In
part two of his response to my original series on the subject of when Christ’s
existence began, GerudoKing quotes and then briefly responds to a number
of my remarks as follows:
Me: In Romans 8:29 we read that those in the
body of Christ were foreknown by God and designated beforehand.
GK: Yes.
Me: The saints in the body of Christ didn’t exist when they were foreknown by
God; had they existed, they wouldn’t have been “foreknown” by God. They
would’ve simply been known.
GK: Yes.
Me (on 1 Peter
1:20): We’re told that Christ was “foreknown, indeed,
before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of
you…” Had Christ personally existed before the disruption of the world,
he wouldn't have been “foreknown” by God at this time. He would have simply
been known."
GK: No! Aaron, all due respect, you didn’t hop on the cross
to deliver us from sin, and neither did I! We are not Jesus Christ! Yet a man
does not fulfill the law! Romans 3:20! It was God’s divine, only-begotten Son
that accomplishes this goal, separating Him from humanity, as He is the only
One given this ability!
Based on GK’s response here (which I found
quite puzzling), it would seem that he thought I was arguing as follows:
1. The saints in the body of Christ were
foreknown by God.
2. Christ was foreknown by God.
3. Therefore, we’re the same as Christ in
every way.
This imagined argument is, of course, a
complete non-sequitur, and if this is GK’s understanding of the point I was
making when I appealed to 1 Peter 1:20, then he’s very much mistaken. My actual
point is simply based on what it means to be “foreknown,” and the fact that to
be foreknown by God at a certain time (e.g., before the disruption of the
world) implies that one didn’t yet exist at that time. The fact that there are
important differences between Christ and believers (as well as everyone else
for whom he died) does not change the meaning of “foreknown.”
GK then asserts that Peter wasn’t saying that Christ
himself was foreknown in 1 Pet 1:20: We are not speaking of Christ Himself, but Christ’s sacrifice. The blood
of Christ, similar to the blood of a flawless lamb, is foreknown before the
disruption. Of course, no one would say that Christ dies before the disruption
of the world! Peter is stating that the sacrifice was foreknown, not Christ
Himself.
We know that, in 1 Peter 1:21, the “Him” to whom Peter
was referring (i.e., in the expression, “who through
Him are believing in God”) is Christ. In other words, the pronoun “Him” in v. 21 is referring back to “Christ” in v. 19
(and not “blood”). This means that the referent of the prior expression (i.e., “yet manifested in the last times because of you...”)
is also Christ (the “Him” of v. 21), and not Christ’s blood (in addition
to this grammatical consideration, it makes a lot more sense to say that Christ was manifested in the last times
because of believers, rather than Christ’s blood;
cf. John 1:31; Heb. 9:26; 1 John 3:5, 8). And this means that the referent
of the expression that comes before it (i.e., “foreknown, indeed, before the
disruption of the world”) must also
be Christ. In other words, the pronoun “Him” in
v. 21 refers back to “manifested,” which refers
back to “foreknown,” which refers back to “Christ.”
Thus, while Peter starts off in verses 18-19 emphasizing
the blood of Christ (through which those to whom he wrote were ransomed from
their vain behavior), his focus then immediately shifts to the one whose blood
had been shed (i.e., Christ himself). Again, since the “Him” through whom those
to whom Peter wrote were believing in God refers back to “Christ” in v. 19, it
follows that Peter was referring to Christ in the intervening expressions as
well (“manifested in the last times because of you” and “foreknown, indeed,
before the disruption of the world”).
Moving on, GK writes the following
concerning what we read in the first chapter of Hebrews: This is the first time, aside from John, that any Israelite is blatantly
learning of a celestial placement for their Messiah.
GK is mistaken here. As we’ve seen, believing
Israelites were already well-aware of the fact that there was a “celestial
placement for their Messiah”; this was revealed in Psalm 110:1 (quoted by Peter
in his first sermon) and Daniel 7:13-14. However, if by “a celestial placement”
GK is referring to what he believes concerning when and where Christ began his
existence, then he’s simply reading his belief concerning Christ’s “celestial
pre-existence” into the text.
GK goes on to quote me as follows: “This
means that any celestial being speaking on behalf of Yahweh at any time prior
to when Christ was generated by God (and which some Christians have claimed or
suggested was the “pre-incarnate Christ” speaking to people) was, necessarily,
not the Son of God.”
GK's response: In a sense, yes. What’s being referred to here, per Heb. 1:1, is
“prophets.” All those names I can’t pronounce in the Old Testament? Nahum?
Zephaniah? Habakkuk? Zechariah? Joel? All of these are prophets of old. They
are the physical “BEFORE-AVERRERS” through Whom God speaks to the rest of
mankind. The Son of God, is the ultimate prophet through Whom God speaks to the
rest of mankind. There are prophecies that came after His time on earth
(namely, John’s vision in the Unveiling,) but this is does not supersede Jesus.
The part I find myself disagreeing with here, is “celestial,” because we aren’t
given any indication whatsoever that a “celestial Christ has not spoken to anyone
in the Old Testament.” John 1:1 calls Jesus the “word,” thus the “word” of God
is the “pre-incarnate” Christ, as Aaron likes to say.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the most likely reason why
the author makes mention of the prophets in v. 1 is because, as those whose
divinely-sanctioned office involved speaking to mankind on behalf of God, the
prophets represent the means of communication between God and the rest of
humanity. But the contrast the author is making here is not between Jesus-as-prophet and the rest of the prophets. If that were
the case, it wouldn’t even be true (for we know that God continued “speaking in
prophets” other than Christ even after Christ began his
prophetic career).
Instead, the point of these verses is that a new Spokesman had arrived on the scene
who is superior to those in whom God had been speaking before the “last of these days” began.
