Our Wonderful God

In Three Persons

May the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
II Cor. 13:14

We have a wonderful God. Below you will find links to discussions on this page answering some objections. Even though we can never fully comprehend the majesty and infinity of God, we are still to seek to KNOW HIM.

The following is dealing with some issues Martin has presented to me on the understanding of the Trinity. It begins with the supposition that since the Pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church first spoke against the Trinity, therefore it is a false doctrine, and the church has "left the truth" by believing in the trinity. Then the discussion moves into the concepts of
EGW believes that Christ is the Eternal Rock and Eternal Word
What does the phrase mean --"only begotten"
Is Christ everlasting or is He "pro-created"? For pro-created means "begotten".
And what does it really mean "From the Foundations of the earth?"
The answer to these questions underlies the whole way we interpret certain phrases in the Bible.


Martin writes:
the Seventh Day Adventist Church as we know it today, has left the Way Marks, and has established doctrine that is completely contrary to the beliefs held by the pioneers of the church. I believe Ellen White spoke of this apostasy. Here's the facts friend, Ellen White was a member of a Church that was ANTI-TRINITARIAN from 1863-1911.. She was married to an anti-Trinitarian for 35 years.--EGW never rebuked them, not once.


That is an over simplified statement to cover what actually took place.
The SDA church was raised up to move forward into truth. They did not start at perfect truth. James White and Joseph Bates came from the Christian Connection Church which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. As I pointed out before there was a Unitarian Movement in the late 1700’s in the “educated” religious circles that based their beliefs on rationalism and denounced the Trinity.
There was considerable controversy -- the "Unitarian Controversy" centering at Harvard college. One of the prominent ministers, was William Channing and we see his ideas reflected by some of the SDA pioneers.
This was not a doctrine the Pioneers had studied out on their own in those hours where they were searching for truth after the great disappointment. This was something that they brought with them -- and had to “unlearn”.

Nor is it true that trinity doctrine was not introduced until after EGW died. As we mentioned on other pages on this website, it was EGW herself, who gently pushed the understanding of the trinity.

First, what was James writing against?

Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God.” They are two distinct beings, YET ONE IN THE DESIGN AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF REDEMPTION (James White, 1868, Life Incidents, page 343)
To assert that the sayings of the Son are the commandments of the Father is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God.

Our belief agrees with him on the points he is speaking on. We agree that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct Beings, yet one in design and accomplishment.
We agree that Christ’s sayings did not replace the ten commandments from Sinai. But did EGW counter James’ mistaken concepts?
It is true that in 1846 James White declared that Christ was not the eternal God, but the Son of the eternal God. While EGW agrees with her husband that Christ is not the SAME PERSON as God the Father, she does NOT teach that He had a beginning but upholds that He is ETERNAL AND SELF-EXISTENT.
While the pioneers say, Christ is not eternal, all the while EGW is writing that


“Christ must be made your strength. In His name you will be more than conqueror. No enchantment against Jacob, nor divination against Israel, will prevail. If your soul is riveted to the eternal Rock, you are safe.”
4T 553
He has riveted his soul to the eternal Rock. Health improves in the very sense of his security in Christ.
Da 599
When the rain falls, and the tempest rages, and the floods come, their house will fall, because it is not founded upon the eternal Rock, the chief cornerstone Christ Jesus.
BE 1887
Storm and tempest will not move the souls that are grounded on Christ, the eternal Rock

Now look to the Bible-- WHO IS THE ETERNAL ROCK?

1 Cor.10:4 “that Rock was Christ.
1 Sam. 2.2
There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Ps. 22.2-3
And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalms 92.15-93:2
To show that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.
Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

While the Pioneers were saying Christ was not the eternal God, EGW was saying
Christ is the ETERNAL WORD!

To the astonishment of the heavenly host the eternal Word came to this world as a helpless babe. Fully prepared, He left the royal courts and mysteriously allied Himself with fallen human beings. "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14.
Wondrous combination of man and God! …What humility was this! It amazed angels. The tongue can never describe it; the imagination cannot take it in. The eternal Word consented to be made flesh! God became man! It was a wonderful humility!

