As mentioned in part one of this study, I believe that the “Arian” view of Christ (which, again, predated Arius himself) 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).
Many believers in the body of Christ today rightly recognize the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as an evangel-contradicting doctrine that prevents those who hold to it from believing the truth of the evangel. And this doctrine should be exposed as such. However, it should be emphasized that the main problem with the doctrine of the Trinity is not the belief that God is “triune” or “tri-personal” (as erroneous as this belief is); rather, it’s the inseparably connected belief that Christ is one of the “divine persons” of the “triune God.”
In other words, the biggest problem with the doctrine of the Trinity is, and always has been, that it necessarily includes and presupposes the doctrine of the divinity/deity of Christ. But one doesn’t have to be a Trinitarian in order to hold to this particular doctrinal error. The false doctrine of the divinity/deity of Christ is shared by the “Modalist” view of God (i.e., the so-called “Oneness” position) and the less commonly-held Binitarian view of God (according to which God is believed to exist as, or to be constituted by, only two “divine persons” rather than three). And as we’ll see, the Arian view of Christ is fertile ground for the doctrine of the divinity/deity of Christ to take root and grow. In fact, some Arians in the body of Christ have articulated their understanding of Christ’s nature in such a way that it is nearly indistinguishable from the view of Christ to which Trinitarians, Modalists and Binitarians hold.
Some Arians believe that the non-Arian understanding of Christ is based on an “over-reaction” to the doctrine of the Trinity (and for this reason refer to non-Arian members of the body of Christ as “Trinity over-reactors”). Regardless of how much – or how little – truth there is to this assessment, I’ve become more and more convinced over the years that the Arian view of Christ is what “paved the way” for the Binitarian (and then Trinitarian) view of Christ. The Arian Christological view is essentially proto-Binitarianism.
The doctrinal progression that the Arian view of Christ made possible (and of which it’s the “doctrinal bridge”) could be expressed as follows:
1. The revealed truth concerning Christ’s origin and nature: Christ is a fully human being who was supernaturally generated by God when God’s spirit came on Miriam and his power overshadowed her. Because of his obedience unto death, Christ was glorified by God, given all authority in heaven and on earth and exalted to God’s right hand.
2. The “Arian” view of Christ: Christ pre-existed in heaven as an exalted celestial being who sat on God’s throne as God’s visible representative before he “became human,” and was later restored to his exalted heavenly position after his death and resurrection.
3. The Binitarian and Trinitarian view of Christ: Christ pre-existed in heaven as an uncreated/eternal divine person who sat on God’s throne before he “became human,” and was later restored to his exalted position after his “death” and “resurrection.”
While the Binitarian and Trinitarian view of Christ completely erases the line between Christ and Deity, the Arian view blurs that line. It makes the line more difficult to discern and thus easier to cross (which is precisely what I believe happened in the second and third centuries). Among those who believe that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being who sat on the throne of God as God’s visible representative, we find a number of other related beliefs that further blur the line between Christ and Deity. For example, it’s commonly believed among Arians in the body of Christ that Christ is “divine.” Some believe that Christ’s “divinity” is based on the nature of his spirit. Some even consider Christ to be a “God-human hybrid” (rather than fully human). These beliefs get one dangerously close to the Binitarian/Trinitarian view of Christ, and it’s not difficult to see how beliefs such as these could, for some, develop into a full-blown Binitarian view of Christ (especially for those who aren’t aware of the evangel-contradicting nature of this doctrinal position).
Of course, the Arian will, at this point, undoubtedly object that his understanding of Christ’s origin and nature isn’t a departure from an earlier and purer doctrinal position. Rather, what he believes about when Christ began to exist (and what kind of being Christ is) is based on what’s revealed in Scripture. But this isn’t the case.
As noted in part one of this series, the Arian’s denial that Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 is a revelation of when 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 prior belief that Christ pre-existed his conception as a celestial being. In other words, it’s the Arian’s belief that Christ pre-existed his conception that prevents him from understanding Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 as a revelation of how and when Christ’s existence began. But it’s also this very belief that is motivating the assumption(s) on which his interpretation of other verses is based.
In other words, the Arian begins with the assumption that Christ pre-existed. This belief is re-enforced by certain verses that he interprets with the assumption that Christ pre-existed. And then when the Arian reads the verses in which we actually find the revelation of when Christ’s existence began, he’s forced to understand what’s being revealed in these verses as something other than the revelation that it is (which requires giving the word translated “generated” a meaning that it doesn’t have).