Thus, the contrast being made in verse
1-2 is between how God spoke “of old” and
the new way in which God is speaking to Israel “in the last of these days” (which is “in a Son”). And
the implication is that God had not
spoken “in a Son” prior to the start of “the last of these days.”
GK, of course, believes that Christ (i.e., the “Son” of
whom we read in Heb. 1:2) pre-existed as a celestial being. However, it’s
implied in these verses that God didn't speak to his covenant people through
his Son during the time period in which he spoke to the fathers in the prophets
(i.e., the time period prior to what
he refers to as “the last of these days”). Thus it follows that, prior to “the
last of these days,” God didn’t speak to his covenant people through the Son
whom GK believes was a celestial being at that time.
As far as GK’s reference to John 1:1 (one of the
“proof-texts” for his doctrinal position), notice how he is assuming – and
reading into the verse – his own doctrinal position when he writes that this
verse “calls Jesus the ‘word’.” Not only is Jesus not called the “word” in this verse, but there’s no good (i.e., no non-question-begging)
reason to believe that the “word” referred to in John 1:1-4 was a person (i.e.,
a sentient, intelligent being). Instead of the word of John 1:1 being Jesus,
Jesus is the flesh-comprised human person whom we’re later told the word “became”
(v. 14). Of course, God’s word – i.e., the spoken declaration by which he makes
known and accomplishes his divine purpose – did not literally become a human;
the language is figurative.
The Greek word translated
“word” in John 1:1 (“logos”) literally denotes the spoken declaration
by which a complete thought is expressed, or the communication of a
thought through speech (see, for example, John 6:60). Although God’s
word can be personified, it is not literally a
living, conscious person (whether created or uncreated). Rather, the “word” of
which we read in John 1:1-3 is the same literal word of God of which we
read in the following verses:
“By the
word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of His
mouth all their host … For He [Yahweh] spoke, and it came
to be; He commanded, and it stood firm” (Psalm 33:6, 9; see below for my response to
GK’s criticism of my appeal to this verse in defense of my understanding of how
God created the heavens and the earth).
“By the word
of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of
water and by water…by the same word the heavens and
earth that now exist are stored up for fire…” (2 Peter 3:5, 7)
Consider also Isaiah
55:10-11 (where God’s word is personified):
For as the rain and the snow
come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it
bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so
shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return
to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall
succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
It was through this
divine word that everything was brought into existence by God. Jesus did
not “pre-exist” as God’s word (which, given the literal meaning
of the term “word,” is literally impossible); rather, God’s word – i.e., the
spoken declaration by which God expresses his thoughts and accomplishes his
purpose – came to be represented and “embodied” by Jesus (as is expressed in
the following words of John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us…”).
Even when John referred
to Christ as “the Word of God” in Rev. 19:13, it’s not literally true
that Christ is God’s “word” (for examples in which John used the expression “the word of God” to refer to God’s literal word,
see 1 John 2:14; Rev. 1:2, 9; 6:9; 20:4). Rather, Christ – as the One through
whom God has chosen to most fully reveal and carry out his redemptive purpose –
perfectly manifests and represents God’s word. God’s word became
Jesus in a similar sense that we're told Christ “became to us wisdom from God, besides righteousness
and holiness and deliverance” (1 Cor. 1:30).[1]
GK: A
“prophet” is physical, not celestial. They are human, not divine. Thus, Hebrews
starts physical, and builds to a revelation of the celestial. He’s a prophet.
But what’s special about Him? He’s God’s Son, and enjoys all. How does He enjoy all? Well, God used Him to make all. Why Him? He’s the
Effulgence of God’s glory, Emblem of His assumption. But how? He carried on
God’s declarations, cleansing sin. Why? So He can be given authority over it. I
thought He was a prophet? My friend, he’s become so much more.
As a member of the body of Christ (this isn’t an insult, Aaron, but a
constructive criticism,) we should know better.
I’m not sure what motivated GK to share his “constructive
criticism” here, as there’s nothing I wrote that indicates or suggests that I
believe Christ is merely a prophet (rather than being “so much more” than a
prophet). In any case, the fact that Christ is so much more than a prophet
in no way means or requires that he pre-existed his human life as a celestial
being. Christ was appointed “enjoyer of the allotment of all” and became “so
much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent
name than they” because of his sacrificial death (Heb. 2:9-10), and not because
he existed as a celestial being before his mother became pregnant with him.
Christ is a celestial being with a celestial position now (1
Cor. 15:48-49; Eph. 1:20-21), but the celestial nature and position that
Christ has now is part of his
God-given reward for having become “obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross.”
GK: After using
his idea on Hebrews 1:1 to again, state that Christ didn’t pre-exist, he ends
his paragraph with the sentence, “to know and believe in Christ in accord with
the truth of Paul’s evangel, we must know him according to his post-conception
identity.” Hold on, hold on. Now we’re just saying things. This is a
half-truth, still not impactful, as Aaron, as of yet, has not properly proven
that Christ didn’t exist before His physical birth.
First, it’s not my view that Christ came
into existence when he was born; as is the case with every human except Adam
and Eve, I believe Christ began to exist when he was conceived.
Second, my understanding of when Christ’s
existence began is in accord with what every believer in Paul’s day would’ve
believed concerning Christ after first becoming a believer in his evangel if
all that they knew concerning Christ was that he was/is a certain man whose
Father is God, and that he’d died for our sins and was roused the third day.
Even GK would agree that, in order for any new believer in Paul’s day to have
come to believe that Christ existed before his life on earth began, it would
have to be revealed to them. It’s not just something they’d assume to be true
until proven otherwise. It is, therefore, up to GK (who is the one making the claim
that Christ had a previously-unrevealed existence in heaven prior to the start
of his life on earth) to prove that what he believes is, in fact,
scripturally-supported. He can’t just take this belief for granted and then
demand that I “prove that Christ didn’t
exist” before his life on earth began.
