An in-depth response to “GerudoKing” concerning when Christ’s existence began (Part Three)

For part one of this three-part series, click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2023/10/an-in-depth-response-to-gerudoking.html

Concerning 2 Corinthians 8:9, GerudoKing states that this is ”the first of a few passages in which Aaron is going to limit Christ’s glory.”

The glory to which GK is referring is not the glory of Christ (for “Christ” is the royal title of a certain man who was generated/brought into existence by God in the womb of his mother, and who is “of the seed of David, according to [Paul's] evangel”). The glory of Christ (and his related celestial position at God's right hand) is inseparably connected with his obedience on the earth (for it is the reward for his having humbled himself and become “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”). It is a glory that is the direct result of having been “perfected” through sufferings and having “learned obedience from that which He suffered” (Heb. 2:10; 5:8-9), and not the glory that (according to GK’s view) inherently belonged to a non-human celestial being who existed before Jesus was generated by his God and Father.

It is GK’s interpretation of verses such as 2 Cor. 8:9 that I believe actually distracts from (and thus limits) the true glory of Christ. What GK refers to as “Christ’s glory” is actually the glory of a theoretical, non-human celestial being who (in the imagination of GK and those who share his doctrinal position) was created long before God’s only-begotten Son – the Man, Christ Jesus – was brought into being. This imagined celestial being is not identical with – that is, he is not the same being as – the one whom Paul referred to as “the second man” and “the last Adam” (and whose death for our sins secured the salvation of all mankind). Although the existence of the “Man, Christ Jesus,” is clearly affirmed throughout the pages of Scripture, one must “read between the lines” of Scripture to find any kind of “revelation” concerning the non-human celestial being who is thought by GK to have existed before any other created being, and who was later “implanted” into Miriam.

GK goes on to assert that, in 2 Cor. 8:9, “Paul reveals that Christ starts celestial,” and that, in this verse, “celestial observations [are] being made.” However, GK is simply presupposing the very doctrinal position that he thinks this verse supports. Nowhere in this verse or in the immediate context is such a revelation being made; GK is importing his own doctrinal view into the text, and then calling it a revelation from Paul. What we read in this verse is perfectly consistent with the fact that Christ was human when he was generated by God, and that Christ's celestial glory is the result of his “obedience unto death, even the death of the cross” (and not something he enjoyed long before his death, resurrection and ascension). Understanding Christ’s present celestial glory as the sequel (and not the prequel) to Christ’s life on earth is not “placing Paul second” (as GK asserts); rather, this understanding is in complete harmony with the entirety of Paul’s teaching concerning Christ. 

GK again presupposes his own view when he writes that Christ’s being “rich” means that he had a prior existence in heaven as an exalted celestial being, and that being “poor” means being “a Man.” GK then states that one “can't be in poverty if you're dead!” But the terms “rich” (i.e., having “riches,” or an abundance of that which is of value) and “poor” (lacking riches) are relative, and the meaning of the former in a certain context depends on the meaning of the latter. Just as “riches” can refer to something other than an abundance of material wealth or earthly goods/resources, so “poor” can refer to more than lacking material wealth or earthly goods. One can be considered “rich” in various ways (Rom. 10:12; 11:12; 1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 6:10; Eph. 2:4; Col. 2:2; 1 Tim. 6:18; James 2:5), and thus “poor” in equally various ways. If, in 2 Cor. 8:9, Paul had in mind Christ’s own life (or soul) as being that which was of such great value that Christ could be considered “rich,” then death would indeed have resulted in him becoming “poor” (for it would've deprived him of that which made him “rich”). And we know that Christ’s life was so precious to God that, by sacrificing it to God, Christ secured the salvation of all. 

Having said all that, I should note that, since the posting of my 2017 article series on the subject of when Christ’s existence began, I’m no longer inclined to believe that, in 2 Cor. 8:9, Paul had in mind Christ’s soul or life when he described Christ as having been “rich” before becoming “poor.” Instead, I believe the sense in which Christ was “rich” during his life on earth (before becoming “poor”) was that Christ had been given the holy spirit without measure (as is implied by John in John 3:34), such that Paul could later write that, “in [Christ] the entire complement of the Deity is dwelling bodily” (Col. 2:9; cf. 1:19).

This super-abundance of God’s spirit dwelling within and empowering Christ is what enabled him to act and speak as God’s representative on earth, and to perform all of the many miracles that he performed during his earthly ministry (Acts 10:38). To be in possession of God’s own spirit is to have that which is infinitely more valuable than any earthly riches. And since Christ had this spirit without measure, it would make sense for Paul to have considered Christ “rich.” It is this “spiritual wealth” (and the inseparably connected, intimate fellowship with God that Christ enjoyed) of which Christ was deprived when he willingly laid down his soul in obedience to God. But by his death, we in the body of Christ have been made rich, for the same spirit that dwelled in Christ during his life on earth (and through which God later roused him three days after he died) is now “making its home in [us]” (Rom. 8:9-11), and is that by which we have been “sealed for the day of deliverance” (Eph. 4:30; cf. 1:13-14). 

According to either understanding of what Paul had in mind when he referred to Christ as “rich,” however, it remains the case that Christ became “poor” – i.e., he became deprived of the valuable commodity that Paul had in mind when he referred to him as “rich” – by willingly laying down his soul/giving himself up for the sake of those for whose sins he died (in accord with Paul’s evangel). The saints to whom Paul wrote were not made “rich” in the sense that Paul had in mind in 2 Cor. 8:9 by Christ’s conception (or the event that directly resulted to Christ’s conception); had Christ not died for our sins, we would forever remain “poor.” It was, therefore, Christ’s death that has made it possible for those among the nations to become “rich.” Thus, it was Christ’s death that deprived Christ of that by virtue of which Paul could describe him as “rich.”

Now, in response to my quotation of a remark by A.E. Knoch (who, commenting on Matt. 13:44, wrote, “In order to possess Himself of the treasures, the Son of Mankind gives His all and purchases the world. He has overpaid its price by His blood.”), GK writes, “I don’t know where he gets this quote from – certainly not [Knoch’s] Commentary.”

I’m assuming that GK consulted Knoch’s commentary shortly before he wrote this, so I’m not sure how he overlooked Knoch’s remarks on Matt. 14:44. In any case, the quote that he confidently asserts is “certainly not” from Knoch’s commentary is in fact from page 30 of that very book. GK then asks, ”how do you get no pre-existing Christ out of this?” To answer GK’s rather odd question, I wasn’t quoting Knoch’s remarks on Matt. 13:44 to prove that Christ didn’t pre-exist (assuming that’s what he meant by “how do you get no pre-existing Christ out of this?”). I was simply appealing to what Knoch wrote on Matt. 13:44-46 to support a particular way of understanding what Paul had in mind when he referred to Christ as “rich” in 2 Cor. 8:9. That’s it. So GK has simply misunderstood my reason for appealing to what Knoch wrote.

GK goes on to criticize my view that Jesus’ parables from Matt. 14:44-46 can be understood to support the truth that Christ’s soul was/is precious, as follows:

This is a parable that, as Brother Knoch astutely does point out in his commentary, pertains to Christ as the Man in question, not the sinner. Because His soul is precious, as Peter wrote? Surely, this isn’t the conclusion to reach! I’m reading the Divine loving His creation so much, so as to give Himself up for it!

First, “the Divine” didn’t give himself up for his creation (for “the Divine” – i.e., God [Acts 17:29] – can’t die). But God did send his Son, Jesus Christ, to give his soul a ransom for the people who are represented by the “treasure hidden in the field” and “the one very precious pearl” in Jesus’ parables (i.e., Israel). And since the Son of Mankind gave his all and purchased the world in order to buy that which is represented by the treasures in Jesus’ parables (and thus, in the words of A.E. Knoch from his commentary, “overpaid its price by His blood”), it follows that what Christ gave to purchase the world – i.e., his own soul – was very valuable indeed (or, as Peter referred to Christ’s blood, “precious”).

It’s true that the point of Jesus’ parables in Matt. 13:44-46 is not the preciousness of what Christ gave to buy what is represented by the “treasure” and the “pearl.” Nevertheless, the truth that’s being communicated through these parables – i.e., that God, through Christ, would do whatever was necessary to redeem his people Israel – certainly implies that what Christ gave (his own soul) was so precious to God (and thus of such great value) that Christ was able to overpay the price of the “treasure” just to acquire/redeem it.