Now look to the Bible-- WHO IS THE ETERNAL WORD?

John 1.1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

And thus we also see James White softening over the years, though he never accepts the word “trinity” he writes: “SDAdventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians, that we apprehend no trial here.” (RH Oct. 12, 1876) “Ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.” 9then the concept of the trinity. R&H November 1877


Martin says:
She rebuked those who taught false views about GOD and hit them HEAD ON,,, but she never once, NOT ONCE, rebuked her church or her husband for teaching against the trinity.


That is interesting for EGW NEVER once rebuked those who taught the trinity, we just saw that she never gave support to the attack on the trinity.

NOT ONCE DID EGW DENOUNCE THE TRINITY! NOT ONCE DID SHE SAY IT WAS A DOCTRINE FROM BABYLON! On the other hand we do see that she did speak of the “three powers” and “heavenly trio” “the Holy Spirit being the third person in the Godhead” that Christ was "co-equal" with the Father with "life unborrowed, underived," that He was the "Self existent ONE".

In reading her writings one comes to see that she does not OUTRIGHT tell them they are wrong in condemning the Trinity, but she, using “different words” in consistently upholding the concept of the TRINITY.
During those early years, many were strongly embedded in the Channing’s Unitarian style, Arian belief. To counter attack would have caused strong resistance. So she simply wrote the truth about Christ's eternal existence and equality with God, “using other words,“ not using the word TRINITY, yet upholding it’s basic premise.
Also, we can see from the pioneers writings that they attacked concepts that some held who called themselves Trinitarians which we DO NOT hold today. The many controversies over the understanding of the Trinity had added implications to the term that were not correct and she found it better to just uphold the truth in the concepts rather than the “label”.

Here is just one example of how she upheld the true concepts of the trinity. She writes
Councils on Health p. 222
The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption.

Begotten, what does that mean?


Martin writes:. SHE (EGW) taught herself that Christ was BEGOTTEN before he was sent into the world.


The Bible and every Bible student uses the word “begotten”. Trinitarians use the word “begotten”. Therefore the fact that people quote this word and say this word, does NOT mean they belief Christ was literally pro-created and that there was a time when God was alone.
Nowhere will you find a quote from EGW saying that Christ was literally born out of God sometime in the far distant past.

I asked Martin:*** Did Paul actually give birth in (1 Corinthians 4:15 and Philemon 1:10) for he says he has “begotten” and that they are his “sons”?
Martin's answer: No... Paul was a MAN.

So we see that Martin himself does not believe “begotten” always means what he is trying to force it to mean.

Paul writes
1 cor. 4.14-15
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Philemon 1.10
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

In both cases Paul uses the word “begotten” #1080 “gennao “ (to procreate, bear, beget, make, bring forth, spring, delivered of) which is used in Acts 13:33 “my Son, this day have I begotten Thee” Heb. 1:5, Heb. 5:5,1 Jn. 5:1 and 1 Jn. 5:18.
Yet, no one believes Paul actually “begot” these people in a literal sense.
#3439 “monogennes” (One or only begotten) is used in verses like John 3:16. This implies the concept of pre-eminence and uniqueness.--“THE CHIEF”
Isaac was called Abraham’s ONLY begotten son, but Isaac was neither the first nor the last, nor the only, of Abraham’s sons, the term shows His pre-eminent status.

Psalms 89:20-27 David is called the "first born".
"I have found my servant David;...I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth..."
Yet David was the youngest son of his father. He who was the last born among the sons of Jesse, God makes the first-born. In the person of David his seed is included. John 7:42 Christ cometh of the seed of David.

2 Timothy 2:8 2.8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel."

Yes, Christ was born in Bethlehem, of the seed of David in the incarnation. Yes, He did cry to God, "You are my Father, my God," (Ps. 89:26) as He stood in His humanity, at the head of the human race, during the incarnation , as the CHIEF, the Prince, the ONE having the preeminence in all things.

