Introduction
It’s a commonly-held belief among both Christians and those in the body of Christ today that Christ “pre-existed” as a non-human being who later “became human” when his mother became pregnant with him (however, it should be noted that some don’t believe Christ has ever been “fully human,” since they believe that part of him is “divine” in some sense; I’ll have more to say about this view later). The main difference between the mainstream Christian view and the view that’s held by those in the body of Christ could be expressed as follows: While most Christians believe that Christ is a “divine person” who has always existed with the Father (and that there’s never been a time when Christ didn’t exist as a divine person), those in the body of Christ believe that Christ is the first created being to have existed.
In this article series I’m going to be defending what I believe Scripture reveals concerning how and when Christ’s life began against the view of those who believe that Christ pre-existed as the first being distinct from God. This defense will involve revisiting most of the passages on which I’ve already provided some remarks in previous articles I’ve written on this subject, and reviewing/restating (for the sake of emphasis or clarification) some of the points made in defense of my understanding of these passages (I’ll try to make sure and provide a link to any earlier articles I’ve written in which there is more information on, or a more in-depth examination of, a certain verse or passage than is provided in this series of articles).
The majority of the points and arguments to which I’ll be responding in this series are those that have been made by fellow believer, Stephen Janowski (who, as far as I know, has written more prolifically against what I’ve written on this subject than anyone else in the body of Christ). Although this article series will not be an exhaustive, point-by-point rebuttal to everything Stephen has written in response to past articles I’ve written (nor will my responses to what he’s written necessarily follow the same order in which they’re found in his articles), I will be addressing what I consider to be the main points he’s made.
Since the Christological view against which I’ll be defending my understanding is historically known as “Arianism” (named after Arius, a 4th century Christian priest who promoted and defended this view)[i] – and because I wanted a simple, concise way to refer to those who believe that Christ pre-existed as a created, celestial being – I’ll be using the label “Arian” to refer to anyone who holds to it. Conversely, I’ll refer to the Christological position being defended in this series of articles as the “non-Arian” position (and to those within the body of Christ who hold to it as “non-Arians”). If any reader who believes that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being distinct from God but considers the label “Arian” to be in some way a misrepresentation of his or her view, then he or she can simply interpret “Arian” in whatever way he or she thinks more accurately reflects what they believe about how and when Christ’s existence began.
I realize that the Christological view associated with Arius didn’t originate with him. This view likely emerged sometime during the second century. It was, I believe, this doctrinal error about Christ’s origin and nature that ultimately developed into the even greater error that was held by those 4th century Christian leaders who opposed Arius (and which, after the Arian controversy ended, became – and remains today – the dominant view among Christians). According to this understanding, the position defended by Arius was the “doctrinal bridge” by means of which believers during the post-apostolic era transitioned from the truth of Christ’s origin (and his fully human nature) to the error of the doctrine of the “divinity/deity of Christ” (to which most Christians hold today). I’ll have more to say about this a little later.
The scriptural revelation of when Christ’s existence began
Both Arian and non-Arian members of the body of Christ will agree that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only uncreated, eternally-existent being (1 Cor. 8:6, Heb. 2:10 and Rev. 4:11), and that Christ is just as much a created being as every other being of whom the Father is the ultimate source (for a defense of this scriptural truth, click here: The Bible does not identify Jesus as Yahweh ). That is, we all agree that the one whom Christ referred to as “the only true God” is the only being who has always existed, and whose life is not dependent on anyone else’s. In contrast, Christ has not always existed. He only exists because God brought him into existence.
We know that Christ came forth “out of God” (John 8:42; cf. 13:3; 16:27-28). Since everything that is “out of” God was created by God, it follows that Christ was created by God. Thus, Jesus – unlike his God and Father – is not an eternally-existent being. God is the source of Jesus’ existence, and the one on whom Jesus’ life depends (John 6:57). That Christ was created is also implied by the fact that Jesus is God’s Son. The fact that Jesus was “begotten” by God – and is thus the Son of God – indicates that God existed prior to Jesus, and that Jesus’ existence had a beginning.
Again, both Arians and non-Arian members of the body of Christ agree on this. That is, we all agree that Jesus came forth “out of God.” What we disagree on is when this event occurred. Arians believe that it occurred before God created the universe. In contrast, non-Arian members of the body of Christ believe that Christ came forth out of God when, in accord with what we read in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35, God generated Jesus. In other words, we believe that Christ come forth “out of God” – and that God thus became the Father of his only-begotten Son – when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him. This, we believe, is the clear testimony of Scripture.
