My Thoughts on Socinianism

Introduction

Many Christians in the world believe Yeshua (Jesus) is God (the schools of Trinitarianism and Modalism), other Christians such as myself believe he is the created or begotten Son of God who existed before all other created things (Arianism), but other Christians believe in a school of thought known typically as “Socinianism”.

This belief is held predominantly by many who call themselves “Unitarian Christians”, and therefore it is often called “Unitarianism”, and is sometimes confused with the “Unitarian denominations” of Christianity, which are in fact encompassed by many other things besides non-trinitarianism.

“Socinianism” is named after the Italian theologian Fausto Sozzini, who held to such a belief (though not all “Socinians” are followers of Sozzini, and nor does this Christology originate with him – but for ease of theological labelling, that will be the term I shall be using in this article).

Socinianists believe that Yeshua is not God, akin to Arianism (another form of Unitarianism), but go a step further by saying Yeshua did not exist before he was conceived in Mary on Earth by God.

This view sees Yeshua as a very “human Yeshua”, and is not too far off from the beleifs of the early 2nd-3rd Century Christian sect known as the “Ebionites”, who also believed in a form of Adoptionism, and likewise with Muslims, who believe Yeshua was just a man who merely became a chosen prophet of God. Of course, Socinians do not go as far as denying his “begotten sonship”, but merely differ in opinion on “when” he was begotten, and when he was created.

The Firstborn of What?

Socinianists will state the verses of the New Testament which speak of Yeshua as the firstborn creature assisting in the creation of the rest of the universe at Colossians 1:15–17, refers not to the ‘literal’ world, but to “the New World to come”, the Kingdom of God, which starts with Yeshua’s resurrection and Christianity.

• “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the congregation; he is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things he may be the first in everything”. – Colossians 1:15-18
• “And now we proclaim to you the good news: What God promised our fathers. He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Yeshua. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten you‘”. – Acts 13:33
• “For to which of the angels did God ever say: ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”? Or again: “I will be His Father, and He will be My Son’?”. – Hebrews 1:5
• “And even though he was foreknown before the founding of the cosmos, he’s been finally revealed during this period for your sakes.” – 1 Peter 1:20

This interpretation comes from reading into Colossians 1:18, that he is the “firstborn among the dead”. From this verse they state it to be a proof text, not of Yeshua being in Heaven before the Earth was, but claim that it is talking about the creation of “all things new”.

The case made is quite a strong one it appears, as we do see direct scriptural quotations from both Luke and Paul, that Yeshua was the “begotten” of God, or “firstborn”, by means of his baptism and resurrection, as opposed to creation (Acts 13:33), and that he was “foreknown” but not literally pre-existing, on the basis of the Greek rendition of scriptures like 1 Peter 1:20.

Further support for this is also put forth by means of connecting John 8:23 to John 17:14, which compares the Apostles to Yeshua, “not being of this world”, in comparison to the Jews who rejected Yeshua, who were “from below”, because they sided with the Devil:

• “Where is Your Father?” they asked Him. “You do not know me or my Father,” Yeshua answered. “If you knew me, you would know my Father as well... But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world“. – John 8:19, 23
• “I have given them Your word and the world has hated them; for they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world“. – John 17:14

This here paints a picture, that Yeshua saying he is “from above”, does not mean that he is “literally” from Heaven and then descended to Earth, but rather, he is “in union” or “in league” with the Heavens above. As such, a framework is presented that Yeshua’s words about “coming from Heaven” may be grossly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians today, both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian.

Clearly, the debate here is the “timing” of Yeshua’s creation, and of “what creation” he was the Firstborn of. Because of the interpretational variables of these verses, we are required to look elsewhere in the scriptures to see if we can determine the true context.

What is the “Word”?

Whilst Trinitarians will assert John 1:1 proves Yeshua to be God, and Arians will say it states Yeshua is “a god”, Socinians, will assert that the “Word” in this passage doesn’t refer to Yeshua at all, but rather, the “spoken word”, “will”, “plan”, “promise” or “purposed decree” of God which was with him and was him in the beginning, which was then later “expressed by Yeshua” when coming into existence as a man through Mary.

This notion is supported by the fact that throughout the Hebrew scriptures, we see “God’s word” coming to his prophets, or via God’s actions, and these accounts are said to be times when God literally “speaks” or “breaths”. Hence, God’s Word is seen to be God himself, for it is God’s will breathed out of his mouth in literal utterances of speech.

The Socinian view in this respect, operates on the premise of the traditional Trinitarian understanding and rendition of the verse, in that it is assumed “the Word is God”. But because Socinians are of the non-trinitarian stance, this lends many to claim that Yeshua is not the Word, but is a “result” of the spoken Word, which Yeshua then manifests.

In this respect, Trinitarians and Socinians agree that the Word is God’s mind and speech, but the key difference is that Trinitarians beleive Yeshua is literally the ‘substance’ of God’s mind or “Logos” made flesh, whilst Socinians will say Yeshua is the expression of God’s mind and plan, which saw fruition in the creation and birth of Yeshua through Mary, this being their interpretation of “God’s spoken word becoming flesh”, that being his Son Yeshua.

Thus, they would define the Word to be an “it” which the Son in flesh then “became”, not as a “he”, which we of course we do see as a valid translation in some old Bible translations.

• “This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made”. – John 1:2-3, Geneva Bible, 1587

An issue we find here however, is that like the Trinitarian and Modalistic assersions, it does not take into account that the Word was “with God”, the Greek word being “pros” meaning “toward” or “beside”, which I find is heavily implying an externalisation from his own being.

Thus, Socinianism would have to claim the spoken Word (or will) was God himself, and that his will or speech was also somehow “with him” outside of himself.

4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to “interface with” (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).

4314 /prós (“towards, with”) indicates “extension toward a goal, with implied interaction or reciprocity (L & N, 1, 84.18), with “presumed contact and reaction” (L & N, 1, 84.23). 4314 (prós) naturally suggests the cycle of initiation and response (L-N, 1,90.25, 90.33).

[4314 (prós) can mean “in view of,” or “in light of”, but never “against,” except where the context indicates an active exchange (interface) done in opposition.] – HELPS Word-studies

If we are to state that the Word is an “it”, and not the Son himself, we encounter some of the same difficulties of the Modalistic position, for how can God’s “Word” (if defined as the literal spoken words or will of God, and not an external object) be “next to God” and also “God” at the same time, without it being a physical or manifest agent?

The problem here I find, is that the Socinian argument relies upon the erronous rendition of John 1:1, which is falsely translated as “Word was God”, when the actual grammar, as I have already cited previously in my “Scriptrual Examination of the Trinitiy” series, I believe more readily points to the fact that it should likely be rendered as “the Word was [a] god” or “a divine kind”, which is backed up by ancient manuscript evidence, such as the Coptic scrolls.

The Word is clearly “distinct” from God via being next to God, and so, even if being called God Himself and not “a god”, it would have to be a representative of God, which still requires distinctness, and that “distinict object” we are told is what God made all things in the Beginning through, its distinctness not being made manifest only after becoming the flesh of the Son, but before.

If then, the Word was a seperate being, a “lesser god” or an agent carrying God’s name, it implies a creature of sentience beside God, who was this “agent Word”, that is, a person who carries God’s will and speech on his behalf, “made flesh”, pointing to a form of pre-human existence for the being that became the Messiah.

Furthermore, if we examine the ancient Jewish concept of “the Word”, from the 1st Century A.D and prior in the traditions of the Targum and other related concepts that were based upon it such as the “Metatron”, we are informed that the Hebrews long often understood the Word to be “an agent of God acting in his place”, whereas the “Word” as to mean “Logos”, or God’s mind and plan, did not come into Christian theology until after the time of the Apostles, from Gnostic teachers and Greek-minded Jews, such as Philo in the mid 1st century.

