The opinion of those who refer
both εμποσθεν μου and πρωτος μου to time cannot stand.
First, because, as Beza notes,
the word εμποσθεν is nowhere in the New Testament used of time. Secondly, it is
certain that with the latter formula, namely πρωτος μου, the reason for the preceding statement is given; this is
indicated by the little word GK, that is, “because”. But if we say both εμποσθεν μου and πρωτος μου signify
time, then the same thing will be proved by the same thing, and there will be
manifest idle talk in the Baptist’s words. For what kind of inference, I ask,
is this: “He was before me in time, because he was prior to me in time”? That
is, just as if someone were to say: “Aristotle lived before me, because he
existed prior to me in time.”
By the same arguments those can
be refuted who interpret εμποσθεν of time, but the following πρωτος μου of dignity. Of this opinion Bucer seems to
have been, who interprets these words in this way: “Has been made before me”:
for he was in the beginning and all things were made through him; “he is prior
to me”, that is, he is my first and prince.
But the burden lies on them to
prove that εμποσθεν anywhere in Scripture signifies time.
Next, it does not follow that
someone is prior in time because he is prince and lord. For many princes are
young and later in time than their subjects. But here the Baptist says that
Christ is before him for this reason, and he is prior to time. (George Enyedi, Explanations
of the Trinitarian Proof-Texts: Enyedi’s Critique of the Scriptural Proofs for
the Trinity [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 412)