Third, I think that I have, in fact, “properly proven” that Christ didn’t exist before
his conception. And the way I’ve gone about proving this is simply by appealing
to what Scripture has revealed concerning how and when Christ’s existence began.
Of course, GK is unable to accept that the scriptural evidence to which I’ve
appealed is proof because that would mean his interpretation of certain verses
(e.g., Col. 1:16 and Phil. 2:7) is mistaken.
GK’s way of dealing with the scriptural
proof I’ve presented has involved the erroneous and unsubstantiated assertion that
the word translated “generated” in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 means “became
human” (instead of “brought into being”). But this tactic only betrays the fact
that what God revealed through his celestial messenger concerning when Christ’s
existence began is incompatible with what GK believes is revealed elsewhere. If
this weren’t the case, there would’ve been no need for GK to ascribe to a
certain key word a meaning that it simply doesn’t have.
Concerning my remarks on Paul's message in
Acts 17, GK writes:
The context is crucial for the second
passage because a) this was said to the Athenians, but the book of Acts is
still a revelation to the Jews. That book was not written to display Paul’s
teachings, but to display the transferal of God’s operations, from the scope of
the kingdom, all the way to Christ – from Israel, to the nations. As such, the
bulk of Paul’s teachings are not broken down in Acts. And b), when you read,
“Man Whom He specifies,” you are still reading from the terrestrial perspective,
from Luke, to the Jews. The passage is concerned with “repentance” and
“judgment” through righteousness, not the secrets of Christ’s celestial glory
(or any celestial glory, for that matter.)
I
agree with GK – and have even made the same point elsewhere on
my blog
– that Acts was written to the Jews, and not “to display Paul’s teachings.” But
GK doesn’t think that the revelation of what he believes concerning Christ’s
pre-existence is confined to Paul’s letters, or that it’s distinctly for the
saints in the body of Christ. Not only does he seem to think that Christ’s
pre-existence is “hinted at” in certain Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Psalm
110), but he thinks it’s found in several places in the New Testament outside of Paul’s letters as well (in
the Gospel of John, for example), and that it was even made known by Christ
himself during his earthly ministry. So there’s no good reason why a revelation
that GK thinks is essentially “trans-administrational” wouldn’t be found in
Acts. In any case, I don’t see Paul’s message in Acts 17:22-31 as a
battleground for the debate concerning when Christ’s existence began, or as
“proving” that God created the heavens and the earth apart from the
instrumentality of any created being(s).
On
the other hand, I do think that every
scriptural reference to the original creation event that doesn’t make mention
of a pre-existent Christ as being the means through whom God accomplished his
creative work only adds to the “burden of proof” that is on those who believe
that Christ was instrumental in the original creation event. That is, every reference in Scripture to the original creation event that’s
consistent with the understanding that God
alone accomplished this creative work (e.g., Acts 17:22-31) only increases
the need for GK (and others) to convincingly demonstrate that their
understanding of the relatively few texts that they think support their
doctrinal position is, in fact, the correct
understanding (and that what they assert concerning the meaning of a
certain verse or passage is not simply the result of “reading between the
lines,” or based on certain unwarranted assumptions they’re making).
Moving
on, GK takes issue with something I said concerning how he and others believe
God created the heavens and the earth. I wrote that, according to the
pre-existence view, it was Christ whose will “directly brought everything into
existence.” GK responds as follows: Which, per John
5:19, is just not true, and us pre-existing Christ folk didn’t make this claim.
When
Christ does that which the Father wills that he do, is Christ willingly doing
it, or not? I think he is. Even A.E.
Knoch – who, as I’m sure GK is fully aware, strongly rejected the view that
anyone has a “free will” – remarked that Christ’s obedience “was never blind or forced”
but rather “always intelligent and free.” And if Christ’s obedience to God
involves his choosing to do what God
wills that he do (i.e., his choosing to do what God commands that he do),
then of course Christ’s will is involved.
Or
does GK think that Christ is unconscious or completely passive when he acts in
obedience to God? Was Christ completely passive when, according to GK’s view, God
created everything in the beginning through him? Or did Christ willingly bring about that which he knew his Father
willed for him to do? Unless GK thinks that it’s impossible for Christ to have been willing (and thus actively
doing) anything at all when the heavens and the earth were created, then he shouldn’t
be too troubled by the idea that what he thinks God did through Christ when he
created the heavens and the earth involved Christ’s willing, intelligent
obedience to God (and that, therefore, the creation of the heavens and the
earth directly came about as a result of
Christ’s willing that it occur, in response to God’s command).
GK
goes on to claim the following: The assumption
that, because Christ is used to create the eons, that Christ’s will directly
drove the decision to create the eons, is a logical fallacy that no believer of
Scripture should be holding.
The
assumption to which GK is referring is his own
assumption. I said nothing about Christ’s will driving the decision to create
the world. It was never my understanding that, according to the pre-existence
view, Christ wasn’t obediently doing God’s will when he created the world, or
that the creation of the world wasn’t ultimately the result of God’s will (and
that Christ was simply carrying it out). GK has simply misunderstood what I
thought was a non-controversial point about Christ’s obedient, willing
involvement in the creation of the heavens and the earth, according to the
pre-existence view. And, having misunderstood it, he is simply thrashing a
straw-man of his own making.
Commenting
on what I wrote concerning Isaiah 45:12, 48:13 and 66:1-2, GK writes: I had always assumed that when God says “My hand,” we’re
dealing with a physical representer of God accomplishing a goal that He
commands?
