Month: April 2025

  • Just How Replaceable are Children? (Job 42–the Resolution)

    "When reparations are made—only after Job has carried out the above instructions and interceded for his former tormentors—there is no question that Job has won his case. He went from everything to nothing and he goes back to everything. His lawyer got him twice what the insurance company said, not to mention (42:13) seven additional sons and three additional daughters.

    "Here, [Harold] Kushner chokes. Most today at least would do a double-take. Just how *replaceable* are children? Kushner’s Job-like time-of-trial came when he and his wife lost their son to prolonged and painful illness. Though they subsequently had other children, it’s not as though these were *replacements*. Even the suggestion of replacements in Job’s case strikes him as repugnant.

    "How to work this one out? It may be as when, decades ago, an African Branch representative of my faith visited the States and repeatedly made the observation that back home, “life was cheap.” Not that he wished it that way; it was just an unpleasant fact that people adjusted to because they had no choice. Maybe that reality also defined the ancient time of Job.

    "This is the same Branch representative who gave a few talks in large assembly and teased his American audience about being “so spoiled.” He marveled how each family here had their own “washing up machine.” He marveled at how each adult not only had his or her own car, but also a garage in which to put that car. “In Africa, four families would live in that garage,” he said.

    "Maybe his words supply the answer. The backdrop of Job surely was closer to the backdrop of then-Africa than to America. Maybe to people not spoiled by washing up machines and garages in which to put their cars, maybe to people who have adjusted to life being “cheap,” maybe such people are less inclined to rail at God for deceased children; having long-ago adjusted to the reality that such things happen. Maybe such people thank God for the new children but do not blame him for the ones departed."

    From the book: 'A Workman's Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen'–available at Amazon

  • Did they tell Charles Darwin that God was picking flowers?

    Did they tell Charles Darwin that God was picking flowers?

    Charles Darwin’s favorite child, Annie, contracted scarlet fever at age 10. She agonized for 6 weeks before dying. Also a casualty was Darwin’s faith in a beneficent Creator. The book Evolution: Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer, tells us that Darwin “lost faith in angels.” That’s an odd expression. Why would it be used?

    Did they tell him that God was picking flowers?

    Is there any analogy more slanderous to God than the one in which God is picking flowers? Up there in heaven He has the most beautiful garden imaginable. But it is not enough! He is always on the watch for pretty flowers, the very best, and if He spots one in your garden, He helps himself, even though it may be your only one. Yes, He needs more angels, and if your child is the most pure, the most beautiful, happy, innocent child that can be, well….watch out! He or she may become next new angel. Sappy preachers give this illustration all the time, apparently thinking helps.

    The picking flowers analogy is nowhere found in the Bible. However, there is a parable parallel in all respects EXCEPT THE MORAL AT THE END. It is the one Nathan told to David after he had taken Bathsheba as a wife and killed her husband.

    “The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor.  The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle,  but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
    “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”
    David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die!  He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
    Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!”             (2 Samuel 12:1-7)

    This analogy appeals to us. It is just. The man is not expected to take comfort that the king stole his wife. No, he deserves execution! So how is it that preachers have God doing the same, expecting it will comfort? Of course it will not! The man who stole the sole lamb deserves to die! Preachers make a horrific mess trying to extract themselves from the moral corners their doctrines unfailingly paint them into.

    How different history might have been had Darwin known the truth about death. Not just Darwin, but every one of his time, as well as before and after. Instead, fed a diet of phony pieties….junk food, really…..he and others of inquisitive minds searched elsewhere in an attempt to make sense of life.

    two doughnuts in brown box
    Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Doc Blake Revisited: Why is there evil and suffering?

    “In the absence of a workable theodicy, when people have no clue as to why a God of love would permit evil and suffering, God takes many shots. He took one in an episode of the TV whodunnit series, Dr. Blake. An elderly priest had been murdered. Upon solving the crime in his customary way: with unusual insight, unusual empathy, and unusual flare for getting under his superiors’ skin, Doc Blake finds occasion to enter the church alone at the end of the episode. Is he there because the idealistic younger priest exhorted him not to let his wartime experiences destroy his relationship with God? Nope. Though one anticipates that outcome for a moment, he is not there to make peace with God. He is there to tell God off.

