Readers recently asked us to look at a JW item titled, "Jesus Christ- Wisdom Personified" on a JW site titled "Scriptural Truths". The piece does not name an author, and the site itself doesn't even bear the name of anyone, so we'll simply assign a name to the author based on a company he registered through: Robin. (The site does not clearly identity itself as JW, either; but it is linked to by a JW site as a resource for JWs.) Update, 7/05: A reader alerted us to a reply made by "Robin" at the end of March 2005, and which we now include response to.

Robin plays a game we have seen before from Unitarians: Even though passages like 1 Cor. 1:24 explicitly say that Christ IS the Wisdom of God, it is declared that "obviously" Paul "is not stating that Christ is the attributes, but that these things are personified in him." How and why this is "obviously" so is not explained; and indeed, Robin goes on to quote several patristic writers, as well as J. Vernon Magee, as making the direct equation he refuses: "Wisdom is Jesus." Not, "Jesus personifies Wisdom" but he IS Wisdom. So likewise Robin asserts that Jesus is not the Word, as John 1:1 states, but is a personification.

Update: Robin replies to this paragraph:

Are we expected to believe that Jesus is nothing more than an attribute of God? His wisdom is an attribute, just as each person possesses wisdom. We do not possess a person or "hypostasis" within ourselves that is that Wisdom.

"Nothing more" as a description is rather a red herring; to be an attribute of God is not a "nothing more than" position! But yes, that is indeed the argument, and it is laid out in full in the linked article at the top of this page, which is appears Robin needs to read. We of course do not possess a hypostatis; that is an attribute of divinity, not any sort of being! Robin needs to familiarize himself with how this concept was used in the ancient world, as our article describes.

Consider for example that in 1 Cor 1:24 Jesus is also called the power of God. Is he the attribute or is he the personification.

The attribute. "Power" was another word that was regularly used of an attribute of deity.

For example, 2 Corinthians 13:4 states that Christ lives by the power of God. Is this stating that Christ lives by means of himself? Certainly not. Perhaps we would then consider Luke 22:69, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of... himself? No, most certainly not here either.

Robin could also perhaps stand to read Segal's Two Powers in Heaven -- no, the answer is that both Christ and the Father would be called "powers". Hence Robin only ends up affirming our view with this objection.

We say he is the personifier of God's wisdom and power, because in all of God's actions God's wisdom and power are seen. We recall Christ's words.

John 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything from Himself, except what He may see the Father doing; for whatever that One does, these things also the Son does likewise.

That is not an issue for our view, because indeed hypostatic Wisdom would naturally also reveal the actions of the Father. Continuing with the former article:

The only argument as such that Robin presents for this purpose is to cite such as Proverbs 2:10, referring to wisdom entering the heart, of which he says, "we see no need to apply it to Christ, for it is simply speaking of the attribute." But that is a miscue on several points. First, Proverbs does not see human wisdom as an "attribute" but as something acquired or possessed. The correspoinding "attribute" is not "wisdom" but "having wisdom". Second, no one argues that each and every reference to "wisdom" in the Bible is to be identified with Christ; only those which refer to God's Wisdom.

Robin replies:

I think he has missed my point. The very argument I am making is that every reference to Wisdom is not a reference to Christ. This is true even in reference to God's wisdom, as we have seen that while Christ is called God's power, not every reference of it is to Christ.

I have not missed this point, but we have addressed the reply point above. Back to the former item:

Robin goes on to admit that Jesus "fulfilled" several aspects of Proverbs 8, but this is amerable to a view that either makes a direct Jesus = Wisdom equation, or "Jesus personifies Wisdom", so we skip to where we do have some disagreement. Robin cites Col. 1:16, agreeing as we would that it refers to Jesus, but clearly unaware of the parallels in the Colossian hymn to apocryphal literature which makes the direct equation far more likely.

Robin replies:

So is he saying I'm right or that I'm wrong? We could venture into apocryphal literature, and I think that is valuable for grammatical and cultural analysis; however for direct theological purposes it is better to avoid it.