In the Targum the Memra (Word) figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God’s messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity…

It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term “Logos,” which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence…

The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo’s “divine thought,” “the image” and “first-born son” of God, “the archpriest,” “intercessor,” and “paraclete” of humanity, the “arch type of man”, paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation (“the Word become flesh”) and the Trinity….” – Memra, Jewish Encyclopedia

Name of an angel found only in Jewish literature. Elisha b. Abuyah, seeing this angel in the heavens, believed there were “two powers” or divinities… Meṭaṭron bears the Tetragrammaton; for Ex. xxiii. 21 says, “My name is in him…. The early commentators with good reason identified the prince of the world with Meṭaṭron” – Metatron, Jewish Encyclopedia

As we can see, the concept of “Logos” to mean God’s mind, will, or plan made manifest, was a later development based on Greek philosophical thought, whilst an older pre-1st century Jewish understanding was that the Word is God’s power, message, and will, made manifest through an agent of God, called God.

So in a sense of irony, Socinians who are asserting they are the ones most loyal to the “ancient Jewish theology”, are themselves in fact resorting to the same corrupted theological viewpoint of the Logos that the Trinitarians hold to, resulting in their misapplication of the term “Logos” or “Word” to be identified as God himself.

As there is strong evidence to assert that both grammar of John 1:1 says the Word was “a god”, and that the “Word” in ancient Judasim was understood to be an agent in God’s place, then we have a stronger argument that the Word was indeed a sentient being that was at God’s side in the beginning, rather than a part of God’s mind, or as some kind of plan.

In this respect, this “lesser god” acting as God’s “agent Word”, is what John in turn tells us became flesh, which then informs us that Yeshua would have had a pre-human existence at the beginning of time.

This is confirmed further, again in the ancient pre-Christian Jewish concepts of the Word, in that it was always seen as an agent being that also partook in the creation of the world, and that this very same Word, would come to Earth as the savior and recognised as a “redeeming deity”:

“As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra (Word) is the agent of God, so also is it in the creation of the earth and in the execution of justice. So, in the future, shall the Memra (Word) be the comforter: “My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra (Word) shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people, My Memra (Word) shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen”; the Memra (Word) will roar to gather the exiled”. – Memra, Jewish Encyclopedia

“The [Shekinah is the] majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to “dwell” among men… Maimonides regarded the Shekinah, like the Memra, the Yeḳara, and the Logos, as a distinct entity, and as a light created to be an intermediary between God and the world; while Naḥmanides, on the other hand, considered [the Shekinah] the essence of God as manifested in a distinct form. So in more modern times Gfrörer saw in “Shekinah,” “Memra,” and “Yeḳara” independent entities which, in that they were mediators, were the origin of the Logos idea…”. – Shekinah, Jewish Encyclopedia

“…the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal)… For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent… The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form… During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea“. – Michael Heiser, Two Powers in Heaven

“In Wisdom the Lord created… And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them”. – Genesis 1:1, 27 Targum Jerusalem

It is for this reason, some other Socinians will accept the passage says “the word was a god”, and that the Word is Yeshua, but are then forced to claim that John 1 refers, not to the beginning of the old creation, but the beginning of the new creation.

However, if this is the case, then we must follow through with this assertion in a chronological fashion. Note what we are told some verses down:

• “Thus, the Word became flesh and camped among us as we gazed upon his glory, which was the glory of the one-and-only next to the Father… And he was filled with kindness and truth” – John 1:14

By this, if John 1 speaks of the beginning of the new creation, we would have to say Yeshua went to Heaven after his human origins and became “a god” (or spirit being), and then after this… came down and became flesh again to teach the Gospel (John 1:14).

We see that we end up turning ourselves around in a circle, lest we claimed John 1 uncharacteristically puts the “end” of Yeshua’s human life at the beginning of the story to then suddenly jump to the beginning just a couple of verses after.

Therefore, claiming John 1 refers to the “new beginning” makes no sense, and doesn’t fall in line with the overall harmony and flow of the passage, which speaks in plain chronological arrangement, beginning with the origins of the Word, and his coming to Earth in flesh.

Overall, it appears, at least in my humble opinion, that both the grammar and flow of the passage, supports the Word being a lesser spirit being that existed beside God in the beginning as the “second power” before he came down to Earth as flesh, who was God in representation.

Who is Wisdom Personified?

As someone of the Arian persuasion, I believe the Bible points to Yeshua being at God’s side as his “skilled worker” who rejoiced before him all the time before the “creations of old”, and was someone who was existed in “ancient times”, described as the personification of feminine Wisdom:

• “YHWH created me as His first course, before/for His works of old. Before the ages I was founded, from the beginning, before the earth began. When there were no watery depths, I was brought forth, when no springs were overflowing with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth, before He made the land or fields, or any of the dust of the earth. I was there when He established the heavens, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, when He established the clouds above, when the fountains of the deep gushed forth, when He set a boundary for the sea, so that the waters would not surpass His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was a skilled craftsman at His side, and His delight day by day, rejoicing always in His presence. I was rejoicing in His whole world, delighting together in the sons of men. Now therefore, my sons, listen to me, for blessed are those who keep my ways. Listen to instruction and be wise; do not ignore it. Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at the posts of my doorway. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains the favor of YHWH. But he who fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.” – Proverbs 8:21-36

Akin to Arians, some Socinians also believe that Yeshua is being spoken of here on both accounts, but some in their view, would claim that it refers to his “pre-destination”, and that he is “not conscious” or truly in existence at this time. Rather, some Socinians assert that it is Yeshua’s “non-conscious form”, in God’s mind, rejoicing before God in Proverbs 8, as God’s plan for the Earth and future salvation of mankind before the physical world was created, described in poetic language.

Thus, in other words, there are certain Socinians who state God “planned” for mankind to fall from the beginning, to then save them through means of his pre-destined Son Yeshua, who would come into existence by being born as a man, to then die for our sins.

Others believe Proverbs 8 is a form of prophecy in relation to “the New World” and what Yeshua will do at that time, and therefore, deny Yeshua’s ancient existence by asserting an entirely different context to the passage altogether.

And then some try to argue that the verses of Proverbs 8 in particular are just talking about wisdom, and not a person at all, for verse 1 of this passage states “Does not wisdom call out” and again, in verse 12, it seems “wisdom” is speaking like a person in a form of poetry, as it’s also very clear that the book of Proverbs refers to Wisdom as a ‘female’ figure, not merely in a grammatical case, but also in pronouns and roles. And therefore it’s easy to simply say that Wisdom is a poetic personification of God’s female assistant or even “wife”, and the expressions and qualities of Wisdom incarnated as a perfect human wife appears to be even carried through in later chapters (Proverbs 31:10-31).

This position is taken up by many Unitarians and Trinitarians, both who do not seem to like the idea of Yeshua being “created” by God before the world was, for obvious reasons respectively.

Some Socinians on this line of reasoning will also claim that Yeshua “became” the expressed personified Wisdom of God from Proverbs 8, and that Wisdom in the Proverb refers merely to God’s own quality of wisdom that he used to create the Universe, and that Yeshua “later” became said wisdom, either when he was created in Mary’s womb, or when he was resurrected after his death.

I personally however don’t read or interpret any of those things here…

Denying Yeshua as Wisdom

Firstly, those who deny that Proverbs 8 speaks of Yeshua will have to contend with the Apostles, who wrote at 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 and Luke 11:49, telling us directly, that Yeshua is identified as the “wisdom of God”. These statements confirm the strong parallels found in the book of Proverbs and the descripitions of Yeshua in the New Testament, and informs us of the true identity of “wisdom”.

To add even further credence to this, several ancient pre Christian Jewish traditions, such as the Targums make the connection between Wisdom and the Word, along with early Christian writers from the latter end of the 1st Century and beyond, hundreds of years before the formation of the Roman Church, who all refered to Yeshua as the “Wisdom of God” and made the direct connection to Proverbs 8.

• “YHWH aquired/fathered/created (LXX/DSS) me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old… then I was beside him, like a master craftsman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man“. – Proverbs 8:22, 30-31
• “In Wisdom the Lord created… And the Word of the Lord created man in his likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord he created him, the male and his yoke-fellow he created them”. – Genesis 1:1, 27 Targum Jerusalem
• In the beginning… the Word was with God… All things were made through him…”. – John 1:1-3
• “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him“. – Colossians 1:15-16

So, for anyone saying that Yeshua is never once connected to this phrase at all by the earliest Jews, Christians and even Apostles, whether or not this Wisdom is a mere poetic female personfication, will become unstuck here. It is impossible to avoid both the references to Biblical Wisdom and the Targumic Wisdom and Word, throughout the New Testament.