Although
GK has “always assumed” that “God’s hand” refers to “a physical representer of
God” acting on God’s behalf, I think he would do well to not let his own assumptions determine what he thinks a
certain text means or doesn’t mean. For the fact is that, in Scripture, God’s
“hand” can simply refer to his power. For example, in Isaiah 50:2 Yahweh
rhetorically asks (using synonymous parallelism), “Is my hand shortened, that it cannot
redeem? Or have I no power to
deliver?” See
also Exodus 32:11 and Nehemiah 1:10, where God’s “mighty hand” and his “great
power” are referred to as synonymous in meaning.
GK
goes on to say that Yahweh’s statement in Isaiah 45:12 is “a relative
statement, listing everything God is directly responsible for.” However, nothing
that GK goes on to say concerning Cyrus actually supports his assertion that Yahweh’s
declaration in Isaiah 45:12 is “relative.” If this statement is “relative,”
then it’s only relatively true that Yahweh “made the earth and created man upon
it,” “stretched out the heavens with [his] hands,” and “commanded all
their host.” So
what, then, is the absolute truth
concerning who created everything?
Not
only does GK not demonstrate that Isaiah 45:12 is “relative,” but he contradicts
the very idea that it’s relative by using the word “directly.” If Yahweh
stretched out the heavens “directly,” then he did it without any instrumental
agency. If, on the other hand, God used an agent (e.g., a created celestial
being) to create the heavens, then his involvement in their creation was
indirect. For example, God was directly
responsible for both generating his Son and rousing Christ from among the
dead. He didn’t use a man or a celestial messenger to accomplish this. In
contrast, everything we’re told that Christ did during his earthly ministry was
indirectly (rather than directly)
done by God (thus we’re told by Peter in Acts 2:22 that God did “powerful deeds and miracles and signs…through [Christ]”). The same can be said with regard to the
future resurrection of the dead (which we’re told God will do “through Jesus”; see 2 Cor. 4:14).
GK’s
comments on Isaiah 48:13 are no better with regard to proving that Yahweh’s
declaration is “relative.” GK seems to think that, because Yahweh is
emphasizing the impotency and worthlessness of idols, his affirmation in Isaiah
48:13 must be “relative.” But the creation of the heavens and the earth by God
is the truth that’s being affirmed here. If Yahweh’s declaration here is
“relative,” then what’s the absolute truth?
GK
goes on to comment on Isaiah 66:1-2 as follows: Nowhere
in here are we reading, “By the way, I, Yahweh, have not created my Son yet!”
This passage is informing Israel that their will is incomparable to God’s will.
He can accomplish what they cannot.
And,
once again, GK provides no compelling reason as to why we should understand
Yahweh’s declaration in Isaiah 66:1-2 as anything less than absolutely true.
Just as it’s absolutely true that God can do anything he wills to do (and thus
accomplish what humans cannot), so it’s absolutely true that his “hand” – i.e.,
his power – made heaven and earth.
With regard to Isaiah 44:24, GK once again interprets God’s declaration as
being only relatively true. Here, again, is the verse:
Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, Who formed you
from the womb: “I am Yahweh, Who made all things, Who alone stretched
out the heavens, Who spread out the earth by Myself…”
Yahweh was not, of course, saying that he
was alone when he “stretched out of the heavens” and “spread out the earth”
(for we know that this event was witnessed by “the sons of Elohim”). Rather,
the truth being expressed here is that Yahweh alone is the One who
accomplished this work. The words “alone” and “by Myself” rule out any sort
of intermediary agent used by the One speaking to accomplish the creation of
the heavens and the earth.
What we read in this verse is not only
consistent with the understanding that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the
earth, but it’s precisely what we would expect to find in Scripture if Yahweh was,
in fact, the sole Creator of the heavens and the earth. If Yahweh had wanted to
communicate the fact that he created everything directly and without anyone
else’s assistance or involvement, there is nothing more he could’ve said to
express this fact more clearly than we find stated in the above verse.
However, in order to harmonize what’s being
declared by Yahweh in this verse with his interpretation of the verses that he
thinks support his doctrinal position, GK concludes that Yahweh wasn’t actually
claiming to be the only one who created the heavens and the earth (despite the
fact that a straight-forward understanding of this verse indicates precisely
this). GK appeals to the fact that, in the broader context, Yahweh’s
superiority over the idols of the nations is being affirmed. However, there’s
no need to understand Isaiah 44:24 in a relative sense in order for it to be
understood as demonstrating the superiority of Yahweh over idols. For when we
understand Yahweh’s words as expressing an absolute truth, the
logical implication would be that Yahweh received no assistance from any of the
gods of the nations when he created the heavens and the earth. The point that GK
thinks Yahweh was making when the verse is understood “relatively” is more
powerfully made when the verse is understood as an absolute statement.
The fact is that GK’s “relative”
interpretation of Isaiah 44:24 is motivated entirely by his presupposition
that God didn’t directly create
heaven and earth (and instead did so through the agency of a created being). No
one reading Isaiah 44:24 for the first time (either in isolation or in its broader context) would be
inclined to understand God’s declaration as only “relatively true” unless one needs it to be “relatively true.” And GK
needs it to be “relatively true”
(otherwise, his entire doctrinal position is undermined).
However,
we have no reason to think that either the
prophet Isaiah or the original readers/hearers of his prophetic work would’ve
understood the words of Isaiah 44:24 as anything less than absolutely true.
There’s nothing said in the context that would have given them (or which should
give us) any reason to doubt that God was declaring an absolute
truth when he said that he alone stretched out the heavens, and that he spread
out the earth by himself. We can, therefore, understand Isaiah 44:24 (as well
as the other verses quoted above) as further confirming the fact that Yahweh
alone was directly involved in, and solely responsible for, the creation of the
heavens and the earth, and that it was Yahweh alone who “made all things.”
