Section 2: Examining Proverbs 8:22 – The “Created Wisdom” Controversy
One of the most controversial passages used by Arian theologians to argue for a created Christ is Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom is often interpreted as a foreshadowing or personification of Christ. This verse, however, has seen significant variation in translation between the traditional Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, and modern translations often follow the latter. As we will see, the rendering of Proverbs 8:22 as “created” rather than “possessed” has doctrinal ramifications that reach to the heart of Christian orthodoxy.
A. The Traditional Rendering: “The Lord Possessed Me in the Beginning”
In the King James Version (KJV), which relies on the Masoretic Text, Proverbs 8:22 reads, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.” This translation emphasizes that Wisdom—understood by many theologians to refer typologically to Christ—was an intrinsic part of God’s being from eternity, possessing no beginning or origin as a created entity. By using the word “possessed,” the Masoretic Text supports the orthodox view that Christ, as the Wisdom of God, is eternally begotten, not created. The choice of “possessed” aligns with other passages that affirm Christ’s pre-existence and eternal nature (e.g., John 1:1-2).
The Masoretic Text’s wording here preserves a critical theological distinction: Christ is eternally with the Father and of the same essence, consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. When the early church fathers and Reformers interpreted this passage, they relied on the traditional text’s affirmation of Christ’s eternal Sonship. The phrase “possessed me” reinforced the belief that Christ, though distinct in personhood, is co-eternal with the Father and thus not a created being. This view formed a bedrock of orthodox Christology, serving as a defense against heresies like Arianism, which sought to deny the full deity of Christ.
B. The Septuagint Rendering: “The Lord Created Me at the Beginning of His Work”
In contrast, the Septuagint (LXX) translates Proverbs 8:22 as “The Lord created me as the beginning of his works.” This wording was instrumental for Arian theologians, who argued that it proved Christ was a created being rather than eternally begotten. According to this interpretation, Wisdom was the first of God’s creations, which implies a temporal beginning for Christ and undermines His co-eternity with the Father. This interpretation was central to Arian arguments in the early church and remains influential among modern Unitarians and other groups that deny the orthodox understanding of Christ’s deity.
Modern translations that lean on the Septuagint, such as the NRSV and the NIV, often echo this rendering. By using “created” rather than “possessed,” these translations unintentionally endorse an interpretation that aligns more closely with Arian views. Although proponents of modern translations may argue that this choice reflects linguistic fidelity, the theological implications cannot be ignored. By altering this wording, these translations undermine the doctrinal foundation that supports Christ’s eternal pre-existence and equality with the Father.
C. The Theological Ramifications of “Created” vs. “Possessed”
The difference between “created” and “possessed” in Proverbs 8:22 has profound theological implications. If Wisdom (interpreted as a type of Christ) was “created,” then Christ Himself would be considered a part of creation—a notion that contradicts orthodox teachings about the Trinity and the eternal nature of Christ. This view, central to Arianism, suggests that Christ is subordinate in nature and origin to the Father, undermining the doctrine of His co-equal divinity.
On the other hand, the rendering “possessed” maintains that Christ, as Wisdom, is of one essence with the Father, eternally present with Him. Theologically, “possessed” affirms that Christ is uncreated, of the same substance as the Father, and eternally part of the Godhead. This distinction is not trivial but rather foundational to a proper understanding of Christ’s identity and role within the Trinity. It is why the early church, during the Arian controversy, insisted on preserving this understanding, which protected the doctrine of Christ’s eternal Sonship and co-equal deity.
D. Modern Translations and Their Alignment with Arian Interpretations
Modern translations that choose “created” over “possessed” risk aligning themselves with Arian interpretations, whether intentionally or not. When Mark Ward and others endorse these translations, they often overlook the theological consequences that arise from such changes. While these choices may be defended on textual grounds, their impact on doctrine is undeniable. By advocating for translations that introduce ambiguous or Arian-leaning renderings, proponents of modern translations inadvertently lend support to interpretations that contradict orthodox Christology.