Of course, the Arian will likely object that the non-Arian interpretation of certain verses and passages is based on the assumption that Christ didn't pre-exist. However, the non-Arian believes (and, as I’ve argued, justifiably so) that what’s said in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 is a revelation of when and how Christ was caused to exist by God (and of when God became the Father of his Son). Thus, the non-Arian is logically assuming that, because Scripture doesn’t contradict itself, there is no verse or passage that is (or can be) contrary to this scriptural revelation.
The problem for the Arian is that, for every Arian “proof-text,” there are certain grammatical and/or contextual considerations that either (1) weigh against the Arian interpretation or (2) simply render the verse inconclusive as a proof-text for the Arian position. Either way, the verse or passage can be shown to be completely consistent with what the non-Arian believes Scripture reveals concerning how and when Christ was generated by God. And this is all that the Arian “needs to do” when discussing the meaning of a certain Arian “proof-text.” For with regard to the “burden of proof,” it’s not up to the non-Arian to prove that a certain Arian “proof-text” doesn’t prove that Christ pre-existed (or prove that a certain Arian “proof-text” actually proves that Christ didn’t pre-exist). For the non-Arian isn’t, of course, the one claiming that a certain verse proves that Christ pre-existed. Rather, it’s up to the Arian to prove that a certain verse reveals that Christ did pre-exist.
That is, it’s up to the Arian to demonstrate that his interpretation of a certain verse or passage is necessitated by what’s being said in the verse or passage. The Arian can’t just say, “Although Aaron (or some other non-Arian) claims that this verse isn’t a proof-text for my position, he hasn’t proven that this verse proves that Christ didn’t pre-exist.” That’s absurd. And yet, this is precisely what I’ve found some Arians doing when defending their view of a certain passage. In response to my comments on certain Arian proof-text, the Arian will say something like, “Aaron has failed to prove that Christ didn’t pre-exist!” But what the Arian seems to fail to realize is that the non-Arian doesn’t need to prove that a certain Arian “proof-text” proves that Christ didn’t pre-exist; he only needs to demonstrate that what’s said in the verse is consistent with the scriptural revelation that Christ began to exist when his mother became pregnant with him.
The Arian’s typical approach when debating the subject of when Christ’s existence began seems to be to assume that a certain proof-text (e.g., John 1:1-3 or Col. 1:15-16) supports his position, and then to challenge the non-Arian to prove that the verse “proves that Christ didn’t pre-exist.” But that’s now how it works. Again, it’s up to the Arian to prove that the verses to which he appeals proves that Christ did pre-exist (and not that it proves that Christ didn’t not pre-exist), and that it’s therefore impossible for the verse to be reasonably understood in such a way that’s consistent with what the non-Arian believes concerning when Christ’s existence began.
A verse doesn’t have to “disprove the Arian position” in order for it to be consistent with the non-Arian position. Similarly, a verse doesn’t have to disprove the false doctrines of eternal death or eternal conscious torment in order for it to be consistent with the truth that all will ultimately be saved. There are, of course, a number of verses to which proponents of these false doctrines will appeal that, while being consistent with the truth of universal salvation, don’t disprove that some will never be saved (only verses that prove that all will be saved disprove the view that some will never be saved).
Consider, for example, the following response by Stephen (which he wrote in response to my claim that Col. 1:17 can be “understood as clarifying…what sort of “creating” Paul believed Christ was/is responsible for in v. 16):
“Again, if all having its cohesion in Him describes, or clarifies, or breaks down how Christ is created in all, how does this prove, conclusively, that Christ didn’t exist?”
The implication in Stephen’s question is that, if what I’ve said on a certain verse or passage doesn’t “prove, conclusively, that Christ didn’t [pre]exist,” then I’ve somehow failed to defend the non-Arian view against the Arian interpretation of the text. But when writing what I did on Colossians 1:15-17 (or on any other verse or passage thought by Arians to prove their position), it wasn’t my intention to “prove that Christ didn’t preexist.” Rather, my goal was to show that Col. 1:15-16 isn’t a “proof-text” for the Arian view (and not that it is a “proof-text” for the non-Arian view). That is, it was my goal to demonstrate that one of the passages to which Arians commonly appeal in support of their position is consistent with the non-Arian understanding of when Christ’s existence began.