    “Yes, I know. It’s been a long time since I was last here,” he begins, after a long introspective silence, during which one imagines repentance. “A funeral, in case you’ve forgotten.” [Uh oh. God—forgets?] “It’s all right. I didn’t come expecting an answer this time [either]. Though I imagine Father Morton [the murdered priest] did. Did he know he was losing his mind [which caused him to reveal confidential confessions in public sermons, which in turn caused a not-too-penitent church member to kill him, lest he be compromised next]?”

    “Did he kneel right here and ask you for your help? I’m sure he did. And what did you give him? A sign? Or nothing? All these children—your children—begging you for help. What father ignores his children?” The episode is entitled, “The Sky is Empty.” It is a title that has nothing to do with the plot itself but appears selected only to drive home the “lesson” at the end: there is no God.

    “Thing is, it’s not a bad question, that final one. It should be answered. In the absence of a satisfying theodicy, it cannot be. That is why it borders on criminal to withhold that theodicy. With it, the question would not even have had to be asked. The good doctor would have known what can and does happen in a world whose forebears have deliberately severed themselves from God.”

    From ‘A Workman’s Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen’

     

  • TV Doctor Blake Operates Without Blood

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen movie or TV treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses that didn’t editorialize over the ‘life-saving’ nature of blood transfusions should the subject come up. As a rough guess, the drama over blood transfusion accounts for as much as half of all Witness mentions in movie or television. Almost always, the Witnesses get shellacked. For example, in one breathtakingly stupid episode of ‘Designated Survivor,’ an entire pack of them holed up in a cabin up there in the woods, refusing orders to evacuate as a forest fire approached, because they wanted to force the hands of doctors trying force blood on a newborn, as though they thought all the country would be captivated by their suicidal plight—and in the dopey world of TV, it was! Seemingly, the president of the United States had nothing else to do with his time that, with the eyes of the entire nation fixated on this determined bunch of crazies, this became his crisis of the week to solve. It was among the last of the Survivors my wife and I saw, a show that started out promisingly with the destruction of the U.S Capitol Building and held the suspense for a time, only to steadily deteriorate into today’s banal politics injected into an contrived setting. 

    So, when Dr. Blake, an Australian show set in the 1950s, plunked a Jehovah’s Witness character in the midst of a murder drama (initially as the chief suspect!), I said, “Okay, they’d better not screw this up. If they do, I’m out of here.” This would be a great shame because it is one of my top shows ever. My worries were for naught. They didn’t screw it up. That’s not to say I might not tweak a few lines here and there, but overall it was accurate—all the more impressive because it was not a portrayal of Witnesses today, but of 70 years ago.

    There were such persons as the Witness lad’s mom, a fantastically overbearing woman, from whom even the police chief did not escape a thorough witness, as he relates to his fellows with the air of reliving a war story. But, when Dr. Blake is queried by his Catholic sort-of fiance, ‘Be honest. Don’t you find them weird?’ he responds that he doesn’t really think so; after all, don’t Catholics have such a thing as a Crusade in their past? Then, there was the insight as to how mom became a Witness, after her husband died and she could find no answers in the Church. There were, and continue to be, people like that. Too, the Witness lad’s faith, while making him odd, has undeniably made him honest and successful in putting a lawbreaking past behind him.

    The fellow who was murdered—and the Witness lad was suspected because he had been the first to come upon him—was exactly the sort of curmudgeonly outlier person a Witness might have been drawn to. His illiteracy, which he kept secret from most persons, would not put the Witnesses off at all, as they do not judge people that way. Instead, he makes repeated visits to help him out with literacy, with witnessing demoted to a co-concern. ‘I actually liked him a lot,’ he tells the police chief. And even though he is about the only person who did in the storyline, it is instantly believable. He would.

