@Blotty
You argue that qanah does imply “creation” and cite several sources
suggesting that it can mean “creator” or “framer,” such as Pulpit, Elliot,
Cambridge, and Benson. However, these sources, while helpful, do not prove that
qanah definitively means “create” in Proverbs 8:22.
The primary meaning of qanah across the Old Testament is “acquire,”
“buy,” or “possess,” as seen in Genesis 4:1, where Eve says, “I have acquired
a man with the help of the Lord.” It is rarely used to mean “create”
directly. Although poetic and metaphorical usage can broaden a word’s meaning,
the primary and most frequent usage of qanah is not creation. Scholars
often interpret qanah in Proverbs 8:22 as “possess” because it aligns
with the typical use of the word in other contexts.
Even when qanah appears in texts related to creation, such as in
Proverbs 8:22, it often has the meaning of possessing or acquiring rather than
creating out of nothing. This aligns with the ancient understanding that God’s
wisdom is eternally present with Him and not something He “created” as He
created the world. The Jewish tradition, which views Wisdom as a personification
of an eternal attribute of God, supports this non-creation interpretation.
Jewish translators, including Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, chose
words that emphasize possession or acquisition rather than creation in their translations.
This reflects a consistent interpretation that qanah in Proverbs 8:22
means “possessed” rather than “created.” If “created” were the definitive
meaning, we would expect all ancient translations to agree on this point, which
they do not.
So, while qanah might be interpreted to imply creation in a very
loose sense, the overwhelming evidence from ancient translators, as well as its
frequent use in Hebrew, supports the interpretation as “possess.”
You dismiss the relevance of the Nicene Creed by saying it is from the
fourth century and therefore “irrelevant”. However, the significance of the
Creed cannot be ignored in this discussion. The Nicene Creed represents a
formalized response to theological disputes within early Christianity,
particularly addressing interpretations like Arianism that challenged the
eternality of the Son. It reflects a consensus developed over centuries among
early Christians and is built on scriptural foundations.
The Creed’s language, such as “begotten, not made,” is derived from
interpretations of passages like John 1:1, John 1:14, Hebrews 1:5, and
Colossians 1:15-16. Dismissing the Creed entirely overlooks the scriptural and
theological efforts of early Christians to articulate Christ’s relationship to
the Father in a way that avoids misunderstandings, like viewing Him as a
created being.
The Council of Nicaea did not invent the interpretation of Christ as
eternally begotten but rather clarified and formalized it. Even prior to the
fourth century, theologians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus expressed ideas
that aligned with the Nicene understanding of the Son’s eternality. Ignoring this
historical context leaves a gap in understanding how the early church
approached these complex issues.
You argue that “firstborn” always implies a temporal element, suggesting
that David was “temporally first in some sense” and therefore should be
understood literally. In Psalm 89:27, David is called “firstborn” not because
he was literally the firstborn son or the first king, but because he holds a
position of preeminence among kings. In ancient Near Eastern culture,
“firstborn” often signified rank, authority, or special privilege rather than
literal birth order. This is why Israel, as a nation, is called God’s
“firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite not being the first nation.
The term “firstborn” (Hebrew: bekor) is used in multiple contexts
throughout the Bible to denote status. For example, Ephraim is called the
“firstborn” over Manasseh in Jeremiah 31:9, though Manasseh was born first.
Similarly, David’s “firstborn” status in Psalm 89 reflects his exalted status
in God’s plan, not a temporal sequence.
Paul uses the term “firstborn” to describe Christ’s preeminence over
creation, not His inclusion in creation. If “firstborn” simply meant
chronological order, then it would contradict Paul’s portrayal of Christ as the
Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16). Instead, “firstborn” here highlights
Christ’s authority and supreme position over creation.
Thus, David’s title of “firstborn” serves as a typological foreshadowing of
Christ’s preeminence and does not necessarily imply temporal priority.
You reference BDAG’s citation of Job 40:19 as a grammatical parallel for arche
in Revelation 3:14 and assert that genre should not influence interpretation. While
BDAG lists “first created” as a “probable” meaning for arche in
Revelation 3:14, it does not present this as definitive. Lexicons list possible
meanings, and the final interpretation depends on contextual factors, including
the genre, theological context, and broader biblical witness. Revelation is an
apocalyptic text rich with symbolic language, which makes it challenging to
impose a literal interpretation without considering context.