GK goes on to write: “This begs the question: how can One seek a pearl, that is, seek Israel, if this One doesn’t even exist at Abraham’s insemination (John 8:58,) and is already borne into the Israelite community?”

Apparently, GK’s deep commitment to his doctrinal position has prevented him from realizing a simple fact that I suspect would otherwise be pretty obvious to him. Just as the two men in Jesus’ parables didn’t have to be born before the hidden treasure or pearl came into existence in order for them to subsequently find (and then acquire) the treasures, so Jesus didn’t have to exist before Israel in order to do what we’re told the Son of Mankind came to do – i.e., “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). Jesus didn’t have to exist before the lost people whom he came to seek and save came into existence in order to seek and save them. He sought them – and did what was necessary to secure their salvation – during his mortal lifetime on earth (and not before), and will save them when he returns to earth and is “seen a second time” (Heb. 9:28).

GK references John 8:58, where we read that Christ declared, “Ere Abraham came into being, I am.” However, this verse in no way supports the idea that Christ – the promised seed of Abraham (Gen. 22:16-18; Gal. 3:16) – existed before the ancestor whose seed he is. The expression translated “I am” (egō eimi) doesn’t mean “I existed” (or “I was in existence”). Not only did Christ use the present tense for eimi here (rather than the past tense), but – as is the case elsewhere in John’s Gospel (e.g., John 8:24-25, 28; 9:8-9; 13:19; 18:5-6, 8) – the expression egō eimi is simply a way of identifying oneself as a certain individual. It means “I am [he].” As such, there is always something implied concerning a person’s identity that’s being communicated whenever this expression is used. In the immediate context (see John 8:56), Christ had previously referred to the divine promise made to Abraham concerning himself (for it was by Abraham’s faith in God’s promise concerning his future “seed” that Abraham became “acquainted with [Christ’s] day”). Thus, the implied/unspoken information concerning Christ’s identity in John 8:58 is that Christ is he who was promised by God before Abraham came to be (for Christ is the promised “seed” referred to in Gen. 3:15).

The next passage on which GK provides some remarks in response to my original series is Philippians 2:5-11. Before responding to GK’s response to what I wrote concerning these verses (particularly verses 6-7), I need to point out that, during the six years since I posted the original series of articles to which GK has responded, I’ve come to understand what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:7 a little differently (and, I think, more accurately) than I originally did. My change in understanding has involved coming to the realization that, in Phil. 2:7-8, Paul was referring to the actions of Christ that began with his arrest in Gethsemane, and which ended with his death on the cross.

This advancement in my understanding occurred after reading a short but insightful article by Clyde Pilkington (which was a response to a question asked by a reader concerning the “emptying” of Christ to which Paul referred in Phil. 2:7; see “Reader’s Question Box #35” in Bible Student’s Notebook issue 806). Although I privately shared my revised view of Phil. 2:7 with a few believers who shared my understanding of when Christ’s life began, I eventually decided to write another article on Phil. 2:7 that reflected the change in my understanding that had occurred a few years earlier (here’s a link to the newer blog article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2023/06/when-did-christ-take-form-of-slave.html).

In light of this change in my understanding of Phil. 2:7, I won’t be responding to any of the criticisms/objections made by GK that are based on my earlier (and, I believe, less accurate) understanding of when Christ “emptied himself” and took “the form of a slave.” Instead, I will simply be taking for granted what I wrote in my newer article (which I hope the reader will take the time to read), and responding to any objections raised by GK that aren’t based on the parts of my older article that reflect my original, less accurate understanding of Phil. 2:7.

With these preliminary remarks out of the way, let’s now consider what GK has to say in defense of his view that Phil. 2:7 reveals that Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human celestial being. Concerning Phil. 2:7 and my remarks on it, GK says that he is ”truly surprised that the passage has been shifted in such a way, so as to remove Christ’s glory from the passage.”

Contrary to GK’s claim, I’m not removing Christ’s glory from this passage. In fact, not only am I not removing Christ’s glory from this passage, but the glory of Christ that GK thinks I’m removing from the passage is a glory that he is reading into the passage. There is only one glory of Christ to which Paul draws our attention in the immediate context of Phil. 2:7. And this glory is not a glory that is said to have belonged to a non-human celestial being eons before Christ lived and died in perfect obedience to God. Rather, the glory of Christ to which Paul draws our attention in Phil. 2:5-9 is that which is inseparably connected with Christ’s having become “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” and which presently belongs to Christ as a direct result of his incomparably great sacrifice.

In contrast with the post-sacrifice glory of Christ to which Paul actually directs our attention, the glory that GK claims I’m removing from the passage is a glory that Paul says nothing about in Phil. 2:5-9 (and which is neither based on, nor has any direct or inherent connection with, the sacrifice through which Christ became worthy of his present exalted position at God’s right hand, among the celestials).

GK: So, first, Aaron is reading Christ’s earthly ministry in a celestial revelation. All around this verse, we find Christ’s exaltation, His consolations, His humility, His blessing, and more. We are reading of Christ’s various glories, which impart our deportment. Why, in the midst of this chapter, do we go from celestial discussion of Christ, down to His earthly ministry, which had already been discussed by this time, and then back up to the salvation of all in verse 10-11??

At no point in Philippians 2 are we going “from celestial discussion of Christ, down to His earthly ministry.” It’s not until verse 9 (where we read, “Wherefore, also, God high exalts Him…”) that Paul begins speaking of the glory-filled, celestial chapter of Christ’s life. Paul described the post-resurrection exaltation of Christ in greater detail in Eph. 1:20-21 when he referred to God as “rousing [Christ] from among the dead and seating Him 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…” Christ’s being highly exalted by God – which involved his ascension to the celestial realm and his being seated at God’s right hand – is his reward for having been “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (hence Paul’s use of the word “wherefore” in v. 9). 

So it’s not that I’m reading Christ’s earthly ministry into a verses (or verses) where it doesn’t belong; rather, GK is reading into verses 6-7 a celestial pre-existence that these verses say nothing about (which is nothing more than a distraction from the true celestial glory of Christ that we find in v. 9, which is based on what Paul refers to in v. 8).

GK goes on to quote me as follows: “Strangely enough, those who hold to the view that Christ pre-existed as a human before his conception point to this passage as supporting the view that Christ pre-existed his conception. But if this were the case – and if verses 7 and 8 are to be understood as meaning that Christ became a human when he was conceived - then it would mean that a human who pre-existed his conception subsequently became human by virtue of being conceived as one.”

GK then responds as follows: I believe, when Aaron says “a human,” so as to imply that, because we take the “Christ pre-existed” ‘stance,’ we must concede that more humans pre-existed, which is still a logical fallacy that we did not claim. Christ is indeed a separate Being – we didn’t start celestial, but He did, per “being inherently in the form of God… empties Himself.”

The statement GK quotes from my original article was actually directed against the view of those who believe that Christ not only pre-existed his conception, but that he pre-existed as a “celestial human” (and later became an “earthly human”). I was neither claiming nor implying that everyone who believes in the pre-existence of Christ believes that he pre-existed as a human. I was simply responding to a very specific viewpoint concerning Christ’s “pre-existent nature” that I knew was held by (or, at the very least, was being considered by) a certain prominent, well-known member of the body of Christ (“MZ”).

Now, GK apparently thinks that the words, “being inherently in the form of God…empties Himself” support his belief that, unlike every other human, Christ started off “celestial.” However, these words neither reveal nor imply such an idea. GK is importing his own belief into what Paul wrote here. There is no reason why the words “being inherently in the form of God” can’t or shouldn’t be understood as referring to what was true of Christ during his earthly ministry, or why the words “empties Himself” can’t refer to an action performed by Christ at some point during this time period.

Moreover, since GK is claiming that these words reveal that Christ started off celestial, it’s up to GK to convincingly demonstrate this. He can’t just take it for granted (or, worse, insist that those who disagree with him must prove that Christ didn’t start of as a non-human, celestial being). He needs to demonstrate – and not merely assert or assume – that the words “being inherently in the form of God… empties Himself” refer to what was true of a certain celestial being before Jesus’ life on earth began.