Whilst of course, both Jews and Christians have never understood there to be a literal female figure or wife next to God assisting in creation via these verses, the fact that Yeshua has been directly connected to this very specific Wisdom, to me, makes it very difficult to assert that Yeshua himself wasn’t actually alive here doing all these things.

It appears to me to be clearly speaking of something that is conscious “in God’s presence”, who loves the Father, who was the first creation, who assisted in the creation of all other things, and in turn was very fond of those creations, which perfectly matches what we’re being told about the Son. I see no hint here at the idea of “poetic conciousness”, or that it was speaking of a “plan”.

Whilst Wisdom certainly can be argued to be female in the Proverb, that doesn’t make it impossible to say that the Son of God was this “female wifely personified figure”, for the reason that the nation of Israel also, has been called ‘both’ God’s Firstborn Son and God’s wife (Jeremiah 3:6-8, Ezekiel 16:8-21, Exodus 4:22), and seeing that the Law and Prophets were “shadows of the realities”, it’s not far fetched to say Yeshua was both God’s wife and Son, described in scripture in mysterious or poetic terms (Colossians 1:26).

We also have to remember that, as is asserted often by Unitarians, it is a book of ‘poetry’, which allows us to label a figure who is not literally a woman, as a female wifely figure, even if it is speaking of the literal Son of God. And this is even internally consistent in the immediate text, for we are told God “laboured and gave birth” to Wisdom (Proverbs 8:24). No person gives birth to their literal wife, for that would be incestral, however, we see the begotten Wisdom here, playing the ‘role’ of a wife, of which we should remember was an “assistant” to man in Genesis 2:18, and indeed let us not forget, that we are made in ‘their’ image in this respect of male and female, tying nicely Genesis 1:26, 2:18, Proverbs 8, John 1:1-3, and Colossians 1:16 together.

The female personification of Wisdom’s wifeliness in assitance to the male figure (God), whilst also being given birth to as a child, making a “Son of God” (given that no Heavenly children of God are ever called “daughters”; Genesis 6:2, Job 38:7, Psalm 82:6), provides a internally firm framework of a literal pre-human existent Yeshua being called God’s wifely Widsom and his Son at the same time, and provides a strong evidence that he is being described as such by the Apostles.

A Pre-Destined Being of Ancient Origins?

If God’s “plan” to make Yeshua in the beginning explains the meaning of “his origins being from old”, then it arguably renders the verse in Micah 5:2 meaningless, as we could argue that we ‘all’ are from ancient times, for God planned to make all of creation, and thus explaining the term “origins” as to mean “plans”, in turn causes the scripture to lose any distinict or special meaning for the origins of the Messiah, and in turn makes the scripture a non-statement.

It’s important to nore that Micah tells us that it’s his “going forth” that is from ancient times, which of course, can refer to “origin” or “decendence”, and that might be a reference to the ‘lineage’ of the Messiah being agent, as opposed to his existence, however, it just may as readily refer to something we could easily juxtapose with the Proverb of Wisdom.

God’s Own Wisdom?

If we were to claim that the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 was God’s own quality of wisdom, as several Socinians and Trinitarians both will claim, then we would have to claim according to this passage that God either “acquired” or “created” his own wisdom, which means God was not always wise.

Clearly this doesn’t make much sense, since God as the eternal all knowing all powerful being would always have wisdom, and would be wisdom incarnate. Therefore, the “created Wisdom” of Proverbs cannot be God’s own qualilty of wisdom that he used to create the universe, for such would be an uncreated eternal substance, but rather is God’s wisdom expressed into an external and created object, of which he “aquired” for himself as his assistant in the creation.

The New Creation?

In turn I also do not see any evidence of this passage to be speaking prophetically of the “New Creation”, for verse 22 even states he was created “as the first course before the works of old“.

The term “works of old” here, the mountains, the sea, the dust of the earth and the stars of the heavens (Proverbs 8:24-29) is in stark contrast to the “new works”, that is, the “Kingdom of New Heavens and New Earth” which I believe based on the scriptures does not refer to a literal or physical new Earth which replaces the Earth we live upon now (Genesis 8:21-22, Ecclesiastes 1:4), but the reconciliation of it.

Rather, the language in Proverbs 8 to me seems to be clearly talking verbatim about the creation of ‘this’ Earth and the physical universe which were created in the ancient times.

Another thought to take into consideration is the creation account of Genesis as aforementioned, which possibly appears to state more than one person was involved.

I would suppose, that if the context in Proverbs 8 indeed speaks of a being consciously existing before the world was and that he was assisting in the physical creation of this universe, then I think it’s possible for that perfectly lead into the interpretation of “let us make man in our image” in Genesis 1:26, to be referring to God and Yeshua working together, if of course the “us” is not merely a reference to the “plural of majesty” (ie; when a being speaks as themselves in forms of “us” and “we” to render a form of royalty or superiority, many Earthly kings and queens do and have historically done).

Nobody else after all is ever described or hinted in scripture to have any role in God’s creative works, certainly not the angels, and we know that the Bible forbids polytheism, so there was not more than one Almighty God which created mankind.

No, the only context that harmonises with scripture is a created or begotten assistant of God acting in a wifely manner in its role, which is exactly what Proverbs 8, and several New Testament verses appear to describe (Colossians 1:15-16, John 1:2-3).

Who’s Son is he said to be?

This was a question posed by Yeshua on Earth to some of his listeners, when he refers to an old Psalm where God is speaking to a superior to David, who is to be seated on the throne:

• “What do you think about the Anointed One? Whose son (descendent) is he?” ‘David’s‘, they answered. Yeshua said to them, ‘How then does David in the spirit call him ‘Lord’ when he says; ‘The Lord (YHWH) said to my Lord; sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? …So if David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be David’s son (descendent)?”. – Matthew 22:42-43, 45
• “Yeshua went on to ask [the Scribes] this: ‘Why do you say that the Anointed One is to be a son (descendent) of David? For through the holy spirit (or breath) [of God], David said: ‘The Lord (YHWH) said to my Lord; Sit here at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’ So if David called him Lord; how could he be his son (descendent)?’”. – Mark 12:35-37
• “Then Yeshua said to them, ‘Why is it said that the Anointed One is the son (descendent) of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: ‘The Lord (YHWH) said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ David calls him Lord. How then can he be his son (descendent)?” – Luke 20:41-44
• “[David writes]; YHWH said this to my lord: ‘Sit here at My right hand until I set your enemies as a stool for your feet”. – Psalm 110:1

This statement is one where Yeshua clearly confused and mystified his audience, as nobody had an answer for him. Yeshua makes it clear to the audience, that the lord spoken to by YHWH in the Psalm, is not David himself, but “David’s lord” who was to be placed at God’s right hand side in future (Acts 2:33-35, 1 Corinthians 15:25).

We must reason and ponder over why the nature of statement silenced his listeners, causing confusion. For, it is obvious, that all the Jews knew the Messiah was going to be of David’s line (Isaiah 11:1, 10, Isaiah 55:3-4), this was spoken by the prophets of old, and his audience there also knew it. So why is Yeshua asking “if he is David’s descendent, why is David calling him his lord?”, why would that be a hard question to answer for them?

We must remember, that a king’s son in the Old Testament, never was called the “lord” over his father. Kingly inheritance always placed the father above the son, because one became before the other, and the son only inherited the title of king when his father passed away, or was disposed. Hence, a king would never call his son his Lord, but only vice versa.

A Socinian or Adoptionist could only answer Yeshua’s question in that David calls Yeshua his Lord despite being his descendent, because in the resurrection, David will recognise him as his king. And indeed, that much is true, when David is resurrected, he will call Yeshua, his earthly descendent who was born from Mary, his Lord and king.