Quite obviously "firstborn" is a figurative or metaphorical expression that does not necessarily imply a literal first "birthing". Paul used the word "begotten" twice in a spiritual sense. Obviously he did not use the words, “begotten’ to mean literal birth.

Also Christ is said to be the “FIRST BEGOTTEN” of the dead. Rev. 1:5 . What does that mean? Christ was not the first one raised from the dead, we have several Bible stories of people being raised from the dead.

Colossians helps us to understand this concept of "first begotten":
Colossians 1:15
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."

Does this mean Christ is literally born--given birth to, by God? Some will take these texts and the texts speaking of Christ as the "SON" of God, to say God actually gave birth.
However, if Christ is the literal first born of every creature, the implication of the sentence would mean that there was then a “second born” creature, and a third, etc. Firstborn here, does not mean God began giving birth and every creature that followed was also literally "born" of God in a literalistic sense.
No, it means pre-eminence.

Now read and compare the above verse with Colossians 1:18 which is just three verses down and see it in context.

“For by Him were all things created. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”
"And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD: that in all things he might have the pre-eminence."

Christ is the resurrection and the life! John 11:25

Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.

From Jesus is our life derived. In him is life that is original,--unborrowed, underived life. In him is the fountain of life. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life.

Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son"

The Statements Plainly say Christ is Eternal


Martin tried to explain away these statements saying:
Adventists have no problem explaining "Eternity, Everlasting, Forever" the proper way, when it is dealing with HELLFIRE, so what is the hang up with Christ? How many times have I heard SDA preachers say, "For ever" doesn't really mean 'for ever'.

“It is a fact that a person may exist and yet have no conscious awareness or any visible appearance. This is true of all human beings who pre-existed genetically in their immediate parents and even in Adam just as Levi pre-existed in Abraham (Heb. 7:9). Likewise, Christ was still regarded as a Person while a mere embryo in the womb and even as He lay dead in the tomb although in both instances He had neither consciousness nor appearance. This raises the question: couldn’t it be possible that in some mysterious sense beyond the comprehension of finite human beings, Christ pre-existed as a Person immanent within the Father’s bosom and was subsequently begotten as the mono-genes? The Apostolic Fathers, who lived nearest to the New Testament writers, who knew them and heard them speak, saw no tension in the paradox of the eternity of Christ and the fact that He was the literal begotten Son of God the Father. They simply believed that Christ pre-existed as the thought of the Father who was made audible (begotten) as the Word, an independent Being without leaving the Father empty of His mind.


This remark of course throws into question the whole concept of eternity.

If being in someones thoughts means "we are in existance" would this not move us into the "spiritualistic" concepts that we are also eternal?

The Lord said to Jeremiah, “ Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you. Jer. 1.5
God knew all of us before Creation. The breath of Life which was breathed into Adam is the breath of life in us all. Therefore are we to conclude that we are all eternal?
No, this type of reasoning is simply seeking to justify the rejection of all the quotes that say Christ is eternal. But by doing so he throws into question not only the clear statements that Christ is eternal, but the whole concept of eternal existence.

If Christ is not eternal, and to live eternally is only a mythical unreality or concept which can mean we are only on someone's mind, how can we even be sure that there is actual everlasting life in the future---?

The reference to the everlasting fires of hell which cause annihilation that is everlasting, but do not burn everlastingly, show that the opposite of eternal life is eternal death. The fire doesn't last for eternity, but the DEATH it imposes is a REAL and FINAL death. Everlasting life, on the other hand means REAL, LIVING LIFE that lasts forever. To compare the fire itself, that brings everlasting death as the focus of the meaning of "everlasting" simple leads to a belief that there is no such thing as eternal life either. So the whole concept of everlasting life is confused, for if not even Christ was eternal; but only a thought in God’s mind, what assurance do we have that we won't just be a thought with no real existance?