In Matthew 1:18 we read the following:
Now Jesus Christ’s birth was thus: At the espousal of His mother, Mary, to Joseph, ere their coming together, she was found pregnant by holy spirit.
We then read in v. 20 that a messenger of God appeared to Joseph in a trance and declared the following:
“Joseph, son of David, you may not be afraid to accept Miriam, your wife, for that which is being generated in her is of holy spirit.”
The words “that which is being generated in her” refer to God’s Son. It was “by holy spirit” – i.e., the holy spirit of God – that the Son of God was generated in the womb of his mother. And this supernatural generating, or begetting, of God’s Son was the act by which God became the Father of his Son.
This is confirmed by the following words that Gabriel declared to Miriam:
“Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)
Now, Stephen Janowski has objected to the non-Arian’s reliance on Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 by stating that what we read in these verses are “are not doctrinal teachings, but accounts.” In response to this objection, doctrinal teaching can be derived from, and based on, historical accounts (especially when the accounts contain revelatory information – i.e., information that that could not be known by us apart from its having been revealed to us by God).
Even though John 1 is the prologue to John’s account, I doubt Stephen would deny that this chapter contains revealed information from which we can derive doctrine. And no believing student of Scripture thinks that, because Genesis 1 is an historical account, it doesn’t contain doctrinal information. By inspiring Moses to write what’s revealed in this account, God has provided us with essential doctrinal teaching. The same can be said with regard to prophecy. While what we find revealed in Revelation (for example) is not “doctrinal teaching” from the apostle John, it is doctrinal teaching from the One who revealed the prophetic information to John.
The fact is that, by revealing to Joseph and Miriam what we find revealed in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (and later inspiring Matthew and Luke to record it), God has provided us with essential doctrinal teaching concerning Christ’s origin (i.e., how and when Christ began to exist, and thus how and when God became the Father of his Son). Of course, Stephen doesn’t want Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 to be considered “doctrinal teaching” from God (or revelatory information on which doctrinal teaching should be based). But that’s only because what’s revealed in these verses doesn’t support (but rather contradicts) the assumption on which the Arian interpretation of other verses is based.
Notice that, according to the words of Gabriel, it wasn’t merely a human body that was generated when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him. Rather, it was the Son of God himself who was generated by God at this time. In other words, the living Son who was given the name “Jesus” – and not merely Jesus’ human body – was “generated” (or “begotten”) by God at the time when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with her Son. Thus, just as it was not merely Christ’s body that died when Christ died (or merely Christ’s body that was restored to life when Christ was restored to life), so it was not merely Christ’s body that was generated when Christ was generated.[ii]
Moreover, the word translated “wherefore” in Luke 1:35 means “for this reason.” Concerning the Greek conjunction kai (translated “also”) in this verse, we read in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon that, when this word is “added to words designating the cause, it marks something which follows of necessity from what has been previously said: διό καί, Luke 1:35; Acts 10:29; Romans 1:24 Rec.; Hebrews 13:12; (1 Peter 2:6 R); διά τοῦτο καί, Luke 11:49; John 12:18 (here Tr text omit; Tr marginal reading brackets καί).” Thus, according to Gabriel, the very reason that Miriam’s first-born Son can be “called the Son of God” is because of how he was conceived. And how was Jesus conceived? Answer: by a direct, supernatural act of God. That is, Jesus’ conception was the result of God’s holy spirit coming on Miriam (and thus God’s power “overshadowing” her).
Now, in response to my point that “Miriam conceived – and not just birthed – her son (Luke 1:31), thereby making Jesus “the fruit of her womb” (Luke 1:42),” Stephen wrote the following:
This statement, read properly in Greek, does not state that Mary is the source of Jesus’ physical conception, but that she is the channel by which the flesh of the word of God is brought into the world (John 1:10-14, 1 Cor. 11:3, 12, Gal. 4:4.)
I’m not sure what, exactly, Stephen had in mind when he implied that Mary wasn’t “the source of Jesus’ physical conception.” Obviously, Jesus’ mother isn’t the sole explanation for how Jesus was conceived. Nor was she the one who actively caused Jesus’ conception to occur. Instead, it’s Jesus’ Father – i.e., God – who actively (and supernaturally) brought about the conception of Jesus. However, this event also involved (and couldn’t have occurred apart from) Jesus mother, Miriam.