Concerning
Psalm 33:6, 9 GK claims that the use of the word “enjoined” or “commanded” in
v. 9 means that God must’ve been commanding a living, intelligent being to do
what we’re told God did in v. 6 (i.e., make the heavens and all their host). GK
then gives the following challenge:
Go ahead, hunt the use of the word in a Strong’s Concordance,
and tell me, with a straight face, that there’s even one other use of this word
that is directed at – nothing, or, a ‘nonexistent being.’ The closest you could
get is, maybe, Job 38:12, where God is “instructing the morning,” and even
still, the morning itself is not alive unless, perchance, it is created in a
Living Being (maybe like Colossians 1:16 says it is.)
I’m
surprised that, in a discussion on Psalm 33:9, GK would reference Job 38:12 and
(apparently) not realize that both the same Hebrew verb (tsavah) and the same figure of speech are being
used in both verses. Here’s how Job 38:8-12 reads in the ESV:
Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?
Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place…?
Just
like the Psalms, the book of Job is highly poetic and abounds with figures of
speech. And one figure of speech that is common in both the Psalms and Job is personification. Notice how God speaks
to the sea as if it were a living, intelligent being capable of understanding him.
God then implies that he (and not Job or any other man) “commanded the
morning.” Obviously, the morning is not literally capable of obeying commands. It’s
being personified.
Consider
also Job 37:11-12:
Indeed, He encumbers the thick cloud with
soaking moisture; He scatters His lightning cloud, and He directs them
round about, turning according to His strategies, that their deeds be all that He instructs them on the face of the
earth's habitation.
The
verb translated “instructs” here is tsavah (and note that it’s clouds that are
being “instructed” by Yahweh).
With
this in mind, let’s again consider Psalm 33:6-9:
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made,
and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap;
he puts the deeps in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear Yahweh;
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.
Just
as the morning is being personified in Job 38:12, so in Ps. 33:9 we find the
earth itself being personified. That which is said to have “stood firm” is that
which God “commanded.” In other words, the earth is being depicted as standing
firm in response to the command of Yahweh.
Similar
figurative imagery can be found in Isaiah 48:13:
“Indeed, My hand founded the earth, and My
right handbreadth measured the heavens. I
am calling to them, and they are standing together.”
That
to which Yahweh is “calling” (and in response to which they are “standing together”)
are the earth and the heavens. Obviously, neither the heavens nor the earth can
hear and respond to Yahweh’s call (just as the earth cannot hear and respond to
his command). They’re being personified.
Consider
also Psalm 78:23-24:
“Yet He enjoined the skies above, and He opened the double doors of the
heavens. He rained on them manna to eat, and He gave them grain of the
heavens.”
The verb translated “enjoined” in v. 23 is the same word
used in Psalm 33:9 (tsavah). Only here, it’s the “skies above” that are being “enjoined” (or
“commanded”) rather than the earth. Another good example from the Psalms
in which impersonal things are being personified (and are said to have been
“commanded”) is Psalm 148:4-12:
Praise Him, heavens of heavens,
And the waters that are
above the heavens!
Let them praise the name of
Yahweh,
For He commanded and they were created.
He caused them to stand
forever and ever;
He gave a statute and it
will never pass away.
Just
as the “heavens of heavens” and the “waters that are above the heavens” are
being personified in v. 4 (when they’re told to “praise the name of Yahweh”),
so they’re being personified again in v. 5 (where they’re commanded to come
into being).
As
should be evident from these examples, the use of the verb tsavah in Psalm 33:9
in no way implies that God was commanding a created celestial being to do
anything. Instead, this verse is simply communicating a fact that is expressed
elsewhere is less figurative language: Yahweh himself directly created the
heavens and the earth by speaking them into existence. Or, to put it another
way, it was “by the
word of Yahweh” that the heavens and the earth were made. That which
originally had no existence was given
existence by God by virtue of his declaring
that it exist (as we read throughout the opening chapter of Genesis).
GK: Aaron
goes on to (naturally) debunk the claim that, in pre-existing His physical
birth, that Jesus was somehow a celestial ‘human being.’ I honestly don’t know
where or how this viewpoint came about, save maybe some overthinkers in the
Trinitarian department.
Contrary
to GK’s assumption, it most definitely wasn’t anyone “in the Trinitarian
department” who came up with the viewpoint I was debunking (if the reader would
like a hint as to his identity, his initials are “MZ”).
GK
goes on to respond to my comments on 1 Cor. 15:45-47 by reminding the reader
that what Paul wrote is “concerning humanity.” He then claims that, by the
“same logic” I employed, I “would have to argue
that God, being inherently Spirit, would have been second to some physical or
soulish body.” But that’s not at all the case. Everything I said is perfectly
consistent with the fact that, for humans, the soulish body is
first, and then the spiritual. But this still undermines GK’s position. If
someone is a human, then – according to what Paul affirmed in 1 Cor. 15:45-47 –
they didn’t first exist with a spiritual
body. Or, to put it another way, no
one who is human had a spiritual body first. Since Christ is a human
(i.e., he belongs to the race of beings known in Scripture as “mankind”), it
means that he didn’t first have a spiritual body. Like “the first man, Adam,” Christ
began his existence with a soulish body.
Even if it were the case that Christ wasn’t a human at
the time that he had a spiritual body (which is, of course, GK’s view), it would
still mean that, for Christ, the spiritual body was first. That is,
it would still be the case that a certain human – i.e., God’s only-begotten
Son, Jesus Christ – had a spiritual body before
he had a soulish body. And this would mean that, for at least one human, the
spiritual body was indeed first. Christ
would still be a counterexample to Paul's claim, and thus falsify his claim.
