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

Introduction

Recently I discovered that a fellow member of the body of Christ had posted a series of blog articles earlier this year responding to a series of articles that I posted on my blog back in 2017 concerning when, according to Scripture, Christ’s existence began. Although I was initially unsure as to whether writing a rebuttal to his series (or at least to part of it) would be a worthwhile endeavor, I decided that responding to what he wrote would provide me with an opportunity to not only clarify and expand upon certain points made in my 2017 article series, but to make some new points as well.

Since I want to keep this rebuttal as doctrinally-focused as possible (and hopefully avoid generating more “heat than light” within the body of Christ than is necessary), I’m not going to be referring to the author of the articles to which I’ll be responding by his real name. Instead, I’ll be using the name that he goes by on his blog (“GerudoKing,” or “GK” for short).

I should also add that, if I do end up responding to the entirety of his series (which is still “up in the air” from my standpoint), my response to the first three parts will likely constitute the longest and most in-depth part of my response. This is due to the fact that the subject matter covered in these parts is foundational to my doctrinal position concerning when (and where), according to Scripture, Christ’s existence began, and gets to the heart of my disagreement with the doctrinal position defended by GK.

Part One

Concerning the lack of revelatory evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures for the doctrinal view that Christ lived in heaven before his life on earth began, GerudoKing writes the following:

The Old Testament is not concerned with the later revelations of the New Testament, where Christ is indeed revealed to have existed beforehand (Col. 1:16, Phil. 2:7.) Israel is not ready for such a revelation – it is not their time yet to understand this, as it’s their allotment to be ruled, not to rule. There is a completely different revelation going on at this point in time; it’d be like trying to jam the idea of “conciliation of God” into the book of Job. You simply won’t find it, because it’s not the time for such an idea to be revealed yet. Naturally, they are not going to be told, “I am withholding your Messiah,” but “your Messiah will be born in Abraham’s seed at a later time.”

The section of my 2017 article to which GK is responding here concerns what’s prophesied in the Old Testament concerning Christ. And what we find prophesied concerning Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures forms the very foundation of what Israel, during the years leading up to prophecy-fulfilling era of the Messiah, would have been believing and expecting (or at least should have been believing and expecting) concerning Christ.  

According to GK, it’s not until we get to the New Testament (particularly certain verses from the letters of Paul, as is implied by GK’s references to Col. 1:16 and Phil. 2:7) that we find sufficient revelatory evidence to establish the validity of the doctrinal position to which GK holds (i.e., that Christ existed before his conception as a non-human, celestial being). This would mean that, before the start of the apostolic era, God’s covenant people would’ve had no good (i.e., no scripturally-informed, revelation-based) reason to believe that their prophesied Messiah already existed as a non-human, celestial being whose life began eons before his prophesied life on earth was to begin. Instead, the Scriptures on which their Messianic expectations were based would’ve given them reason to believe that their coming Messiah would be just as human as those whose “seed” he was prophesied to be (and thus would be someone who, prior to the beginning of his human life, didn’t yet exist).

I find it curious that GK refers to Christ as being “born in Abraham’s seed.” Perhaps that’s simply his way of saying that Christ is a descendant of Abraham (just as Paul referred to himself as “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” [Rom. 11:1]), or that Christ is the promised seed of Abraham referred to in Genesis 22:16-18 (cf. Gal. 3:16). Whatever his reason for the use of the peculiar expression “born in Abraham’s seed,” the fact is that, according to Scripture, Christ descended from certain human beings (and thus originates from an ancestral source). Consider the following:

1. Not only is it clear that Jesus had a mother (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, etc.), but we also know that Miriam conceived – and not just birthed – her son (Luke 1:31), thereby making Jesus the “the fruit of her womb” (Luke 1:42). This wouldn’t be true if Christ existed before the “fruit” of Miriam’s womb came to be.

2. Christ is said to have “risen out of Judah” (Heb. 7:14). The words “risen out of Judah” express the idea that Jesus belongs to the tribe of Judah (see Heb. 7:5-6, 13), and imply that Judah – both the individual and the tribe – existed before Christ. However, it wouldn’t be true that Christ is “risen out of Judah” if Christ existed before Judah (or if Christ existed at any point before his body came into being).