Arianism argues that Christ, as a created being, is subordinate to the Father, a view that has been historically condemned as heretical. By altering the wording in Proverbs 8:22, modern translations open the door to such interpretations, weakening the biblical foundation for Christ’s eternal divinity. Mark Ward’s support of these translations, regardless of his intent, thus has the potential to influence readers toward a diminished understanding of Christ’s nature. This consequence demonstrates the doctrinal dangers of departing from the traditional text, particularly when dealing with passages that carry significant theological weight.
E. The Role of Translation in Preserving Orthodox Doctrine
Translation is not a neutral endeavor; it carries with it the responsibility of preserving doctrinal truth. Proverbs 8:22 is a prime example of how translation choices impact not only the meaning of a specific passage but the broader theological framework within which Christians understand Christ’s identity. The KJV and other translations based on the Masoretic Text preserve the orthodox view of Christ’s eternal nature by rendering Proverbs 8:22 as “possessed.” In contrast, modern translations influenced by the Septuagint’s “created” wording introduce ambiguity that challenges this doctrine.
When translators choose between “possessed” and “created,” they are not merely deciding on linguistic accuracy but on the preservation of a doctrinal truth that has been foundational to Christianity. Mark Ward’s endorsement of translations that follow the Septuagint’s rendering, therefore, is not simply a matter of textual preference; it is a choice that carries doctrinal ramifications. By promoting these translations, Ward and others risk diluting the scriptural support for Christ’s eternal nature, inadvertently aligning themselves with a position that the church has historically rejected.
Conclusion of Section 2
In conclusion, Proverbs 8:22 serves as a critical example of how translation choices impact theological understanding. The traditional rendering of “possessed” in the Masoretic Text upholds the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s eternal Sonship and divine nature, while the Septuagint’s “created” provides support for Arian interpretations that deny Christ’s co-eternity with the Father. Modern translations that favor the latter wording, whether knowingly or not, align with Arian thought by introducing a view of Christ as a created being. By advocating for such translations, Mark Ward and others inadvertently promote a doctrinally weakened understanding of Christ’s identity, showing the dangers of departing from the authentic texts. This section has highlighted the theological importance of Proverbs 8:22 and the risks associated with favoring translations that deviate from traditional renderings, setting the stage for further examination of doctrinally significant passages.
Section 3: Micah 5:2 – From Everlasting or From Ancient Days?
Micah 5:2 is a pivotal Old Testament prophecy concerning the birthplace and nature of the Messiah. Traditionally, this verse has been interpreted to affirm the eternal nature of Christ, describing Him as having origins “from everlasting.” However, as modern translations have shifted toward critical text renderings, the language of this verse has changed in ways that downplay Christ’s eternal nature, creating potential theological confusion. This section will examine the differences in translation, the theological significance of these variations, and how such shifts can unintentionally align with Arian doctrines that deny the eternality of Christ.
A. The Traditional Rendering: “Whose Goings Forth Have Been from Everlasting”
In the King James Version, Micah 5:2 reads, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” This wording strongly affirms the eternal pre-existence of the Messiah, suggesting that His origins are not bound by time or creation. The phrase “from everlasting” establishes that Christ’s existence transcends the temporal, placing Him outside the realm of created beings.
The theological implications of “from everlasting” are profound. This language supports the doctrine of Christ’s eternality, aligning with New Testament passages such as John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word”) and Colossians 1:17 (“He is before all things”). By stating that Christ’s “goings forth” are from everlasting, the traditional text upholds the orthodox understanding of Christ as co-eternal with the Father, uncreated, and sharing in the divine essence. For the early church and the Reformers, this passage was a powerful scriptural witness to Christ’s eternal, divine nature.
B. Modern Translations: “From Ancient Times” or “From Days of Old”
Many modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, render this phrase as “from ancient times” or “from days of old,” significantly altering the connotation of the verse. “Ancient times” implies a distant, but finite, origin rather than the timeless, eternal existence suggested by “from everlasting.” While this may seem like a subtle change, the implications are theologically significant, especially in the context of Arian interpretations that view Christ as having a created origin.