What Stephen wrote above seems to suggest that, if the non-Arian has failed to demonstrate that Col. 1:15-17 (or some other Arian proof-text) doesn’t “prove, conclusively, that Christ didn’t pre-exist,” then the Arian is somehow justified in viewing the passage as a proof-text for his position. But that’s absurd. What the Arian needs to “prove, conclusively” is that the passage proves that Christ did pre-exist, and that the passage is thus incompatible with the non-Arian understanding of when Christ’s existence began. But as will be shown, the Arian’s interpretation of every proof-text is based on the assumption that Christ pre-existed. And not only this, but the Arian will sometimes use circular reasoning to argue that a certain verse “proves” that Christ pre-existed. For example, he’ll appeal to what Paul wrote in Col. 1:16 to support his assumption that Christ existed as “Firstborn of every creature” before the six days of creation, but will also appeal to the words “Firstborn of every creature” to support his assumption that the event Paul had in mind in Col. 1:16 took place during the six days of creation (but more on this later).
When arguing against non-Arians, Arians will often confidently appeal to and quote a certain verse or passage and then talk as if it’s perfectly obvious that the verse or passage proves their position. They seem to think (if they don’t directly state this) that non-Arians are simply “ignoring the obvious” and are “stubborn as to the truth” for denying that the Arian understanding of a certain verse or passage is correct. But the fact is that Arians have no good reason to be so confident with regard to what they think a certain verse or passage is saying.
Consider, for example, Christ’s words in John 17:1-5. Here’s how these verses read in the CLNT:
These things speaks Jesus, and lifting His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, come has the hour. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son should be glorifying You, according as You give Him authority over all flesh, that everything which You have given to Him, He should be giving it to them, even life eonian. Now it is eonian life that they may know You, the only true God, and Him Whom You do commission, Jesus Christ. I glorify You on the earth, finishing the work which You have given Me, that I should be doing it. And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Yourself, with the glory which I had before the world is with You.”
When Christ prayed that his Father would glorify him, what glory did he have in mind? Answer: Christ was referring to this post-resurrection glory that he received because of his sacrificial death (and of which he alone was worthy because of his sacrificial death). However, according to what Arians believe, Christ pre-existed as the highest-ranking being under God before his life on earth began. And the glory that he was asking God to glorify him with is (according to the most commonly-held Arian view) the glory that he had, and personally experienced, when he pre-existed. Now, since the Arian can’t believe that Christ ever ceased to be worthy of this “original glory,” the following must be the case: If Christ was subsequently glorified by God with a glory of which he had never become unworthy (and which he formerly had as pre-existent celestial being) then his present glory is not a glory that he received because of his sacrificial death. Rather than being a glory that he received because of his sacrificial death, it’s a glory of which he was just as worthy before his death as he is now (and which was simply restored to him by God).
On the other hand, if Christ’s present glory has nothing to do with what Arians believe was true of Christ before his life on earth began – and if the glory of which Christ has been “counted worthy” (Heb. 3:3; cf. Rev. 5:9, 12) and with which he has been “crowned” (Heb. 2:9) has everything to do with what Christ did during his life on earth – then the Arian is necessarily minimizing (and distracting from) not only the glory that Christ presently has, but also the very reason why he has it.
We thus have good reason to think that the Arian interpretation of John 17:5 is mistaken. But in what sense did Christ have the glory of which he spoke “before the world [was] with [God]”? Answer: That which is certain to exist or occur – and especially that which is central to God’s plan – can be spoken of as if it already existed or occurred.
For example, in Ephesians 1:4 Paul declared that the saints in the body of Christ were chosen in Christ “before the disruption of the world.” Similarly, we read in 2 Timothy 1:9 that God’s grace was “given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian…” Did those in the body of Christ personally and consciously exist at the time that we were “chosen,” and at the time that God’s grace was “given to us?” Would the Arian argue that grace couldn’t have been given to us before times eonian unless we existed at that time? Of course not. The only sense in which we existed in order to be “chosen before the disruption of the world” and in order to be given “grace before times eonian” was in God’s foreknowledge, as a key part of his redemptive plan for the universe. God foreknew those in the body of Christ “before the disruption of the world” and “before times eonian,” and thus it can be said that we were chosen in Christ and given grace at this time.
Moreover, in Rev. 13:8 (CLNT) we read the following:
“And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping [the wild beast], everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world.”
Of course, the only sense in which Christ could be said to have been slain before the disruption of the world was in God’s foreknowledge, as the central figure in his redemptive plan. And if the Arian has no trouble believing that Christ was “slain from the disruption of the world,” then he should have had no trouble believing that Christ could have been glorified by God (i.e., because of his sacrificial death) before the world was with God.
