Did Jesus Need To Be Uncreated To Pay For The Sin Of The World?

"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" -- John 1:29.

The claim is made that Jesus must not have been created, since, according to this reasoning, 'nothing created could pay the penalty of sin for everything was created and subject to corruption.' Many have stated this or something similar: "Jesus had to be God so that He could pay our debt." Thus the conclusion is that Jesus is the uncreated God.

Many say this as though such was written in the Bible. Actually, such a thought is not in the Bible at all. In reality, this thought has to imagined and assumed totally beyond what is written in the Bible. — 1 Corinthians 4:6.

On the other hand, if Jesus had to be the Most High in order to obey the Most High, then rather than condemning sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3), Jesus justified sin the flesh, for he would have proved that in order to obey the Most High, Adam would have needed to have been the Most High. Such, in effect, condemns the Most High for demanding of a being that is not the Most High obedience to the Most High. It would further imply that a sinless, incorrupt, yet corruptible, man could not possible have obeyed the Most High, and thus the Most High was unjust in demanding the death penalty for his disobedience.

However, what does the scripture actually say? Does it say that Jesus had to be the Most High in order to pay the price for sin? Absolutely not! “For since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again of the dead.” (1 Corinthians 15:21, Young’s Literal Translation) It was “the man [not God], Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” (1 Timothy 2:5,6) Only could an incorrupt sinless man, as was Adam before Adam sinned, actually prove that such a mere man could obey God, and provide the offsetting price – antilutron – for sin (1 Timothy 2:5,6), thereby condemning sin in the flesh. (Romans 8:3) Not only that, unlike Adam, Jesus proved that such a man can put on incorruption (Greek, Aphtharsia; 1 Corinthians 15:54), having overcome even the possibility of dying the second death (Revelation 2:11; 3:21), thereby bringing life and incorruption (Aphtharsia) to light for man. — 2 Timothy 1:10.

How could one man pay the offsetting price for sin? Because all were condemned in one man, who was once incorrupt, but was corrupted through sin (Romans 5:12-19), and thus only one fully faithful incorrupt sinless man — not God — was needed to buy back that which was lost. — 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.

Jesus was not born of this world (John 8:23), the offspring of Adam that has been corrupted through the sin of Adam and Eve. (Romans 5:12-19; 2 Peter 1:4) Adam was not created corrupted; he was created incorrupt, upright, straight. (Ecclesiates 7:29) On the other hand, neither was Adam created incorruptible, for such would have meant that it would have been impossible to Adam to sin. Adam was created incorrupt, but he was created corruptible, that is, it was possible for him to become corrupted through sin.

Jesus was begotten of the holy spirit in the womb of Mary. (Matthew 1:20) His body was specially prepared by God. (Hebrews 10:5) Thus, he was not born under the condemnation of Adam , but he took upon himself the penalty of that condemnation, and suffered as though he were under that condemnation, as though he were under the bondange of corruption (Greek, phithora -- Strong's #5356), in order to pay the price as an offering to his God (Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:14) to release man from that condemnation. Only in this manner is God found to be just, and yet the justifier of sinners. — Romans 3:26; 8:3,20-22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.

Proverbs 8:22,23 - Wisdom Who Existed Before the Beginning

Revelation 1:17,18; 2:8 - The First and the Last

Revelation 1:17 - When I saw him, I fell at his feet like a dead man. He laid his right hand on me, saying, "Don't be afraid. I am the first and the last,
Revelation 1:18 - and the Living one. I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. -- World English Bible translation.

Revelation 2:8 - "To the angel of the assembly in Smyrna write: "The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life says these things.

The thought trinitarians would like to read into this evidently is that when Jesus refers to himself as "the first and the last" that this somehow means that Jesus is Jehovah, who says in Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first, and I am the last." Additionally, the assumption is made that Jesus' reference to himself as "the first and the last" means that Jesus is, has always been and always will be.