GK: In case you thought, “oh, well, that verse could be talking about Christ in His completed form, post death,” Paul clarifies, with a “nevertheless,” that despite being inherently in the form of God, He empties Himself, which lines right up with the point of humility that Paul is making. It also completely throws Aaron’s ‘earthly ministry’ angle out the window. You can’t wrench the terrestrial into the celestial.

GK is simply begging the question and reading his own belief concerning when and where Christ’s existence began into Phil. 2:7. Paul didn’t say that Christ pre-existed his earthly life in the form of God, and GK hasn’t yet provided any reasons as to why we ought to infer that Paul had this in mind in Phil. 2:7. 

GK goes on to quote me as follows: Being “inherently in the form of God” is something that was true of Christ during his earthly ministry, and agrees with what Christ himself declared concerning himself (i.e., that to be seeing and beholding him was to be seeing and beholding the Father; John 12:45; 14:9).

GK then criticizes what I wrote as follows: This is nice and all, but this idea limits this verse, that He is inherently in the form of God, to His earthly ministry. It’s implying the idea that one could, indeed, follow the law, if they just tried hard enough!

The “idea” to which GK is referring (and which he says “limits this verse…to [Christ’s] earthly ministry”) is the idea that, in Phil. 2:6, Paul was referring to what was true of Christ during his earthly ministry. However, we know that, during his earthly ministry, Christ so perfectly represented his Father that one could be said to have seen and beheld the Father when one saw and beheld Christ. And this means that Christ was “inherently in the form of” (i.e., he had the outward appearance of) his God and Father during his earthly ministry. GK is reading pre-existence into a verse that is perfectly understandable in light of what we know was true with regard to Christ’s earthly ministry.

As far as what GK says this understanding of Phil. 2:6 implies, his argument boils down to this: if Christ’s being “inherently in the form of God” doesn’t refer to something that was true before Christ’s life on earth began, then it would mean that any human could be perfectly obedient to God, just like Christ was during his life on earth. But this in no way follows. Christ’s being the Father’s perfect representative on earth (i.e., his being “inherently in the form of God”) was not the result of him simply doing what other humans could’ve done if they’d only “tried hard enough.”

Jesus has always had a unique purpose and destiny in God’s eonian purpose, and God was always at work in Christ’s life (and operating in him) in a way that couldn’t be said for anyone else. 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, by God’s design and intervention, completely unique as well. No other human has ever been given the degree of God-given spiritual empowerment and authority 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.

GK then adds: It defeats the idea that God dispatches His son into the world (John 3:17,) and instead imparts the idea that Jesus, as a man, rises above the rest by being picked at His ministry.

The word translated “dispatched” in John 3:17 (apostellō) means, “send officially, with authority for the execution of some task.” In John 1:6, John used the same word in reference 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.” Based on this verse, 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.

This fact does not, of course, imply that Jesus is “no different than” his disciples, or that the purpose for which Jesus was dispatched by God into the world is the same purpose for which Jesus dispatched his disciples into the world. However, the differences between Jesus and his disciples are not found in the meaning of the expression “dispatch into the world.” Just as the dispatching of Christ’s disciples into the world by Christ doesn’t mean they “pre-existed” in heaven, so the dispatching of Christ into the world by God doesn’t mean Christ “pre-existed” in heaven before he was dispatched by God.

GK then responds to a remark I made in my article (i.e., “Christ was just as much the ‘image of the invisible God’ while on earth as he is now, in heaven”) as follows: And before the earth, too! Again, there is no mention of earth, here! Nothing that gives us the indication that we should be limiting the verses and thus, Christ’s glory!

Here we have another example of GK reading his own belief concerning when and where Christ’s existence began into the text. The mere fact that “there is no mention of earth” in verse 6 doesn’t mean that Paul was therefore talking about what was true in heaven (of which there is also no mention in Phil. 2:5-8) before God generated his Son. That’s illogical. No one who doesn’t already believe that Jesus pre-existed as a celestial being before his life on earth began would read Phil. 2:6 and then think or conclude that, when Paul referred to Christ as “being inherently in the form of God,” he had in mind something that was true of Christ before his life on earth began (i.e., before he was generated by God and God thus became his Father). In fact, if one actually believes what is revealed concerning Christ’s origin in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 – as well as what’s true about Christ’s lineage – then one would have good reason not to assume what GK is assuming when he reads the words “being inherently in the form of God.”

Although GK accuses those who disagree with his interpretation as “limiting the verse,” such a charge would only be justified if what he’s assuming Paul had in mind when he wrote “being inherently in the form of God” is, in fact, true. But that’s the very thing that requires scriptural proof, and which GK need to demonstrate is revealed in Scripture. GK seems to think that the next verse provides sufficient revelatory support for the view that he’s reading into v. 6, but his interpretation of Phil. 2:7 is just as much based on reading his own assumptions into the verse as his interpretation of v. 6. His interpretation of Phil. 2:7 involves presupposing the very doctrinal position for which he is appealing to Phil. 2:7 as a proof-text.

Concerning what it means for Christ to have taken “the form of a slave,” GK writes the following:

As Paul recognizes that humanity is ‘enslaved,’ that being a human is, naturally, being enslaved to the spiritual, as he himself writes in Romans 1:1, and elaborates on in Romans 6, it makes sense that, in Paul’s celestial (Christ Jesus) discussion of our Lord, “taking the form of a slave” is to, literally, take the form of a man. Paul follows up with, “coming to be in the likeness of humanity.” Strangely enough, this seems like the correct rendering of the passage.

I'm not sure what, exactly, GK means when he claims that “being a human is, naturally, being enslaved to the spiritual.” The adjective “spiritual” is, in Scripture, applied to many things. For example, the law is said to be “spiritual” (Rom. 7:14). Gifts/endowments from God are “spiritual” (Rom. 1:11; 1 Cor. 12:1; etc.). Worship is referred to as “spiritual” (Rom. 12:1). Certain songs are referred to as “spiritual” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Certain believers are referred to as “spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13-15). Food, drink and even a rock are referred to as “spiritual.” An immortal human body (which occupies space and can be seen and touched) is referred to as “spiritual.” So GK's assertion that humans are “naturally...enslaved to the spiritual” is (at best) ambiguous, and insufficiently informative. But let’s consider the verses to which he appeals in defense of this claim and see if they bring any additional clarity to it.

In Rom. 1:1, Paul referred to himself as “a slave of Christ Jesus.” I think it goes without saying that Paul wouldn’t have considered every human being “a slave of Christ Jesus” (in fact, he probably considered relatively few humans to be slaves of Christ, for being a slave of Christ involves subjugation and obedience to him). But if being a slave of Christ is one example of humans being “enslaved to the spiritual,” then being “enslaved to the spiritual” would mean being enslaved to a personal being who can be considered “spiritual” (at least, in some sense). It’s already been noted that certain believers can be considered “spiritual,” but I’m sure GK would exclude spiritual believers from the category of those to whom he believes humans are “naturally enslaved.” So he must mean that humans are naturally enslaved to spiritual celestial beings. 

The problem with this claim, however, is that spiritual celestial beings themselves are slaves of those who are of greater authority and higher rank. For example, the celestial messenger to whom John spoke twice referred to himself as a fellow slave (Rev. 19:10; 22:9). A slave to whom? Since he went on to emphasize the importance of worshipping God, he probably had God primarily in mind here (although it’s possible that he had both God and Christ in mind). In any case, the fact is that this spiritual celestial being considered himself to be just as much a slave of a more powerful, higher-ranking spiritual being as Paul and John did.

In Romans 6, Paul referred to people as being slaves “of Sin for death,” slaves “of Obedience for righteousness” (vv. 16-17), “enslaved to Righteousness” (v. 18) and “enslaved to God” (v. 22). But even if one could somehow argue that slavery to Obedience or Sin is slavery “to the spiritual,” it’s not the same as being a slave of Christ or enslaved to God. In fact, if being a slave to Sin or to Obedience makes one “a slave to the spiritual,” then one could say that, by virtue of being either obedient to God or sinful, every created, intelligent being – whether human or celestial – is either a slave to Sin or to Obedience. Even Christ himself could be considered a slave of God (who is the God, and thus Lord, of Christ) in the sense that those of whom Christ is Lord could be considered slaves of Christ. And not only this, but if – in accord with GK’s view – Christ pre-existed his life on earth, then he would’ve been just as much a slave of Obedience (and thus enslaved to God) before his life on earth as he was during his life on earth. So according to GK’s view, we have someone who is “enslaved to the spiritual” (being a slave of Obedience and thus to God) taking the form of one who is “enslaved to the spiritual.”