Therefore, Paul’s assertion that the spiritual isn’t
first presupposes that Christ didn’t
begin his existence with a spiritual body. Like every other human, Christ
began his existence with a soulish body. This is in accord with the
scriptural fact that Christ has been
human ever since he was generated (i.e., brought into being) by God. Since Paul’s
talking about what’s true of humanity in 1 Cor. 15:45-47, then he’s necessarily
talking about what has been true of Christ for as long as Christ has existed. It was not
until Christ was vivified that he received a spiritual body. In fact, it was by
virtue of his obedience unto death that Christ became worthy of being vivified
with a spiritual body. Had Christ not been obedient unto
death, he would've remained dead (and the rest of mankind would've remained
under condemnation).
GK
then appeals to the fact that Paul referred to Christ as “the Lord out of
heaven” in 1 Cor. 15:47, and states that this proves that Christ “must stem from celestial allotment.”
GK
is assuming that Christ was “the Lord out of heaven” before his death
and resurrection. But this understanding of what Paul wrote simply presupposes
the idea that Christ pre-existed his life on earth. And not only this, but this
interpretation is contrary to the very context in which Paul referred to Christ
as “the last Adam” and “the second man” who is “the Lord out of heaven.” For in
the immediate context it’s evident that Paul was referring to what has been
true of Christ since the time of his resurrection (i.e., since the time
that Christ was roused by God with a spiritual body and thereby became “a vivifying Spirit”).
The
subject of 1 Cor. 15:35-49 is the nature of the resurrection body. Verses 44-46
make it especially clear that Paul’s focus is on the difference between the
“soulish body” and the “spiritual body.” In v. 47, Paul referred to Adam (the
“first man”) as being “out of the earth,
soilish.” The term translated “out of” in this expression (ek)
refers to the source of that which is
in view. That is, the earth is the source
of that from which God formed Adam (Adam and his mortal descendants are
thus referred to as “soilish” – i.e., made from the elements of the earth). Similarly,
in 1 Cor. 11:8, 12 we read that “the woman is out
of [ek] the man.” Here the same word
“ek” was used by Paul to express the idea that Adam was the source of that from which God formed Eve
(see Gen. 2:21-22).
Thus,
when we go on to read in 1 Cor. 15:47 that “the second
Man is the Lord out of [ek] heaven,”
we know that Paul was expressing the following idea: Heaven (rather than earth)
is the source of the spiritual body
that now composes Christ (and which Christ has had since his resurrection). Just
as it would be incorrect to say that Adam (who is “out of the earth”) pre-existed
in the earth before he existed with a soulish body – or that Eve (who is “out
of the man”) pre-existed in Adam before she existed with a soulish body – so it
would be incorrect to say that Christ pre-existed in heaven before he existed
with a soulish body. Rather than pre-existing with a spiritual body, it was when
Christ was roused from among the dead that his body was changed from being
soulish (and soilish) to spiritual. And this change from soulish/soilish to
spiritual involved a change in the very source of that which makes his body the
kind of body that it is (with the new
source of Christ’s body – and thus of Christ himself – being heaven rather than earth).
We
know that Paul was referring to the source of Christ’s spiritual body by his
use of the expression “out of heaven” in 1 Cor. 15:47 because, in 2 Cor. 5:1-2,
Paul used the exact same expression when referring to the future spiritual body
of believers. In these verses Paul described our future immortal body as
both “eonian, in the heavens” and as “out of [ek] heaven.”
The first expression reveals that “the heavens” will be the realm for which our
future spiritual body will be suited (and in which we’ll be “at home with the
Lord”) during the eons to come, while the second expression (“out of heaven”) reveals that heaven – rather than earth –
will be the source of our spiritual
body. When we’re “dressed in our habitation which is out of heaven,” we
will no longer be “soilish” (as we are now); we’ll be celestial beings, as
Christ now is (1 Cor. 15:48-49).
Moving
on to GK’s response to my remarks on Romans 5:14, we read the following: Here
is the reality, which is, again, that we are, in the midst of this passage,
concerning the terrestrial Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:11,) not the celestial Christ
Jesus, Who is being unveiled to the nations by Paul, here (Rom. 1:2.)
Contrary
to what GK seems to believe (based on his use of the expressions “the
terrestrial Jesus Christ” and “the celestial Christ Jesus”), there is no reason
whatsoever to think that, when Paul wrote “Christ Jesus” instead of “Jesus
Christ” in his letters, he was communicating the idea that Christ pre-existed
as a celestial being. As used by Paul in his letters, the title “Christ” (i.e.,
“Messiah” or “Anointed One” [cf. John 1:41]) is a royal title that belongs to a
certain human being – i.e., the man who was supernaturally generated (and thus
fathered) by God himself when his mother became pregnant with him (Luke 1:35), who
“is of the seed of David, according to [Paul’s]
evangel” (2 Tim. 2:8), and who – when “about thirty years old” (and not older
than his own body, or older than creation itself) – was anointed (or “christened”) by his God and Father with holy spirit after
being baptized by John (Luke 3:21-23; cf. Luke 4:18; Acts 4:26-27; 10:37-38). Just as the personal name “Jesus” was never
the name of a pre-existent, non-human celestial being, so the title “Christ” is
not, and never was, the title of a pre-existent, non-human celestial being.