However, the Jews wouldn’t be surprised at this, that isn’t a mystery or puzzle to them. They always surely knew that king David in the resurrection would call the eternally reigning Messiah (which is a kingly title) his Lord (Daniel 7:13-14). And as such, if this was the meaning of Yeshua, it would not have been rocket science for someone in the audience to say “because the Messiah is king over David in the Kingdom!” But nobody responded with this, it’s obvious they were all stumped.

Furthermore, Yeshua asking specifically “who’s decendent is he?” brings attention to the notion of who his true father or ancestor is.

It would appear to be making the statement that, Yeshua, despite being David’s son, also is ‘not’ David’s son, or at the very least, not David’s son “only”. How can this be so if he only came into existence as a human being through Mary? Is Yeshua making a statement about his virgin birth or conception here perhaps? Is that the mystery he’s bringing attention to? That he was directly created by God in the womb, and therefore, God is also his direct father in that sense? Or perhaps it’s a reference to his baptism and adoption as the Son of God? – Those don’t make much sense of a satisfying answer to me either.

Many people knew the story of the Messiah’s virgin birth amongst his followers and listeners, and people also knew the Messiah would be considered and was considered as a righteous son of God, and again, nobody answers Yeshua’s question with such a statement in reference to those things either, and neither would any of these answers render any difficulty or mystery concerning Yeshua being called David’s son seeing that he was from Mary’s womb.

So, Yeshua’s mystifying of his audience here, isn’t so simply addressed by appealing to Yeshua’s kingly authority over the resurrected David, or his virgin birth, or his baptism and adoption. Those were not at all the topics or contexts of the conversation or debate in the account, and Yeshua being David’s lord, and God’s adopted virgin born son through Mary, would not make an impossible riddle of his sonship under David, nor bring into question of who his real fatherly ancestor is, for even king David the son of Jesse himself as mere man was called God’s son (Psalm 89:20, 27) – meaning it was common knowledge in Jewish culture and thought that David was both the son of Jesse and the son of God, and in turn, any king, could be said to have two fathers, a human father, and God.

Hence, it makes no sense that his audience would be confused at his statement if some form of adoptionism was the answer, and nor would it make sense for Yeshua to make such a statement with the intent of giving his listeners a paradox to work out.

This is important to take note of, as Socinians and Adoptionists always like to make a big point of having the “authentic Jewish understanding” of things, and yet here we see the 1st century Jews themselves didn’t make any such conclusions of Yeshua’s paradoxial question that modern day deniers of pre-human existence do. They didn’t even make an ‘attempt’ of an answer because they were so confused by his words.

However, it does make more sense, if we assert that when David called Yeshua his Lord in the ancient Psalm, that it was his lord in “real time”, that he was writing about someone who was ‘already’ above him, and living in Heaven with God, who had been promised to inherit the Davidic throne. This not only makes perfect sense, but also, it fits in with Jewish culture that the older the person is, the more honoured they are, and have a sense of authority or lordship over their younger generations.

Thus, in asking “who’s son is he” or what his “true ancestry” is, we have to bear in mind here, Yeshua brings specific attention that he is not just David’s descendent, ‘because’ of the fact that David calls him his “Lord” in the ancient Proverb. That right there, I believe, is the kind of mysterious statement with a conclusion that would stump his audience, for both the answer and the reaction of the audience, is more readily made sense of when one considers it to be a statement of pre-human existence.

In other words, I thus believe this is more readily understood to mean “The Messiah is not only David’s son, because David called him his lord in the ancient times, meaning he is also God’s son”.

This sonship he speaks of, being ‘literal’, not merely one of adoption or status, for adoptionism or status as a son of God and lord of Israel was a well established concept (Psalm 89:27), and so is not something so mysterious that would silence his audience, nor would status or adoption as God’s son make it difficult to understand or impossible for the Messiah to be both David’s genetic descendent and his future lord.

The phrasing of Yeshua asserts that he bewildered his audience, and presented to them some kind of contradiction that they couldn’t get their heads around, as ‘opposed’ to deferring to the common cultural understanding they had back in their day concerning kingly sonship under God as the answer to his question.

The Only Begotten What?

Another thing to consider is to really think more deeply on just “how” Yeshua is “the only begotten son”. What does being the “only-begotten” mean?

• “For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten/one of a kind (monogenes) Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life.”. – John 3:16

“Begotten” typically means “offspring” or “something brought about”, to be “born”. Only-begotten in that sense would refer to being a person’s “only son”. However, “monogenes” can also mean “one and only” or “unique of”.

“Gennétos: Definition: begotten, born”
“Monogenés: only, only-begotten; unique.” – Strong’s Concordance

439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, “one-and-only” and 1085 /génos, “offspring, stock”) – properly, one-and-only; “one of a kind” – literally, “one (monos) of a class, genos” (the only of its kind). – HELPS Word-studies

Hence, Yeshua is either the “only son of God” or the “unique son of God”. We now must ask ‘in what way’.

Throughout the Bible, the term can be understood plainly as what it reads, to be someone’s only literal born son or daughter (Judges 11:34, Luke 7:12). But such similar phrases have also been used to refer to “special sons” in a special position of authority or privilege, even if they were not the only “literal” son of that father. For example Abraham had other children before Isaac, but because his earlier son had been disowned and sent away (Genesis 21:8-14), Isaac became to be his “only son” (Genesis 22:2, Hebrews 11:17), indicating that only Isaac had retained the ‘status’ of being his son.

Hence, Yeshua is either an “only son” of God by unique birth, or the only one who has the “status” of being God’s son.

We can be sure that Yeshua being called the “monogenes” does not mean “the only human son to be made by God directly” as opposed to a human being conceived of a man and woman in sexual relations (as some Socinians and Muslims have suggested), for we would also then have to ask; how was Adam created? So we can be sure Yeshua isn’t the “one and only unique son” on Earth, because that would be Adam’s unique claim, he was the first human to be made by means of God’s Heavenly power, without the need of sperm or even other humans.

We do see of course, that the scriptures describe Yeshua as God’s “begotten firstborn of the dead and resurrection”. There can be no argument that the Bible calls Yeshua the “firstborn of the dead”, who was “begotten on the day of his resurrection”, this is in fact the only place in scripture where Yeshua is without ambiguity said to be “begotten”:

• “And now we proclaim to you the good news: What God promised our fathers. He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Yeshua. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten you‘”. – Acts 13:33

So we do have a very strong argument by this, that the manner in which Yeshua is the only-begotten is by means of his resurrection, and that because nobody else is resurrected yet, we might say that technically speaking, he for this reason is the “only-begotten” until then. However, we run into problems with limiting the meaning of being the only-begotten to his resurrection, for we also see God call Yeshua his son at his baptism:

• “And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my [beloved] Chosen One; listen to him!” – Luke 9:35

And we also see that as believers, we also are all called God’s children:

• “Everyone who believes that Yeshua is the Anointed has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him“. – 1 John 5:1
• “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers“. – Romans 8:29

So we cannot say that Yeshua is the “only son”, by means of adoption, for there are many adopted sons of God, lest we argue that when Yeshua was called the only-begotten, that was only during his ministry before anyone else was baptised into the New Covenant of his blood, and that now he is “no longer” the only-begotten. However, firstly I find this idea a rather disconcerting assersion to make, as we risk stripping the Son of God of his unique status, though we shouldn’t allow mere emotions inform our theology. But secondly, we also see the Gospels such as written by John the Apostle, to speak of the Son as “only-begotten” in ‘hindsight’, and doesn’t make a statement that he is “no longer” the only-begotten (John 1:18, John 20:31, 1 John 4:9).

When examine further the meaning of Yeshua’s “begotteness” in John, there appears to be additional meanings, John goes on to further clarify:

• “No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten god (theos)/son(?), the one being in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known.” – John 1:18
• “No one has seen the Father except The Being beside/from The God; only he has seen the Father“. – John 6:46

The first thing to note, is that in some manuscripts, Yeshua is said to be the “begotten god” here, and in this respect it would lend to the notion of him being a “begotten divine being”, and would argue for his Heavenly origins.