Like all biological mothers, Miriam played a passive but essential role in the conception of her Son (for it was one of the eggs that had been naturally produced within her that was supernaturally fertilized by God when Christ was conceived). So there is a sense in which both Jesus’ Father and his mother were “the source of Jesus’ conception” (for again, it was one of Miriam’s eggs that God supernaturally fertilized when Jesus was conceived, and apart from which Jesus wouldn’t have been conceived). Or to put it another way, Jesus was essentially derived from both his Father (God) and his mother (Miriam). Although Miriam’s role in the generating of Jesus was purely passive, it was essential. Moreover, apart from her contribution, Jesus wouldn’t be a descendent of David or even of Adam and Eve (which we know he had to be from God’s own promises concerning Christ; see, for example, Genesis 3:15 and 2 Sam 7:12-16).
Now, when Stephen wrote the words quoted above, he was, evidently, not aware of the fact that the Greek word translated “conceive” in Luke 1:31 is the standard Greek word used elsewhere in Scripture – and, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, often in the LXX – to refer to the event that occurs whenever a descendent of Adam and Eve begins to exist (see Luke 1:24 and 1:36; cf. James 1:15, where James used the same word to figuratively refer to desire as “conceiving” and then “bringing forth sin”). No one thinks that the use of this word in Luke 1:24 and 1:36 should be viewed as revealing (or suggesting) that Elizabeth became pregnant with a pre-existent celestial being when she “conceived.” I doubt Stephen thinks that the statements about Elizabeth conceiving John simply aren’t being “read properly in Greek.” No; the only reason he or anyone would think that the word translated “conceive” means or implies anything differently in Luke 1:31 than it does in Luke 1:24 or 36 is because he’s reading this verse with the assumption that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being. That’s it.
At this point it’s worth emphasizing the fact that, although non-Arians believe that Jesus’ existence began when he was conceived, no one in the body of Christ (that I know of) believes that Jesus’ conception involved the sperm of a human father. Even if God created a sperm cell to fertilize Miriam’s egg, God would still be the direct source of the sperm cell that fertilized Miriam’s egg. Of course, it’s also possible that God simply “bypassed” the role that a sperm cell plays in the process of fertilization, and directly brought about the life-creating conditions in Miriam’s egg that occur whenever an egg is fertilized. It must be emphasized that, according to either view, the fertilization of Miriam’s egg (and the consequent conception of Jesus) was a supernatural event for which God alone was responsible. According to either view, God is the one by whom Jesus was begotten/fathered (making God – and no one else – Jesus’ Father).
This last point is worth emphasizing, because one Arian member of the body of Christ (Martin Zender) has erroneously claimed that some non-Arian believers think that Jesus was “created by a human sperm cell, not by the overshadowing of God.” However, I don’t know of any non-Arian believers who deny that the overshadowing of Miriam by God’s power is what resulted in the conception of Christ. Those who think a sperm cell was involved (or may have been involved) in Jesus’ conception believe that it was when Miriam was overshadowed by God’s power that a sperm cell was supernaturally created by God, and that this supernaturally-created sperm cell then resulted in Christ being conceived. That is, it’s believed that the event of which we read in Luke 1:35 (i.e., “Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you”) is what directly resulted in the fertilization of Miriam’s egg (and thus in Christ’s coming into existence).
But regardless of whether God created a sperm cell to fertilize Miriam’s egg or not, we know that the result of the supernatural event referred to in Luke 1:35 is that God’s only-begotten Son was generated and began to develop (and that Christ had both his mother's DNA and the human Y-chromosome DNA that God supernaturally provided). Thus, both Arian and non-Arian members of the body of Christ agree that Jesus’ conception was (1) supernatural in nature and (2) did not involve a human father (or the genetic material of a human male). What we disagree on is the exact nature of the supernatural event. Did it involve the transformation/transfiguration of a pre-existent, celestial being into a human zygote? Or did it involve a new individual – i.e., the only-begotten Son of God – being generated/begotten (i.e., brought into existence) directly by God?
As should be clear from what’s revealed in the verses already considered, the latter is the case. It is because of what God supernaturally did when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him that Jesus can be “called the Son of God.” And since Jesus’ being “the Son of God” means that God is his Father, it necessarily follows that it was through the supernatural begetting of Jesus that God became Jesus’ Father.
In accord with Gabriel’s declaration that Jesus would be “called the Son of God,” it’s evident from the following verses that Jesus was, in fact, called the Son of God during his life on earth:
Matthew 3:16-17
Now, being baptized, Jesus straightway stepped up from the water, and lo! opened up to Him were the heavens, and He perceived the spirit of God descending as if a dove, and coming on Him. And lo! a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in Whom I delight.”
Matthew 17:5
While [Peter] is still speaking, lo! a luminous cloud overshadows them, and lo! a voice out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in Whom I delight. Hear Him!”
The reason God was able to refer to Jesus as his “Son” is because of the event that’s being referred to in Luke 1:35.