As if these considerations weren’t problematic enough for GK’s interpretation of what Paul meant by “slave” in Phil. 2:7 (and what it means for Christ to have taken the “form of a slave”), his interpretation also entails that Christ wasn’t actually a human when he took the “form of a slave.” Keep in mind that, for GK, “slave” is equivalent to “human.” Since, according to GK, Christ was only in the “form of a slave” during his time on earth, it means that Christ only appeared human. For just as being in “the form of God” doesn’t mean that Christ is himself God, so taking “the form of a slave” would mean that Christ wasn’t/isn’t actually a human (again, when we equate “slave” with “human”). But the idea that Christ wasn’t/isn’t truly human is simply not compatible with what Scripture reveals (see part one of my refutation of GK). Thus, when it comes to GK’s assumption-based interpretation of Phil. 2:6-7, error has only begotten more error.

Now, according to GK, the expression “taking the form of a slave” is equivalent in meaning to “coming to be in the likeness of humanity.” I once shared GK’s assumption that these two expressions (along with the prior expression, “empties himself”) are equivalent in meaning. However, I’ve since realized that this was simply an unwarranted assumption on my part. Although it’s reasonable to believe that there is a logical and sequential connection between Christ’s emptying himself, his taking the form of a slave and his coming to be in the likeness of humanity (such that Christ’s “taking the form of a slave” and his “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” was a direct result of his emptying himself), there’s no good reason to assume that these expressions are equivalent in meaning. Instead, we can understand each expression used by Paul as communicating a distinct – although related – idea.

Christ emptied himself – i.e., he abased himself and divested himself of his prerogatives as God’s Son – when, as an expression of his submission to God’s will (Luke 22:42), he refused to use his God-given power and authority to prevent his arrest (and, ultimately, the crucifixion to which it inevitably led). In doing so, he took the form (or outward appearance) of a slave – i.e., a slave of other human beings (which is what Paul’s readers would’ve most naturally thought of when reading or hearing the term “slave,” and which Paul had in mind nearly every other time he used the term “slave” or “slaves” in his letters without qualifying what kind of slave to which he was referring). Not only was our Lord treated like a slave from the time of his arrest to the time of his crucifixion, but we also know from history that, in Jesus’ day, crucifixion was the most common form of execution for slaves.[1] However, in “taking the form of” a slave, Christ was not actually a slave. Again, the term “form” refers only to outward appearance (Mark 16:12; 2 Tim 3:5; cf. Isaiah 44:13 [LXX]).

When Christ emptied himself, he also came to be in the likeness of humanity. The word translated “humanity” in Phil. 2:7 – i.e., anthrōpōn (the genitive/masculine/plural form of anthrópos) – is the same word translated “mankind” in 1 Tim. 2:5. And in 1 Tim. 2:5, the word clearly refers to the category of humans that consists of every human except Christ himself (for it is this group of humans of whom Christ is the Mediator). It is in the likeness of this group of humans (a group which, again, includes every human except Christ himself) that Christ came to be when he “emptied himself.” Although Christ himself said that he could’ve entreated his Father and received the aide of more than twelve legions of messengers (Matt. 26:53), he allowed himself to be treated as if he were no different in status than those for whose sake he was about to be crucified (and, in doing so, came to “be in the likeness of humanity”). Since Christ wasn’t a member of the group of humans for whom he suffered and died, it was only in their “likeness” that he came to be when, in Gethsemane, he emptied himself.

In response to what I wrote concerning what it means for Christ to have come to be “in the likeness of humanity,” GK appeals to a number of verses in which the word “likeness” occurs in order to support his view. Before commenting on what he writes on these verses, it needs to be emphasized that I actually agree with GK that Paul’s use of the word “likeness” does not mean “the same as,” but rather communicates the idea of two distinct things being similar in some way (in this case, outwardly, or in appearance).

GK: Rom. 1:23 – “Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid, changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being.” Here, God’s glory, being Christ (John 13:31-32,) is likened to that of a corruptible human being.

GK is misreading Paul and misunderstanding his point here. Paul is not likening God’s glory “to that of a corruptible human being” in this verse; rather, Paul is saying that those of whom he was writing (those who “are made stupid”) were changing God’s glory into the “likeness of an image of a corruptible human being.” The “likeness” in view is the likeness of an image of a human. The fact that pagans were changing the glory of God into the likeness of images of humans has absolutely no bearing on the meaning of the words, “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” in Phil. 2:7.

GK continues: Let me ask you: if you are removing the quality of His “pre-existence” that comes with His sonship (Heb. 1:3,) are you not likening Jesus to nothing more than a corruptible human being, Whom God delighted in at a later point in His life??

First, Hebrews 1:3 does not say or imply that the quality of “pre-existence” comes with Christ’s sonship. GK is completely reading the idea of “pre-existence” into the text (which reads, “Who, being the Effulgence of His glory and Emblem of His assumption, besides carrying on all by His powerful declaration, making a cleansing of sins, is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights.”). Everything that’s said concerning Christ in this verse has been true of Christ since the time that God began speaking to Israel in his Son “in the last of these days.” It has nothing to do with what was true of any non-human being who existed in heaven before Christ was generated by his Father and thereby became the Son in whom God subsequently spoke.

Second, GK’s objection that my understanding of when Christ was generated/brought into being by God (which was when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him) likens Jesus “to nothing more than a corruptible human being, Whom God delighted in at a later point in His life” is simply based on his own misreading/misunderstanding of what Paul wrote. Remember, the “likeness” that Paul had in view in Rom. 1:23 is “the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being” (not “the likeness of a human being”). So whatever point GK was trying to make falls flat on its face.

Third, GK seems to believe that, unless Christ pre-existed as a non-human, celestial being, God would not have delighted in his Son until “a later point in His life.” But what we read in Luke 2:52 is contrary to that idea: “And Jesus progressed in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” Not only does this verse undermine the view implied in GK’s rhetorical question, but it’s contrary to the very idea that Christ pre-existed his life on earth as someone with whom God was more pleased than any other created being. For if, prior to Christ’s conception, God was already more pleased with his Son than with any other created being, then how would the conduct of Jesus as a human child result in him progressing in favor with God? Does GK think that Jesus had more favor with God when he was a human child than he did when, according to GK’s view, he obediently left his exalted position among the celestials and transformed himself into a human? Or does GK think that Jesus lost his favor with God when he “became human” and then progressively earned it back? 

Neither of these views makes any sense at all. What does make sense, however, is the revealed fact that Christ has been human for as long as he’s existed (having been generated by God when his mother became pregnant with him), and that his favor with God increased the older he got (culminating in the act of obedience that made Christ worthy of the exalted position among the celestials that he now enjoys).

GK: The view that Aaron takes here disregards, completely, that God, again, must have had Someone to plant in Mary, if Mary were to be given a virginal birth!

The view that GK says I disregard is a view that’s contrary to Scripture (which is why I disregard it). The correct, scripturally-informed view is that God, by his spirit, caused a certain human to be generated (i.e., come into being) in Mary, and that this supernatural act of God directly resulted in God becoming the Father of his Son (and, nine months later, resulted in a virginal birth).

GK: Rom. 6:5 – “For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was crucified together with Him also…” This is a fascinating verse to me, because many proponents of Aaron’s theory will proclaim that Col. 1:16, for example, only pertains to the new humanity. I ask, now: how can the old humanity die with Him if they held no spiritual connection to Him?? How can a non-existent Being somehow hold sway over people that had existed thousands of years beforehand?? Furthermore, the word “likeness,” here, discusses being affiliated in the likeness of His death, which all partake of (2 Cor. 5:14.) Obviously, we didn’t literally die, but humanity, this old flesh, is now like dead to God.