3. In Luke 1:32 we read that Gabriel referred to David as Jesus’ “father” (and by “father” he meant male ancestor). In accord with this fact, Jesus is also said to be “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1), “of the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8) and “out of the fruit of David’s loin” (Acts 2:30; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-16). None of these related descriptions of Christ would be true if Christ existed before David (or if Christ existed at any point before his body came into being).

4. Christ himself declared that he is “the root and the race of David” (Rev. 5:5; 22:16). This means that Jesus is the prophesied descendant of David who will establish the Davidic kingdom on the earth so that it will remain “unto the eon” (2 Sam. 7:12-16). With regard to Christ’s “root of David” imagery, the implied seed from which “the root” grows is David (or the “seed of David” that Christ is elsewhere said to be “of” and to “come of” [Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8]). However, Christ wouldn’t be the root of David if he existed before David (for the root doesn’t exist before the seed of which it’s the root).

These facts concerning Christ’s lineage are incompatible with GK’s doctrinal position. If Christ was the first being created by God, then it wouldn’t be true to say that Christ himself is “Abraham’s seed” or “of the seed of David.” That is, it wouldn’t be true to say that Christ himself is a descendant of these men. Rather, just as Christians erroneously believe that it was only Christ’s body that died and was roused from among the dead (and not Christ himself), so GK’s view entails that it was only Christ’s body – and not Christ himself – that is “of the seed of David” or “out of the fruit of David’s loin.” But that’s contrary to what we read in Scripture.

It is not merely Christ’s body of which the above genealogical facts are true. Rather, these facts concern Christ himself. And this can only be the case if Christ’s existence as God’s Son began when he was conceived (which is in accord with what we read in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35, but more on that later). That is, only if Christ (i.e., the “Holy One” who we’re told would be “called the Son of God” by virtue of the fact that he would be generated by God) came into being when (and because) his human body came into existence can it be true to say that Christ himself – and not merely his body – is “the seed of Abraham,” “risen out of Judah,” “of the seed of David” (etc.).

Now, according to GK, the reason why the Old Testament is “not concerned with” the revelation that Christ “existed beforehand” is because, at the time the Hebrew Scriptures were being written, it was Israel’s “allotment to be ruled, not to rule.” The problem with the reason he gives is that the same thing could be said concerning Israel during both the time of Christ’s earthly ministry and the time of the apostles (when the Greek Scriptures were being written). Shortly before Christ’s ascension to heaven, Christ’s disciples asked him, “Lord, art Thou at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) Christ’s response implies that the time had not yet come for him to do this. In other words, the time had not yet come for Israel to rule; Israel’s “allotment to rule” will not be received by the saints among God’s covenant people until after Christ returns to earth at the end of the eon. And yet, GK appeals to statements made by both Christ himself during his earthly ministry and by those whose ministry was focused on Israel during the apostolic era (e.g., the apostle John) in support of his belief that Christ “existed beforehand.”

So right away we find a glaring inconsistency in GK’s defense of his position. His claim is essentially that we shouldn’t expect to find a revelation of Christ’s pre-existence in the Old Testament because it was not yet Israel’s time to rule. But then, in support of his doctrinal position that Christ pre-existed, he appeals to verses that were written to Israel at a time when it was (and remains) Israel’s “allotment to be ruled, not to rule.” GK has thus failed to provide any good reason for why, if his doctrinal position concerning Christ is true, we shouldn’t expect to find it revealed in the Old Testament that Israel’s Messiah – or the being who would later become Israel’s Messiah – was already in existence.

In fact, GK’s position is even more inconsistent than this. For if his interpretation of certain verses from the Old Testament is correct, then one ought to conclude that the Messiah was, in fact, in existence at the time that the Old Testament was being written. For example, after quoting from Psalm 45:2-7, GK comments as follows:

Now, I stand by what I said before, that the Old Testament is revealing Christ to Israel, and not to the world, thus we are dealing with a pointed revelation as to their physical King, and thus should not be seeking a celestial understanding of Christ in these passages. That being said… these are all ‘present tense’ phrases. David, here, is singing to Someone. You could argue that he’s prophesying, as he is indeed called a prophet in Acts 2:30, but I’m confounded by the idea that he would be directly addressing Christ, despite His [then] nonexistence!