Even A.E. Knoch – who strongly held to the “Arian” view of Christ – acknowledged the fact that it was the generating of Christ by God’s spirit that made him God’s Son. Concerning the distinction between Christ’s Sonship and his “Christhood,” Knoch wrote the following:
“[Jesus’] 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.” (See Unsearchable Riches, Volume 39, p. 106)
It apparently didn’t occur to Knoch that, if Jesus’ generation by God’s spirit – i.e., “His divine conception” – is what “made Him God’s Son” (which is what we find revealed in Scripture), then Jesus didn’t pre-exist as God’s Son.
The view that Christ was the Son of God before he was begotten by God is not only contradicted by what we read in Luke 1:35, but by the meaning of the word translated “generated” in this verse (gennaó). As is the case in Matt. 1:1-16 – where we read of fathers begetting sons in the genealogy of Christ – it’s the word used to denote the event by which a father procreates his child, and thus brings his child into existence (thereby becoming the father of that child). This being the case, it follows that the generating (or begetting) of Christ that’s being referred to in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 was the event by which Christ was brought into existence by God.
Stephen has, on a few occasions, attempted to debunk this understanding of how and when Christ came into existence. For example, in one of his responses to me, he wrote the following:
“…no claim is made that “begettal,” or “generated,” means “became human,” but “BECOME.” The contextual usage of the word, with its simple definition, is what takes precedent. The term “BECOME” is contextualized by that nasty verse that the nonpreexistence sect doesn’t like talking about, being John 1:14’s, “The Word became flesh.”
Notice how he writes as if the word translated “generated” in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (gennaó) is the same word translated “became” in John 1:14 (ginomai). His argument here betrays a degree of misunderstanding on his part, as it involves – at least, implicitly – a conflation of two different Greek words. The word used in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 – which does, in fact, indicate a lack of prior existence for Christ – is not the same word used in John 1:14.
In a more recent comment on this subject, Stephen’s point concerning the word “become” implies the same misunderstanding:
“Their argument, that “become” indicates a lack of existence, has been disproven many times…“Become” is found also in Philippians 2:7, “COMING TO BE in the likeness of humanity.” The term is expressly related to Christ in regards to His flesh (cf. Rom. 1:3.)”
Again, the point Stephen is trying to make involves a conflation of two different Greek words. The word used in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 – which does, in fact, indicate a lack of prior existence for Christ – is not the same word used in the verse to which Stephen appeals as “proof” that the argument to which he refers has been “disproven many times” (i.e., Phil. 2:7). The word used in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (and which is accurately translated “generated” in the CLNT) is gennaó. However, the Greek verb that’s used in both John 1:14 and Phil. 2:7 is ginomai. While these two words are related – and there is some overlap in their meanings (both words can be used to mean “to begin to be” or “to come into existence”) – they are not the same word. On Biblehub.com we find ginomai defined as follows: “to become, to come into being, to happen, to be made, to be done.”
With regard to the word “become,” the primary, most basic definition of this word is “to come to be” or “to come into existence” (Definition of BECOME). Only when there is a noun or adjective that specifies what, exactly, someone or something is “coming to be” does the word “become” mean “come to be [something].” Thus, even if ginomai were used in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 – and was translated “coming to be” (as it is in Phil. 2:7) – we couldn’t understand it to mean “became human.” That’s not what “coming to be” means (just as “to be” doesn’t mean “to be human”).
In fact, Paul’s use of ginomai in Phil. 2:7 proves this point. In the expression “coming to be in the likeness of humanity,” the words “in the likeness of humanity” qualify the meaning of the verb ginomai. However, when no such qualifying words are used, the word does indicate a prior lack of existence. For example, in John 1:3, 10 we read the following:
All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being….In the world He was, and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him not.[iii]
So if the word ginomai (rather than gennaó) had been used in Luke 1:35 – and we translated it the same way it’s translated in Phil. 2:7 (i.e., “coming to be”) – we would read the following:
“Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is coming to be shall be called the Son of God.”
This would express the same essential idea as “generated.” That is, it would express the fact that the Son of God came into existence when Miriam became pregnant with him.
But again, the verb used in both Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 is gennaó rather than ginomai. And gennaó has a much more limited semantic range than ginomai. Unlike ginomai, the word gennaó never means “become” in Scripture (and I hope that any Arian reading this will log this important fact away in his or her mind). In nearly every other verse in which the word gennaó occurs in Scripture, it refers to either the generating/begetting of a human child by the child’s father (whether literally [Matt. 1:2] or figuratively [1 Cor. 4:15]) or the giving birth to a child by the child’s mother (Strong's Greek: 1080. γεννάω (gennaó) -- To beget, to give birth, to bring forth, to produce.).