Further support for this understanding of John 17:5 is that Christ went on to say in John 17:22, “And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One…” Notice here that the same glory that Christ prayed that God would give him is spoken of as if he already possessed it. And not only that, but this glory is spoken of as if it had already been given to his disciples (and from verses 20-21 we know that the disciples of which Christ was speaking included those who weren’t even alive yet!). And in v. 24, Christ prayed the following:
“Father, those whom Thou hast given Me, I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me, that they may be beholding My glory which Thou hast given Me, for Thou lovest Me before the disruption of the world.”
Was Christ literally in a future time and place when he spoke these words, and expressing the desire that his disciples could be there too to see him in a glorified state that was present to him but still future to them? Was Christ confused during his prayer? Not at all; in both cases, something that is certain to happen and central to God’s plan (and which had “already occurred” in God’s foreknowledge) is spoken of as if it had already taken place.
In v. 5 Christ spoke as if he had been glorified before the world existed, and in v. 24 he spoke as if his glorification (and his being present at the location of his glorification) was a present reality, at the time of his prayer (“…where I am, they also may be with me”). This was simply a figurative way of speaking that emphasized how certain Christ’s glorification was, and how central it was (and has always been) to God’s plan. Again, things that are certain to exist or take place, and which are central to God’s plan, are sometimes spoken of in scripture as if they already exist, or have already been accomplished.
Now, one proponent of the view that Christ pre-existed his life on earth – i.e., E.J. Waggoner – considered Christ’s words in John 17:5 to be one of the strongest proof-texts for this view. Waggoner wrote (emphasis mine),
“One of the strangest things in the world is that men professing to believe and reverence the Bible, will claim that Christ had no existence prior to His birth of the Virgin Mary. Three texts only will be quoted here to disprove this theory; but texts which will be quoted later, on another point, will just as fully prove the pre-existence of Christ. The first text is in the prayer of Jesus on the night of His betrayal. He said, “And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” John 17:5. We do not know what could be plainer, unless it is the statement that He made the world. John says that “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:3.
Many – if not most – Arians likely feel the same degree of confidence concerning what they think Christ was affirming in John 17:5 as Waggoner felt when he wrote, “We do not know what could be plainer…” However, that Christ’s words in John 17:5 have been misunderstood by most Arians has been acknowledged by one of the most zealous defenders of the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence within the body of Christ today. After stating that he was “inclined to take [my] side on this one,” Stephen J. went on to write the following in one of his responses to me:
The glory [Christ] receives is fully displayed in His death and resurrection, through which He conquers the world (John 16:33.) The glory is the subject, here, not Christ Himself. This is indeed similar to us being designated beforehand, or Christ’s sacrifice being foreknown by God (1 Pet. 1:19-20.) Using this verse to ‘try and prove’ that Christ existed beforehand, while understandable (admittedly, I’ve done it myself,) isn’t going to do you any favors if you’re seeking explicit verbiage to prove your point.
I’m sure that, at one point, Stephen J. likely felt just as confident about the status of this verse as a “proof-text” for the Arian position as Waggoner felt when he wrote what he did above.
Of course, Stephen’s change of mind regarding this verse is by no means evidence against his overall position (for one could come to understand a certain verse or passage differently than one used to – and in such a way that it’s no longer viewed as a “proof-text” for one’s doctrinal position – and still be correct with regard to one’s overall position). Nevertheless, the fact that one of the most zealous and capable defenders of the Arian position today would come to regard a verse that most Arians believe “plainly” supports their position in a way that’s consistent with the non-Arian view should caution other Arians against assuming that any particular “proof-text” for the Arian view “plainly” means what they think it means, and that the Arian interpretation of a certain verse or passage is simply the “obvious” meaning.
Now, in response to the claim that the Arian’s understanding of certain verses of Scripture is based on/being determined by his assumption that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being (and that the Arian is thus “importing his own view of when and where Christ’s existence began into the inspired account of how and when God brought his Son into being”), Stephen J. responded as follows:
This is not an “imported” view, but a view rooted firmly in the text. The language God uses concerning His Son is very clear.
Stephen then went on to reference and quote a number of verses that he thinks clearly demonstrates that the Arian view is “rooted firmly in the text”(John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16-17, John 6:38, John 6:46, John 16:28, 1 Cor. 8:6, Gal. 4:4). However, by quoting these verses, Stephen is only proving my point that Arians are reading their view into the text. The Arian interpretation of these verses presupposes the very position that they think these verses “clearly reveal.”