In Job 40:19, Behemoth is described as the “first of the ways of God,” which
linguistically could imply a temporal beginning. However, Revelation 3:14’s
theological and Christological emphasis presents arche in a different
light. Christ is described as the Creator and sustainer of all things in John
1:3 and Colossians 1:16, which supports an interpretation of arche as
“origin” or “source” rather than “first created.”
Apocalyptic literature, such as Revelation, frequently employs symbolic
language. For example, terms like “Lion of Judah” or “Lamb of God” are not
literal but convey theological truths. Interpreting arche in Revelation
3:14 without considering genre risks imposing a rigid meaning that may not
align with the text’s symbolic nature.
You clarify that you do not adhere to Arian theology because you believe
the Logos was created “from something,” not from nothing. However, this still
implies a temporal beginning, which conflicts with traditional Christian
doctrine. The orthodox Christian teaching, based on scriptural interpretation
and the consensus of the early church, is that the Son is “eternally
begotten” of the Father, meaning there was never a time when He did not
exist. This does not mean He was created from something pre-existing, as that
would still imply a beginning. Rather, it affirms that the Son has always
existed in relation to the Father.
The Son’s generation is a unique aspect of His divine relationship with the
Father, which goes beyond human concepts of “created from something.”
Traditional Christian teaching on the Trinity emphasizes that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal, each fully God, without any
temporal sequence or material cause.
Suggesting that the Logos was created “from something” still implies that
the Son had a temporal point of origin. This view, though not identical to
Arianism, contradicts the doctrine of the Son’s eternal nature. Even if you
avoid the term “apostate,” this interpretation diverges from orthodox Christian
belief and aligns with non-Trinitarian theologies.
@slimboyfat
The argument that early
Christian writers "were perfectly happy" to apply Proverbs 8:22 ("the
Lord ektisen me") to Jesus and only in the fourth century began
to reinterpret it due to the developing doctrine of the Trinity overlooks
several important historical and theological nuances. It is not accurate to say
that pre-Nicene Christians universally accepted Proverbs 8:22 as proof that
Jesus was created. In fact, the application of Proverbs 8 to Jesus as Wisdom
was often typological or symbolic rather than a literal endorsement of His
creation.
Origen, one of the most
prominent pre-Nicene theologians, addressed Proverbs 8:22 in his writings.
Although he occasionally used the language of “creation,” he explicitly taught
that the Son was eternally begotten, not temporally created. He
distinguished between the eternal generation of the Son and the temporal
creation of the universe. Origen’s position was not that Jesus was created ex
nihilo but that He eternally derived from the Father, much as light
derives from a source without a beginning.
Dionysius, bishop of Rome
in the mid-3rd century, was among the earliest Christian leaders to defend the
co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Dionysius
strongly opposed any notion that the Son was created in time, countering
misunderstandings that implied any form of subordinationism or created status
for the Son. In his letter to Dionysius of Alexandria, he rebuked
interpretations that suggested the Son was a creature, advocating instead for
an understanding that upheld the unity and co-eternity of the Father and Son.
Dionysius of Rome’s writings predate the fourth century and already contain a
defense of the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father, independent of any
“Trinity doctrine” formalized at Nicaea.
But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling, but a very great impiety, to say that the Lord was in any wise made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not; but He always was, if, as He Himself declares, He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power — for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as you yourselves know — assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence; and thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. But why should I discourse at greater length to you about these matters, since you are men filled with the Spirit, and especially understanding what absurd results follow from the opinion which asserts that the Son was made? The leaders of this view seem to me to have given very little heed to these things, and for that reason to have strayed absolutely, by explaining the passage otherwise than as the divine and prophetic Scripture demands. "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways." For, as you know, there is more than one signification of the word "created;" and in this place "created" is the same as "set over" the works made by Himself — made, I say, by the Son Himself. But this created is not to be understood in the same manner as made. For to make and to create are different from one another. "Is not He Himself your Father, that has possessed you and created you?" says Moses in the great song of Deuteronomy. And thus might any one reasonably convict these men. Oh reckless and rash men! Was then "the first-born of every creature" something made?— "He who was begotten from the womb before the morning star?" — He who in the person of Wisdom says, "Before all the hills He begot me?" (Proverbs 8:25) Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord.