The only exception to these usages of gennaó in Scripture of which I’m aware is found in 2 Timothy 2:23. In this verse, the word is used to denote the generating of quarrels (or “fightings”). But the use of gennaó in this verse actually confirms that the basic idea being communicated by the word gennaó is that of causing something (or someone) to exist. Obviously, Paul wasn’t saying in 2 Tim. 2:23 that “stupid and crude questionings” would cause pre-existent quarrels/fightings to “become something” that they weren’t before; rather, he was saying that they would cause them to exist, or bring them into existence (i.e., generate them).
Thus, what’s being affirmed in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 is not that a pre-existent celestial person was going to “become” something that he wasn’t before. No; the truth being affirmed in these verses is that a certain person – i.e., “the holy One Who” who is “called the Son of God” – was going to be supernaturally generated (brought into existence) within Miriam. To believe that the event referred to in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 involved a celestial being undergoing some kind of bodily transformation is to reject the testimony of Scripture concerning when God became the Father of his Son, and why Jesus can validly be called the Son of God. What’s being revealed in Matt. 1:18-21 and Luke 1:31-35 proves that Christ did not exist in heaven as a non-human being before his life on earth began.
Arians have to either (1) disregard the actual meaning of the word gennaó in these verses (and give it a made-up meaning) or (2) add to what’s actually being said in order to avoid this conclusion. And this tactic is motivated entirely by their assumption that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being before Christ’s mother became pregnant with him. That is, the Arian’s denial that Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 is a revelation of when and how Christ was caused to exist by God isn’t based on what’s actually said in these verses. Rather, it’s motivated entirely by his belief that Christ pre-existed his conception as a celestial being. The only reason that the Arian doesn’t understand Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 as a revelation of when Christ was caused to exist (i.e., generated) by God – and thus as a revelation of when God became the Father of his Son, Jesus – is his belief that Christ pre-existed his conception as a celestial being. That’s all there is to it. If the Arian wasn’t reading Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 with the assumption that Christ pre-existed his conception, he would have no reason to think that what’s said in these verses is in any way compatible with the Arian view that Christ pre-existed his conception.
Stephen referred to Paul’s words in Rom. 1:3 (where we read that “[Christ] comes of the seed of David according to the flesh”) to support his view that it was only Christ’s flesh – and not Christ himself – that didn’t pre-exist. However, according to this interpretation, it would mean that Christ isn't “of the seed of David.”
Obviously, no one who is a descendent of David is his descendent by virtue of his or her spirit (i.e., their “spirit of life” or life-principle). Everyone who can claim David as their ancestor can only do so if they’re either physically related to him or legally related to him. And what’s being emphasized by Paul in Rom. 1:3 is the fact that Christ is both physically and legally a descendent of David. That is, it’s not merely in a legal/adoptive sense that Christ is “of the seed of David” (as would’ve been the case if only Joseph – and not Jesus’ mother, Miriam – had been a descendent of David). For Jesus was only the legal (and not physical) son and heir of Joseph. Had Miriam not been a descendent of David, Jesus wouldn’t have been “of the seed of David according to the flesh.” I think that even the Arian would agree on this point. Thus, it’s Jesus’ physical/genetic descent from David through Miriam (and not merely his legal descent through Joseph) that is being emphasized by the words, “[Christ] comes of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
In accord with what we read in Rom. 1:3, we read in Luke 1:32 that Gabriel referred to David as Jesus’ “father” (and by “father” he meant male ancestor). In accord with this fact, Jesus is also said to be “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1), “of the seed of David” (2 Tim. 2:8) and “out of the fruit of David’s loin” (Acts 2:30; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-16). None of these related descriptions of Christ would be true of Christ if Christ existed before David (or if Christ existed at any point before his body came into being). For Christ to be “the Son of David,” “of the seed of David” and to be “out of the fruit of David’s loin” means that he – and not just his body – came into existence after David. That’s the only way that Christ could be “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” and “of the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). It is because Christ was in the loins of his father David that he could validly be referred to as “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1). And since Christ himself – and not just his body – was “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” (and was thus “the Son of David”), he couldn’t have existed before David. Christ – the one who is the Son of David – had to have come into existence when his body did.