After referencing and quoting these verses in support of his position, Stephen went on to say that they these verses “proclaim that God did not ‘create’ His Son at Jesus’ conception…” (emphasis mine). However, not only do these verses not “proclaim” that Christ existed before his conception, but they don’t even imply or suggest this idea. One must already be assuming that Christ pre-existed his conception (and that God therefore didn’t create his Son when Jesus was conceived) to seriously believe that these (or any other) verses “proclaim” this.
With that said, let’s now consider the examples that Stephen provided (note that I’ll be spending more time on some of these verses later on in this series):
John 1:14
The Arian is assuming that the “the word” in John 1:1-3 and 14 refers to a pre-existent, created celestial being. Only if that’s the case can the words “the word became flesh” in John 1:14 refer to a pre-existent celestial being becoming “flesh.” But that’s not said in the text. The Arian is importing this view into the text.
No one is denying that a certain human being – i.e., the “Man, Christ Jesus” – is “called ‘The Word of God’” (Rev. 19:3). Christ is the human manifestation of God’s word, representing that which – like God’s wisdom (Proverbs 1, 8, 9) – had previously only been personified (e.g., in Psalm 107:20; 145:15, 18-19; Isaiah 55:10-11). And it’s when this state of affairs became true – i.e., when God’s word came to be manifested in the flesh of his only-begotten Son (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16) – that “the word became flesh.”
I’ll have more to say on this verse – and to what Stephen J. has said in defense of his interpretation of it – in part ten of this series.
John 1:18
The Arian is assuming that Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human celestial being, and was “unfolding” the Father before his life on earth began. However, John doesn’t say this. What John wrote here was true when he wrote (and continues to be true). It is the “Man, Christ Jesus” – a human being – who, by virtue of the fact that he perfect represents God (hence Jesus’ declaration, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”), “unfolds” God to us. Moreover, even the Arian would have to agree that Jesus wasn’t “unfolding” (i.e., making known) the Father to mankind until after his life on earth began. It was during his life on earth that Christ was acting and speaking on God’s behalf, as his perfect representative (such that those who saw Christ could be said to see the Father [John 14:9]).
John 3:16, 17
The Arian is assuming that God “dispatched” his Son into the world before he generated his Son. But the same word translated “dispatched” here – i.e., apostellō (which means, “send officially, with authority for the execution of some task”) – is used in John 1:6 to refer to John the Baptist’s having been “sent from God.” The idea of Jesus’ being sent (or dispatched) by God into the world is clarified by Jesus’ own words in John 17:18. There, we read (CLNT), “According as Thou dost dispatch Me into the world, I also dispatch them into the world.”
It should be noted that, in another response to me, Stephen appealed to the word “dispatched” in John 3:17 and argued as follows:
“It stands to reason that in order to be ‘dispatched into the world,’ one must first exist. Could you imagine Princess Leia going, ‘We’re going to dispatch the Rebellion to the Death Star!’ if no rebel troops existed??”
However, what we read in John 17:18 exposes the flaw in this line of reasoning. Being “dispatched into the world” has nothing to do with anyone leaving heaven and coming to earth (whether as a pre-born human or otherwise). Based on Christ’s words above, the sense in which Christ “sent” or “dispatched” his disciples into the world is the same sense in which God “sent” or “dispatched” his Son into the world. Just as the dispatching of Christ’s disciples into the world by Christ doesn’t mean they “pre-existed” in heaven before they were “dispatched,” so the dispatching of Christ into the world by God doesn’t mean Christ “pre-existed” in heaven before he was dispatched by God. The Arian is only assuming this and reading it into the text.
In response to this point, Stephen replied as follows:
“…the verse that answers this conundrum is John 15:19, two chapters before Jesus’ statement in John 17:
If you [My disciples] were of the world, the world would be fond of its own. Now, seeing that you are not of the world, but I choose you out of the world, therefore the world is hating you.
Here it’s clear that the disciples are chosen out of the world. They were of the world, until they were chosen out of it. By the time you reach John 17, this should be understood.
I’m not sure why Stephen thinks this response somehow refutes the point made above. Non-Arians agree that the disciples were chosen “out of the world” by Christ. And after Christ chose them out of the world, Christ later dispatched them into the world just as he himself was dispatched into the world by his Father. And if the disciples could be dispatched into the world by Christ without having previously pre-existed as celestial beings in heaven, so can Christ. Nothing said in John 15:19 undermines this simple fact.