    But, the corker lies in when the kid suffers an attempt on his life and bleeds heavily, requiring a blood transfusion. Doc Blake, a forensic doctor who can, in a pinch, work on live people, is about to operate but then he checks himself. ‘Wait! This boy is a Jehovah’s Witness. We can’t use blood.’ He uses saline solution instead—without any carrying on at all about his hands being ‘tied.’ He just does it. Afterward, though the boy doesn’t enter the storyline again, he is said to be doing well and will make a full recovery. Better still, the overbearing mom grows more overbearing still, hearing only “transfusion,” and not “saline transfusion,” flying off the handle but she later apologizes to the doctor when she realizes her mistake.

    I mean, you can tell when the writers have an idea of what they are talking about, unlike the Designator Surviver bozos. Somewhere, the Dr. Blake scriptwriters have found such a person. It may even be reflected in the episode’s title, “Measure Twice,” “measure” being a word used meaningfully in Witness literature. But I never thought I’d see the day when blood transfusions were mentioned in connection with Jehovah’s Witnesses without endless carrying on about how “life-saving” they are and how only a fanatic would ever not welcome one.

    Few Witnesses will enjoy their portrayal, for the show makes them look like loons. However, it is in the greater context that all religion is suspected for lunacy. The episode leaves it completely to the audience to reflect upon whether standing apart from a dominant religious world, with its contradictions and harshness that causes sporadic grief to the mainline characters, is such a bad thing after all. I sort of liked the episode and was not unduly put off that it didn’t explain the Witnesses’ Kingdom hope for them. Of course, it helped that the kid didn’t end up in the hoosegow, and was cleared of all wrongdoing.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Book of Galatians: Chapters 5 & 6 in Today’s English

    You are free from slavery. Don’t go back to it. Or if you do, you’d better not miss a single one of those ‘I’s or ‘T’s. (5:1-6)

    You were doing so well. Who tripped you up? Who made you think you need circumcision? It ain’t me, babe. Those Jews would give me a free pass if they thought I was turning Christianity into just one of their outposts. “Just you wait, enry iggins”—they’ll get theirs. (7-11)

    In fact, I have half a mind to come and kick them in the nuts so hard that they won’t qualify to serve in the temple that they want to drag you into! (12)

    No, brothers, don’t go there. Just don’t. You don’t need their picayune Law. It all boils down to love anyway—that is the greatest part of it—so if you get you head around that, you’ll do just fine. You start nitpicking at each other over every pissy little thing and you’ll tear each other apart! (13-18)

    Don’t do bad things. Do good things. What do you mean, ‘What bad things?’ “No back-biting, no ass-grabbing, you know exactly what I mean!” \[thank you, Randy Neuman\] It shouldn’t be hard, if you really are following the Christ. Do the best you can, and don’t go thinking that you are better than the other guy. (19-26)

    Chapter 6

    Okay, let’s wrap this up. Don’t be babies—man up, but pull each other out of the crud when you have to (be sure you don’t fall in yourself). (6:1-5)

    Don’t try to Play around with God. You can’t. Keep on keeping on—it will all pay off. Lend a hand where needed. (6-10)

    See the large letters I make, all by myself with my own hand? Why? Because I am blind as a bat—that’s why. I dunno—it comes and goes. That’s why I insulted that pompous character before I knew he was the high priest. I asked God to take it away, but he said, “Nah, it keeps you humble.” And it has. It’s not an altogether bad thing to have a thorn in the flesh. (11)

    Now, remember—they are pinheaded louts trying to lay their Law on you. And why? They’re just chicken themselves—like Peter might have been, but he saw where he was heading and corrected himself. They don’t want to stand out among their cronies, and they want to find strength in numbers by having you do what they do—it will hide their cowardice. What! You think they do the Law themselves? No way! They just want to do some back-stabbing and ass-grabbing themselves and then throw in a gerbil or something for sacrifice to make it all good again. Come on! Please—you are too smart not to see through them. (12-16)

    I’ve suffered for carrying the good news of the Christ. So have you. Don’t turn back to be a law nerd again. Press on ahead. God will back you. So will Christ. (17-18)

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Book of Galatians in Today’s English: Chapters 3 & 4