Actually the above reasoning is very much in line with Greek thought. In Greek philosophy their term LOGOS, or “word” also meant “sense of reason” or “thought immanent in the supreme Godhead”. Platonic theorizing had developed quite a philosophy along these lines of the One transcended God, “Divine idea of all ideas”, the archetype of the universe, and the revelation or forthcoming, the clothing of thought, the manifestation of reason personified in the “bringing forth“ of “demiurges“. It was through these “demiurges” that the ideas from the mind of God were created into “matter” which of course the gnostics considered as “evil” and the great God could not “soil himself” with this matter, so from His mind He projected agents, the Logos, etc. to do this work for Him.

This Greek philosophy was the “in” way of thinking back in the first centuries and we see their line of reasoning emanating from the schools of higher thought, especially from Alexandria were gnosticism was strong.

John, however, begins his gospel with an emphatic declaration that Christ, The Word, is an absolute Eternal Being. In the beginning the Word was there. He does not say “in the beginning the Word was brought forth”. No, In the Beginning the Word WAS!

Ordained, not birthed, from the Foundations of the World

Before Creation, Christ was APPOINTED (not created or generated or birthed) as the ONE to unite created beings with God. The One to MANIFEST GOD to the created beings.

1 Peter 1.18-20
Forasmuch as ye know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things...But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Rev. 13.8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before God (THE ONE GOD: THE FATHER, CHRIST, AND THE SPIRIT) created the world, it was appointed that "God" would supply HIMSELF a LAMB.

So yes, before the earth was created Christ was set forth as the surety for our salvation. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth, foreordained before the foundation of the world. Who was manifested upon earth as the Son of Man and the Son of God.


Martin wrote, “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.” (1 John 4:9)
Now if God sent His only begotten Son into the world, He had to have had an only begotten Son to send into the world prior to sending Him.


We could ask some of the same questions-- the anti-Trinitarians ask:
Did God have a Lamb? A literal woolly animal?
How could God send a LAMB, if He didn’t first have a Lamb?
Are we now to take literally that God had a LAMB.

Who is the LAMB OF GOD? Revelation pictures a LAMB in heaven.
Yet the scriptures also say there’s the shepherd, how can Christ be both the shepherd and the Lamb?

These WORDS and titles, of course represent marvellous truths, but are we going to take them to there extreme literalness--
Does denying their literal meaning connotation denying the truths they teach?

Thus too--the SON OF GOD-- the term is full of meaning, but are we going to take it to it’s extreme literalness and deny the eternal Godhood of Christ WHO IS ONE WITH THE FATHER?

You may think the above foolish as the meaning of “Lamb of God” seems obvious -- how can anyone not understand it-- yet why use that same senseless reasoning to deny that Christ is eternal, self-existing God, ONE WITH THE FATHER and the Holy spirit?

God the Father bears witness to Christ’s deity when He addresses Him as God.

“Unto the Son, he say, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…and thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” Heb. 1:8-10

There are those who assert that Christ Himself never made any claim to being everlasting God while on earth. Yet Christ claimed oneness and equality with the Father. “I and my Father are One.” John 10:30
The Jews took up stones saying He had “made himself equal with God.” John 5:8
Again, “Thou being a man, makest thyself God.” John 10:33

Christ’s strongest claim was using the everlasting NAME “I AM” in John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I AM”.
This name is an exclusive title of the Godhead.
But now people say God produced Christ before He created the world. But if Christ is not God essentially and in the highest sense, if He is not self-existent and self-existing then we have a saviour who is not GOD HIMSELF, who owes His life to God and is UNDER the commands of another. Therefore, Christ’s saving work sinks into insignificance. God simply brought into existence a being who was to die for us; or perhaps it could be said, who was to die to save God from embarrassment, since God foreknew that man would sin and He had to vindicate Himself. Therefore He produced another who would be the sacrifice to vindicate Himself without making the supreme sacrifice Himself.
This of course belittles God and His character.
No, that’s not how it was.