Of course, the Arian must believe that Christ’s being “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin,” “of the seed of David,” and “the Son of David” has nothing to do with when Christ came into existence, or how Christ originated. According to the Arian view of Christ, these related facts about Christ and his Davidic ancestry can only be true because Christ’s body is “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” and “of the seed of David.” In other words, the Arian believes that, with regard to Christ’s being a descendant of David, what’s true of Christ’s body is true of Christ even if Christ existed before is body did. But there’s a problem with this view. Christ does not have the same flesh-and-blood body that he had when he died. His body underwent the same radical change that Paul referred to in 1 Cor. 15:42-53. Christ’s body is no longer soulish or soilish. It is no longer composed of earthly elements (and if it can be said to consist of any “elements” at all, they’re celestial in nature).
Although Christ’s present body is not a biological continuation of the body he had when he died, Christ is still a descendant of David (see 2 Tim. 2:8 and Rev. 22:16). This wouldn’t be the case if Christ’s descent from David is based solely on what’s true about his body (i.e., that it’s biologically/physically related to David). For Christ’s body is no longer biologically/physically related to David. That is, if Christ can only be considered “the Son of David” or “of the seed of David” if he has a body that is biologically/physically related to David, then Christ can no longer be considered “the Son of David” or “of the seed of David.” However, we know that it’s just as true now that Christ is a descendant of David – i.e., that Christ is “the Son of David” and “of the seed of David” – as it was before he died. This can only mean that Christ’s being a descendant of David is based on the fact that he originated from the lineage of David (and that Christ thus came into existence when his body did).
We know that Christians erroneously believe that it was only Christ’s body that died and was roused from among the dead (and not Christ himself). But according to the Arian view of Christ, it was only Christ’s body – and not Christ himself – that is “of the seed of David” or “out of the fruit of David’s loin.” But just as it wasn’t only Christ’s body that died, so it’s not merely Christ’s body of which the above facts are true. Rather, these facts concern Christ himself. And this can only be the case if Christ’s existence as God’s Son began when he was conceived. That is, only if Christ (i.e., the “Holy One” who we’re told would be “called the Son of God” by virtue of the fact that he would be generated by God) came into being when (and because) his human body came into existence – and thus originated from the lineage of David – can it be true to say that Christ himself – and not merely his body – is “of the seed of David.”
Concerning the word “become,” Stephen went on to say, “[The word “become”] is never referred in relation to [Christ’s] spirit, which was created first (Col. 1:15-16) and dwelled in the OT prophets, testifying beforehand to His later sufferings (1 Pet. 1:10-11.)
First (and as already noted), the word “become” – i.e., the word translated “coming to be” in Phil. 2:7 (ginomai) – isn’t even the word used in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35. Thus, to say that the word “become” is never used to refer to Christ’s spirit is a moot point, since the word that’s used in these verses isn’t ginomai but rather gennaó (however, even Stephen would have to admit that, if a writer of Scripture had wanted to use the word ginomai to refer to the creation of Christ’s spirit, he could have done so, for this word could be used to mean “come into being,” or “begin to exist”). But the fact is that we’re not being told in Matt. 1:20 or Luke 1:35 that Christ “became” something that he wasn’t before (again, the word gennaó never means “become” in Scripture). Instead, we’re being told that God’s Son was “generated” (or caused to exist) by God when Miriam became supernaturally pregnant with Jesus. And since a human is a composite being (consisting of a human body and a human spirit), we can conclude that both Christ’s body and his spirit began to exist at this time.
As far as Stephen’s appeal to 1 Pet. 1:10-11, there is no good reason to believe that “the spirit of Christ” of which Peter wrote in v. 11 refers to Christ’s personal life-principle – i.e., the “spirit of life” which, when in union with Christ’s body, is what makes him a living being (and which departed from Christ when he died). In fact, it wouldn’t even make sense to say that this spirit (Christ’s life-principle) was “in the prophets.” If Christ had pre-existed as a celestial being, the personal spirit or life-principle by which he existed as a living being would’ve been in him alone (and not in him and in others). Unlike God’s spirit – which is uncreated and infinite (and can be in multiple created beings at once, or even in all created beings at once) – the personal spirit or life-principle of Christ is just as finite in nature as is the spirit of any other living, created being. And the function of anyone’s personal spirit/life-principle is to give them life (thus, when Christ’s personal spirit departed from him, he died).
Rather than referring to Christ’s personal spirit/life-principle, Peter was referring to the holy spirit of God (i.e., the same spirit that descended on Christ at his baptism). In his next letter, Peter wrote that “not by the will of man was prophecy carried on at any time, but, being carried on by holy spirit, holy men of God speak” (2 Pet. 1:21). Peter referred to the holy spirit by which the prophets were “carried on” as “the spirit of Christ” because this spirit is associated with Christ and, through the prophets, foretold “the sufferings pertaining to Christ and the glories after these” (1 Pet. 1:11). In fact, “the spirit of Christ” is one of many ways in which the holy spirit of God is referred to in Scripture (for more information on this subject, I recommend the following article: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-peter-1-11).
