Christ’s greatest glory
We know that there was a glory that Christ had and manifested when performing miracles during his earthly ministry (John 2:11; cf. 11:4), as well as a glory in which he appeared at the time of his transformation on the mount (Matt. 17:1-2; 2 Pet. 1:16-17). However, we also know that there is a sense in which Christ had not yet been glorified at this time:
“Now this he said about the spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39).
Later, we learn that this future glory was inseparably connected with Christ’s death on the cross, and wasn’t received until after his resurrection (John 12:16, 23, 26; 17:1; Luke 24:26; Acts 3:13; 1 Pet. 1:11, 21). Hebrews 2:9 is especially relevant here. There, we read that it was “because of the suffering of death” that Christ was “wreathed with glory and honor.”
The glory and honor that Christ received by virtue of his obedient death on the cross was not a glory and honor that he had, or could’ve had, beforehand (for this glory and honor was given to him by God “BECAUSE” of the suffering of death). It is a glory and honor that no other created being had been given (and never will be given).
After quoting Psalm 110:1, Peter declared that “God makes [Jesus] Lord as well as Christ” (Acts 2:34-36). When he said that “God makes [Jesus] Lord,” he was referring to the status/position that’s referred to in the following Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110:1:
“The averring of Yahweh to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet.’”
This prophecy (and how it supports the non-Arian understanding of Christ) will be considered in more depth later in this series.
Peter had this same status in mind when he later declared that Jesus “is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36-37).
It was after Christ was roused from among the dead that he was given “all authority in heaven and on the earth” (Matt. 28:18). Thus, Jesus wasn’t the Lord of all before his death and resurrection. Paul confirms this fact in Romans 14:7-9:
For not one of us is living to himself, and not one is dying to himself. For both, if we should be living, to the Lord are we living, and if we should be dying, to the Lord are we dying. Then, both if we should be living and if we should be dying, we are the Lord's. For for this Christ died and lives, that He should be Lord of the dead as well as of the living.
The implication of what Paul wrote in v. 9 is that Jesus wasn’t “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” before his death and resurrection. In addition to this fact, Paul’s words here also reveal that being Lord of all is the purpose for which “Christ died and lives” (this is indicated by the words, “For for this”). Notice, also, that Paul included Christ’s death as being just as necessary to his present Lordship as his life. In other words, it’s not just the case that Christ wouldn’t be Lord of all he wasn’t alive; it’s also the case that Christ wouldn’t be Lord of all if he hadn’t died. Thus, based on what we read in Romans 14:9, we can conclude the following: Since Christ died and lives to be Lord of all, it means that Christ died to become Lord of all.
In accord with what we read in the above passages, in Hebrews 1:2 we read that God appointed Jesus “enjoyer of the allotment of all.” To be enjoyer of the allotment of all, Christ has to be Lord of all. For to be Lord of all is to have authority over all (as A.E. Knoch correctly notes, the title “lord” refers to “one who has authority over others,” and is “the opposite of slave”). And Scripture is clear that Christ’s status as Lord of all was given to him after his death and resurrection.
We go on to read in verses 3-4 that Jesus – in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 – is now “seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights, becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.” The word translated as “becoming” is genomenos (a form of ginomai). Here it denotes a change of state or entry into a new condition. And the words, “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they” gives us the extent to which Christ became better than the messengers (with the “allotment of a more excellent name” referring to Christ’s superior and preeminent position and rank in relation to all the messengers).
If, however, Christ was inherently better than the messengers (as would be the case if he was the one through whom God created the messengers, and was seated on God’s throne before his life on earth began), it would be a violation of language to say that Christ “became” better than them. One cannot become what one has always been. Hebrews 1:3-4 marks a specific historical pivot point: after Christ made purification for sins (v. 3), he became better than the messengers (v. 4).
Thus, the implication of what we read in Hebrews 1:3-4 (and also Heb. 7:26) is that, although Christ is superior to all created celestial beings now, this wasn’t always the case. As is made clear in Psalm 8, human beings – beginning with Adam (the first human) – were “made some bit inferior to messengers.” And Christ – being a human – was no exception in this regard (Heb. 2:6-7, 9). His becoming superior to the messengers is something that took place later. But when did this take place? When did Christ become “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they”? Was it before Christ’s death and resurrection, or after?