    What on earth is wrong with you? How can you be so dumb? You break free but then turn around and go back because you forgot your leg irons? Are you kidding me? (3:1-5)

    Don’t pull this Abraham stuff on me. Wait, no. If you want to talk Abraham, let’s talk Abraham. You think he earned anything? No! He “put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” THAT’S what you want to take away from Abraham—his faith, and how he pointed the way for other people to have faith. Not the later Law—that Law did nothing but show you up for the basket cases that you were! Did you manage to keep it? No! All you did was screw up. That’s why when Christ comes along, you are supposed to say, “Exactly what we need! Thank you, thank you, thank you. (6-11)

    You don’t go back to the Law again—what’s wrong with you? The Law has nothing to do with faith. Christ pulled us out of that—THAT’S what Abraham was pointing to, and you want to dive back in again? (12-14)

    Okay, now look—let’s take this real slow. Take notes if it will help. So Abraham gets a promise that means the Christ will come through his lineup, but how does the Law figure in? It comes 430 years later. Does it change his promise? I don’t think so. (15-18)

    Why the Law? It’s because you guys kept messing up, that’s why. And it was supposed to dawn on you that you DID keep messing up and that you’re never (and yes—me, too) going to come out like the champion of Jeopardy. You weren’t supposed to think that dotting all the ‘I’s and crossing all the ‘T’s would get you there—besides, you missed lots of them. (19-22)

    Yes, it gave you something to do and kept you off the streets. But now that the real thing has arrived, you can set down your slates. Class is over. You can join in with that promise to Abraham. (23-29)

    Chapter 4: 

    It took a long time for you to get to where you are. A lot of work went into it. Don’t mess it up. (4:1-8)

    You had real freedom. I mean, real freedom in Christ. And now you want to become law nerds again and focus on dotting ‘I’s and crossing ‘T’s? Really? What! Do I have a death wish or something? What am I doing this for? (9-11)

    Remember the good times we used to have? Remember how you used to loan me your specs? You didn’t then stick out your foot to trip me up. What’s gotten into you? (12-16)

    Do you think that these controlling louts are your friends? They just want to be your bosses. “Meet the new boss—same as the old boss.” (17-20)

    Go back to Abraham, you law nerds, and take a point. Two women, remember? One a concubine, one a wife. Hagar gave birth first because Sarah thought she was too old to have a child. No mystery about how Hagar conceived. You see it all the time on TV. But Sarah! THAT’S where God’s promise came in, and she didn’t even believe herself it could happen until it did!

    The two women stand for two groups of people. Hagar, the one of ordinary birth, is mother to the ones of Law (that you want go back to!) Sarah, the one of the promise, is mother to the ones putting their faith in Christ. (21-28)

    The Hagar kid made trouble for the Sarah kid back then. It’s the same today with these characters trying to force their Law on you. But what does the verse say? “Take this Law and shove it! I ain’t workin here no more!” Keep it that way! (29-31)

    Next: Chapter 5

    ******  The bookstore

     

     

  • Book of Galatians in Today’s English: Chapters 1 & 2

    Dear Galatians: Remember me? It’s Paul. How are you? (1:1-5)

    The reason I say ‘remember me’ is because I’m not sure that you do! I can’t believe how quickly you are screwing up! Is that chair I used to sit in even cold yet? What is this about louts trying to change the whole narrative? They’re not allowed to do that! Look, even angels are not allowed to do that! (6-9)

    You remember what a jerk I was. Nobody made more trouble for you than me. But after God let me hear about it right there on the Damascus road and that other fellow was sent so that I could see again, I went off to Arabia for three years to think about it. (13-17)

    Then I came back to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for a couple of weeks. But no one else—wait, I did see James, but none of the others. Then I went off again. What! You think I am fibbing? For years and years, had you asked those apostles about me, they would have said, “I dunno. Your guess is as good as mine. He used to be the nastiest fellow. Now it looks as though he is on our side. Cool! We’ll take it!” (18-24)