John 6:38
It’s because the Arian is assuming that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being that he understands the words “descended from heaven” in John 6 literally. The problem for the Arian is that a literal interpretation contradicts the revelation of when Christ’s existence began (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). And – as already pointed out – the Arian only disputes this fact because his belief that Christ pre-existed prevents him from understanding these verses as the revelation that they are. Apart from his assumption that Christ pre-existed, he would have no reason whatsoever to understand these verses as not being a revelation of when Christ’s existence began.
Those who aren’t reading John 6 with this assumption (but who, instead, believe the scriptural revelation of when Christ began to exist) will have reason to conclude that, when Jesus referred to himself as having “descended from heaven,” he was using the same kind of idiom that’s found in James 1:16 and elsewhere (i.e., James 3:15; Luke 20:4; cf. Mal. 3:10), and according to which that of which God is the direct source can be referred to as coming out of/from heaven. That is, those who believe what Scripture reveals concerning when Christ began to exist (and who thus aren’t assuming that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being) will understand the words “descended from heaven” in John 6 in the same way that “all good giving and every perfect gratuity is from above, descending from the Father of lights.” Just as God is the direct source of “all good giving and every perfect gratuity,” so God was the direct source of his Son, Jesus (whom he supernaturally generated Jesus in the womb of his mother).
I’ll have more to say in response to Stephen’s objections to this understanding later in this series.
John 6:46
The Arian is assuming that being “from God” means that Christ pre-existed his life on earth. But Christ is “from God” because God is the direct source of Christ’s existence (and we know from Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 that God generated Christ – and thus became the direct source of Christ’s existence – when Christ’s mother became pregnant with him). It’s further assumed by the Arian that the words “has seen the Father” refer to what was true before Christ’s life on earth began. But this, again, is an idea that's being imported into the text. Only those who already believe – and are thus reading this verse with the assumption – that Jesus pre-existed his life on earth will conclude that Jesus’ words (“This One has seen the Father”) must refer to a state of affairs that was true before Christ’s life on earth began.
The word translated “seen” in John 6:46 can, in some contexts, be understood to mean something other than “to see with the eyes.” The word can also mean to know, understand or realize (John 14:7-9; 1 John 3:6; 3 John 11). A similar idiom is used by English-speakers as well, such as when one says “I see” instead of “I understand.” The words “has seen” in John 6:46 mean “has come to truly know.” Only Christ had, at that time, been given a true understanding/realization of the Father (such that everyone else could be considered comparatively ignorant of him). The Father had revealed himself more fully to Jesus than to anyone else. And because Jesus alone had been given this understanding of who God is, he could then unfold the Father to others (John 1:18), so that when they “saw” (i.e., acquired knowledge of) Jesus they “saw” (acquired knowledge of) the Father.
John 16:28
The Arian is assuming that Jesus could not have “[come] out from the Father” and “come into the world” unless he pre-existed his life on earth as a celestial being. But there is no good reason to assume this. We know that all is ultimately “out of God” (i.e., God is ultimately the Source of all). And as the One who was directly responsible for Jesus’ supernatural conception, God was the direct source of his Son, Jesus (such that Christ could also declare in John 8:42, “For out of God I came forth and am arriving”). Thus, Jesus “came out from the Father” when he was generated by God. And when was Jesus generated by God? When did God become the Father of Jesus? Answer: when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35).
1 Corinthians 8:6
The Arian is reading this verse with the assumption that, when Paul wrote that there is “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is,” he was saying that all has been “through” Christ ever since the time that God created the heavens and the earth. But the only reason one would assume that all has been through Christ since the time that God created the heavens and the earth is that one already believes that Christ was in existence at this time. But there’s nothing said in this verse that supports or justifies this assumption.
What Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:6 is perfectly consistent with the revelation of how and when Christ’s existence began. All is “through” the “one Lord, Jesus Christ” in that all continues in existence (or remains created) by means of Christ’s authority as Lord of all (Heb. 1:3). That is, the state of affairs involving Christ that Paul had in mind in 1 Cor. 8:6 (all being “through” Christ) began after – and not before – Christ was made Lord of all (and thus became the “one Lord” who is under the one God). And Christ became Lord of all when he was roused by God from among the dead and given all authority in heaven and on earth.
The Arian thus can’t rely on this verse alone to prove that Christ pre-existed the creation of the heavens and the earth; he has to interpret this verse in light of some other verse(s) that he thinks more explicitly reveals what he believes (among which he would likely include John 1:1-3 or Col. 1:15-16). But for every other verse that he could appeal to, he’ll run into the same problem: certain assumptions have to be made in order for the verse to be understood as supporting the Arian’s belief that Christ existed before the creation of the heavens and the earth (for example, the Arian has to assume that the event of which Paul was referring in Col. 1:16 occurred during the six days of creation, rather than being a creation-sustaining event that began after Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth).
