuse the doctrine of the Trinity of teaching three Gods.

2.     They assume that one being must be one and only person, even in God.

3.     They understand the Trinity to mean that the three persons are three “parts” of God.

4.     They object to the use of extrabiblical terms such as Trinity and three persons.

5.     They fault the doctrine of the Trinity for its late formal development.

6.     They cite the second-century church fathers in support of their nontrinitarian theology.

7.     They trace the doctrine of the Trinity historically to pagan triads of gods.

8.     They blame the trinitarianism of the early church on Greek philosophy.

9.     They maintain that the church became apostate soon after the passing of the apostles.

10. They claim to be restoring the original New Testament teaching about God.

11. They often regard the Greek New Testament text as having been corrupted.

12. They deny that the Son is Almighty God.

13. They often deny that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person.

14. They cite liberal biblical scholars in support of their revisionist interpretations.

15. They view the doctrine of the Trinity as contradictory or nonsensical.

16. They make much of the fact that the Jews knew nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity.

17. They infer inequality and inferiority from the submission of the Son to the Father.

18. They discredit the Trinity by pointing to the church’s persecution of nontrinitarians.

19. They reject or radically revise the doctrine of salvation by grace alone.

20. They reject or radically revise the doctrine of eternal punishment.

The God-breathed Scriptures testify that Jesus is the Heir whom the Father has appointed to create sustain and possess all creation:

“Now the landowner had one son whom he loved dearly. He sent him last, thinking, They will respect my son. But those tenant farmers said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ They grabbed him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.” Mark 12:6-8 Common English Bible (CEB)

“The Father loves the Son and gives everything into his hands.” John 3:35 CEB

“Jesus knew the Father had given everything into his hands and that he had come from God and was returning to God. Read full chapter John 13:3 CEB

“Everything that the Father has is mine. That’s why I said that the Spirit takes what is mine and will proclaim it to you.” John 16:15 CEB

“He rescued us from the control of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son he loves. He set us free through the Son and forgave our sins. The Son is the image of the invisible God, the one who is first over all creation, Because all things were created by him: both in the heavens and on the earth, the things that are visible and the things that are invisible. Whether they are thrones or powers, or rulers or authorities, all things were created through him and FOR HIM. He existed before all things, and all things are held together in him.” Colossians 1:13-17 CEB

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” Hebrews 1:1-3 English Standard Version (ESV)

Anti-Trinitarians such as Arians and Muhammadans employ these texts to disprove the Deity of Christ. They reason that it is illogical to believe that Jesus inherits anything if he is God Incarnate since God owns the entire creation and inherits nothing from anyone.  

With this claim in view, I will show how this argument of the heretics and cultists ends up proving that neither Jehovah nor Allah can be God in the absolute sense (despite the fact that Allah of the Quran isn’t God at all).

JEHOVAH

The Hebrew Bible speaks of Jehovah inheriting Israel, that God personally chose the children of Jacob to become his cherished inheritance:

“And he said, If now I have found favor in thy sight, O Lord, let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance (unachaltanu).” Exodus 34:9 American Standard Version (ASV)

“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance (bahancḥel), When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. For Jehovah’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance (nachalato).” Deuteronomy 32:8-9 ASV

Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not that Jehovah hath anointed thee to be prince over his inheritance (nachalato)?” 1 Samuel 10:1 ASV

“From following the ewes that have their young he brought him, To be the shepherd of Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance (nachalato).” Psalm 78:71 ASV

 “Therefore was the wrath of Jehovah kindled against his people, And he abhorred his inheritance (nachalato).” Psalm 106:40 ASV

The sacred writings also prophesy a time when Jehovah will actually inherit the nations when he arises to judge the earth and its wicked rulers:

“A Psalm of Asaph. God (Elohim) standeth in the congregation of God (El); He judgeth among the gods (elohim)… Arise, O God (Elohim), judge the earth; For thou shalt inherit (tinchal) all the nations.” Psalm 82:1, 8 ASV

Most shockingly, the prophet Zechariah speaks of Jehovah of hosts sending Jehovah God to live in Jerusalem where he comes to inherit Judah!  

“Ho, ho, flee from the land of the north, saith Jehovah; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heavens, saith Jehovah. Ho Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon. For thus SAITH JEHOVAH OF HOSTS: After glory HATH HE SENT ME unto the nations which plundered you; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them; and ye shall know that Jehovah of hosts HATH SENT ME. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I COME, and I WILL DWELL IN THE MIDST OF THEE, SAITH JEHOVAH. And many nations shall join themselves to Jehovah in that day, and shall be MY PEOPLE; and I WILL DWELL IN THE MIDST OF THEE, and thou shalt know THAT JEHOVAH OF HOSTS HATH SENT ME unto thee. And Jehovah shall inherit (chelqo) Judah as his portion in the holy land, and shall yet choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before Jehovah; for he is waked up out of his holy habitation.” Zechariah 2:6-13 ASV

ALLAH

Now pay attention to Muhammad’s claiming that his deity is also an heir who shall one day inherit creation:

And do not let those who ˹greedily˺ withhold Allah’s bounties think it is good for them—in fact, it is bad for them! They will be leashed ˹by their necks˺ on the Day of Judgment with whatever ˹wealth˺ they used to withhold. And Allah is the ˹sole˺ inheritor of the heavens and the earth. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do. S. 3:180 ( The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab)

And certainly We! We it is Who give life, and cause death and We are the Inheritors. S. 15:23 Hilali-Khan

Verily! We will inherit the earth and whatsoever is thereon. And to Us they all shall be returned, S. 19:40 Hilali-Khan

And We shall inherit from him (at his death) all that he talks of (i.e. wealth and children which We have bestowed upon him in this world), and he shall come to Us alone. S. 19:80 Hilali-Khan

And how many a town (population) have We destroyed, which were thankless for its means of livelihood (disobeyed Allah, and His Messengers, by doing evil deeds and crimes)! And those are their dwellings, which have not been inhabited after them except a little. And verily! We have been the inheritors. S. 28:58 Hilali-Khan

Allah is even described as being the best from among all those that receive an inheritance, showing that he is one of many!

And (remember) Zakariya (Zachariah), when he cried to his Lord: “O My Lord! Leave me not single (childless), though You are the Best of the inheritors.” S. 21:89 Hilali-Khan

Ironically, one of Allah’s so-called beautiful names happens be “The Heir/Inheritor” (Al-Warith)!

Al-Wârith: The Inheritor

The One who inherits and continues after all others have ceased to be; thus all returns to Him. He is the true owner of all.

Al-Warith is one of the Ninety-Nine Names.

“It is We who will inherit the earth and all those on it and. They will be returned to Us.” (19:39)

“We will inherit from him the things he is talking about and he will come to Us all alone.” (19:81)

“It is We who give life and cause to die and We are the Inheritor.” (15:23) (Aisha Bewley, The Divine Names)

Therefore, if Jesus cannot be God in the absolute sense simply because he is Heir for whom all things exist, then neither can Jehovah or Allah be God since they too are said to be Heirs who inherit the creation.

FURTHER READING

Muslim Dawagandist Sami Zaatari Conclusively Proves that Allah is not God!

Turning the Tables Pt. 5

How can Allah be “given” an Inheritance?

Allah – the Best of the Inheritors? 

Allah – the Heir?

The Muslim Criteria For God