However seeing that the Aramaic Peshitta and several other Greek manuscripts say “son” and not “god” here, it’s not the strongest part of this verse to argue with on its own merit.

However another point to look at here is that we are told Yeshua was in the “bosom” of the Father, which is why he can make him known to us in the way no other holy prophet or agent of God before him has.

Yeshua in this respect is compared to everyone else who has ever come before him, all the spirit inspired holy men, in that not one of them, not Noah, not Abraham, not Moses, not Elijah, not Isaiah, Daniel or Ezekiel, nobody has ever “seen God” but Yeshua… He has indeed seen God, he was in his very “bosom” and is why he can explain God to us, that here is the comparison.

In a Socinian world, a question we have to ask is this;

What does Yeshua have that the other inspired prophets don’t, other than being of a virgin birth?

How does that alone grant superior knowledge to the other prophets before him? Why couldn’t they “see God” and be granted the knowledge and intimacy Yeshua was granted? Adam himself was beyond even a virgin birth, he was born from dust via God’s power, and was at one time perfect and sinless, just as Yeshua was! Yet not even he “saw God” in the way Yeshua was said to.

There are only two ways to “see God”. Moses himself was said to “see God”, not literally, but through divine revelation (Exodus 33:18-20, Exodus 33:11), thus, if Yeshua “seeing God” was to only refer to divine inspiration or insight, then he is ‘not’ the only person to have “seen God”, for Moses beat him to it. If it refers to Yeshua ‘literally’ seeing God (unlike Moses) but was still just a man and nothing but a man his entire life and had no pre-existence in Heaven, then he would have died, for “no man can see God and live” (Exodus 33:20).

So if seeing God is not to mean through divine revelation, contact or inspiration, then the only form of “seeing God” which can be referred to is the “physical seeing” of God, which no “man” can see.

Thus, I believe the wording of these verses speak literally, that Yeshua had existed in Heaven and knew God personally. That to me is what John is conveying to us.

In said respect, we might argue that the Son was “begotten twice”. Once when he was in Heaven from the Father’s bosom seeing him face to face, the other when he was re-adopted on Earth after giving up his former nature to become human. He is the “only-begotten” and Heavenly firstborn Son in respect to his former nature and origin, but also the firstborn and first adopted begotten son of God of the New Creation, thus being “first in all things” above and below (Colossians 1:17-18).

Juxtaposing Proverbs, Colossians, Acts & Hebrews

The Socinian argument for the context of the passage in Colossians 1, Acts and Hebrews, referring to the “new creation” and the resurrection, as opposed to the physical creation, in combination of Yeshua telling us his Apostles were “not of this world” in the same way he was not of it, is quite strong I admit, and it begs for deep thought.

Thus, one could argue, “what lens” do we interpret the scriptures in?

Just as I spoke in my Trinity article series, it becomes a matter of “framework”. We need a wholistic view of scripture, where the framework we come to must have no doctrinal nor textual contradictions.

Whilst Colossians 1, Acts and Hebrews clearly speaks of Yeshua as firstborn of the “dead” and the new creation, I do not think that alone is enough evidence to shoot down the idea of a pre-existent Heavenly Yeshua altogether.

To me, Proverbs 8 stands alone on its own merits by its clear language referring to “the creations of old”, and I find the connection of the Wisdom of Proverbs to have too strong a paralle with Yeshua’s descriptions in the New Testament. Even other Socinians and Adoptionists would confess such, but would hold the Son to be a “poetic personifcation” of God’s wisdom only, and not ‘be’ that very personified Wisdom who was with God at that time.

Thus, one may even argue, that even ‘if’ Colossians 1, Acts and Hebrews mention Yeshua as “the begotten firstborn among the dead”, that need not take away from an Arian or pre-human existence meaning of the prior verses at Colossian 1:15–16.

It may be a simple matter of separated context ‘within’ the singular passage, ie; “Yeshua is the first created thing in the entire universe through which all things were made, ‘also’ he is the first begotten of the resurrected from amongst the dead of the new creation”. This makes perfect sense in this passage, as Yeshua is said to be “the first of all things”.

It would be a beautiful form of poetry, I think, on God’s part for the first created or begotten being in all of existence to then also have the honour of dying for us, to then in turn ‘also’ be the first resurrected being and first begotten of the new creation, this being perhaps the larger meaning of these verses:

• “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name” – Philippians 2:9
• “…who is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of every creation. It was through him that everything in the heavens and on the earth was created, both the things that are visible and the things that are invisible… It was all created through him and for him, regardless of whether it is thrones, or rulerships, or governments, or powers, since he was before everything and everything came into existence through him. And he’s the head of the body of the congregation, the beginning, the first to be born from the dead so that he would be first in everything“. – Colossians 1:15-18
• “YHWH created me as His first course, before/for His works of old. Before the ages I was founded, from the beginning, before the earth began… I was there… Then I was a skilled craftsman at His side, and His delight day by day, rejoicing always in His presence…” – Proverbs 8:21-36

…in that Yeshua not only can claim to be the first of the old creation, but also the first of the new creation, no other (created) name or being thus, can ever be above Yeshua in any position, reward or achievement.

The Glory He Had

Of course, Colossians and Proverbs are not the only scriptures we should look to on the matter. I believe these passages in John and Phillipians are also very important to look at on this subject.

• “Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!” – John 6:62
• “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began… I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.” – John 17:5, 11
• “…rather he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant being made/changed in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient to death—even death on a tree.” – Philippians 2:7-8

Socinians will interpret this in context to their theology, that it refers to the “the foreknown pre-destined Yeshua” having glory with God in his mind, and then coming into existence on Earth, which that glory was then literally given to him upon his Heavenly ascention as a reward for him faithfully being humble in his earthly course, emptying himself of the appearance of God which he had as a man, for that of a human servant.

I believe, however, that such an interpretation, of John 3, 6 and 16 especially, does not fit into the ‘linguistic’ context of what is described, namely, that Yeshua “goes up” in “the way” he came down. Yeshua’s ascention was compared to his descension, and he spoke of his return to God in these passages that he wishes to be “beside God in the glory he ‘had’ before the world was”.

It’s also important to note that Yeshua did not ask for the glory “prepared for him before the world was”, but to be granted the glory he “had”. If Yeshua had that glory without existing for all that time before the world was even formed, and then we follow that logic to the point where Yeshua then “comes into existence” on Earth, why has he then at that moment “lost” the glory he had?

If he can have glory as a non-existent person, then surely he does not need to ‘request’ that glory to be given to him now that he’s alive? To me, this statement shows that there was a difference in state and status from when he was not on Earth and when he was. Namely, that one state was more glorious than the other, the former state being moreso than the latter.

But how can non-existence be more glorious than existence? With the words “I had”, we see that Yeshua requests to have his glory, not “given” to him, but “returned” to him just moments before he was about to ascend into Heaven.

Yeshua should not need to speak in the past tense if the “planned glory” he has with his Father was never lost or taken away, for the planned glory with the Father would be eternal, and the Son’s existence would not need to be qualitative of the having “had”, merely because he as an existent being now “is”.

In contrast, we see Yeshua tells his followers that they will receive glory in the future, whilst also in a sense “having” that glory already in the present tense (Mark 10:21) as a guarantee, in that they will be told in future “inherit the kingdom prepared for you”. Likewise, other scriptures too, mention the kingdom “reserved” for us (Matthew 25:34, Ephesians 1:4) and these are so often quoted by Socinians to make their point in regard to Yeshua’s glory having been “had” by him. But in this respect, it’s important to take note that we do not see Yeshua say or any Apostles write in their letters; “we look forward to receiving the glory we ‘had’”, but only do they ever say “have” or “will have”. They “actively have it”, ‘because’ of it being God’s plan and promise for them to “have in future”, but have not previously “had” it.

The past tense; “είχον”(eíchon) is never used in all of scripture to refer to the glory all Christians “will have” and yet (by means of guarantee) “have”; “έξεις” (écho), but the past tense is solely used of Yeshua’s requested glory which was the glory he had “with” or more accuately “along side”; “παρά”(pará) the Father before the world was.