This indicates that there
were early theological efforts to articulate the Son’s eternal, divine nature well
before the fourth century, suggesting that interpretations of Proverbs 8 were
not universally accepted as literal descriptions of Christ’s creation.
The Greek verb ktizo
used in the Septuagint translation of Proverbs 8:22 has a broad semantic range,
which can support meanings beyond “create” in the sense of bringing something
into existence for the first time. In Greek literature, ktizo can mean
“to appoint” or “to found” (as in establishing a city or institution). This
usage aligns with the understanding of Wisdom being “established” or
“appointed” as the means through which God ordered creation, rather than a
literal creation of Wisdom as a separate entity. Early interpreters, including
Jewish translators of the Old Testament, often understood Wisdom as an
attribute or an aspect of God rather than a separate being created in time.
Wisdom in Proverbs is
widely understood as a personification—a poetic figure representing an aspect
of God’s nature. Ktizo in this context can be understood as referring
to God’s ordering or structuring of creation through divine Wisdom, rather than
implying a literal act of creation. This metaphorical or poetic usage fits the
genre of Proverbs, where personification is common. Later Christian
interpreters, particularly Athanasius, argued that the verse should not be read
literally as indicating Christ’s creation but typologically, as pointing to His
role in creation.
The translators of the
Septuagint used ktizo to convey various meanings, not just the
creation of something entirely new. They could have used poieo (to
make) if they intended a straightforward “creation” meaning, but instead, ktizo
often serves in Greek literature to denote establishment or ordering,
especially in philosophical contexts. This choice highlights that the
translators may have intended ktizo to imply God’s appointment of
Wisdom in creation rather than a literal temporal beginning.
It is a common
misconception that the fourth-century debates around the Trinity “invented” new
interpretations of Proverbs 8:22. Rather, these debates formalized responses to
various heretical teachings that had arisen, particularly Arianism, which
denied the Son’s co-eternity with the Father. Athanasius’s response to the
Arians was not an invention of a new doctrine but a defense of what he saw as
the consistent teaching of the Church. Athanasius argued that if Proverbs 8:22
was applied to Jesus, it should be understood in terms of His incarnation or
His role in creation, not as a statement of ontological origin. He emphasized
that the Son was begotten, not made, a formulation that preserved the
Son’s divine nature while clarifying that He was distinct from created beings.
The strategies you mention—interpreting
Proverbs 8:22 as referring to Jesus’ humanity, reading qanah as
“possess,” or viewing the passage as a personification—were not created in the
fourth century but were clarifications in response to Arian arguments. These
interpretations already had roots in earlier Christian thought and were part of
the theological vocabulary that early Christians used to understand Jesus’
relationship with the Father.
While some early Christians
did apply Proverbs 8:22 to Jesus as divine Wisdom, they often understood this
application in a typological sense rather than as a literal statement
about His being created. Early Christian thought generally viewed Jesus as the
eternal Logos (Word) of God, pre-existing all creation and integral to God’s
nature. This understanding is seen in John 1:1-3, which portrays the Word as
both with God and as God, and involved in creation itself.
Early Christians frequently
used typology to interpret Old Testament passages. This method allowed them to
see Christ in the Scriptures without implying that every description or
characteristic applied in a literal sense. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is seen as
typologically foreshadowing Christ’s role, but this does not mean that Wisdom’s
“creation” or “beginning” in a metaphorical sense equates to Jesus being a
created being.
If Proverbs 8:22 were taken
as a literal description of Jesus’ creation, it would conflict with other New
Testament passages that present Jesus as eternal and uncreated (e.g., John
1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, Hebrews 1:5). The consistent
scriptural portrayal of Jesus as preexistent and divine supports a non-literal,
typological reading of Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom is a poetic way of
expressing an eternal aspect of God’s nature.