What does Jesus himself indicate regarding his reference to himself? Did he say he has always been -- that he was uncreated, and that he could never cease to exist? No, he, as the first and the last, plainly says: "I was dead." Thus he is telling us of a time when he was not. By such Jesus is, in effect, denying that he is Jehovah, who cannot die. But Jesus says, in reference to his being brought out of the death condition, "I am alive forevermore."

This is reiterated in Revelation 2:8 where Jesus refers to himself as: "The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life." For him to come to life would mean that he, the first and the last, had no life while dead. If he was actually alive while dead then he never was actually dead.

Of course, our trinitarian neighbors would tear what Jesus said apart and have the expression "the first and the last" apply to the the alleged "God" nature of Jesus while they would separate the expression "who was dead" as not meaning "God" whom they allege Jesus is claiming to be in the expression "the first and the last", but rather only the body/flesh/humanity of Jesus. The First and the Last, they claim is God, who did not die, but rather it was the "man" Jesus who died. In effect, they would end up denying what Jesus actually said, that 'the first and the last' was indeed dead. In reality, there is no reason to divide this up so, except to satisfy the added on trinitarian concepts. It was Jesus himself who died, ceased to have sentiency, and it was Jesus himself who came back to life.

The contextual evidence is that Jesus is speaking about his being the first and last in some way concerning his being dead and brought back to life. How could this be?

Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" of the dead. No one had been brought back to life directly by Jehovah never to die again, except Jesus. Jesus was the first. At the time of the writing of the Revelation, Jesus was also the last that had been actually brought back to life, never to die again, and he is certainly the last firstborn to be made alive. There will never be another firstborn from the dead. Believers are now "counted" or "reckoned" as justified and alive, but are not actually raised to life until the "last day" -- the day of the world's judgment. Jesus was also the "last" to be directly brought back to life by Jehovah, since God has given the authority of the resurrection and judgment to Jesus. -- John 5:19-30; 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24; 12:47,48; Acts 17:31.

Jehovah, of course, is the first and last EL/ELOHIM (strength, power, might) in the universe. (Isaiah 44:6) No one can have any power or might aside from him. Even the demons have to depend on Jehovah for any power they have (which power they misuse). They have no power (strength, might) of their own, except that they have received such power from God. Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, is the only ultimate Supreme Being. Additionally, none of the idol-gods of men were formed before Him, since He had no beginning of existence, nor can any be formed after Him, since he has no ending of existence.

What we do not find in these verses is any thing that says that Jesus is a person of the Most High, or three persons in one God. The idea of "trinity" or that Jesus is Jehovah has to be imagined, assumed, added and placed over the scriptures in order to make the scriptures seem to support those ideas.

For more concerning this, see:

Alpha and Omega, First and Last

Hypostatic Union/Dual Natures

*******

John 1:3 - The World Made Through the Logos

Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, and Jesus' Beginning

John 1:1 Regarding "Was" and Eternity

The following is an excerpt from James White’s dissertation on “John 1:1 - Meaning and Translation”. While we are not associated with the JWs, we have had this quote from James Whtie presented to us:

Some refer the “beginning” here to that of Genesis 1.1, and this may be so, but the verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi) takes us before whatever “beginning” we may wish to choose. The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. In other words, the Word is eternal – timeless – without a “beginning.”

James White claims the Greek word transliterated as EN (Strong's #2258: Imperfect Indicative Active, a form of Strong's #1510), in effect, would mean eternity, at least in John 1:1. It is evidently being assumed that “beginning” refers to absolutely everything in the created universe, and thus, since the Word “was” before such, then the Word was never created, and thus, has always been.

White claims that John 1:3 means that "there is simply nothing that is existent anywhere that was not created by the Word. He created everything." He claims that the context supports this conclusion. Actually, the context indicates that the "all" that God made through Jesus is everything pertaining to the world (KOSMOS - Strong's Greek #2889) that God made through Jesus, and into which Jesus came. (John 1:9,10; 17:5) John 1:10 tells us that this world that was made through him did not recognize Jesus. If this world includes absolutely everything that is existent anywhere, that would include the angels who are always able to the face of God. Did the world (KOSMOS) that Jesus came into include the invisible realm of heavenly spirit beings (angels)? Did he the world he came into include those angels so that those angels did not recognize him? Obviously, it is referring to what God made pertaining to the earthly world of mankind. Thus, we believe that the “all” of John 1:3 refers to -- not the whole created universe -- but rather to the world of mankind that was created through the Word. Jesus “was” (Strong's #2258, Imperfect Indicative Active), indeed, in existence before the beginning of the world of mankind that was made through him. — John 1:10; 17:5.