    Chapter 2

    About 14 years later I figured that maybe I had better give those guys a call. I had Barnabas with me by then, and Titus—fine fellows. I met with them privately, of course, just in case I was not doing something—um, kosher. “You okay with this?” I said to them. “You’re not going to make Titus do that Jewish thing, are you? I don’t see any need for it.” They didn’t either! (2:1-3)

    It probably wouldn’t even have come up were it not for those pinheaded louts trying to drag us down, wanting us to everything Jewish that we don’t have to do anymore. We blew right past them, and it was for your sake just as much as for ours. (4-5)

    Okay, so I consulted with these ones—I mean, I guess they are important. I wondered if they might try to rein me in, but no!—they said, “Whatever you are doing, keep on doing it. We’ll stick with preaching to Jews, but you—I mean, Peter unlocked that door for the nations, so go for it! Just don’t ignore the poor.” Sure, I can do that. (6-10)

    But then Peter came calling later on and suddenly he himself goes all Jewish on me. Oh, sure, he pals around with these new Gentile Christians easy enough, but when his buddies show up, he acts like he doesn’t know them. I said, “I don’t believe it! Here you are living the free life, telling others to be like that, and then the narrow-minded fuddy duddies show up and you get all scaredy cat? (11-14)

    Yeah, well he’s a good sort, but he goes a little weak at the knees sometimes. You don’t have to do any of that Jewish stuff! What do you think the Lord is for? (15-21)

    Next: Chapters 3 & 4

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • A Workman’s Theodicy: Why do Bad Things Happen?

    A Workman’s Theodicy’ addresses the question: How can a God of love coexist with evil and suffering? (In the world of theology, such explanations are called ‘theodicies.’)

    The book consists of 3 sections on Job—a chapter by chapter review of the entire Bible book.

    Job: the Setup. (Chapters 1-2)
    Job: The Prosecution (3-32)
    Job: The Resolution (33-42)

    There is a short section on the Holocaust, followed by two on theologians:

    Theologians: Higher Criticism
    Theologians: Attributes of God

    This is followed by a review of the ‘workman’s theodicy’ itself, then a section of efforts to advertise it, amidst some pushback:

    The Workman’s Theodicy
    Enemies

    At the book’s end is an Appendix section of three parts:

    Appendix A1: Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

    Appendix A2: The Origin of Life [a critique of the handful of scientists who specialize in this field—what progress have they made?]

    Appendix A3: When We Cease to Understand [a review of a historical-fiction book that intertwines the themes of quantum physics, mathematics, world war, and madness]

    Enjoy

    Phonto

    From book’s back cover:

    The theodicy that works advertised by people who don’t know the term? How can that be?

    “Why does God permit human suffering?” the Bethel speaker begins. “Well, that’s an easy one, isn’t it? It is one of the first things we learned when we go the truth.”

    It’s easy? Easy?! EASY?! It is only one of the hardest questions in theology! The great thinkers throughout history have tied themselves into knots trying to account for it.

    “The question of how God could allow evil is a staple in philosophy. In fact, it may even be older than the discipline itself.” – Professor David Kyle Johnson

    If there is a benevolent God, why would he coexist with evil and suffering?

    From Job to Kant, from the Holocaust to the lecture halls, from the public squares to the quadrangles, with nods to a bevy of philosophers and theologians, see how and why the giants of miss the theodicy of the workmen.

    ***Dress up your meeting notes for presentable online presentation, and it has the effect that you retain them better yourself. When the Witness mid-week meetings started in on Job, I figured I’d write a synopsis of each week. There they are, for the most part, on my blog. Sort through and combine those notes, merge them with some other writings on how theologians look at Scripture, visit the horrific Holocaust, add in some history and a few appendixes, and out came this book!

    Now available at Amazon bookstores—a new book by Tom Harley

  • John 1:1 and how to translate where there is no indefinite [a] article.

    A trinitarian modification of Scripture is found at John 1:1. By far, most translations today say that “the Word was God” at that location.

    However, Dr. Jason Beduhn writes, in the book ‘Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Versions of the New Testament,’ that:

    “Grammatically, John 1: 1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (“interlinear”) translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: “And the word was a god.”