As the past tense language indicates something once had but now does not and ‘thus’ needs to be “granted”, then it is logical to say that in a Socinian view, Yeshua was more glorious in non-existence than he was in existence. 

However, a non-existent Yeshua in God’s foreordained mind, would not be more glorious than the Yeshua that came to exist as a man, and the Son’s existence should by no means take away his glory that he has at the Father’ side, if he can “have” that glory ‘before’ “existing”. Otherwise, Yeshua’s non-existence is more glorious than his life, and to exist means for Yeshua’s former glory to be taken away from him (hence he asks to be given what he ‘had’), even though in existence he now has real substance and reality, which should by all means intensify his pre-(non)existent glory, not lessen it. 

A Socinian might say that I am splitting hairs on the subtlety of language here, but it is not on the basis alone, in which we can argue he had a literal pre-human existent glory.

If Yeshua did not pre-exist his humanity, then we also must ask, “what did he empty himself of?” according to Paul, when “made in the likeness of men”? We should note that Paul writes it is the “emptying” of himself of the appearance of God which ‘resulted’ in him being made as a servant in the likeness of men (Phillipians 2:7), the word for “made” being “γίνομαι” (ginomai), which refers to the change or transformation of something, for example, the Lord Yeshua transforming water into wine:

• “When the master of the feast tasted that the water now become (ginomai) wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom”. – John 2:9

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means “become” (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb “to be” (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means “to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place” (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109). – HELPS-Word Studies

So not only was Yeshua “emptied” of something, he was also “changed” from being something, in order that he could be of “human likeness”

A Socinian would only be able to say that he was emptying himself of something he recieved as a man as opposed to emptying himself of something which in turn ‘resulted’ in him being a man, and it also would be to say he was glorified before his Heavenly ascention, which we know can’t be so. And so surely it can be nothing more than the “foreordained glory” of which he empties himself in the mind of a Socinian? So how does a ‘non-existent’ man ‘have’ what an ‘existent’ man then robs from himself, merely by the notion of coming into being, and has also not yet recieved?

One cannot “empty themselves” of ‘nothing’, one has to ‘have’ to then ‘empty’, but a Socinian will say Yeshua “never actually had”, but only “had” in God’s foreknowledge, and then literally “received” upon ascention as a reward (John 17, Hebrews 1-2).

If it is not the glory, was he merely emptying himself of the “authority and status” God gave him to act as his image or appearance to men when on Earth as a human? How would he then be continue the image, form, or appearance of God to men (as was his role and purpose) if that was what he was emptying himself of? Is that he was merely emptying himself of pride and haughtiness, acting in humility as a servant whilst he was yet the “authority and appearance of God”? How do either of those things make or change (γίνομαι-ginomai) him to be “in the likeness and appearance of men”? What does being “in the likeness of men” even ‘mean’ at this point?

It becomes even more of a puzzle if we try to say “being made in the likeness of men” refers to humility and servitude, considering that we are told men by nature are arrogant, unrighteous and weak toward sin (Psalm 14:2-3, Romans 3:10-12, 7:18, Galatians 5:19-21, Matthew 26:41). So to define “emptying” as “humility” by itself certainly isn’t something that would make (or “transform”) him “to be or appear as a man”.

In order to attain such an interpretation, the sentence would have to be re-arranged from its original to read as such:

• Though he was in the appearance (or the representative) of God [on Earth], he did not consider equality with God as a thing to be robbed, rather; – being made (or created) in human likeness; – he emptied (or humbled) himself and took on the form of a servant. – And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient to death—even death on a tree. – Edited & Rearranged Form (Socinian Understanding)
• Though he was in the appearance of God, he did not consider equality with God as a thing to be robbed, rather; – he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant – being made (changed) in(to) human likeness. – And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient to death—even death on a tree. – Original Unedited Form
• Though he was [formally] in the appearance (or the divine representative, or Heavenly shape) of God, he did not consider equality with God as a thing to be robbed, rather; – he emptied himself [of his former nature and Heavenly status] and took on the form of a servant – being made (changed) into human likeness. – And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient to death—even death on a tree. – Edited Form with Original Arrangement (Arian Understanding)

The original form, arguably in my view, is more readily and easily interpreted with a pre-human existence understanding. The Socinian understanding requires that Yeshua humbled himself ‘because’ he acknowledged he was only a man, whereas an Arian understanding allows the text to remain in its original arrangement, that he humbled himself ‘by means’ of being made or changed into the likeness of men.

The only way to claim the Socinian understanding to be correct textually without re-arrangement, is if one claims “being made in human likeness” is a clause, that being, “rather he emptied himself; because he was made into a man”.

But that doesn’t explain the language used concerning him being “made into” or “changed” to a man, and also is only half of the reason given by Paul for his humility, for we see in verse 8, Paul tells us he humbled himself after finding himself to be in the apperance of a man, and so if verse 7 was saying the same thing, Paul would thus be repeating himself. Note if I mark humility as “A” and appearing as a man as “B”:

• “Though he was in the appearance of God, he did not consider equality with God as a thing to be robbed, rather; he emptied (or humbled) himself (1.a) and took on the form of a servant; being made (or changed) into human likeness (1.b). And (kai) being found in appearance as a man (2.b) he humbled himself (2.a) becoming obedient to death—even death on a tree…”

Why the repetition if he’s only talking about one subject concerning the humility of Yeshua? Why would Paul not just simply write it either as:

1. “Though he was in the appearance of God, he did not consider equality with God as a thing to be robbed, rather; he emptied (or humbled) himself and took on the form of a servant; being made into human likeness, and became obedient to death—even death on a tree…”
2. “Though he was in the appearance of God, he did not consider equality with God as a thing to be robbed, rather he took on the form of a servant; being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient to death—even death on a tree…”

It seems Paul’s intent might be to make two points, rather than a repetition, especially when we consider his use of the Greek conjunction “kai” meaning “and”; typically used to seperate subjects and objects. ‘One’ of them is Yeshua’s humility as a man, but the other is him being “made” or “changed” into the “likeness” of a man… But even if we to give the Socinian rendition of a clause the benefit of the doubt, we still have other narrative problems.

The “appearance and form of God” can only refer either to some kind of authorative status, or divine state of being. Of the former, he never emptied himself of – lest we say it was the pre-human status of him being the “Heavenly Representative and Image of God” which he gave up, and of the latter, that can only be “emptied” of if he had it previously also.

If reference to a divine nature of being, Socinians cannot say Yeshua had the “appearance or form” and glory of God as a man before his ascention. And we cannot say it means he emptied himself of God’s authority, nor of pride, for such a thing would not logically “make him the appearance of a man”, one could still be a human being and yet be prideful. And even if we say it does mean such a thing, we then have to believe that the Son was at one time ‘not’ humble as a man and ‘did’ appear to be as God, and had to change from that state, making him at one time prideful and godly, going against the entire point of Paul and the Apostles concerning his perfect humility.

Socinians thus could only say that Yeshua merely ”emptied himself of the promised future glory” that he was to be rewarded with, rather than his current or past glory. Yet his future glory was only given as a reward for the completion of the humble earthly course itself, which results in a logical collapse:

Yeshua only has glory given to him by being humble and emptying himself of his future known glory by taking on the form of a servant, which then grants him that very emptied pre-servant glory of which he never had, but always had. 

This I personally find to be quite a conundrum. 

A glorified non-existent Yeshua would surely not lose his glory from being made alive and brought into the world… But a Heavenly spirit Yeshua above the station of man, being then made into a man who is a little lower than angels, certainly can be said to be a loss of former glory.

In comparison, if we are to translate these passages in John as “Yeshua’s non-pre-existent glory”, as the Socinians do, then would we not be saying that Yeshua would be returning to a state of nothingness? After all, his “glory” with God according to Socinianism refers to his “pre-destination and foreknowing”, not his literal existence. So if Yeshua is returning to ‘that’ glory, is he returning to a form of non-existent pre-destination?