See some of our related studies: Jesus and Creation

Nevertheless, White places a lot of emphasis on the word “was”, and labors to make it mean eternity. Trinitarians often use the word "eternity' to mean never having a beginning and never having an end. If the Greek word rendered as "was" itself designates such an eternity, then in John 1:10 where we find the same verb form  (Imperfect Indicative Active) used,  one should conclude that Jesus is eternally in the world of mankind which did not recognize him. Likewise, in John 1:28, we find EN again in the phrase "where John was [EN] baptizing." Was John baptizing from all eternity past to all eternity future "beyond Jordon"? We could cite many more scriptures throughout the New Testament where the same verb form is used, but it is obviously not being used to designate eternity. In actuality, there is no reason to add to the scriptures that only in John 1:1 should the word *en* be understood to denote eternity, except that one has a preconceived idea that the Logos has always existed. In other words, the argument becomes circular, in effect, saying: “Since we believe that Jesus is uncreated, then *en* in John 1:1,2 means that Jesus always existed in all eternity past, and thus this gives proof that Jesus has always existed.” The word EN can, of course, in all the realms of possibilities, be used of one who has had no beginning, even as our English word “was” can, in all the realms of possibilities, be also used in such a way. This is not, however, an inherent meaning of either word. Comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing, the usage of *en* all throughout the NT provides an abundance of testimony that such an idea is not inherent in the word.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2258

Nevertheless, we believe that it would be a mistake to assume that Jesus was created exactly at the beginning of the world of mankind. We do believe that Jesus was already existing with his God and Father before the beginning of the world of mankind. (John 1:10, 17:1,3,5) The idea that Jesus was eternally existing before the world of mankind was made, however, has to be added to and read into the scriptures.

However, there is nothing at all in John 1:1 that states that Jesus had always existed from all eternity past; that idea has to read into what is actually stated.

See: Studies Related to John 1:1

John 1:1,2 - Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With?

The forms of the Hebrew and Greek words are English-transliterated throughout.

In the beginning was the Word [LOGOS], and the Word [LOGOS] was with God [TON THEON], and the Word [LOGOS] was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON].
John 1:1,2 -- transliterations taken the Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as found in the Bible Students Library DVD.

Was John in his words of John 1:1,2 saying that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Since Jesus identified his Father as the only true God whom he had been with before the beginning of the world of mankind, it should be obvious that by using the word THEOS of the LOGOS, John was not saying that the LOGOS was the only true Supreme Being who sent the LOGOS into the world of mankind. (John 1:10,14; 10:36; 17:1,3,5; 1 John 4:9) This "God" who raised Jesus up as the prophet like Moses is identified in Acts 3:13-26 as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of Exodus 3:14,15 (See Deuteronomy 18:15-20). The default reasoning should be to understand that the Logos is not "God" whom the Logos was with.

John, by his emphasis twice that the LOGOS was "with" TON THEON, in effect, shows that his usage of THEOS regarding the LOGOS was not intended to be understood in the same manner as it is applied to the only true God who sent the LOGOS into the world. Additionally, by putting this in the past, "the LOGOS *was* THEOS, John is agreeing with Jesus' statement that this glory that he had with the only true God before the world of mankind was made, was something that Jesus did not have while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), else why would he ask for this glory to be given to him again? -- John 17:1,3,5.
========
See our studies:
Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God?
Jesus' Two Glories