By using “from ancient times,” modern translations introduce ambiguity regarding the nature of the Messiah. This wording can be interpreted as indicating a historical starting point for Christ’s existence, which aligns more closely with Arian theology than with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Arians and other groups that deny the full deity of Christ have historically used such language to suggest that the Son was created at a specific point in time, rather than being co-eternal with the Father. Therefore, modern renderings of Micah 5:2 can lend unintended support to interpretations that undermine the eternal nature of Christ.
C. The Theological Implications of “Everlasting” vs. “Ancient Times”
The distinction between “everlasting” and “ancient times” is not merely linguistic but deeply theological. “Everlasting” signifies a timeless existence, pointing to the eternal nature of Christ as part of the Godhead. This aligns with the doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms that the Son, like the Father and the Holy Spirit, has no beginning and no end. By contrast, “ancient times” suggests a temporal beginning, implying that Christ’s existence, though distant, had an origin. This interpretation diminishes the doctrine of the Son’s eternality and introduces the possibility of viewing Christ as a created being.
The rendering “from everlasting” is crucial in preserving the orthodox understanding of Christ as uncreated and eternally existing. It affirms that the Messiah is not merely a distinguished figure in history but the eternal Son of God. When modern translations replace “everlasting” with “ancient times,” they weaken this doctrinal foundation, making it easier for readers to adopt an Arian view of Christ as a finite being with a specific origin. This subtle shift in language has the potential to alter a reader’s understanding of Christ’s nature, aligning more closely with interpretations that the church has historically rejected.
D. The Doctrinal Consequences of Modern Renderings
Modern translations that adopt “from ancient times” or “from days of old” as substitutes for “from everlasting” inadvertently open the door to interpretations that undermine orthodox Christology. When Mark Ward and others support these translations, they may do so under the belief that these phrases better reflect the original language or manuscript evidence. However, the theological implications of such renderings cannot be dismissed. By advocating for these translations, proponents risk promoting a view of Christ that is inconsistent with traditional doctrine.
The doctrinal consequences of this change are significant. If Christ’s origins are understood as “from ancient times,” the eternal nature of the Son is called into question, creating space for interpretations that view Him as subordinate to the Father. This reading aligns with Arian theology, which claims that the Son was created at a point in time and does not share in the eternal essence of the Father. Thus, even if unintentionally, modern translations that use “from ancient times” reflect an Arian perspective, one that the early church councils explicitly condemned.
E. The Role of Translation in Safeguarding Christ’s Eternal Nature
Translation is an act that carries with it the responsibility of preserving doctrinal truth. The choice between “from everlasting” and “from ancient times” in Micah 5:2 exemplifies how translation decisions can have a direct impact on theological understanding. The traditional rendering in the KJV upholds the doctrine of Christ’s eternality, affirming that He exists beyond time as part of the Godhead. This choice safeguards the orthodox view of Christ’s nature, aligning with centuries of Christian teaching.
By contrast, modern translations that favor “from ancient times” introduce ambiguity into the text, potentially leading readers toward a diminished view of Christ’s divinity. Mark Ward’s endorsement of such translations, whether intentional or not, thus has the potential to weaken the doctrinal clarity surrounding Christ’s eternal nature. In the context of historical Arianism, which denied Christ’s co-eternal status with the Father, this shift in language can have significant consequences, lending unintended support to interpretations that the church has traditionally deemed heretical.
Conclusion of Section 3
In conclusion, Micah 5:2 provides a powerful example of how translation choices impact the understanding of Christ’s nature. The traditional rendering of “from everlasting” in the KJV and Masoretic Text supports the orthodox view of Christ’s eternality, while modern translations that use “from ancient times” introduce ambiguity that aligns more closely with Arian interpretations. By favoring translations that obscure the doctrine of Christ’s eternal pre-existence, Mark Ward and others unintentionally promote a perspective that has long been opposed by the church. This section highlights the doctrinal importance of preserving traditional renderings in texts that address Christ’s nature, laying the groundwork for examining further passages that are affected by similar translation shifts.