I believe that both the Socinian and Trinitarian interpretation of John 17:5 ‘technically’ remove Yeshua from existence. One through saying he returns to his previously glorious non-existent state, the other says he returns to be God, which removes his existence as the separate being who is the “Son of God”.

Yeshua Stated He Existed In Heaven Before Coming to Earth

Furthermore, we even see at John, Yeshua states he is from Heaven, and also states word for word; “before Abraham, ego emi”, which in Greek to English plainly means “I am before Abraham”.

• “‘Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad’. Then the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?’ Very truly I tell you,” Yeshua answered, “I am before Abraham was born!” – John 8:56-58
• “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man”. – John 3:13

These statements appear to be a very plain, but very strong statement of Yeshua’s existence prior to when he came to Earth long ago.

When it comes to his statement regarding that he seen Abraham, this was something the Jews in converation with him also seemed to be astounded by with their reaction, and make an assumption of literal pre-human existence by referring to his age:

• “You are not yet fifty but you have seen Abraham?!”.

We see Yeshua does not seek to correct them in their statement as if they had misunderstood the context of his words, as he did with Nicodemus who took him literally about being “born again from above” (John 3:4-5) but rather, he confirmed their statement according to the context of their own assersion, telling them that, he not not merely “as old” as Abraham, but “even older”! Saying simply “I am before Abraham”.

The manner in which he answered was an explanation to the Jews who questioned him in context of how he could have “literally known and saw” Abraham himself, despite being a human in his 30s. He did not say “I was foreknown before Abraham”, nor did he say “I was planned to be the Messiah before Abraham”, or that “I am greater than Abraham”, neither did he deny the assersion made that he had truly “seen Abraham”, he answered them ‘upon the basis’ their own definitions and assersions.

Whilst some Socinians will say what he really meant was “I am to come before Abraham’s resurrection”, or “I was planned before Abraham”, that clearly is not the context in which he was conversing with them, the topic was his age, and he answered plainly with a statement that easily is understood to be saying he existed before Abraham’s time and ‘hence’ saw Abraham, and never clarified that he meant anything else by what he said.

Again, if Yeshua’s words here merely referred to “God’s plan”, then all humans could make that very same statement, and the strength of Yeshua’s words would be rendered meaningless, if not contradictory. For all humans and creations are foreknown by God. Yeshua did not state that he was “foreknown” before Abraham, but that he “is” or “existed” (with the Greek word “eimi”).

Yeshua also further confirms his meaning in John 10:33-36:

• “Although you’re just a man, you’re making yourself a god! Then Yeshua asked; ‘Isn’t it written in your Law; I say that you are gods? ‘So if God called those who His Word spoke against, gods, and you can’t void the Scriptures… How can you tell me one who was made holy and sent into the world by the Father, that I’m blaspheming because I say that I’m God’s Son?”.

We see that by calling himself “God’s Son”, they in turn then realised he was calling himself “a god” or a being who had come down from the clouds, and then took offence to this seeing that Yeshua was a man of flesh.

Yeshua defends himself by quoting Psalm 82:

• “God stands in the gathering of gods, and among them, He’s passing judgment… I, [God] said to them; ‘You are gods…You are sons of the Most High!” – Psalm 82:1, 6

We see the context of Yeshua’s quote, when he says “you”, he is not calling the men infront of him gods, but he’s directly quoting scripture where the spirits of Heaven are called gods, and for that reason they are called “sons of the Most High”, these not being human judges (I believe) as some would assert, but are spirit sons of God who “like men” will fall for their rebellion against the Most High.

In turn Yeshua calls himself “a son of God”, and because in this situation he relates his statement to the context of Psalm 82, I argue and believe that it’s far more readily understood that he’s claiming that he’s akin to “one of these sons” of God of the Divine Assembly, just as phrase is commonly used throughout scripture to refer to spirit sons (Job 1:6, Job 38:7, Daniel 3:25).

(More here on the “gods” and “sons of God”):

“God”, “Gods”, & “Angels”

Apostle Paul Claims Yeshua Came From Heaven

We see furthermore, Apostle Paul confirms this meaning in his letter to the Corinthians.

• “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so also shall we bear the likeness of the heavenly man”. – 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

Some Socinians will claim this passage refers to Yeshua being “from Heaven” in the same way that the Apostles were “not of this world” in contrast to the opposing Jews (John 17:16). In this they claim to be “of the dust” like Adam refers to “being of sin”, whilst to be from heaven means to be “born from above” by being righteous.

Other Socinians meanwhile will claim that it refers to Yeshua being “created by the spirit” in Mary’s womb, whereas Adam was made by the dust of the Earth.

In this they will point to the earlier verse at 46, which he says “the spiritual was not first” as to imply Yeshua was flesh before he ever became spirit in his entire existence, and will also point to the fact that Yeshua had to “change from flesh into a spiritual being” to enter Heaven, in the same way that all Christians must.

However, we should note that he contrasts those of “earthly origin” which began with Adam’s creation, with Yeshua and other heavenly beings who are from Heavenly origins.

Hence, we can see clearly that this is what he was referring to when he says “the first was natural, the second spiritual”, as he continues to expound upon the “places of origin” of both Adam and Yeshua (verse 47), along with their “kinds”, that all humans came from Adam’s phenotype, whilst all spirits came from Yeshua’s phenotype (verse 48).

If we were to abuse semantics to claim that what Paul actually meant was; “Adam was made from the dust of the Earth, whilst Yeshua was made by the holy spirit in Mary”, this would cause a conundrum, for we are told in Genesis that the holy spirit or “breath of God” also was responsible for Adam’s creation and all other things on the Earth (Genesis 1:2, Genesis 2:7).

Therefore, if speaking on such technical terms, Adam too was from Heaven, because God’s spirit from Heaven made Adam into a living being, just as Socinians would claim of Yeshua in Mary’s womb.

Thus, Paul is clearly not speaking of “what physical materials” God used to create the first Adam and Last Adam (Yeshua), but rather, their locations of origin. Adam was created on Earth, whilst Yeshua came from the Heavens above.

In this passage, being from Heaven also clearly does not refer to “knowledge” of God, nor a state of “righteousness”, for Paul says Christians on Earth have not yet attained such a thing, even though Yeshua himself told his Apostles “they were not of this world” (John 17:16), which proves Paul spoke in a different context. Furthermore, if being from dust meant being of sin, then we would have to claim God “created Adam with sin”.

• “Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality“. – 1 Corinthians 15:50-53

He tells us here that it refers to our “nature”, and that flesh which originates from Earth, is not the same as a spiritual body which originates from Heaven, which is why we must “be changed”.

Therefore, if Yeshua, as opposed to being born from the dust of the Earth like Adam and his offspring, “came from Heaven”, the destination Paul tells us we aspire to and require new bodies to enter, to become like “heavenly people”, this would imply that originally Yeshua must of had a spiritual body before he was made a fleshly man, otherwise he would not have been from Heaven, but would have been from the Earth in a similar way Adam was, and Paul would have said something along the lines of; “The first Adam was made by the dust of the earth, the Last Adam was made by the uterus of Mary”.

Clearly however, seeing that scripture tells us that both Adam and Yeshua were made by God’s Heavenly holy spirit, that is not the contrast Paul is making when he compares Adam coming from the dust and Yeshua from the Heavens.

It is true of course, that when he became a fully mortal man, Yeshua had to die and then had to be made into a spirit once more in order to inherit his Kingdom, and this “new creation” that Yeshua became applies to Christians also on the day of the Last Trumpet. And indeed, we must “become” what Yeshua “became”.

But Paul makes it clear here in this passage, that though Yeshua became a man of flesh and was required to be made into a new being to enter Heaven, that he had a “different starting point” to Adam, and these starting points were ‘locational’, not of material, nor character.

Furthermore, Paul also tells us that “Yeshua was the rock” in the wilderness that the Israelites rebelled against during the Exodus.