Concerning
the distinction between Christ’s Sonship and his “Christhood,” A.E. Knoch wrote
the following:
“His generation by God’s spirit made Him God's Son, but it did not
fully prepare and equip Him for His office. For that He waited until He was
about thirty years of age, and until the spirit which had generated Him came
upon Him and thus anointed Him for His marvelous ministry…As His was the real,
the genuine anointing, no literal oil was used. It was replaced by the empowering
spirit. His Christhood was not due to His divine conception but to His
spiritual anointing.”[2]
It
apparently didn’t occur to Knoch at the time he wrote the above that, if
Christ’s generation by God’s spirit is what “made Him God’s Son” (which is what
we find revealed in Scripture), then it means that Christ didn’t pre-exist as
God’s Son. In any case, I think Knoch is correct here (both with regard to how
Jesus was made God’s Son, and how/when Jesus was anointed by God and thus
received his “Christhood”).[3]
With
regard to Paul’s frequent use of “Christ Jesus” (rather than “Jesus Christ”),
it’s worth noting that there are a number of examples from Romans (and from
other letters written by Paul, including Philippians) in which Christ is
referred to in the present tense (i.e., in his glorified and exalted position
among the celestials) as “Jesus Christ” or “our Lord, Jesus Christ” rather than
“Christ Jesus” (in fact, of the five times that Jesus’ name occurs in the first
chapter of Romans, only once does the title “Christ” precede it). So it’s
simply not the case that, when Paul referred to Christ as “Jesus Christ” (or
even simply as “Jesus”), he was referring to Christ as a mortal, earth-dwelling
human, or emphasizing his prior “terrestrial status.” Although “Christ Jesus”
(or simply “Christ”) was Paul’s typical way of referring to God’s Son, the
variation we find in Paul’s letters regarding the use of Jesus’ name and titles
does not reflect the strict dichotomy GK is making when he writes “the
terrestrial Jesus Christ” and “the celestial Christ Jesus.”
Nevertheless,
I think it’s reasonable to believe that Paul was, in fact, emphasizing a
certain truth concerning Jesus by his frequent use of the title “Christ” before
the personal name “Jesus.” But what’s being emphasized by Paul is not what GK
seems to think is being emphasized or implied. Rather than having anything to
do with a non-human celestial being who pre-existed Christ’s earthly life, the
truth being emphasized by Paul’s use of “Christ Jesus” is Jesus’ present exalted status –
i.e., the exalted status of which our
Lord became worthy when he died in
obedience to God. Thus, if “Christ Jesus” should be understood as having
any kind of “celestial implications” that “Jesus Christ” doesn’t have, it’s not
because of when or where Christ’s existence began;
rather, any “celestial implications” of “Christ Jesus” are due to the fact that
heaven is where Jesus is presently located, and this present
state of affairs is the result of (and reward for) what Jesus did in the past,
while on the earth.
Significantly,
A.E. Knoch (who, as GK is well aware, was a firm proponent of the doctrine of
the pre-existence of Christ) defended this very view concerning the distinction
between the titles “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus.” Consider, for example,
the following excerpt from Unsearchable Riches:
“Jesus Christ is the humble, despised, rejected, crucified
Messiah. His glories wait until the future, at the time of His return to earth.
At present He has no place down here. But Christ Jesus! Already He is highest
in the heavens. Seated at the right hand of God, there is no dignity to equal
His. All might and power, all sovereignty and authority among the celestials is
centered in Him. There He is not humbled, but honored! There He is not
despised, but praised! There He is not rejected, but acclaimed! There He is not
crucified, but glorified! We hail Him, not only as the coming King upon the
earth, but as the present Head of all celestial might and majesty!”[4]
Here’s
another excerpt from a different article by Knoch on this subject (emphasis
mine):
There is no question in the minds and hearts of all believers
that Jesus is the Christ. But He will not be Christ Jesus on earth until He is
seated on the throne of David, as Ruler over all the nations. Only those who
recognize His present exaltation in the heavens can well call Him Christ
Jesus now, except in anticipation. The evangels all look forward to His
exaltation (Ac. 5:42). This is one of the principal points in which the present
secret administration differs from the coming kingdom. We hail Him as the
Highest in the heavens. He is the Ruler there. To us "Jesus Christ"
speaks of His humiliation, Christ Jesus
of His present celestial glory.[5]
Moving
on, GK goes on to essentially write an entire paragraph expressing his
puzzlement as to why I would reference Hebrews 2:14. But I find his puzzlement
itself puzzling, since – in the article from which he’s quoting – I went on to
explain precisely what I had in mind when I appealed to this verse. Here’s what
I wrote:
“Such wording seems to imply the exact opposite of the view that Adam and
his flesh-and-blood descendants were “modeled after” a celestial, spiritual
Man, or made into a similar version of such a being; rather, these words imply
that Christ “copied” (i.e., he was made into a similar version) of Adam and his
flesh-and-blood descendants. And after “copying” the original
man and his descendants, Christ then became (after being
vivified by God) the final, perfected version of Man.”
Thus, when I appealed to Hebrews 2:14, I was still responding
to a view that was shared with me by another believer (i.e., “MZ”) that mankind
was originally created in the likeness of a pre-existent, celestial “man.”
However, one could argue that Heb. 2:14 is just as problematic for any view of Christ’s pre-existence. For
a being who pre-existed his life on earth as a celestial being couldn’t be made
like other humans “in all things” (since none of the “brethren” that we’re told
Christ had to be made like “in all things” are beings who pre-existed their
life on earth as celestial beings).
In response to the argument that a being who pre-existed his life on earth as a celestial being couldn’t be made like other humans “in all things” (since none of the “brethren” that we’re told Christ had to be made like “in all things” are beings who pre-existed their life on earth as celestial beings), it may be objected that Christ’s sinlessness means that the expression “in all things, to be made like the brethren” shouldn’t be understood in an absolute sense. But such an objection as this is based on a misunderstanding of both sin and human nature. Sin is not a part of, or inherent to, human nature. Adam was not created a sinner; he became a sinner when he sinned. When all humans are ultimately made sinless, they’ll still be just as human in nature as they were when they were sinners. This proves that human nature is not inherently or essentially sinful. Thus, Christ’s sinlessness while on earth was not due to his having had a different nature than the “brethren” referred to in Heb. 2:14; rather, Christ remained sinless as a result of God’s continual enabling and upholding power and guidance. God’s spirit preserved Christ in a state of purity throughout his life, and enabled him to live a life of perfect obedience (making Christ alone the perfect example of what it means to be human, and the only man to whose image we need to be – and shall be – conformed).