Answer: It was after Christ’s death and resurrection that he received this elevated, preeminent position. Christ’s superiority over the celestial beings (with which he’s contrasted in Heb. 1:5-14) is the result of “the suffering of death.” It was through Christ’s sufferings that he was “perfected” (v. 10; cf. Heb. 5:8-9). It was, in other words, because of Christ’s sacrificial death that he became “so much better than the messengers as he enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they,” and became worthy of the supreme honor and privilege of being “seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights.”
In accord with what's said in these verses are Paul's words in Philippians 2:8-11:
“…and, being found in fashion as a human, [Christ Jesus] humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.”
Christ’s exalted status and position as Lord of all (and the universal authority that pertains to this status) was given to him by God as a reward for his great obedience to God.
Now, it should be noted that, in one of his responses to me, Stephen J. objected to me stating that Christ was obedient to God when he was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” For after stating (correctly) that Christ has never been disobedient to God’s will, Stephen went on to write, “But the Philippians passage doesn’t say, “becoming obedient to God,” does it? It says “becoming obedient unto death,” which was God’s will (Is. 53:9-10.).”
I was actually surprised that Stephen would try to “correct” me on this point. Evidently, Stephen believes that the word “unto” in Phil. 2:8 means “to” (and that Paul was therefore saying that it was death to which Christ was being obedient). However, the Greek preposition translated “unto” in this verse (mechri) means “to the point of” (or “as far as”). That is, Paul was expressing the fact that Christ was obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. But it’s not to death that Christ was obedient (which is absurd). No; when Christ was obedient UNTO death, he was being obedient TO God. That is, Christ obeyed God to the point of death. Thus, while Paul didn’t explicitly say that Christ was “obedient to God” in Phil. 2:8, it’s implied (for there was no one else to whom Christ was ever obedient during his earthly ministry). That Christ’s obedience “unto death” (to the point of death) was obedience TO God should be obvious to everyone reading (just as it should be obvious that Paul wouldn’t say that Christ was obedient TO death).
In any case, just as it’s clear from Heb. 2:8-10 that Christ became worthy of “the allotment of a more excellent name” than the messengers by his sacrificial death, so it’s evident from Phil. 2:8-11 that Christ received “the name that is above every name” by his obedience unto death. Obviously, Paul had in mind every name except the name of God himself (for God is, and always will be, greater in rank/authority than all created beings). Christ is the highest-ranking being under the one God, and “every name” refers only to every other created being.
It’s because of Christ’s obedience unto death that God “highly exalts [Christ], and graces Him with the name that is above every name” so that every other created personal being in the universe should bow down to him and acclaim “that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Christ became “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” (and thus “Lord of all”) after his death and resurrection. Thus, he couldn’t have been “enjoyer of the allotment of all” and had “the name that is above every name” before his death and resurrection. It’s because of Christ’s obedience unto death that God “highly exalts [Christ], and graces Him with the name that is above every name” so that every other created personal being in the universe should bow down to him and acclaim “that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
Moreover, since Christ became “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” (and thus “Lord of all”) after his death and resurrection, he couldn’t have been the exalted Lord prophesied in Psalm 110:1 before his death and resurrection. It was because of his sacrifice – and thus after his death and resurrection – that Christ was exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33; 5:30-31; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:3; 10:12; 12:2). For Christ to have this exalted position at God’s right hand presupposes that he was given all authority in heaven and on earth, made Lord of all, and given the name that is above every name.
Now, from the above considerations we can conclude the following: Before Christ’s death and resurrection, Christ was not “so much better than the messengers as he enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they,” and did not have “the name that is above every name.” This exalted status and supreme honor was given to Christ BECAUSE he was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
This is further evident from what Christ himself declared in Rev. 3:21:
“The one who is conquering, to him will I be granting to be seated with Me on My throne as I, also, conquer, and am seated with My Father on His throne.”
Here it’s evident that being granted to be seated with Christ on his throne will depend on the prior, faithful actions of Jewish believers (i.e., “conquering”). In the same way, Christ’s exalted position of being seated with his Father on his Father’s throne was conditioned on Christ’s prior, faithful actions (“as I, also, conquer”) – i.e., his obedience unto death. Moreover, what Christ referred to here as being seated with his Father on his Father’s throne is the same exalted position that we find referred to elsewhere as his being seated “at the right hand of God” (in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1). That is, being seated with his Father on his Father’s throne refers to the exalted position that Christ has had ever since he ascended to heaven. And Christ connected this exalted position with his having “conquered” (which, again, refers to his sacrificial death).