    “The preponderance of evidence, \[1\] from Greek Grammar, \[2\] from literary context, and \[3\] from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which “the Word was divine” would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation.”

    The Koine Greek language has the definite article (the) but not the indefinite article (a). What to do, then, when there is not an indefinite article before the object (god) of John 1:1c? There can’t be one because one does not exist. The same question arises with regard to Latin Vulgate (late 4^(th) century) or Syriac/Peshitta (2^(nd) to 5^(th) centuries), other early translations of the Greek New Testament. Neither has an indefinite article.

    But, in the early third century CE, the Greek NT was translated into a language that does have an indefinite article, the Sahidic Coptic language. How does that language with an indefinite article handle John 1:1c? It renders that final phrase: "the Word was a god."

    That this rendering is correct is suggested by Acts 28:6, where Paul shakes off a snake. The islanders all expect him to swell up and die. When he doesn’t, they begin saying he “was a god.”

    There is no ‘a’ in the Koine Greek, it being the indefinite article. The sentence construction, the grammar, as well as common sense, here demands one be inserted. The grammar runs parallel to John 1:1. However, John 1:1 is usually translated ‘God.’ Acts 28:6 is always translated ‘a god.’ It is not grammatic rules that accounts for the different treatment. It is theology.

    The Sahidic Coptic language is a critical thinker’s dream come true. With an indefinite article that Greek, Latin, and Syriac do not have, the Coptic allows for no ambiguity. It says the Word was a god.

    As Beduhn writes, “divine” works, too. Surely the Son of God is divine, even if not God himself. However, a developing trinity dogma was then taking form to run rigorous translating off the road. It is not grammar that demands “the Word was God.” It is theology. Grammar says it is "a god."

    ***

    Enter one Ernest Cadman Colwell, a biblical scholar, textual critic, and academic, who served as a professor of New Testament and president of the University of Chicago (1945–1951), specializing in Greek manuscripts and early Christian texts. He proposed what has come to be known as “Colwell’s rule,” that allows for scooting around the ordinary rules of grammar that Beduhn cites and that the Coptic illustrates. Apparently, nobody knew anything about such a “rule” before he proposed it less that 100 years ago. His profession suggests he concocted it solely to advance and protect a trinity doctrine, and that if you didn’t already believe that the Word was God, you would never translate it that way.

    At most, per this recent rule, John 1:1 can coexist with a trinity doctrine. In no way can it serve as a fundamental underpinning of it, which is how trinitarians usually play it, as though their ultimate trump card.

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • Proverbs 8:22-31: Wisdom Personified as the Son, or Just Wisdom?

    Toward the end of a nine-chapter Proverbs treatment of wisdom, is a short passage which many think is  wisdom personified as Jesus:

    “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth.When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water.Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth,When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil.When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters,When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep,When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth,Then I was beside him as a master worker.  I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

     If it is Jesus, it is good that he was “especially fond of the sons of men.” That’s far better than a Jesus who wants to make us trouble. At any rate, you can’t quite picture the abstract quality “wisdom” in itself as being fond of anything in particular. It has to be personified in order to be “fond.” So, why not with the Son? Why not putting him alongside God as his “master worker” for all aspects of creation, rejoicing with him as each aspect comes into being?

    Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE) thought the passage referred to the Son, as evidenced by his “Dialogue with Trypho.” So did Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), as written into his work “Against Heresies.” But those views ran afoul of later doctrine. Didn’t 8:22 (Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago) show, if applied to Jesus, that the Christ was a created being, subordinate to God? Yes, it did, said guys like Arius (c. 250–336 CE), in harmony with Justin and Irenaeus. But a growing trinity movement would make Arius public enemy #1. Leaders of that movement, like Athanasius (c. 296–373 CE) banished the Proverbs 8 passage to just being Wisdom, as an eternal attribute of God, with nothing to do with the Son.

    What I believe is that those closest to the source are most likely the ones who got it right, rather than those who came along hundreds of years after.

     

    ******  The bookstore