In response to my appeal to Romans 8:28-30 to support a
certain claim (i.e., “It was after Christ was vivified and glorified that he
then became the ‘original’ from which future ‘copies’ will be made”), GK writes
the following:
He uses Romans 8:28-30 to attempt to prove it, but folks, a
simple reading of the context once again shows that this it’s a logical fallacy
to try and stuff Christ’s nonexistence into the passage.
Although GK asserts that I’m trying to “stuff Christ’s
nonexistence into” Romans 8:28-30 (and later implies with his closing statement
that my intention in quoting this passage was to prove that Christ didn’t
pre-exist), the fact is that I wasn’t using Romans 8:28-30 to try and refute
the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence, or to support a negative claim about when Christ did or didn’t exist (e.g., “Christ
didn’t exist at some past time, and here’s a passage that proves it”). Instead,
I was, at this point in my article, still responding to the view shared with me
by “MZ” that Christ pre-existed as a celestial human. Moreover, the claim that
I was supporting by my quotation of Rom. 8:28-30 is entirely positive: When
we’re glorified, it will be the image of the first (and, so far, the only)
human to have been perfected by God to which we’ll be conformed. We’ll be
“copies” of Christ when we’re glorified and thus conformed to his image, but
the one of whom we’ll be “copies” (and whose “many brethren” we’ll be) is the
“Man, Christ Jesus.”
GK: The last part, that mentions He is the
Firstborn of many brethren, is in relation to His intimate relationship with
the believer.
Correct. And the “many brethren” to whom Paul was
referring are human beings – specifically, those who, having
been foreknown, called and justified by God, will be glorified (and
thereby conformed to the image of God’s Son) when the event prophesied in 1
Cor. 15:51-53 takes place. It is, therefore, only through the glorification of other
humans that Christ will “be Firstborn among many brethren.” Since it is in
relation to other human beings that Christ will be “Firstborn
among many brethren,” it follows that Christ’s “Firstborn” status is
inseparable from his being human. In other words, the one who will, in the
future, be “Firstborn among many brethren” (after the “many brethren” have been
glorified) has necessarily been just as human as the “many brethren” for as
long as he’s been “Firstborn.”
GK continues: To quote George
Rogers:
“The firstborn is related to the later born
as one of the same family. We may incidentally remark that to the firstborn
belong the rights of kinsman-redeemer. The word ‘firstborn’ emphasizes His
relationship to His brethren as distinct from His relationship to God. In
relation to God, He is the Only-begotten and the only Image. In relation to the
‘called,’ He is the Firstborn among many who, through Him, should become sons
of God.”
Correct. However, since the
purpose of the glorification of those in the body in Christ (which will result
in our conformity to Christ’s image) is so that Christ can be ”Firstborn among many brethren,”
it follows that his status as “Firstborn” is
inseparable from his relation to other
humans (and thus does not pertain to a pre-human, celestial existence, or
to his relation to the non-human celestial “sons of God” referred to
elsewhere). Since it’s only through the glorification of other humans that
Christ will “be Firstborn among many brethren,” it follows that it’s only as a
human that Christ has his “Firstborn status.”
[1] For a more in-depth defense of the position
summarized above, see my articles on John 1:1-3 (http://www.biblestudentsnotebook.com/bsn713.pdf) and John 1:10-13 (https://www.biblestudentsnotebook.com/bsn714.pdf).
[2] Unsearchable Riches, Volume 39, p. 106
[3] In Luke 2:11 we read that a celestial messenger declared the following to certain shepherds after Jesus’ birth: “…today was brought forth to you a Saviour, Who is Christ, the Lord, in the city of David.” In light of these words, some believe that Jesus has been both Christ and Lord since the time of his birth. Even if that were true, it would still be the case that the title Christ/Messiah inherently belongs to a certain human being who was generated by God and thereby made God’s Son (Luke 1:35), and who is “of the seed of David” (2 Tim. 2:8). In other words, even if Jesus has been “Christ” since the time of his birth, we have no scriptural reason to believe that this title ever belonged to a non-human, celestial being (who would not have been, and could not have become, a descendant of King David).
Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s necessary to understand the messenger to have been affirming what was true of the recently-born Jesus in a fully realized sense. Again, “Christ” means “Anointed One.” Although Jesus existed as God’s Son from the time of his conception, he wasn’t actually anointed by God (and did not assume his “Messianic office”) until after his baptism. It’s therefore more likely that the messenger was simply identifying the newborn child as the one who was prophesied to be “Christ” and “Lord” (e.g., in Psalm 2:2 and Psalm 110:1).
That this is most likely the case is supported by the fact that Jesus did not become “Lord” in the fullest and most exalted sense (i.e., in the sense that we find prophesied in Psalm 110:1, and as he’s commonly referred to by the apostles) until after his death and resurrection (when he was given “all authority in heaven and on earth”). Moreover, in Luke 2:26 we read that Simeon was promised by the holy spirit that he would not be acquainted with death before being “acquainted with the Lord’s Christ.” We’re then told of his encounter with the infant Jesus in the temple, shortly after Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:27-33). When Jesus was referred to as “the Lord’s Christ,” this is likely a reference to Psalm 2:2 (where we read the words, “against Yahweh [“the Lord” in LXX] and against his Anointed [“his Christ” in LXX]”; cf. Acts 4:26). Since it’s by virtue of his prophesied status as “the Lord’s Christ” that the infant Jesus was identified in this way, the same can be said with regard to how he’s identified in Luke 2:11.
[4] Unsearchable Riches, Volume 31, p. 72
[5] Unsearchable Riches, Volume 43, p. 92
No comments:
Post a Comment