Another passage in which Christ’s exalted position and authority is connected with his sacrificial death is Revelation 5. There we read that God gave Christ a sealed scroll that “no one in heaven, nor yet on earth, nor yet underneath the earth, was able to open” or even “to look at it.” As is revealed later, the opening of this scroll brings about the series of judgments through which this present wicked eon is brought to an end, and the kingdom of God is established on the earth. That is, the opening of the scroll results in the state of affairs of which we read in Rev. 11:15, as follows:
And the seventh messenger trumpets. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of this world became our Lord's and His Christ's, and He shall be reigning for the eons of the eons! Amen!"
For Christ to be able to open this scroll and bring about this state of affairs presupposes that he was given all authority in heaven and on earth (which, as we’ve seen, was given to Christ after his death and resurrection). In accord with this fact, Christ alone is said to be worthy to open the scroll and look at it. But by virtue of what, exactly, is Christ so much worthier than every other creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth such that he – and no other created being – is able to open the scroll and loose its seven seals? We find the answer in verses 5-9 (see also v. 12):
And one of the elders is saying to me, “Do not lament! Lo! He conquers! The Lion out of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, is to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals!” And I perceived, in the center of the throne and of the four animals, and in the center of the elders, a Lambkin standing, as though slain…And when It took the scroll, the four animals and the twenty-four elders fall before the Lambkin, each having a lyre, and golden bowls brimming with incenses, which are the prayers of the saints. And they are singing a new song, saying, “Worthy art Thou to be taking the scroll and to open its seals, For Thou wast slain and dost buy us for God by Thy blood.”
Notice the words, “He conquers!” This refers to (or essentially includes) Christ’s obedience unto death. It was through this ultimate act of obedience to God’s will that Christ “conquered.” In contrast with what we know to be the basis for Christ’s worthiness, we read in Rev. 4:11 that God is “worthy…to get glory and honor and power” by virtue of the fact that it’s by his will that all things “were, and are created.” In other words, God is worthy of the glory, honor and power that he alone has by virtue of the fact that he alone is the Creator of all. Christ, on other hand, is worthy of the glory he presently has by virtue of his sacrificial death. That is, Christ’s death on the cross fully accounts for his supreme worthiness in relation to the rest of creation that we read about in the above passage. It was by doing this that Christ became worthy to open the scroll and loose its seals.
In other words, Christ’s worthiness to open the scroll is inseparably connected with his status as Lord of all (and thus the universal authority he was given by God). The fact that Christ’s worthiness (and thus his authority) to open the scroll and loose its seals was contingent on his having “conquered” (which he did through his sacrificial death) means that, prior to his death, Christ wasn’t yet worthy to open the scroll and loose its seals. But to sit with God on God’s throne (i.e., to sit at God’s right hand) presupposes that Christ is worthy to do this. We can thus conclude that Christ wasn’t sitting with God on God’s throne prior to his life on earth.
We also know that Christ’s exalted position at God’s right hand – i.e., Christ’s being “seated with [His] Father on His throne” – is inseparably connected with his being in a position of supremacy and authority “over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named” (Eph. 1:20-22; 1 Pet. 3:22). It was when he was exalted to the right hand of God that Christ came to be “higher than those of the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). Since it was because of his obedience unto death that Christ came to be “higher than those of the heavens,” it follows that he wasn’t sitting on the throne of his Father at any point prior to this life on earth.
If Christ was sitting on his Father’s throne eons before his life on earth (as most – if not all – Arians believe), then Christ was already in the most exalted position that any created being could be in long before his sacrificial death. This is impossible, however. Again, the very reason Christ was given the exalted position that he presently enjoys – i.e., the very reason that God seated Christ “at His right hand among the celestials, up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending” – is because Christ was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
After his resurrection, Christ explicitly stated, “Given to Me was all authority in heaven and on the earth” (Matt. 28:18). The implication is that Christ did not previously have this universal authority. In the same way, the implication of Heb. 1:3-4 is that it was because of his sacrificial death that Christ became “so much better than the messengers as he enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.” In accord with this fact, we read in Rom. 14:9 that the reason “Christ died and lives” is “that He should be Lord of the dead as well as of the living.” And the implication of what we read in Eph. 1:20-22, Phil. 2:9-11 and Rev. 3:21 is that Christ was given a completely new, unprecedented position of universal lordship as a result of his obedience unto death. Since Christ’s exalted position at God’s right hand was conditioned on his obedience unto death and is inseparably connected with the possession of universal authority and the position of universal lordship (of which he became worthy by his death, and which he died in order to acquire), it follows that Christ couldn’t have been seated with God on his throne at any time prior to his death and resurrection.