In response to Gerudo’s first question, I answer: The old humanity died with Christ because, when Christ died, he secured the salvation of all mankind from sin and death (which characterizes the old humanity). The old humanity is now “like dead to God” (to use the words of GK). It’s as simple as that, and has nothing to do with a so-called “spiritual connection” between mankind and Christ (the majority of humans do not have, and have never had, Christ’s spirit, and thus don’t have – and never have had – any “spiritual connection” with him; only when all mankind has been justified by God and vivified in Christ will all mankind have a “spiritual connection” with Christ).

In response to his second question: a non-existent being can’t “hold sway” over anyone. But when Christ died, he secured the salvation of all mankind. And when he was roused by God, he became “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” (Rom. 14:9) – and this category of people over whom Christ is now Lord includes, of course, people that “existed thousands of years beforehand.”

GK: Rom. 8:3 – “For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh..." Huh. I would think this verse is yet another within Paul's evangel that backs up His preexistence, no? Words like "God's Son was born in flesh" aren't exactly present here!

Christ’s being sent by God in the likeness of sin’s flesh in no way implies that he pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human/non-fleshly being. That is entirely GK’s assumption. It’s something he’s reading into the text. God sent his own Son when he dispatched his Son into the world (John 3:17). And as is evident from John 17:18, the dispatching of Christ into the world by God no more proves that Christ pre-existed his life on earth than it proves that Christ’s disciples pre-existed their lives on earth before they were dispatched by Christ. However, unlike Christ’s disciples (who were sinners in need of salvation when they were dispatched by Christ into the world), Christ only had “the likeness of sin’s flesh” when he was sent/dispatched by God (for, in contrast with Christ’s disciples, there was never a time when sin “reigned” in Christ’s body). So, again, I agree with GK that Paul’s use of the word “likeness” here means that, although having the outward appearance of those who have “sin’s flesh,” Christ didn’t actually have “sin’s flesh.”

The problem for GK is that, if a certain celestial being took the form of a human being (which is how GK understands the expression “form of a slave”) and came to be in the likeness of a human being (i.e., a being with a human nature), then he wasn’t really a human being. He only appeared to be human. This fact alone makes GK’s interpretation of Phil. 2:7 completely at odds with Scripture, and thus untenable. On the other hand, if GK were to say that Christ’s “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” simply means that, at some point, Christ came to outwardly resemble the humans for whom he died, then that’s precisely my understanding, and is perfectly compatible with the (correct) position that Christ has been a human being for as long as he’s existed.

GK: “Becoming obedient unto death” is Him becoming the fashion of a man. There’s a difference, here: “obedient unto death” is not the same as “death of the cross.” He is murdered in one case, and subject (as man already is) to death in the other.

GK is not reading Paul very carefully. Here’s what Paul wrote: “…and, being found in fashion as a human, [Christ] humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

According to what Paul actually wrote, Christ’s “becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” is something that occurred during the time when Christ was “found in fashion as a human.” In other words, it was already the case that Christ was “found in fashion as a human” when he humbled himself, becoming “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (the words, “even the death of the cross” simply specify the kind of death unto which Christ became obedient when, being found in fashion as a human, Christ humbled himself). So GK is simply mistaken here. Everything Paul wrote here is perfectly consistent with the scripturally-informed understanding that Christ’s obedience unto death occurred entirely during his lifetime on earth.

GK goes on to paraphrase a statement made by someone with whom he agrees (“Gabe”), as follows:

“The biggest problem with the non-preexistence argument is that it makes Christ an achieving man… worship of Christ the achieving creature…”

Here’s how “achieve” is defined by Merriam-Webster: “to succeed at reaching or accomplishing (a goal, result, etc.) especially through effort.” While I’m sure there were some obedient actions performed by Christ during (and especially toward the close of) his earthly ministry that required some degree of “effort,” I would prefer to say that Christ’s achievement – i.e., his success at accomplishing the goal he accomplished – was due to his obedience to God (which was an obedience that was “unto death, even the death of the cross”). Significantly, we read in Rev. 5:9 that Christ’s worthiness to take the sealed scroll and open its sealed is due to his sacrificial death (which, of course, was the ultimate act of obedience to God). And both Christ and one of the celestial elders who spoke with John described Christ’s active obedience while on earth as “conquering” (Rev. 3:21; 5:5). And “conquer” is, arguably, an even stronger word than “achieve.”

In any case, it would seem that, even if Gabe or GK were willing to acknowledge that Christ actually “achieved” or successfully accomplished anything while on the earth (and I hope that they would acknowledge this), it seems that they aren’t willing to say that Christ’s success was the result of his obedience to God. For the rest of the paraphrased statement by Gabe reads as follows:

“…and I hear often the word “obedience” which makes Christ’s adherence to God’s will a work and not just that He was walking in accord with God’s Will. It’s like a back door into free will!”

GK then adds, “This man put into words something I couldn’t convey on my own. Thank you, Gabe.”

So, according to Gabe (and GK, who agrees with him wholeheartedly), adherence to God’s will isn’t obedience, and when Christ did God’s will (which he always did), he wasn’t being “obedient” to God. And not only this, but – according to Gabe – the belief that Christ was obedient to God is, apparently, a mere step away from believing in “free will!”

I find this view astonishing. Do Gabe and GK actually think that Christ wasn’t obedient to God during his lifetime on earth? Of course not. Not only would they have to admit that Christ was, in fact, obedient to God while alive on the earth, but we know from what GK has already said (see part two) that he believes Christ was obedient to God before his life on earth began. Recall that, according to GK’s interpretation of Psalm 33:9, it was Christ in a pre-existent state whom God “enjoined” or “commanded” to create the heavens and the earth!

The fact is that there is no distinction between someone’s knowingly and willingly doing God’s will and their obeying God. Whenever Christ did God’s will he was being obedient to God. And his obedience to God oftentimes involved physical activity or “work.” Scripture is clear that Christ always did the Father’s will so as to “be perfecting [the Father’s] work” (John 4:34), that he did what the Father directed him to do (John 14:31), and ultimately that he “finished the work that God gave him, that [he] should be doing it” (John 17:4). We also know that Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” and “learned obedience from that which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8). In Romans 5:18-19, Paul even referred to Christ’s obedience as that through which mankind “shall be constituted just.”

Does Christ’s lifelong obedience to God mean that he had “free will?” No. Free will – if understood as an ability to choose that which is outside of the “all” that God “is operating…in accord with the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11), and which is contrary to his intention (Rom. 9:19) – is a complete fiction. Just as it is God who is operating in us “to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight” (Phil. 2:13), so it was for Christ. The main difference is that God operated in Christ in such a way that ensured that he never sinned, but always did that which pleased his Father. However, Christ’s lack of “free will” does not mean that, when doing God’s will, Christ felt himself compelled to do what he did, or felt himself unable to do otherwise. Even A.E. Knoch – who (as I’m sure GK is fully aware) strongly rejected the view that anyone has a “free will” – remarked that Christ’s obedience “was never blind or forced” but rather “always intelligent and free.”

GK goes on to misrepresent my view as follows:

He “decided” to empty Himself after being born. What if He said, “No!”? What would’ve happened then? A man walking the law perfectly because God said so? That’s far and away a slap in the face to the revelations in John, as well as Paul’s revelations, here.

How could Christ have said “No” when it was always God’s purpose and intention that Christ say “Yes,” and remain perfectly obedient? How would it have been possible for Christ to say “No” when God was continuously operating in his Son to will as well as to work for the sake of his delight? One could very well ask GK a similarly ridiculous question: If the pre-existent celestial being who he thinks “became a human” (or at least human-in-appearance) had said to God, “No, I don’t want to become a mortal,” what would’ve happened then? If GK can answer this question to his own satisfaction (and I suspect that he can), then he should have no problem at all answering his question to me.

Moving on to GerudoKing’s response to what I wrote on Colossians 1:13-20, we find GK once again presupposing his doctrinal position concerning when and where Christ’s existence began, and reading it into the text (obviously, GK is not aware of the fact that he’s doing this, but he’s doing it nevertheless). We see this most clearly in his response to my remark that the term “firstborn” is used in Scripture to refer to someone to whom a preeminent rank or special privileges had been given (and not exclusively in a literal sense to refer to a mother’s first child). After making a few dismissive responses to the examples I provided from the Hebrew Scriptures in which the term “firstborn” is used to mean “preeminent in rank and privilege” (Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9), GK writes the following:

BZZTT. Penalty, flag on the field! Comparing Israel’s allotment to Christ’s, because see, Israel is first nationally, while Christ is the first celestially – firstborn of every creature!