If there’s anything said in the present tense phrases found in Psalm 45 that wasn’t true of Christ at the time when David wrote, then this fact would completely undermine GK’s view that the present tense phrases (to which he draws the reader’s attention) imply that Christ existed at the time that David wrote Psalm 45. And this is precisely what we find to be the case. In fact, the very verses quoted in the letter to the Hebrews – despite being in the present tense – pertain to a future state of affairs. Here is how Psalm 45:2-7 reads in the CVOT:

You are lovely beyond the sons of humanity; grace is poured out onto Your lips; therefore Elohim has blessed You for the eon. Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Master, Your splendor and Your honor. And in Your honor prosper, ride forth on behalf of truth and humility and righteousness; then may Your right hand direct You in fear inspiring deeds. Your arrows being whetted, peoples shall fall beneath You, struck in the heart of the King's enemies. Your throne, O Elohim, is for the eon and further; a scepter of equity is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore Elohim Your Elohim has anointed You With the oil of elation beyond Your partners.

The throne of Christ mentioned in this prophecy (“Your throne”) is the throne on which Christ will be sitting during the future eons, and the kingdom of Christ that’s mentioned (“Your kingdom”) is a future kingdom. Christ was not sitting on this throne or reigning over this kingdom when David wrote Psalm 45. Nor is he doing so now. It’s also evident that being anointed by his God “with the oil of elation beyond [his] partners” is Christ’s reward for loving “righteousness” and hating “wickedness” (or “injustice” in Hebrews 1:9).  Since it’s only by faithfully obeying God and doing what pleases him that one can truly be said to “love righteousness and hate wickedness,” we can conclude that Christ’s being anointed with “the oil of elation beyond [his] partners” is a reward for his faithful obedience.

Moreover, we read in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8-9 that Christ was “perfected” through his sufferings and “learned obedience from that which He suffered.” Thus, the reward of being anointed by God “with the oil of elation beyond [his] partners” was given to Christ because he was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (this act of ultimate obedience through which Christ became “so much better than the messengers” – and which made Christ worthy of his present exalted position among the celestials – is referred to in Heb. 2:9 as “the suffering of death”). Thus, what we read concerning Christ in Psalm 45 couldn’t have been true of Christ prior to his death and resurrection (and certainly not eons before his life on earth began).

According to GK’s view, however, Christ pre-existed as the first and greatest being to have been created by God, and was second only to God himself in rank and glory. Since the celestial being that GK believes Christ pre-existed as would’ve undoubtedly enjoyed a more blessed and exalted existence than any of his “partners” during the time of his celestial “pre-existence,” wouldn’t he have already had “the oil of elation beyond his partners”? I don’t see how this could be denied. But this view is contrary to what we know Christ had to do in order to be anointed by God with “the oil of elation” of which we read in Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1.

With regard to GK’s assertion that we “should not be seeking a celestial understanding of Christ” in the Old Testament Scriptures, I’m assuming that he has in mind an understanding of Christ that involves the belief that he pre-existed as a celestial being. If that’s the case, then I would agree that we shouldn’t be “seeking” such an understanding of Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. But then, we shouldn’t be “seeking” such an understanding of Christ in the Greek Scriptures, either. We should simply read and believe what God has chosen to reveal to us.

On the other hand, if by “a celestial understanding of Christ” one simply means an understanding of Christ that involves the belief that Christ would ultimately become a celestial being – i.e., a being who resides in heaven – then the Old Testament does, in fact, provide us with a prophetic basis for such an understanding. And this means that we should approach the New Testament Scriptures expecting to find confirmation of (and additional revelation concerning) this understanding of Christ. Although this “celestial understanding of Christ” is most likely not what GK had in mind, it is the only “celestial understanding of Christ” that is (1) based on what Scripture actually says (rather than based on certain assumptions being read into the text), and (2) in accord with what Scripture reveals concerning how Christ became a celestial being who is worthy of the celestial position that he now has.

The Greek Scriptures are clear, for example, that Christ’s present celestial nature and position is not due to the nature with which he was created by his God and Father. Although Christ is superior to all created celestial beings now, this hasn’t always been the case. As is the case with humans in general, Christ was “made some bit inferior to messengers” (Heb. 2:6-7, 9). His becoming greater than/superior to the messengers is something that took place later. As we go on to read in Hebrews 2:8, Christ’s superiority over the celestial beings with which he’s contrasted in the opening chapter of this letter is the result of “the suffering of death.” It was, in other words, because Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” that he was highly exalted by God and graced with “the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:8-9), and thus became “so much better than the messengers as he enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they” (Heb. 1:4).