The Arian view therefore necessarily minimizes and distracts from the glory and exalted position that Christ has and enjoys because of his obedience unto death. Christ died to become Lord of all. It’s because of his obedience into death that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God, and is now seated on God’s throne. But according to the Arian view, Jesus was, in a pre-existent state, sitting on Yahweh’s throne before he did what qualified him to become Lord of all and to sit with his Father on his Father's throne. Since this is impossible, the Arian view is necessarily false.
Moreover, if Jesus was sitting on God’s throne before his life on earth began, then he didn’t cease to be worthy of this exalted position when his life on earth began. But this would mean that it’s not because of Christ’s obedience unto death that he has a “more excellent name” than the messengers, and is worthy of his present exalted position in heaven. Rather than understanding Jesus’ present exalted position on Yahweh’s throne as the sacrifice-based sequel to his life on earth (which is the scriptural view), the Arian view sees Christ’s exalted position on Yahweh’s throne as the prequel to his life on earth, and his present state as a mere continuation of the exalted position he's always had.
Now, Trinitarians (as well as Binitarians) will undoubtedly dispute the above view by claiming that it was only Christ’s human nature that was exalted at his ascension. They will argue that Christ, as a divine person (or “Christ-in-his-divine-nature”), shared the glory, authority and throne of the Father before he “became human.” But this view is untenable. Christ is a single, undivided person/individual who has a human nature. And it was Christ himself (and not Christ’s human nature) who was obedient unto death and then highly exalted by God. Scripture doesn’t say that Christ’s human nature was graced with a name above every name, or that Christ’s human nature became better than the messengers and came to be seated with the Father on his throne. No; it was Christ himself who was highly exalted by God. Since that of which Christ became worthy by his obedience unto death was given to Christ himself, then it follows that Christ himself didn’t possess it beforehand. And Christ couldn’t be given the authority he now has (and the related exalted position he now enjoys) as a consequence of his great obedience to God if he already possessed it before he did that which made him worthy of it.
Some Arians seem convinced that their view “gives Christ greater glory” than the view held by non-Arian believers. They seem to think that the glory that they believe Christ had before his life on earth began (and before he was glorified with the glory that he presently has as a direct result of his obedient death) makes him more glorious now than he would be otherwise (and that, therefore, a failure to recognize what they believe to be his past glory results in a failure to recognize the fullness of his present glory). The problem with this view is that, if Arians are mistaken regarding their belief that Christ pre-existed as a glorious celestial being (as I believe they are), then it’s actually they who are failing to recognize and fully appreciate the full extent of Christ’s present glory and preeminence.
To believe Christ’s present glory and preeminence is partly derived from (or is a continuation of) what one believes was true of Christ before his life on earth began is to minimize the glory and preeminence that Christ presently has, and of which he is worthy because of his obedience unto death. If Christ’s present, God-given glory among the celestials (including his preeminence and exalted position at God’s right hand) is 100% the result of his earthly “obedience unto death” – and it is – then the following is necessarily true: The Arian’s belief that some element or degree of Christ’s present glory and preeminence is the result of/based on what was true of him before his life on earth began necessarily involves minimizing the glory of which Christ is deserving because of what he did during his mortal life, and minimizing the faith-based achievement of Christ that made him worthy of his present glory.
Again, Arians believe that at least some aspects or elements of what is true of Christ now regarding his present glory and exalted, preeminent position in heaven were true of Christ in a pre-existent state. But if – as I believe Scripture affirms – every aspect and element of Christ’s present celestial glory and exalted, preeminent position in heaven is due to, and based on, his obedience unto death, then the Arian view necessarily minimizes the greatness of Christ’s present glory and exalted, preeminent position. And not only this, but it minimizes and devalues the very sacrifice because of which Christ became worthy of his present celestial glory and exalted, preeminent position in heaven. For if the true basis of Christ’s present glory and preeminence is his sacrificial death (and it is), then the Arian’s belief that some of Christ’s present celestial glory and preeminence is based on, or is simply a continuation of, what was true of Christ in a pre-existent state necessarily minimizes and devalues the sacrifice because of which Christ actually has (and is worthy of) the glory and preeminence that he now has.