Galatians 4:4
The Arian’s interpretation of this verse is based on the assumption that, when Christ was “delegated” by God, he pre-existed as a celestial being. That is, the Arian reads this verse with the assumption that a pre-existent celestial being was first “delegated” by God and then – after having been “delegated” – he “[came] of a woman…under law” (hence Stephen’s later remarks that “God did not create, but delegated His Son to come of Mary in flesh”). But this interpretation is by no means necessitated by what Paul actually wrote.
Paul doesn’t tell us when Christ was “delegated” by God. The Arian simply assumes that this occurred before Christ’s life on earth began. But if we’re not assuming this (and we have no good reason to assume it), it’s reasonable to conclude that Christ was delegated by God at the start of his earthly ministry – i.e., when, at his baptism, Christ was anointed “with holy spirit and power” (Acts 10:38) to be “the Servant of the Circumcision, for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the patriarchal promises” (Rom. 15:8).
Moreover, there’s no good reason to think that Paul was giving a progression of events in Gal. 4:4. Instead, the grammatical construction of Paul wrote here is completely consistent with the understanding that the words “come of a woman, come under law” are referring to what occurred before Christ was delegated by God.
There are four verbs used in this verse: ἔρχομαι (“came”), ἐξαποστέλλω (“delegates”), and γίνομαι (“come,” which occurs twice). All four verbs are in the aorist tense, but the first two are “indicative active” while the second two are “participle middle.” The aorist participle generally indicates action that happened prior to the main verb (representing a “time before” the main action). Although the CLNT translation is consistent with the view that Paul wasn’t giving a sequence of events in chronological order, the Disciples’ Literal New Testament arguably reflects the difference between the “indicative active” and “participle middle” even better than the CLNT:
“But when the fullness of time came, God sent-forth His Son—having come from a woman, having come under the Law.”
In light of these grammatical considerations, we can understand the words “come of a woman, come under law” (or “having come from a woman, having come under the Law”) as simply providing the reader with more specific details concerning the one who was “delegated by God.” Paul was specifying that the one delegated by God was (1) human and (2) Jewish (i.e., under the law Mosaic law).
The only reason one would seriously believe that any of these verses “proclaim” that Jesus pre-existed his conception is that one is reading this belief into the text. For each of these verses, there are certain grammatical and/or contextual considerations that either weigh against the Arian interpretation or simply render the verse inconclusive as a proof-text for the Arian position. Either way, these verses are completely consistent with what the non-Arian believes Scripture reveals concerning how and when Christ’s existence began.
Stephen went on to say, “This is where my view that “He must have existed prior if He is the only-begotten Son of God” comes from.”
And insofar as this is the case, we can reasonably conclude that Stephen’s view that “[Christ] must have existed prior if He is the only-begotten Son of God” comes from his own assumption-based interpretation of these (and other) verses.
It should be noted that it’s not just the verses that Arians see as “proof-texts” for their position that they misinterpret because of the doctrinal assumptions that they bring to the text. Consider, for example, what we read in 1 Peter 1:19-20. After declaring that those to whom he wrote had been “…ransomed from [their] vain behavior…with the precious blood of Christ, as of a flawless and unspotted lamb,” Peter went on to refer to Christ as having been “…foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of you, who through Him are believing in God, Who rouses Him from among the dead and is giving Him glory, so that your faith and expectation is to be in God.”
For anyone to have been foreknown by God at a certain time presupposes that they didn’t exist at the time that they were foreknown. For example, based on what’s said by Paul in Rom. 8:29 and Eph. 1:4-5, it’s evident that those in the body of Christ were foreknown by God before the disruption of the world. When we read that God foreknew us, we understand this to mean that God knew us at a time before we existed. If we had existed before the disruption of the world, God would’ve simply known us at this time. He wouldn’t have foreknown us. And since – according to Peter – Christ was also foreknown by God before the disruption of the world, it follows that he didn’t exist at this time. If Peter had wanted to communicate the idea that Christ existed before the disruption of the world, he would’ve said that Christ was “known, indeed, before the disruption of the world.” But he didn’t. He used the word “foreknown.” And this word simply does not mean the same thing as “known.”