• “Now, I don’t want you to miss this point, brothers; Our ancestors were under the cloud and they all passed through the sea, so they were all baptized into Moses because of the cloud and the sea. Also, they all ate the same food from [God’s] Spirit, and they all drank the same spiritual drink, because they drank from the spirit of the rock… And that rock was the Anointed One. However, because God wasn’t pleased with most of them, He left [their bodies] spread across the desert”. – 1 Corinthians 10:1-5

We could understand this to be symbolic, and that they were not literally rebelling against the presense of the “Anointed One” in the wilderness…

However, it’s interesting to take note again, that ancient Jewish understanding of the Word claims otherwise, and says the “Word” was the agent of the manifestation of God’s power throughout the Old Testament during the Exodus, and this description matches well to Paul’s words:

“…Like the Shekinah the Memra (Word) is accordingly the manifestation of God. “The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel”. It shielded Noah from the flood and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations; it is the guardian of Jacob and of Israel; it works all the wonders in Egypt; hardens the heart of Pharaoh; goes before Israel in the wilderness; blesses Israel; battles for the people”. – Memra, Jewish Encyclopedia

Nobody Inherits the Kingdom?

One of the ultimate failures I personally find in Socinianist reasoning, is one of their foundational logical bases for denying the pre-existence of the Son, in that they argue “he would not be 100% man”, and therefore pre-existence they claim, contradicts several scriptures, such as when Yeshua said “a spirit does not have flesh and bone as I do” and John’s statement in regard to the antichrist who “denies Yeshua came in the flesh” (Luke 24:39, 2 John 1:7).

The ultimate crux of their argument is thus; origin = nature.

I find this to be very narrow minded, and even insulting to God’s almightiness. Is he not capable of making a spiritual being into a human? If God told me tomorrow “you are now a carrot”, I’d be a carrot surely. Not merely a “man carrot”, or a “half carrot”, or in a “vegetative state”, but truly, a 100% carrot. God can change our ontological nature into whatever he wants, no matter how or where it started out.

But of course, there is more to this, which may even be an affront to the entire Gospel.

As Yeshua on Earth is said to have a human nature, Socinianists will argue his origins cannot have been literally from Heaven. This argument, however, little do they realise, potentially denies the New Creation and the Kingdom Inheritance.

When given new bodies, those in Yeshua will be new creations, no longer the humans we were, but a new kind of being. But according to Socinianist logic, nobody will inherit the kingdom, for scripture says “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom” (1 Corinthians 15:50).

Seeing that mankind, and Yeshua himself also in the Socinian view, “originated as flesh and blood”, then on the basis of their argument, we must also argue that men are not “truly spirit” or “like angels” when given new bodies (Mark 12:25, 2 Corinthians 5:1-4, 1 Corinthians 15:51), based upon their former state of being. Therefore, to deny Yeshua pre-existed his humanity, on the basis that it would supposedly invalidate Yeshua to be 100% man on Earth, in turn denies the new creation and inheritance of the kingdom for men on Earth, for humans (including Yeshua) would not be changed “of spirit” or made to be like angels capable of traversing the Heavenly realms just like Yeshua can right now.

However, as (ironically) put by 4th century Trinitarian apologist, Athanasius of Alexandria:

“He became what we are so that he might make us what he is”. – Athanasius of Alexandria

If Paul’s words are literal in the respect that flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom, then we would have to understand that Yeshua was made into 100% flesh, so that mankind can be made into 100% spiritual beings, a new creation for a new kingdom for a new Earth, even if still capable of manifesting into flesh upon the Earth. But if one’s “origin” determines what one’s nature cannot or cannot be, then neither can Yeshua, nor we, become spirit or “change” into anything else, and the Gospel is undermined.

It’s for this reason that some Socinians will even claim that the idea of flesh becoming spirit in the New Creation is a “false doctrine”, and will go one step further and claim that Yeshua himself is still “a human of flesh and blood” even though he is in Heaven, which arguably directly contradicts Paul in that he said Yeshua “became a life giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45) when putting on and being clothed with the new nature.

God Loved the World How Much?

Another consideration that comes to mind, is that we are told:

• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son…” – John 3:16
•  “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all…” – Romans 8:32

A question we must ask is; what exactly did God give up and refuse to spare in order to save us?

One of the reasons I think pre-human existence of Yeshua is an important ’emotional’ aspect of the Gospel to better appreciate what God gave us. That God gave up the first person and being he ever knew and loved to us, the one closest to him who had known him, and the one who he specifically created the universe for.

In the Socinian world view, God sent someone who only came about as a man in the 1st century, of whom God would have only known for 30 years and had ‘planned’ to sacrifice since the beginning of time or the fall of Adam and Eve. The entire ‘purpose’ of Yeshua’s future creation would have been solely for sacrifice and salvation, which doesn’t really get across to me that God painfully and lovingly “gave up” something to us.

This is not to say God would not have been upset or sad to see the suffering of Yeshua, just as he is displeased with the death and suffering of anyone, no matter how long they have existed for, but arguably, from the perspective of Socinianism this doesn’t get across the “sacrificial” aspect described to us which expressed God’s undying love for us, that he “gave up” something special to him for us.

For example, if someone made a huge painstaking Lego model, or an extremely detailed cake which took weeks if not months to construct, and then someone smashed it to pieces, it’s reasonable to expect that the maker would be sad, if not incensed. But if a person made a cake or object with the ‘intention’ of it being destroyed, such as a pie in the face, then it isn’t really a sacrifice or loss, than it is fulfilling the purpose in which something was made.

We could certainly say it was a ‘gift’ and that “God loved the world so much, he created a man to be sacrificed for us and was sad that this man had to go through pain”, but in the same way God shown his love for us by creating the world for us to live on it, nobody would say God creating the world for us was a “sacrifice” on his part, because that was the intent and purpose of said creation. If God ‘creates and designs’ something to be destroyed, then that’s not “giving it up” when it is destroyed.

To me, the “greatness” of God’s gift and expression, is one of the foundations of why “he loved so much and gave up his Son”. It speaks of the fact that God did not originally ‘intend’ for his Son to go through such an ordeal, yet had him do so for us. And I do not believe a non-prexistent view can as easily make sense of that, as one can only say the reason the Son of God exists was for the ‘purpose’ of sacrifice, rather than existing for his own sake and then being given up to it.

In order for the Son’s death to be a “loss” to God, something he “refused to spare”; which is said to be the expression of his love, is to believe the Son’s existence was ‘not’ for the purpose of sacrifice, but Socinians believe the entire existence and planned purpose of the Messiah from before he came to Earth, was to be created to die for us in accordance with the divine demand for blood (Hebrews 9:22, Mark 10:45), which isn’t really something he “refused to spare”, even if a sad event to witness, but it’s something ontologically purposed concerning the Son’s entire meaning of existence in the Socinian view.

However, if the Son’s existence was not for the purpose of sacrifice, but he was then ‘gave up’ for sacrifice, this would more readily imply, I believe, that the original purpose for his existence predated God’s plan to sacrifice him, and if that is the case, then it lends to the argument for his literal pre-human existence.

The only other way to make sense of it, would be to say God planned to make a certain man at some point in time, but then after he planned this, he foresaw sin, and then decided to only make that man ‘after’ the fall and predestine him to die for our sins as the entry point for his existence, thus “giving up his planned to be made Son” who originally was never meant to exist for the sake of sacrifice at all in his ‘original’ “future plan” to create him. But this way of seeing things, I believe is simply extreme mental acrobatics.

Conclusion

Overall, whilst I do not think Socinianism can be supported by scripture in whole, some scriptures the Socinian outlook may have correct. I agree that Yeshua certainly is the firstborn of the dead and resurrection. There can be no argument there. And I agree with the interpretation that he is of Heaven in the manner his Disciples were.

I believe Yeshua was certainly a full mortal man on Earth, and that he is the firstborn of the New Creation. But I do not think this debunks the idea of a pre-human existent Yeshua in Heaven before the creation of the literal universe, as many other scriptures I feel strongly point to.

That all being said, I still have a high respect for those of the Socinianism position as Unitarians, their arguments are strong, their scholars are respectable, and they are brave enough to study the scriptures and refuse to accept the long held tradition that “Yeshua is God”, and they do believe “he is God’s only-begotten son who died for our sins”, and that the Father alone is the one true God, which is something we Arians and Socinians both share.