Robin would perhaps wish he could avoid apocryphal literature, but unfortunately, as the linked article atop shows, the authors of the NT decidedly did NOT avoid it, and thus Robin's case will remain inadequate until he makes the venture. Return:

Then it is argued:

Moving forward, let us consider the next object of objection. In Proverbs 9 language is used of Wisdom that some simply cannot see having fulfillment in him. Yet, comparing scripture, we note that parallels to be striking.

Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house; She hath hewn out her seven pillars: 2 She hath killed her beasts; She hath mingled her wine; She hath also furnished her table: 3 She hath sent forth her maidens; She crieth upon the highest places of the city:

The words spoken here have surprising parallel to a parable Jesus used of the kingdom. Note his words.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son, 3 and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come. 4 Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold, I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast. 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise; 6 and the rest laid hold on his servants, and treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 But the king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy. :9 Go ye therefore unto the partings of the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage feast. 10 And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests.

The house Jesus built is his congregation, whom he has invited to "the marriage feast" (Rev. 19:9). He has prepared the feast and invited many, but not all invited come. Wisdom is spoke of as sending "forth her maidens", just as Jesus sent forth his disciples to preach this good news. Wisdom, Jesus himself, preached even in "the highest places of the city" (Compare Mar. 14:49).

This too we need not find disagreeable; Jesus as Wisdom would certainly enact Wisdom's dictates.

In the next section Robin addresses the question of Wisdom as a feminine figure, and concludes (as we would) that this is no barrier to any sort of identification of Jesus with Wisdom. In the section following we get into a more critical matter, that of the meaning of qanah in Prov. 8:22

Within verse 22 we find several translations to be provided. Some render it “made”, some “produced”, some “created”, and others “possessed. Which is accurate? In reality, all of them are.

Within the Hebrew text we find the word QANAH, which generally is related to acquisition and thus possession. Within the Greek Septuagint we find the word EKTISEN, which means created. Some have taken the position that Wisdom was “possessed” by God, not created, and that this was done from eternity. They, however, confuse the attribute itself with the personification.

As we have noted, however, Robin merely creates the confusion out of his own presupposition. But there is no study here or in what follows of qanah from any accredited source. As we have shown, "all of them are" is not a worthwhile answer. Robin errs for example here:

The first point we note is that QANAH, as already highlighted, always includes the idea of something that was acquired. The idea of an eternal possession is not found within the use of the term. This is evident from the following verses: Gen. 14:19, 22; 25:10; 39:1; 50:13; Prov. 17:16, etc. The use of QANAH in the Hebrew scriptures is very clear, and any example of it can be checked to see this.

But this is a false step, for NO verb in and of itself can denote eternality; denotation of time can only be accomplished adjectivally. Eternality must be ascertained by other contexts; and here, that context for Wisdom is that it is a hypostasis of the eternal YHWH. Thus the following is also misguided in use:

This having been said, some argue from here that wisdom should not be taken as created, even though the LXX says such. The argue this based on the use of QANAH, instead of the Hebrew word for create, BARA. Yet, we find a likely reason for the use of QANAH in the context of Proverbs 8 with the Hebrew text, with the understanding of “created” as provided by the LXX. This is explained by the Jewish Study Bible, which relates: “In fact, ‘kanah’ refers to acquisition by means including creation, as here.”

We have noted of course that prior to the context of the Arian controversy, there would have been no barrier to using the word "created" of an eternal hypostasis. Thus as well, that the word is used of births as in Ps. 51:5 and Gen. 4:1 is no barrier to the eternality of Wisdom, In terms of the time markers that are given, Robin appeals to 8:23:

Proverbs 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

The argument is thus that if Christ "was set up “from everlasting”, he is eternal. However, this is not what the verse says. The Hebrew word OLAM is used in a number of ways. He what we actually find here in the text is me’olam, which is used in a number of other cases as well. While certainly true is that the expression is used for God, denoting his eternal existence, it is also used in other ways as well. Consider the following example:

Genesis 6:4 The giants were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them; they were heroes which existed from ancient time, the men of name.