Genesis begins with “In the beginning GOD----
That means God was there from all eternity-- before there was a beginning-- there was God.

John says: In the beginning was the WORD----
That means THE WORD, Christ, was there from all eternity--before there was a beginning--there was Christ.

Christ said HE IS THE “I AM” in John 8:58

Vincent, in his WORD STUDIES, says,
“It is important to observe the distinction between the two verbs (was, am). Abraham’s life WAS under the conditions of time, and therefore had a temporal beginning. Hence, Abraham came into being , or was born (genes Thai) Jesus’ life was from, and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless existence, I am (ego eimi)’ Wordsworth’s Greek Testaments says” “Before Abraham was born, I AM. It would seem that the words “ego eimi (I AM) are used by our Lord three times (v. 23,24,28) in this chapter to signify HIS OWN DIVINE PRE-existence. I AM, meaning --from everlasting, and His co-existence with the Father…Why did He not say, before Abraham I was, instead He says I AM? Because He uses this word, “I AM” as His Father uses it; for it signifies perpetual existence, independent of all time…The Deity has no past or future, but a perpetual present, and therefore He uses the present tense, and says “I AM”

Stop and think of the ONENESS of God the Father and Christ-- this is a union that far exceeds that of any parental relationship. The father/son relationship is the human terms given to try to describe this ONENESS-- but the reality is far closer. They were ONE, of the same essence, yet two who could understand each others every thought and emotion. It was this very ONENESS that was broken on the cross. For the first time in all eternity, Christ lost contact with God the Father as well as with the Holy Spirit. The sins -- our sins -- rose up like a great sword and cut like an amputating knife, severing Christ from the Godhead. Did the Father suffer too-- yes, intensely, and it broke Christ’s heart. And don’t think the Holy Spirit, the one who with unutterable groanings seeks to reconcile us to God, wasn’t suffering as well.

God himself was crucified with Christ; for Christ was one with the Father. Those who reject Christ, those who will not have this man to rule over them, choose to place themselves under the rule of Satan, to do his work as his bond slaves. Yet for them Christ yielded up his life on Calvary.

Not one of the angels could have become surety for the human race: their life is God's; they could not surrender it. The angels all wear the yoke of obedience. They are the appointed messengers of Him who is the commander of all heaven. But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come; and when God asked, "Whom shall I send?" he could reply, "Here am I; send me." He could pledge himself to become man's surety; for he could say that which the highest angel could not say,--I have power over my own life, "power to lay it down, and . . . power to take it again."


Martine writes:
Before the world was created, God brought forth His Son,
“But,” some say, “Jesus was not God’s Son until He came into the world.” Please read the following verse: “Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in His fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is His name, and what is His son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4) Obviously the writer of Proverbs knew that God had a Son. When Nebuchadnezzar cast three men into the fire, “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” (Daniel 3:25)


Christ was appointed before the foundations of the earth were created to be surety for man, as we showed from scripture earlier. These texts simply affirm that Christ was God, with God, One with the Father all through the OLD TESTEMANT--


Martin continues:
Carefully read these verses: “For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out 1831 from God. I came forth 1831 from the Father, and am come 2064 into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” (John 16:27, 28)

The Greek word which was translated “came out” means this: “to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.”* The Greek word which was translated “come” means this: “to come from one place to another.”* ________________________

The word is translated “go out” 82 times, “go forth” 25 times, “come out” 30 times, “depart” 30 times, “come forth” 9 times. Examples of it’s use:
“Lazereth come forth,” John 11:43,
Then came Jesus forth wearing the crown of thorns John 19:5,
And His disciples went forth Matt. 14:15, 16:20

I really don’t see the term used as a “birth” word, for even Matt. 1:21 where Mary “brings forth” a Son, uses #5088 not #1831.

In John 16:27 Christ came forth FROM HEAVEN--From the FATHER when He came to this world.
When His mission on earth was finished He returned to God, to the Father.