Some Arians have stated that, if it turns out that their belief that Christ pre-existed as an exalted celestial being is wrong, then their error involves ascribing too much glory to Christ (and not too little). And since, according to their reasoning, it’s better to wrongly ascribe too much glory to Christ than not enough, they’d rather be wrong for holding to the Arian view of Christ than wrong for holding to a non-Arian view of Christ. But this kind of thinking is seriously flawed. The fact is that, if the Arian is wrong (as I believe they are), then they’re guilty of believing a falsehood about Christ and his glory that actually distracts from and obscures the truth of both the glory that Christ now has as well as the reason why he has it. For the belief that Christ is more glorious or more exalted than he would be otherwise because of what the Arian believes was true of him in a pre-existent state can only be believed and promoted at the expense of the truth concerning the glory and preeminence that Christ actually has as a result of his obedience unto death.
But the implications of the Arian view get even worse than the problem stated above. For in his response to my original series on this subject, Martin Zender wrote the following:
“According to Aaron’s theory, Jesus Christ was sent here involuntarily, just like the rest of us. He didn’t really sacrifice anything more than any other common human martyr.
“The baby that came into existence in Bethlehem had absolutely no intention of being here, or coming here, or doing anything noble or worthy. It’s divine task was forced upon it, just like any other human martyr’s. He walked toward death, just like any other human martyr….My main point is that, not only does Aaron insult our intelligence with this “I’m really going to humble Myself after my baptism” thing, but he destroys the beautiful truth of the willing (not forced) sacrifice of the Son of God…”
Martin has elsewhere admitted that he would be unable to believe that Christ voluntarily sacrificed himself in obedience to God and on behalf of humanity apart from his belief in Christ’s preexistence. According to what Martin believes, had Christ not pre-existed as a celestial being who volunteered to become a human being, his death would’ve been no different than the death of a “common human martyr.” That is, Martin believes that, if Christ didn’t pre-exist and willingly agree to “become a human,” his death was a “forced sacrifice.”
This view is, I believe, far removed from what scripture actually says about the obedient (and thus voluntary) nature of Christ’s sacrifice for our sins. But it’s also extremely problematic. For if it’s the decision of a pre-existent celestial being to “become human” that makes his later sacrificial death something of greater value, beauty and consequence than the death of “any other common human martyr,” then the following would have to be true as well: any acts of obedience performed by Christ after his life on earth began (and which led to his being crucified) are, to that extent, trivialized and emptied of intrinsic value and significance.
If, as Martin believes, it was Christ’s decision to become a human that makes his sacrifice something more than a “forced” sacrifice, then every act of obedience made by Christ after his life on earth began would necessarily have to be considered of relatively minor consequence and importance in comparison to the voluntary act that Martin believes makes Christ’s death such a “beautiful truth.” What Martin’s position inevitably ends up doing, then, is belittling/minimizing the importance of the willing acts of obedience that Christ performed during his time on earth – acts of obedience which culminated in his “obedience unto death, even the death of the cross.”
The fact to which Martin seems to have been completely oblivious when he wrote the above is that Christ wasn’t a passive victim during the final 3 ½ years of his mortal lifetime on the earth. Everything that occurred to Christ during this time (as well as prior to it) involved his active, willing obedience to God’s will. Everything that Christ willingly allowed to happen to him during the final 12 hours of his life (beginning with his arrest in Gethsemane) were necessary to the fulfillment of prophecy, and was done in faith-based obedience to God. Christ had to die in the exact way and in the exact circumstances in order to remain obedient to God, and to fulfill all that was written concerning him.
And while Martin’s position entails that Christ’s obedience to God during this difficult and trying time was a rather trivial and insignificant matter (at least, when compared to Christ’s supposed decision to be transformed from a celestial being into a human zygote), Christ certainly didn’t see it that way. I doubt, for example, that Christ understood his tearful and heartfelt yielding to God’s will while praying in Gethsemane as something other than a willing act of obedience, apart from which the prophecies concerning him would not have been fulfilled (Matthew 26:36-44). In Luke’s account Christ explicitly acknowledged that what he was about to do would fulfill prophecy (Luke 22:37), which means that Christ was very much aware of the fact that his actions were completely necessary to the fulfilling of prophecy (and apart from which prophecy wouldn't have been fulfilled).