I’m not quite sure what GK means when writes, “comparing Israel’s allotment to Christ’s.” In any case, the fact is that the literal meaning of the word “firstborn” – whether in Hebrew, Greek or English – is found in Exodus 13:2. In this verse we read the following: “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.” Literally, then, the word denotes the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother. In fact, the word from which the second element of the Greek term “firstborn” is derived (τίκτω) is the word regularly used in Scripture to refer to childbirth (Strong's Greek: 5088. τίκτω (tiktó). When the term “firstborn” isn’t being used literally, it denotes primacy/supremacy in rank (as verses such as Ex. 4:22, Jer. 31:9 and Ps. 89:27 make clear).

I doubt that GK thinks the term is being used in Col. 1:15 to mean that Christ was the first child to exit the womb of his mother (although it should be noted that Christ was the first child to be born to Miriam, thus making him her firstborn son [Luke 2:7]). Instead, GK wants to change the meaning of the word to mean “first created” or “first to be brought into existence.” However, according to the scriptural usage of the word Paul used in Col. 1:15, it denotes either (1) the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother (which, again, is the literal meaning of the word), or (2) one who is “uppermost” or preeminent in rank.

GK continues: “Firstborn” could only pertain to His rank and privilege if it didn’t say, “of every creature.”

Despite GK’s unsupported assertion here, neither the word “firstborn” nor the expression translated “of every creature” has anything at all to do with when (or where) Christ came into existence. The expression “of every creature” is in the genitive case, and thus expresses the idea that Christ belongs to the group comprised of “every creature,” and that it’s in relation to “ever creature” that Christ is “firstborn” (i.e., uppermost, or highest-ranking). And the preeminence that Christ has in relation to every creature is the result of his having become “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

GK: I think it’s safe to say that when you can only point to a potential exception, and it’s national, not individual, the simple definition of the word ‘Firstborn’ should suffice.

The usages of the term “firstborn” in the verses from the Hebrew Scriptures I referenced are not “potential exceptions” to “the simple definition of the word ‘Firstborn’.” Instead, they’re examples of how the word is used in Scripture when it’s not being used to denote the first child (or animal) to exit the womb of his or her mother. And since Paul wasn’t using the term “firstborn” literally in Col. 1:15 (as it’s being used in, for example, Luke 2:7), the word should be understood as expressing the same basic idea that it does elsewhere in Scripture when it’s used to mean “highest-ranking” or “uppermost.” For example, in Psalm 89:26-29 we read the following:

He, he shall call out to Me, You are my Father, My El and the Rock of my salvation. Indeed, I, I shall make him the firstborn, The uppermost of the kings of the earth. For the eon shall I keep My benignity upon him, And My covenant with him is faithful. I will establish his seed for the future, And his throne as the days of the heavens.

In order to cling to his view of what it means for Christ to be “firstborn of every creature,” GK attempts to dismiss the above passage as having any relevance to the meaning of “firstborn” in Col. 1:15, as follows: Comparing David’s allotment to Christ’s, because there’s no connective tissue between “being given privilege among Israel” and “being the Firstborn of every creature,” especially when there’s zero indication in Colossians so far that we’re dealing with the physical Jesus Christ. Also, he's mixing 'authority' with 'creation.'

Despite GK’s attempt to drive a wedge between the use of the term ”firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 and its use by Paul in Col. 1:15, the fact is that the use of this term in both verses is, itself, the “connective tissue” that he claims is missing. In both verses the term “firstborn” is being used in accord with its secondary (and non-literal) meaning. That is, in both verses, the term denotes preeminence, or supremacy of rank. Just as David being made “firstborn” refers to the future supremacy of rank that he’ll be given in relation to “the kings of the earth,” so Christ’s being “Firstborn of every creature” refers to his present supremacy in relation to every creature.

In neither case does the word “firstborn” express the idea that either David or Christ existed before those in relation to which they’re referred to as “firstborn.” Not only did Christ not exist before “every creature,” but – as noted in part one – Christ didn’t exist before David. Instead, Christ is a descendant of David (Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:32; Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). However, having been made Lord of all (Acts 10:36) – which includes both the living and the dead (Rom. 14:9) – Christ is now David’s Lord. In other words, David is one of the creatures of whom Christ is “Firstborn.”

With regard to GK’s remark about there being “zero indication in Colossians so far that we’re dealing with the physical Jesus Christ,” I assume that he means that Paul wasn’t referring to what was true of Christ during his mortal lifetime on earth. If so, then I agree! But this fact doesn’t support GK’s position, for there’s no indication that when Paul referred to “Christ Jesus” in Colossians 1 he had in mind a non-human being to whom neither the royal title “Christ” nor the personal name “Jesus” belonged. Instead, when Paul referred to “Christ Jesus” and “the Son of [God’s] love” in Colossians 1, he was referring to a risen, glorified human being in whom “we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins” (Col. 1:14). And everything that Paul went on to affirm concerning Christ in verses 15-20 has been true of Christ since the time that he was roused from among the dead by his God and Father and – in accord with what we read in Matt. 28:18 – given “all authority in heaven and on the earth” (hence Paul’s use of the words, “in the heavens” and “on the earth” in Col. 1:16). Throughout this chapter, Paul’s affirming what’s true of Christ now (and not what was true of Christ prior to his death and resurrection).

Me: When Paul referred to Christ as the “firstborn from among the dead” a few verses later, he was revealing when Christ became the “firstborn” – i.e., when he was roused from among the dead by God.

GK: No, that’s the job of the second ‘Firstborn,’ referenced in Col. 1:18, which is, “Firstborn from among the dead.”

Since (as has already been demonstrated) the term “firstborn” refers to Christ’s preeminent, highest-ranking status – and since Christ acquired his preeminent status in relation to every creature when he was roused from among the dead – it follows that Christ became “Firstborn of every creature” when he was roused from among the dead.

Moreover, this understanding of the term “Firstborn” in Col. 1:15 is actually supported by Paul’s use of the term in v. 18. When we read that Christ is “Firstborn from among the dead,” we can conclude that Paul wasn’t affirming the following:

1. Christ was the first to be born/first to exit his mother’s womb from among the dead (which would be in accord with the literal meaning of “firstborn”).

2. Christ was the first one brought into existence from among the dead (which would be in accord with how GK defines the word in Col. 1:15).

The first option makes no sense, while the second option simply isn’t true (for there are other humans who, before Christ’s death and resurrection, were brought back into existence after being dead).

Recall that, according to the scriptural usage of the word “firstborn,” the term denotes either (1) the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother (which, again, is the primary and literal meaning of the word), or (2) one who is “uppermost,” or first in rank. Just as the use of the term “firstborn” in Col. 1:15 expresses the fact that Christ is uppermost/first in rank in relation to every creature, so the use of the term in v. 18 expresses the fact that Christ is uppermost/preeminent from among the dead. In both verses, it is Christ’s exalted, preeminent status – and not when or where Christ came into existence – that is in view.

At this point, GK might try to claim that, in Col. 1:18, “firstborn” should be understood to mean that Christ was the first human to be brought back into existence with an incorruptible, spiritual body. But this view would require redefining the term “firstborn” even more. Those who appeal to the term “firstborn” in Col. 1:15 in support of the view that Christ pre-existed his life on earth are already redefining this term when they claim that it means “first created” or “first to be brought into existence.” To then claim that, in v. 18, “firstborn” means, “first to be brought back into existence with an incorruptible body” is to give the term yet another entirely made-up definition. In both cases, the motivation for redefining the term in these ways is simply to prop up a certain doctrinal position.

Me: It is AFTER Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” that God “highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name...”

GK: Was this before or after He emptied Himself?

After.

GK: The “name above every name” referenced is pertaining to the new humanity. Paul wouldn’t give two separate paragraphs (being Phil. 2:5-8 and 9-11) and discuss the same thing – especially not in a letter like Philippians, where there are only like 4 pages.

The “name above every name” with which Christ was graced by God pertains to his present highly exalted status (which he received by virtue of “becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”). And no, Paul is not discussing “the same thing” in Phil. 2:5-8 and 9-11. Verses 5-8 refer to Christ’s status and life as God’s only-begotten Son on the earth (when Christ was a mortal human being), while verses 9-11 refer to Christ’s status and life as God’s only-begotten Son in heaven (as an immortal and glorified human being).