The idea that Peter believed that a pre-existent celestial being who became a human was “in the prophets” is not only absurd, but it’s contrary to what Peter would’ve believed concerning when Christ’s life began. Peter not only believed that Christ is “the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), but he knew why it could be said that Christ is “the Son of the living God.” In accord with what’s revealed in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (which, again, is the scriptural revelation and testimony concerning Christ’s origin), Peter knew that the living God himself was directly responsible for generating Jesus when Jesus’ mother became miraculously pregnant with him, and that God himself (and not Joseph or any other man) was thus the Father of Jesus.
God’s only-begotten Son
Some Arians have claimed that the only reason Christ could only be God’s “only-begotten Son” if he was the first (and only) being directly created by God. However, what we read in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 concerning how God brought Christ into existence fully justifies the use of the word monogenēs in connection with Christ. The Greek adjective translated “only-begotten” in the CLNT (monogenēs) is derived from the words monos (“only,” “alone”) and genos (“race,” “species” or “kind”). According to the BDAG Greek-English lexicon, the word monogenēs has two primary definitions:
1. ”Pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship”
2. ”Pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind”
Both of these definitions of monogenēs are perfectly consistent with the view that Christ’s existence began when he was begotten by God (and keep in mind that, according to Gabriel, the fact that Jesus was begotten by God is the very reason he would “be called the Son of God”).
In addition to the above considerations, the fact that Abraham’s son, Isaac, is referred to as monogenēs (“only-begotten”) in Hebrews 11:17 should inform our understanding of the meaning of this term when it’s used to refer to Christ. Although Isaac wasn’t the only (or the first) son of his father – Abraham’s first son was Ishmael (Gen. 16) – he was the only son of Abraham who was born of Sarah. In the same way, Jesus is the only Son of God who was born (or “begotten”) of Jesus’ mother, Miriam (cf. Luke 6:12, where a boy whom Christ resurrected is referred to as “an only-begotten son of his mother”).
Stephen and I are in agreement on the meaning of the word translated “only-begotten” in the CLNT. Concerning this word, he wrote the following:
Now, here is the definition of “only-begotten” on blue letter bible:
Only-begotten – single of its kind, only
To be only-begotten, is to be the single of its kind. Christ is, truly, unique, in being the only-begotten Son (John 3:16.) This Son is unique.
However, after asking the question, “What sets Him apart?” Stephen went on to provide the following answer:
Could it be, perchance, that He is not merely a part of the eons (Gen. 2:7, John 15:19,) but the Expression of God through which creation is established (Heb. 1:2?)
Stephen and I agree that Christ is “the Expression of God.” Christ has been the Expression of God for nearly 2,000 years now. However, the verse referenced by Stephen doesn’t say anything about “creation” being “established” through Christ; this is evidently Stephen’s interpretation of what’s actually said (for a response to Stephen’s interpretation of this verse, see part twelve of this series). And no, it couldn’t perchance be that Christ was the Expression of God “through which creation was established.” For Christ was generated by God (and thereby became God’s only-begotten Son) when Scripture reveals he was generated by God. And that was long after creation was established by God. The creation that God is going to establish through Christ is the new creation (Rev. 21:5; 22:13). For unlike any created being that was in existence during (or before) the six days of creation, Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth after he was roused by God (Matt. 28:18), and thus has the authority to be the one through whom God makes the new heavens and new earth.
Stephen went on to say,
I’m not “obedient unto death.” He was the only One that willingly chose such a burden. As we are in Adam, we are all dying, and have no say in the matter (Rom. 5:12.) To proclaim that Jesus is just like one of us is to say that He, merely a man in creation, managed to obey despite God’s curse.
Stephen and I agree that Christ – and no one else – was “obedient unto death,” and that Christ “was the only One that willingly chose such a burden.” What we disagree on is when Christ “willingly chose such a burden” (see my remarks in part two for more on this subject, and why the non-Arian view in no way means that Christ’s death was a “forced sacrifice,” or no different than that of a “common human martyr”). And when Stephen implies that non-Arian believers “proclaim that Jesus is just like one of us,” “merely a man in creation” and “managed to obey despite God’s curse,” this is simply a misrepresentation of the view with which he disagrees.