Because Arians assume that Christ pre-existed in heaven before the disruption of the world (and thus couldn’t have been foreknown by God during this time), they will often claim that it was Christ’s blood (or his sacrifice) that was “foreknown by God” during this time. While it’s undoubtedly true that Christ’s sacrifice was foreknown by God, this isn’t what Peter was communicating in these verses. Instead – and in accord with what I believe was Peter’s understanding of when Christ’s existence began – Peter was expressing the fact that Christ himself was foreknown by God before the disruption of the world.
It should also be pointed out that, from a grammatical standpoint, the Arian interpretation of 1 Pet. 1:20 is untenable. For the underlying Greek grammar specifically links “foreknown” to “Christ.” In Greek, adjectives and participles must agree in gender with the noun they modify. Both the singular noun “Christ” (Christou) and the singular participle “foreknown” (proegnōsmenou) are masculine. However, the word “blood” (aimatos) is neuter. Thus, the word “foreknown” can’t refer back to the “blood of Christ” (aimati Christou). Since “foreknown” is masculine, it grammatically matches the masculine noun “Christ.”
In accord with this grammatical fact, it’s also evident that Peter is creating a contrast between Christ being “foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world” and him being “manifested in the last times.” Both of these participles (“foreknown” and “manifested”) are masculine, and thus refer to the same subject: Christ.
Each of these grammatical considerations is in accord with the fact that Christ – and not Christ’s blood – is the overall subject of verses 18-21. The one who we’re told was roused from among the dead by God and given glory by God (v. 21) is the one through whom believers were believing in God (v. 20), and the one through whom believers were believing in God is the same one who was manifested (v. 20).
Stephen J., however, thinks that, even if Peter was referring to Christ as being foreknown and manifested (rather than his blood/sacrifice), this would still be consistent with the Arian view:
“If Aaron must, he could argue that Christ according to flesh is foreknown, being that Peter is, literally, to the circumcision and considering Christ’s fleshly glories. But the way I see the verse isn’t the way he’s going to see the verse, and the way he sees the verse isn’t the way I’m going to see the verse. And in either case, neither deny His preexistence.”
When Peter referred to Christ, he had in mind the same vivified, heaven-dwelling human that Paul had in mind when he referred to Christ. Peter even referred to Christ a little later as being “at God’s right hand, being gone into heaven, messengers and authorities and powers being subjected to Him” (1 Pet. 3:22). This isn’t “fleshly glory.” Peter wasn’t ignorant of the fact that Christ was destined to have a glorious celestial position before he returns to earth to establish the kingdom of God on the earth and reign over it. This was revealed in both Psalm 110:1 (quoted by Peter in his first sermon) and Daniel 7:13-14.
Now, when Stephen wrote, “Christ according to flesh,” some might think that what Stephen had in mind here is the same idea that Paul was expressing when he referred to Christ as having been known “according to flesh” in 2 Cor. 5:16. But in 2 Cor. 5:16, the words “known Christ according to flesh” refer to Paul’s former, fleshly perspective/understanding of Christ. That is, it was his former knowledge of Christ that Paul had in mind when he wrote what he did in 2 Cor. 5:16. Paul wasn’t talking about knowing Christ when Christ existed as a flesh-composed being vs. not knowing Christ when he existed as a flesh-composed being.
So what, exactly, did Stephen mean when he said that I could argue “that Christ according to flesh is foreknown?” Apparently, he meant that one could say that, when God foreknew Christ before the disruption of the world, he only foreknew the mortal human that Christ existed as during his lifetime on earth. Of course, this interpretation presupposes that Christ didn’t come into existence as a mortal human (and thus presupposes the Arian view). But the biggest problem with this interpretation is that it involves reading an idea into scripture that’s not there, and making the writer say something he didn’t write. To claim that Peter was saying that “Christ, but only insofar as he existed as a mortal human,” was foreknown before the disruption of the world is simply to read into the text what isn’t there.
Instead of trying to (1) interpret what Peter wrote in a way that’s contrary to the grammar he used to express what he was saying or (2) interpret what Peter wrote in a way that requires reading into what he wrote something that isn’t there, what the Arian should ask himself is this: If Peter had wanted to express the idea that Christ was foreknown before the disruption of the world (and not that “Christ, but only when he existed as a mortal human,” was foreknown), what else could Peter have said? The fact is that it’s Christ whom Peter said was “foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world.” The vivified, heaven-dwelling man whom Peter referred to as “Jesus Christ” in 1 Pet 3:22 is the same person whom Peter referred to as “Christ” in 1 Pet. 1:20. And it’s this person who, according to Peter, was foreknown before the disruption of the world.
Part four: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part four
No comments:
Post a Comment