GK: Logic question time: how to be the Firstborn of every creature without actually being the firstborn?

According to the original and literal meaning of “firstborn,” Christ is the firstborn of his mother, Miriam. However, in accord with the other inspired usage of the term “firstborn” (i.e., the usage that we find in, for example, Ex. 4:22, Jer. 31:9, Ps. 89:27 and Heb. 12:13), Christ became “Firstborn of every creature” – i.e., first in rank in relation to every creature – when he was roused from among the dead. A better question that GK could ask would be, “How can Colossians 1:15 support the doctrinal view that Christ was created before any other creatures when neither the literal nor figurative meaning of ‘firstborn’ is ‘first to be created’?” Another good question that GK could ask would be, “Since the term ‘firstborn’ in Col. 1:18 doesn’t mean ‘first to be created,’ why assume that it means this in v. 15?”

GK: According to Aaron, because Israel was the firstborn nation and because David was appointed king over them, called “firstborn,” this also means that Christ is “titled” Firstborn of every creature. Nevermind that it doesn’t say something like, “made Firstborn of every creature,” how David’s does…

Apparently, then, GK think that Christ made himself the Firstborn of every creature (and that Christ’s God and Father was uninvolved in Christ’s becoming “Firstborn”).

With regard to what I wrote concerning the terms translated “is created” in Col. 1:16 (CLNT), GK asked: Does this prove that [Christ] didn’t exist beforehand?

No; of course not. There are other verses that prove that Christ didn’t exist before his life on earth began. My reason for addressing all of the supposed “proof-texts” for the doctrine of preexistence (including Col. 1:16) is not to prove from these verses that Christ “didn’t exist beforehand” (as GK seems to think). Rather, it’s simply to demonstrate that the verses that GK (and others) see as “proof texts” for their doctrinal position don’t, in fact, prove that Christ did exist beforehand.

In accord with this point, my remarks on the tense of the word translated “is created” in Col. 1:16 are simply intended to demonstrate that what Paul’s affirming in this verse is perfectly consistent with what’s revealed elsewhere concerning when (and where) Christ’s existence began. Again, Paul’s use of the verb form he used in this verse expresses the idea that everything “stands created” or “remains created” through and for Christ (to quote A.T. Robertson). Even A.E. Knoch noted that the verb form used by Paul (which he refers to as the “state” or “complete” form) gives “the state resulting from an action.” Other scholars are in agreement on this point as well.[2]

In light of these considerations, there is no reason to believe that Paul was saying that the state of affairs involving Christ that’s referred to in Col. 1:16 is one that began eons before Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth.

GK: If things remain created in Him, even in His death, there’s no real issue between “pre-existing Christ” and the passage that blatantly states, “through Christ all is made.” I would say that this is, in actuality, pretty good news, (literally) all things considered.

Here we find yet another example of GK completely misunderstanding my position (and then basing his defense of his view on his misunderstanding). It’s not my understanding that Christ received the universal authority implied in Col. 1:16 – i.e., all authority in heaven and on earth – prior to his resurrection, and that all things remained created in him “even in His death.” Since the dead don’t know (and can’t consciously/volitionally do) anything, it follows that Christ wasn’t exercising any authority over creation while he was dead. The One by whom everything remained created while Christ was dead is the same One by whom everything remained created prior to Christ’s death (i.e., God). However, when Christ was roused from among the dead by God, he was given all authority in heaven and one earth. And it was then that Christ became the one in whom, through whom and for whom everything in heaven and on earth could remain/stand created.

Me: This understanding is consistent with what we read in Hebrews 1:3, where it’s said that Christ is “carrying on [or “upholding”] all by His powerful declaration.”

GK: I can only agree to an extent; considering the Hebrews passage is more limited in scope, focused on His declarations, thus, by verse three zoning in on His authority, the passages are certainly consistent, but not in the way I fear Aaron is trying to discredit Paul’s blatant celestial observations.

GK seems to agree that what we read in Heb. 1:3 concerns what is true of Christ now (and what has been true ever since he received all authority in heaven and on earth). But we have just as much reason to believe the same concerning Col. 1:16 (and no good reason to believe that, in this verse, Paul was referring to something that was true of Christ before he received all authority in heaven and on earth). GK is simply presupposing his own doctrinal position. Understanding Col. 1:16 as an affirmation of what is true of Christ now (i.e., during the time of his present exaltation at God’s right hand among the celestials) doesn’t discredit any “celestial observations.” For – in contrast with GK’s view – Christ didn’t become a celestial being until after he was roused from among the dead with an incorruptible, spiritual body.

Me: Although everything in the universe has its ultimate origin in God (who originally brought everything into existence), everything in the universe remains created and continues to exist by virtue of Christ’s God-given authority.

GK: Blatant statement against God’s evangel. All is out of Him, not in Him (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6, 2 Cor. 5:18,) while everything is in Christ (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-16.) The simple fact remains that Aaron has not adequately disproven the statement, and, again, though I respect the vast majority of his writings, he is writing against God’s divine revelation in the above passage.

First, I didn’t say that everything in the universe is “in God.” I said “everything in the universe has its ultimate origin in God.” The statements “everything is in God” and “everything has its ultimate origin in God” are not equivalent in meaning. What I actually said (rather than what GK misrepresented me as saying) is simply another way of saying that God is the source of everything in the universe (hence my additional parenthetical/explanatory remark that God “originally brought everything into existence”).

Second, the fact that GK referred to what I wrote as being a “blatant statement against God’s evangel” simply tells me that he’s confused about what the evangel is. The elements that constitute the message that Paul referred to as the evangel of God (e.g., in Rom. 1:1 and 1 Thess. 2:8) can be found in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, and does not directly concern the revealed fact that God is the source of all that is.

Third, the “simple fact” is that what Paul wrote in the verses referenced by GK is perfectly consistent with the truth that Christ’s life began when he was begotten by God (Luke 1:30-35), and that Christ received the universal authority that’s implied in verses such as 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col. 1:16 when he was roused from among the dead. Another “simple fact” is that GK is reading his own view of when Christ’s existence began into these verses, and assuming – without scriptural justification – that what’s being affirmed in these verses was true before Christ was begotten by his God and Father, and before Christ later received his universal authority.

Me: Paul expressed the same idea in 1 Corinthians 8:6… Notice the use of the present tense here. All that is “out of” God is said to be (presently) “through” Christ.

GK: Yet another logical fallacy. Aaron adds the word “presently,” a word not in the text. The “present tense” doesn’t mean the words only now take precedent, especially when John 1 certainly speaks of His creation before the world begins, nor does the present tense detract from the revelation itself. I hate to insult Aaron, and I hope I don’t, of course, but this is missing the forest for the trees.

There is no “logical fallacy” being made here. What Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:6 is perfectly consistent with the understanding that all has been “through” Christ for as long as he’s had all authority in heaven and on earth (which, again, he received after his death and resurrection, and not before the first eon began).

On the other hand, GK has given no good, scripturally-informed reason to believe that all was through Christ when God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. GK references John 1, but John said nothing at all about Christ being created before all came into being through God’s word (despite GK’s assertion that this chapter “certainly speaks of [Christ’s] creation before the world begins”).

In fact, the implication of what John wrote in verses 1-3 is that, since Christ did come into being at some point (a fact on which GK and I are in agreement), Christ didn’t exist before all came into being through God’s word (for in John 1:3 we read that, apart from God’s word, “not even one thing came into being which has come into being”). Thus, what we read in John 1 actually disproves GK’s doctrinal position.

Moreover, if – as GK believes – Christ preexisted his life on earth as God’s word (instead of coming into being when God’s word “became flesh,” in accord with what we read in John 1:14), then it would mean that Christ never came into being. In other words, it would mean that Christ has always existed (which is precisely what most Christians believe). So GK’s interpretation of John 1 actually ends up supporting the commonly-held (and completely erroneous) Christian view that Christ is uncreated, and that he has existed for as long as God has.

GK: God says “in Him is all created,” while Aaron says, “in Him is all remaining created now that He’s ascended,” when the context not once requires you to read this into the text.