We’re also told in this same account that, while praying to God to let the “cup” pass by from him, our Lord came “to be in a struggle,” and that “His sweat became as if clots of blood descending on the earth.” What could this struggle have involved if not the choice to be “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” rather than avoiding it? Christ’s obedience was always voluntary, and the acts of obedience that resulted in Christ’s arrest and subsequent crucifixion were no different. Christ even acknowledged that, had he chosen to, he could’ve exercised his authority to avoid being arrested (and thereby avoid the “death of the cross”):
Then Jesus is saying to him, “Turn away your sword into its place, for all those taking the sword, by the sword shall perish. Or are you supposing that I am not able to entreat My Father, and at present He will station by My side more than twelve legions of messengers? How, then, may the scriptures be fulfilled, seeing that thus it must occur?” (Matt. 26:52-54)
Surely Martin doesn’t actually believe that these willing acts of obedience to God’s will (which Christ knew he had to willingly perform in order to remain obedient to God, and in order that the Scriptures could be fulfilled) were insufficient to make Christ’s death a “beautiful truth” that involved the “willing (not forced) sacrifice of the Son of God?”
If the non-Arian believers in the body of Christ are wrong concerning when we believe Christ’s life began, then we’re guilty of ascribing too much value, importance and consequence to the faith-based obedience of Christ during his life on earth (and especially that which directly led to, and culminated in, his death on the cross). In other words, if we’re wrong, then we’re guilty of putting too much emphasis on, and ascribing too much worth and importance to, the very acts of obedience that Scripture so clearly emphasizes as being the very reason for our salvation and for the celestial glory that Christ now has. On the other hand, if Martin is wrong concerning his belief that Christ preexisted as a celestial being who volunteered to become a human, then he is guilty of believing that the only thing that makes Christ’s death “a beautiful truth” (and his death of greater value and consequence than that of a “common human martyr”) is something that never actually happened.
Paul was clear that Christ’s faith-based obedience is essential to our salvation. It’s the reason why anyone is able to be justified by God, and why all mankind are ultimately going to be “constituted just.” We know that, during his time on earth, Christ always did what was pleasing to God (John 8:29). This included, of course, his sacrificial death (Eph. 5:2). We also know that, apart from faith, it’s impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). We can thus conclude that Christ’s obedience to God throughout his life was an expression of his faith in God, and that his “obedience unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8) was the supreme demonstration of this faith in God. Thus Christ is referred to in Hebrews 12:2 as “the leader and perfecter of faith…Who, for the joy lying before Him, endures a cross, despising the shame, besides is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”
So the faith of Christ on which our salvation is based is that which was demonstrated through his obedience unto death – i.e., the faith in God that Christ had as a human being. It’s because a certain sinless human being trusted God completely and was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” – and not because a certain celestial being left his exalted heavenly position to become human – that we’re able to be justified by God and saved from death. That is, the faith of Christ because of which we’re saved has nothing to do with a celestial being coming to earth, and everything to do with Christ obediently allowing himself to be arrested, mocked, beaten and ultimately crucified. It’s this faith that resulted in Christ becoming worthy of being roused from among the dead by God and exalted to a position that he did not have before (and couldn't have had apart from what he did).
Arians and Christians believe that, when Christ ascended to heaven, he simply returned to the exalted celestial position he occupied prior to being “incarnated as a human.” According to this view, Christ knew, prior to the cross, that he originally lived in heaven as a celestial being. And not only this, but – according to the Arian view – Christ knew that, prior to his “becoming human,” he enjoyed the most exalted position that any created being could possible enjoy, and that he would be returning to this position after his resurrection. So Christ’s anticipation of “the joy lying before Him” was based more on his own personal experience (and the knowledge he had from what he’d experienced) than it was on faith.
At the very least, one could argue that, according to the Arian view, Christ’s own experiential knowledge of what was “lying before him” minimized his need for faith. For faith is an assurance in, or a conviction concerning, the truth of something not observed/seen (Heb. 11:1). In accord with this understanding of faith, Paul contrasted walking by faith with walking by perception (2 Cor. 5:7). And based on what we read in John 20:29, it’s evident that Christ considered faith that’s based on one’s having come to a realization of the truth through prior perception/sight as inferior to faith that isn’t. Thus, to the extent that Christ had experiential, perception-based knowledge of that which was “lying before him,” his faith would’ve been, to that extent, diminished.