Nor is it, as we have demonstrated elsewhere, enough to say that since the Greek word THEOS is used of Jesus, that this would mean that Jesus is either the only true God, or that he is a false god (See our study: True God Versus False God = False Dichotomy). This is most often, however, the assumption the trinitarian makes, and then, assuming such to be true, he usually will call upon the spirit of human imagination so as imagine and assume that the first instance of THEOS [TON THEON above] must not mean the triune God, but only one person of the triune God, and then he imagines that it must mean the first person of the triune God. Similarly, regarding THEOS as applied to the LOGOS, he most often will imagine and assume that it means, not the triune God, but rather only one person of the triune God, and then further imagine and assume that it means the "second person" of the triune God. -- See our study on "Trinitarian Assumptions"

Rather than adding to the scriptures a fable of three persons in one God, we should look at John's words in harmony with the rest of the scriptures, and note how the Hebrews used forms of the Hebrew word transliterated as EL (God), and the corresponding word in Greek, transliterated as THEOS, as they are used of others than the only true God. Jesus himself presents this alternative usage of the word "theos", when he uses the plural form of this word (theoi) in John 10:34,35:

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?'
John 10:35 - If he called them gods, to whom the word [LOGOS] of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken),

Jesus' reference here is to Psalm 82, which details God's chastisement of the sons of Most High, whom God Himself refers to by the Hebrew words for "god", el and elohim, and to whom Jesus said the Logos of God came. Was Jesus referring to these sons of God as false gods? No, for that would have actually have been pointless, and even also a self-contradiction, since it would make these sons of the Most High not be sons of the Most High but rather sons of wrath. (Ephesians 2:2,3) Jesus is pointing out that those spirit-begotten sons of God to whom he came are also referred to as gods, which is the record of the scriptures that cannot be disputed, thus there was no reason for those Jewish leaders to be upset at his claim to be the Son of God.
See:
Who Are the Gods?

But the trinitarian may ask: "But how can these be called gods, except that they be so illegimately, since there is only one true God?" By examining the Hebraic usage given above we can see how others may be legitimately referred to as "gods", and yet not be one true God, the one true Supreme Being is God without receiving might, power from any outside source. This is only so because of the way the Hebrews used the word forms that are used of "God", as revealed in the scriptures. The basic Hebraic meaning of the Hebrew word for "God" is might, strength. The word may designate either might or strength in general, or it may designate the one source of all might and strength. (1 Corinthians 8:6) All Hebrew forms of the word for "God" are derived from the simple form, EL, Strong's Hebrew #410. One may see the meanings of this word at:
http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=410 (There is also a listing of all the scriptures wherein this word is used, and how it is translated, both by the King James Version, and the New American Standard.)

Many translations have recognized this usage, but it is not readily apparent to most readers of these translations. For instance, when considering forms of the Hebrew word *EL* (forms of Strong's Hebrew #410), which are most often rendered "God", the King James translators recognize the usage of this word in its basic meaning many times. Carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El (and its variations) are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Yahweh] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Yahweh] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Yahweh]." (Psalm 50:1) "The *strong* among the mighty shall speak." -- Ezekiel 32:21.

Likewise, the forms of the Hebrew word "elohim" (Strong's Hebrew #430, which is actually a form of #410) can mean "mighty" or "great" as can be seen by the way the KJV translators have rendered it in various verses. Again, the word(s) that are used to express the Hebrew word "elohim" are denoted by **: "a *mighty* prince" (Genesis 23:6) "And Rachel said, With *great* wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali." (Genesis 30:8) "It was a very great trembling." (1 Samuel 14:15) "Now Nineveh was an *exceeding* [false god?] great city of three days' journey." -- Jonah 3:3.

Many scholars recognize theos as applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1 is that of a noun being used as adjective. Applying this principle, then, the phrase could be rendered as "the Logos was mighty", since it is obvious that the Logos is not the only true God who sent the Logos into the world of mankind. Taking THEOS as being applied as a noun, then it could be rendered, "a mighty one". Jesus *was* (past tense) indeed "mighty", a mighty spirit being with the only true God before the world of mankind was made, and before he became flesh in a body that the only true God prepared for him. -- Hebrews 10:5.