These men existed me’olam and yet we would not argue that they existed eternally, would we? The LXX agrees, with both Proverbs 8:23 and Genesis 6:4 using the Greek noun AIWN. Certainly not! In light of the birth imagery used in Proverbs 8, no reasonable person can possibly find the expression to denote his existence to be eternal. Why? Because to claim such would be nothing short of special pleading, with every other use of the term to denote something coming to be that did not exist prior. This is a well established logical fallacy that these ones are forced into in order to maintain a broken theology.

It is clear from this commentary that someone very badly needs to read Barr's work Biblical Words for Time. The word 'olam means in pertpetuity; there was no Hebrew word for "eternity" and so the piling on of superlatives (which Robin has no comment upon) as in 8:23 was the only way to express eternality in the Hebrew language, by magnifying Wisdom's immense age (and this is confirmed by the point that it is indeed used of YHWH, yet Robin cannot bring himself to conclude therefore that YHWH was not eternal). At the same time, that the title "Wisdom" was used implies something YHWH possessed at all times YHWH existed; and not even a JW regards YHWH as a non-eternal being. Thus Robin is caught between a rock and a hard place: Either he must argue that YHWH did not eternally possess His own Wisdom; or else he must admit that Wisdom, as a hypostatic production of YHWH, was and is eternal, as indeed concluded intertestamental Jewish texts which the NT writers made use of in their descriptions of Christ as Wisdom.

Robin replies to this section in the midst of sentences; thus we resort to collecting all replies to the paragraphs above here:

Forgive me for not providing any references. However, this does not negate my position from being true. For example, the Theological Wordbook of the OT says it means " I, get, acquire, create". What more need I say?

What more must be "said" has to do with the history behind the figure of Wisdom in Prov. 8. It is this history that Robin lacks when he states:

He here uses circular reasoning. He presupposes that Wisdom is "a hypostasis of the eternal YHWH" to argue that in the passage it means Wisdom is eternal. The context has Wisdom has somebody with God, whom God created and did so through birth.

But aside from the error of meaning re qanah, hypostatic Wisdom would also be "with" God and be created by God, and birth imagery would also be used (as it was later) of eternal Wisdom. Re the use of the verb, and it not having temporal meaning, Robin clearly "doesn't get it":

This is truly an oxymoron. Something created that is eternal. Creation is an action. When was the action performed? In eternity would be the answer. Well when in eternity? An action must be performed. Unless it is a perpetual action, with Wisdom being in a constant state of the creation being performed, this position simply holds no water.

And that is precisely what is being said: It is a perpetual action. Wisdom comes forth from God as light comes forth from a bulb; only bulb and light as eternal.

I am further puzzled how he simply walks over the birth imagery. Birth is temporal. When did the birth take place? According to verse 23, it was in the beginning. There is neither any scriptural basis for the idea of "eternal creation", nor is there any idea for something or someone being born that was not non-existent prior. What we have here amounts to nothing less than special pleading.

As we have shown in the original article Robin missed, there is ample basis scripturally (and historically_ for the idea of "eternal creation" -- and for as well the use of birth imagery for such a thing. The limits are on our ability to draw analogies.

Where is this "piling on of superlatives" to be found? Not in Proverbs 8. The most we find is him being PRO AIWNOS (before the age) and EN ARCH (in the beginning). These are references we would expect of Christ. Even the angels would be said to be created "before the age", though not "in the beginning." The second reference here would only be made in reference to that to be first in the created order.

Where indeed! Prov. 8:22-26 is nothing but the concept of age repeated again and again and again. This is never done of angels, only of Wisdom.

Robin repeats a couple of prior pointsm, but our conclusion remains: Robin's study is thoroughly inadequate.