Why Christ is able to reconcile the heavens to God
Another, related reason for why some Arians think that the non-Arian view of Christ is so problematic concerns the question of how Christ is able to reconcile the heavens to God. According to what some (perhaps most) Arians believe, the future reconciliation of all to God through Christ is only possible because Christ was the one through whom all was created. In other words, they believe that, if all personal beings weren't created through Christ when God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, then no personal beings in need of being reconciled to God could be reconciled to God. For example, Stephen was expressing this view when, in a response to me, he claimed that, “It’s really hard to reconcile the heavens if you do not have the heavens created in you. Take a crack at it sometime, if you’d like. It’s not easy.”
When Stephen wrote, “have the heavens created in you,” he was referring to Col. 1:16 (where we read that, “in [Christ] is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth…”). I don’t know what Stephen thinks the word translated “in” in this verse (i.e., ἐν) expresses here. However, we know that this word can mean “by means of” when it’s used with the dative case (as it is here).[i] For example, it likely has this meaning in 1 Cor. 15:22 (where we read “in Adam, all are dying” and “in Christ, shall all be vivified”). But regardless of what, exactly, Stephen thinks “in” means in Col. 1:16, it’s evident that he believes that Christ had an essential role in the creation of all heavenly beings in the beginning, and that the role he played is connected with (and inseparable from) his role in reconciling all heavenly beings to God. But this view is, I believe, simply based on a misunderstanding of why Christ is able to reconcile all to God.
According to Paul, the peace that reconciliation to God results in is “through the blood of [Christ’s] cross.” Thus, the reason God is able to justly reconcile sinners to himself (which implies the future justification of those who are going to be reconciled) is that Christ died for their sins. Had Christ not died for the sinful, estranged beings who are going to be reconciled to God at a future time, they wouldn’t be able to be reconciled to God. Thus, Christ’s death is the true basis for the future reconciliation of all.
Moreover – and as I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere (for example, here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2025/08/why-and-when-christ-became-lord-of-all.html) – the reason why Christ himself is able to save and reconcile all to God (which is, of course, what God wills for him to do) is that Christ was made Lord of all, and thus has the God-given authority to do what God wills for him to do. For example, the reason why Christ can save all mankind from death is because he was made Lord of (and thus has authority over) the dead and the living. And he became worthy of this great authority and exalted position through his sacrificial death.
In other words, Christ’s ability to vivify all and reconcile all to God has nothing to do with what the Arian believes was true of Christ before his life on earth began. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that (1) Christ died for the sins of all and (2) Christ acquired the authority to fully accomplish God’s will (which includes reconciling all to God) through his obedience unto death. Thus, despite Stephen’s implied claim that it wouldn’t be “easy” for Christ to reconcile all heavenly beings to God if he hasn’t been in some way involved in their creation, the fact is that, because Christ died for all and (as a result of doing this) received the authority he now has, it’s just as easy for him to reconcile all heavenly beings to God as it was for God to create them in the beginning. The “hard part” (relatively speaking) was becoming worthy of the authority to reconcile all to God. But Christ accomplished this when he became obedient “unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).
Part three: That
Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part three
[i] Here’s a link to a article in which I believe it’s persuasively argued that the word “in” in 1 Cor. 15:22 should be understood to mean, “by means of”: https://www.concordant.org/expositions/human-destiny/crucial-questions-resurrection/
We know that it’s by means of Adam’s transgression that all mankind was condemned to die (Rom. 5:12-17). In other words, it’s by means of (or “in”) Adam that “all are dying.” Conversely, it will be by means of (or “in”) Christ that the same “all” who are condemned to die because of Adam’s transgression will, in the future, be justified. As we read in Romans 5:18-19, the same group of humans who have been condemned because of Adam’s transgression – i.e., “all mankind”/“the many” – shall be justified (and thus vivified) because of Christ’s obedience. That is, everyone condemned to die by means of Adam shall be vivified by means of Christ.
In the same way, it is by means of (or “in”) Christ that all “is created” (i.e., remains created).
No comments:
Post a Comment