This was the whole issue facing the people as Christ walked those dusty roads in Israel. Would people recognize that HE CAME FORTH FROM HEAVEN ITSELF INTO THIS WORLD--THAT HE CAME FROM THE VERY THRONE OF GOD, for scripture tells us that Rev. 7.17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne. He came from the “bosom” of the Father-- that means from His embrace, not “being born”. He come forth from God into this world and He is going back to the Father. When He goes back -- He is returning to where He came from. He is not getting “unborn”.


Martin writes:
Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ, stating that He “is the image 1504 [“likeness”*] of the invisible God, the firstborn 4416 of every creature.” (Colossians 1:15) The Greek word that was translated “firstborn” means this: “Firstbegotten (-born), the alternate of (5088) meaning to produce (from seed as a mother), bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered.” (Strong’s Concordance) “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."


Does this mean God literally gave birth to Christ?

As we've already pointed out, Firstborn here, does not mean God began giving birth, no, it means pre-eminence.
Compare the above verse with Colossians 1:18 which is just three verses down and see it in context. “For by Him were all things created.. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” "And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD: that in all things he might have the pre-eminence."

The context makes clear that Christ is the agent of creation, he is not created (or pro- created.)

By the way my Webster’s dictionary reads: “PRO-CREATE,--- to beget or bring forth (offspring): propagate: to beget or bring forth offspring: reproduce. So to say Christ was literally “begotten” or brought forth into existence, means He was PRO-CREATED. Yet Christ is the agent of creation, which at once places Him above it. In this case the word “first born” must be understood in the sense of “supreme” rather than in the temporal sense of “born before”. This is further verified by the word “pre-eminence. That in all things He might have the PRE-EMINENCE. Yet there is a sense in which the incarnate Christ became part of the creation over which He is sovereign.


Martin wrote:
John the Baptist also affirmed the fact that Jesus was born in heaven prior to coming into this world. “John [who was six months older than Jesus] bare witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred 1096 before me: for He was before me.” (John 1:15) “This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred 1096 before me: for He was before me.” (John 1:30) The Greek word that was translated “preferred” means this: “to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being.”*


(The word #1096, is rather a common word used in a variety of ways including “to be” 249 times, “come to pass”, 83 times. “Be made” 69 times, “be ordained to be” 1 time, “arise” 16 times, “preferred” “3 times. I really don’t see how this proves anything.
Of course Christ was BEFORE JOHN.
He declared that “BEFORE ABRAHAM, I AM.” announcing His eternal existence.


Martin writes:
Let’s look at Christ's birth in the Old Testament. “But thou, Bethlehem, 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 4163 [origin] have been from of old, from everlasting [margin: the days of eternity].” (Micah 5:2) “Whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” (Revised Standard Version)


Beautiful verse proclaiming the eternal existence of Christ.

“But thou, Bethlehem, 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 (Micah 5:2)

Martin tries desperately to get the word “origin” --meaning “had beginning” in there. But the text does not say that.

This text (in context) is contrasting the earthly kings of Israel who live for short periods of time, (the ruler of Israel is smitten on the cheek, he will be defeated and crushed) but in due time a RULER is to arise in Israel, coming forth out of Bethlehem WHO, unlike the earthly kings who are born and die, does not have His origin there in Bethlehem, but comes from everlasting. His origins are eternal not temporal, limited in time. This verse is a “contrast” verse-- contrasting the “beginnings” of kings, against the “eternal” who was there before “days” began, is the ONE who will come forth in Bethlehem.

The words “come forth” #3318, out of thee shall "come forth" mean to (appear, come forth).

Whose "goings forth" #4163 (motsaoth) “outgoings” (Youngs Concordance) “brought out,” “going forth” “proceeded out,” are from days everlasting. This shows that there was never a time when He was NOT going forth-- (from all the days of the earth, Christ was ordained to be the “lamb, slain from the foundations of the earth“-- going forth to save mankind).

Main page on the Trinity

Home page