As has already been demonstrated, the verb form of “create” that’s translated “is created” in Col. 1:16 expresses the idea that everything “stands created” or “remains created” through and for Christ. So I’m not reading anything into what Paul wrote; the grammar itself is perfectly consistent with the fact that Christ came into being when Scripture reveals that he came into being, and that Christ didn’t exist at the time when God, through his word, brought the heavens and the earth into being (in accord with what we read in, for example, Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6, 9). It’s GK who is reading into the text the idea that Christ existed at a time when Scripture doesn’t reveal he existed, and did something that Scripture doesn’t reveal he did.

Me: Since we know that Paul had in mind everything’s “remaining created” through and for Christ in the last part of v. 16, we can understand him to have had this same event in mind in the earlier part of v. 16, viewed “as a whole” and as a “bare fact.”

GK: Logical fallacy, from reading extra words into the text. "Is" means "is," and just because the verb form gives the is a 'stands' (don't forget 'stands') or 'remains' quality does not change the word entirely, nor does it add a word to the text that would cancel out the previous statements.

GK is, once again, erroneously accusing me of a “logical fallacy.” The fact is that, in Col. 1:16, there is no separate Greek word for “is” on which the translation “is created” is based. The “is” in the translated expression “is created” is part of the verb itself.

Of course, GK needs the verb used by Paul to mean “was created” in order for Col. 1:16 to provide him with support for his doctrinal position. However, rather than referring to what occurred exclusively in the past (i.e., when God spoke everything into existence “in the beginning”), the verb form used by Paul refers to a present, ongoing action. In other words, Paul used the verb form that we’d expect him to use if it was his intention to refer to the time period that coincides with Christ’s post-resurrection, glorified existence.

Since the word translated “is created” in Col. 1:16 doesn’t refer to a past, completed action that occurred eons before Christ was roused from among the dead (it refers to what’s true now, and what has been true ever since Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth), Col. 1:16 fails to provide any support whatsoever for GK’s doctrinal position. It is, instead, perfectly consistent with the scriptural truth that Christ’s life began when, by means of a supernatural work of God, Christ’s mother became pregnant with him.

In response to my remarks on Col. 1:17-18 (where I point out that Paul used the present tense “is before all”), GK objected as follows:

Because He’s not a guy, and He’s still alive; being alive makes it really hard to say, “He was before all,” if He still is. It’d be like saying, “McDonalds is the oldest fast food chain.” If McDonalds is the oldest, the other fast food chains won’t magically out-age McDonalds, will they? How ridiculous I’d sound to say, “McDonalds was the oldest.”

When used with regard to time, the term pro (“before”) doesn’t actually mean “older than.” It means “preceding in time” (or “existing/occurring prior to”). Thus, the problem with GK’s criticism of what I wrote is that, if Paul had time in view in Col. 1:17, then there’s no reason why he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) have written “Christ was before all,” for that would be equivalent to saying, “Christ preceded all in time,” or “Christ existed prior to all.”

Moreover, since “before” doesn’t technically mean “older than,” GK’s statement “McDonalds is the oldest” is not analogous to what Paul wrote. An analogous statement concerning McDonalds would, instead, be something like this: “McDonalds preceded every other fast food chain” or “McDonalds was in existence prior to every other fast food chain” (not “McDonalds IS in existence prior to every other fast food chain”). Or we would say, “McDonalds existed [past tense] prior to any other fast food chain.”

In the same way, it would be grammatically accurate for GK to express his view concerning Christ’s pre-existence as follows: “Christ preceded all” or “Christ was in existence prior to all” (not “Christ IS in existence prior to all,” which would imply that the “all” being referred to don’t exist yet). Or GK could simply say, “Christ existed before all.” Thus, despite GK’s attempt at undermining my point, there’s no reason why, if Paul had intended to communicate the idea that Christ existed before any other creature, he wouldn’t have said that Christ “WAS before all” (rather than Christ “IS before all”).

Moreover, the fact that Paul used the present tense here is consistent with the fact that he was referring to Christ’s preeminence – i.e., the fact that Christ is of greater rank and importance than all.

GK: Here, it refers to time, because we’ve been dealing with creation. If we’re reading “before,” or, pro, as somehow “before... in stature,” then we are disconnecting verse 17 from the previous one.

When GK says “we’ve been dealing with creation,” he means we’ve been dealing with the event that’s described in Genesis 1. But that’s his own assumption, and it’s an assumption that’s not informed by the grammar Paul used or the immediate context of Col. 1:16. What “we’ve been dealing with” in v. 16 is a present, ongoing state of affairs that involves creation – i.e., everything in the heavens and on the earth remaining created in, through and for the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given. What Paul has in view is clearly Christ’s preeminence and not his pre-existence.

GK goes on to object to my appeal to other verses in Scripture where we find the expression pro pantōn (“before all”) being used in a similar way – i.e., James 5:12 and 1 Peter 4:8 – by saying, “Watch Aaron hop evangels, again.” The problem with GK’s objection here is that neither the evangel of the Uncircumcision nor the evangel of the Circumcision is in view in the verses being considered here. So GK is simply mistaken that I’m “evangel-hopping” by appealing to how a certain word is used outside of Paul’s letters.

After quoting James 5:12 and 1 Peter 4:7-8, GK responds as follows:

Yet both passages referenced a) concern man, not the celestial revelations of Christ, b) concern Israel, not us, or the celestial revelations of Christ, and c) even for the sake of argument, the passage fails considerably to convey anything meaningful with Aaron’s suppositions (as His authority and Headship over all had already been unveiled as early as Romans 5:18-19, through conciliation, and maybe even earlier than that.)

What GK apparently fails to appreciate is that the Greek words “pro” and “pantōn” are completely neutral with regard to where in Scripture they’re used, or with regard to who’s using them. These words don’t change meanings based on where in Scripture they occur, or based on whether or not the author is communicating truth to believers in the body of Christ or to believers among God’s covenant people Israel.

None of the original recipients of Paul’s letters would’ve understood the word “pro” (or the  expression “pro pantōn”) as having some special “body of Christ” meaning just because Paul was the one using it instead of James or Peter. That’s absurd. The word used simply has the meaning and significance that it has, regardless of who’s using it. Whether the inspired writer is Paul, James or Peter, the word was used in accord with the meaning it was understood to have at the time that these men wrote. And we have good reason – based on the immediate and larger context of Scripture – to believe that the word “pro” means the same thing in Colossians 1:17 as it does in James 5:12 and 1 Peter 4:8.

With regard to his last point (c), I’m not sure how, if Paul was emphasizing Christ’s supremacy/preeminence over creation in Col. 1:15-17, it would mean that Paul wasn’t conveying anything meaningful. On the other hand, according to GK’s view, Paul was conveying something that completely contradicts what God has revealed elsewhere in Scripture concerning when and where Christ’s existence began.

GK ends his response to my remarks on Col. 1:15-17 as follows:

Aaron bolds “that in all He may be becoming first,” so as to emphasize this statement. Yet Aaron forgets the very previous statement, which I will now bold: “Firstborn from among the dead.” The part of the verse he bolded is in connection to the next glory that’s listed, being “Firstborn from among the dead.” This properly transfers us from one glory, being “Created in all,” to the next glory, which is “reconciling all.” This is the “parallelism” (if I’m using that word right,) that Aaron was seeking in this passage, but because his intent was to prove his own point, as opposed to embracing the words God wrote (sorry, Aaron,) the second Firstborn may be lost on him, simply because he added so many contingencies to the first one.

The first “glory” to which GK is referring has everything to do with what the risen and glorified Christ is presently doing (Col. 1:16), while the second “glory” to which he refers has everything to do with what the risen and glorified Christ is going to do (Col. 1:20). As far as GK’s implication that, by disagreeing with his interpretation of Col. 1:15-17, I’m not “embracing the words God wrote” (and that he, in contrast, is), I’ll let the reader be the judge of that. 

---

[1] Williams, David John. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999 (p. 115).

[2] For example, Curtis Vaughan and Virtus E. Gideon explain the perfect tense as follows:  

“The perfect tense…represents a completed state or condition from the standpoint of present time.” (Curtis Vaughan and Virtus E. Gideon, “A Greek Grammar of the New Testament”, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1979, page 149) 

Similarly, according to M. Zerwick, the perfect tense indicates “not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action” (M. Zerwick, “Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples”, Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963, page 96).