One trinitarian has claimed that in John 1:1,2 the word "God" is 'interchangeable throughout.' While we can see how a oneness believer, or perhaps in a Unitarian believer, might conclude such, it is incongruent with the "orthodox" trinitarian dogma to say that the Son, identified by trinitarians as the LOGOS in John 1:1,2, as being the Father. If the application of the word "GOD" is interchangeable throughout, then the logical conclusion from such reasoning would be that the Son is the Father whom he is said to be with before the world of mankind had been made. (John 1:10; 17:1,3,5) Trinitarians, however, maintain that the Son is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son.

Thus, most trinitarian scholars will deny that John was saying the LOGOS was the One whom the LOGOS was with, because the One whom the Logos was with is identified as the Father. (John 17:1,3,5) If the LOGOS had been TON THEON whom the LOGOS was with, then, this would mean that Jesus was his Father before coming into the world of mankind, since Jesus was with his Father before the beginning of the world of mankind. Nevertheless, many trinitarians scholars advance the idea that John was indeed saying that Jesus was "God" in the qualitative sense as supposedly having all the attributes of "God", including being uncreated and being the Supreme Being. This, of course, is basically pure supposition that has to be added to and read into what John wrote, and such leads one to add more and more philosophy to many other scriptures in order to get those scriptures to appear to harmonize with the added-on philosophy that Jesus is Jehovah, in order to avoid the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3) as the Son of the Living God. -- Matthew 16:16; John 6:69.

James White, while he is convinced that Jesus is a person of the One God whom the Bible identifies as the God of Jesus, states concerning John 1:1,2:

What he [John] wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from "God" (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa - there are two persons under discussion here.
***
Hence, the term "God" is the predicate nominative, and it functions just as "love" did in 1 John 4:8 - it tells us something about the Logos - and that is, that the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term "God" by placing it first in the clause - this is not just a "divine nature" as in something like the angels have - rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as "Deity"). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, "And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity."

The provision of the above and the link provided does not mean that we agree with everything Mr. White states. Indeed, we disagree with most of his conclusions. We do wish to point out that, in effect, James White denies that THEOS, applied to the LOGOS, is interchangeable with TON THEON, applied to the Father, whom the LOGOS was with.

Oddly enough, many, perhaps most, Bible Students would agree with most of the exact statements of White as given above, but would not see in any of this that John was saying that the LOGOS is the Most High Jehovah, or that John was using THEOS as "diety" any a sense other than as applied to angels, or that the LOGOS is a person of the Most High Jehovah, as Mr. White presents the matter. The conclusion that THEOS as meaning deity would mean that Jesus is Jehovah has to be imagined beyond what John wrote. While we are sure that Mr. Wuest uses the term "absolute Deity" as meaning having the nature of being the Supreme Being, we do not see the scriptural need to read such an assumption into the word THEOS as applied to the LOGOS.

The Bible does reveal the simple truth that Jehovah (Yahweh) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) The scriptures show that Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him. The default reasoning should be that Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.

The most simple and straightforward way of viewing THEOS as applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1 is by applying the Hebraic usage of the title to a person or thing that is not Jehovah, that is, in the sense of being mighty or powerful, since it is obvious that John was not saying that the LOGOS was TON THEON whom the LOGOS was with, thus, in keeping with the rest of the scriptures, the LOGOS was mighty (as one who receives power and might from the source of all -- 1 Corinthians 8:6). The idea that John was saying that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Jesus, has to be added to and read into what John said. One does not have to make use of the spirit of human imagination so as to add a tremendous amount of extra-Biblical philosophy. However, the simple, straightforward view as we have expressed above is in complete harmony with the entire Bible. Especially, it is in harmony with the atonement philosophy as revealed in the scriptures, whereas the trinitarian dogma would have it that Jesus is still a man of flesh, thus denying that Jesus actually sacrificed his flesh, his human body, for us.

This study was originally published on May 29, 2012; last updated March 18, 2022; May 27, 2022.

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

Links to studies related to John 1:1

*********