Not only is Jesus the second and last man in history to have been directly created by God (the first, of course, being Adam), but he’s the only man to have been generated by God in the womb of a virgin. And just as Jesus’ origin was completely unique, so the rest of his life was, in accord with God’s purpose and operation, completely unique as well. No other human has ever had the degree of God-given authority and spiritual empowerment that Christ had during his life on earth. No one else has ever been chosen, authorized and empowered by God to have the representational status that allowed Christ to say, ”He who is beholding Me is beholding Him Who sends Me,” and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” No amount of human effort could ever enable anyone to do (or be) what Christ did (and was) during his lifetime on earth. And while God is operating in us “to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight” (Phil. 2:13), God operated in Christ in such a way that ensured that Christ never sinned, but always did what pleased his Father.
Evidently, it was not at all difficult for God to bring it about such that Christ be both (1) a descendant of (and thus physically related to) sinful human beings, and (2) sinless (and thus “unaffiliated with sin”). In accord with this fact are the following words of Heb. 2:17 and 4:15:
“Whence [Christ] ought, in all things, to be made like the brethren, that He may be becoming a merciful and faithful Chief Priest in that which is toward God…”
“For we have not a Chief Priest not able to sympathize with our infirmities, but One Who has been tried in all respects like us, apart from sin.”
When we read that Christ was “in ALL things…made like the brethren,” this isn’t referring to the way in which Christ was conceived (for Christ’s conception was, of course, supernatural in nature, and completely unique). Rather, Christ’s being “in all things…made like the brethren” refers to the kind of being that God made when he made Christ. Just as “the brethren” were fully/truly human (they had the same kind of nature with which Adam was created – i.e., a human nature), so it is with Christ. When Christ’s existence began, he was just as truly human as Adam was. With regard to Christ’s being “apart from sin,” Christ didn’t need to be something other than human in order to be and remain sinless. With regard to his being sinless, it wasn’t his nature that distinguished him from other men. Rather, it was how (and the extent to which) God was operating within Christ “to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight.”
[i] Here’s how two Christian websites define Arianism:
“Arianism is a heresy named for Arius, a priest and false teacher in the early fourth century AD in Alexandria, Egypt…Arius denied the deity of the Son of God, holding that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation and that the nature of Christ was anomoios (“unlike”) that of God the Father. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus is a finite created being with some divine attributes, but He is not eternal and not divine in and of Himself.” What is Arianism?
“According to the teaching of Arius, the Son was a “created god,” created by, and lesser in essence than, the Father, and the one who reveals the ineffable God…Arius taught that the Son was the first created being, through whom all other things were created, and that, properly speaking, he was not God, but only called “god” because of what he does.” Arianism
[ii] Now, the Arian will agree that what we
read in Hebrews 1:5 is incompatible with the commonly-held Christian belief
that there was never a time when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, didn’t exist.
What’s being affirmed here is that God begat his Son on a certain day (hence
the word “today”). However, it wouldn’t be true (and wouldn’t make any sense)
to say that a son was begotten by his father on a certain day if the
son was already in existence at the time.
Moreover, the begetting of Christ that’s in view in Hebrews 1:5 (and which is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies being quoted here) took place when Christ was resurrected. This is evident from Acts 13:32-33, where we read that Paul declared the following:
“And we are bringing to you the evangel which comes to be a promise to the fathers, that God has fully fulfilled this for our children in raising Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm also, ‘My Son art Thou; I, today, have begotten Thee.’”
This understanding is confirmed by what we read in Hebrews 5:5 (where it’s evident that the author of this letter understood this prophecy to have been fulfilled when Christ was made “a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek”; cf. Heb. 7:15-17). Now, since Christ ceased to exist when he died (which is in accord with what Scripture reveals concerning the nature of death), we can conclude that Christ’s resurrection was the second time that Christ was brought into existence by his Father. It is for this reason that the word gennaō was used to refer to Christ’s resurrection (again, when used in reference to that for which a father is responsible, the word gennaō denotes the event by which a father brings his child into existence, and thereby becomes the father of his child).
Thus, when understood in light of a correct understanding of Christ’s death and resurrection, the fact that Christ’s resurrection was an event in which Christ was begotten by his Father confirms the view that Christ didn’t exist as the Son of God before he was generated/begotten by God at the time of his conception. Just as Jesus wasn’t alive in another state of existence when he was begotten by God at the time of his resurrection, so Jesus wasn’t alive in another state of existence when he was begotten by God at the time when his mother became pregnant with him (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35).
[iii] See also Heb. 1:3. Moreover, there’s at least one example where a qualifying phrase is used with ginomai, but no prior living existence is implied (i.e., in 1 Cor. 15:45, where we read that Adam “became a living soul”).
No comments:
Post a Comment