Now, among the Old Testament passages that provide us with a prophetic basis for what I consider to be the true “celestial understanding of Christ” is the very next passage to which GK draws our attention (i.e., Psalm 110). In this prophecy we read that Christ would be invited by Yahweh to sit at his right hand, and thus reside in the celestial realm where God sits enthroned. Similarly, it’s foretold in Daniel 7:13-14 that Christ would, at some future time, come to be in the presence of Yahweh in the celestial throne room.

GK: This is reinforced in Aaron’s reference to Psalm 110, which, while sound, holds one glaring oversight – though prophetic, the chapter begins with David recognizing his coming Messiah as his Lord, i.e. his Master. We are indeed discussing the coming kingdom, but Yahweh is certainly speaking to Someone – the word “averring” (n’um, in Hebrew,) does not imply anything, but to proclaim something to someone in declarative fashion. Oftentimes, the word is followed by prophetic declaration, yes – but it is not by any means spoken to nonexisting people (ref. Gen. 22:16, Num. 14:28, 24:3, 24:4, 24:15, 16, 1 Sam. 2:30, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2 Kings 9:26, 19:33, 22:19, 2 Chr. 34:27, Ps. 36:1.) Why, in every other instance of this word, is there an existing person being spoken to, prophecy or otherwise, except in this specific use?

GK is assuming that, if Christ didn’t exist at the time Psalm 110 was written, then it would mean that Yahweh was speaking to a non-existent person. But that’s simply not the case. When David wrote this psalm, Yahweh had not yet declared the quoted words that are addressed to his risen and exalted Son (i.e., “Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet”). That is, the quoted declaration of Yahweh to Christ in Psalm 110:1 is itself part of what’s being prophesied by David (and therefore was, in David’s day, still future). Not only is it implied elsewhere that these words weren’t declared by Yahweh to Christ until after Christ’s resurrection and ascension (see Acts 2:33-35), but it wasn’t until Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (and, in the words of Heb. 2:10 and 5:8-9, was “perfected” through his sufferings) that Christ became worthy of the exalted position at God’s right hand that’s being prophetically promised to Christ in Psalm 110:1.  

Psalm 110:1 isn’t the only example in this psalm of a declaration of Yahweh to Christ that was, in David’s day, still future. The same can be said regarding what we read in verse 4: “You are a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek.” Although this statement by Yahweh to Christ is just as much in the present tense as the declaration found in v. 1, we know from the letter to the Hebrews that Christ didn’t become “a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek” until after his resurrection. Indeed, as is made abundantly clear elsewhere in the letter to the Hebrews, Christ’s sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection to immortality was absolutely necessary to his qualifying for this unique priestly office (see Heb. 2:17-18; 5:4-10; 6:20; 7:11-28; 8:3-6; 10:11-14; etc.).

Thus, even according to GK’s view, it wouldn’t be true to say that Christ pre-existed as “a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek.” But we have just as much reason to believe that Christ didn’t pre-exist his conception as the one to whom Yahweh declared the words of Psalm 110:1 as we have reason to believe that Christ didn’t preexist his conception as a Melchizedekian priest for the eon. For the very reason why Christ couldn’t have preexisted his conception as a Melchizedekian priest for the eon is also the reason why Christ couldn’t have preexisted his conception as the Lord of David to whom the words of Yahweh quoted in Psalm 110:1 are addressed. Both Christ’s status as Melchizedekian priest and his status as the exalted Lord of Psalm 110:1 was based on, and the result of, Christ’s obedience unto death and subsequent resurrection by God (which qualified him for his eonian priestly office, and made him worthy of his exalted position at God’s right hand).

So GK is simply mistaken with regard to what he has inferred from Psalms 45 and 110. Not only do these prophetic Psalms not support his belief that Christ pre-existed his conception, but they’re contrary to the very idea that Christ pre-existed as an exalted, celestial being. Being the reward for Christ’s obedience, the “celestial chapter” of Christ’s life that’s prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures (and which, in the Greek Scriptures, is clearly revealed to have begun after Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension) is the sequel – and not the prequel – to Christ’s life on earth.

With regard to Hebrews 1:5, GK writes: Now, when you read this passage, the nonexistence of Christ would surely not be the first thing that comes to mind, no? I would be thinking, “Well, the subject, being the messengers, and the fact that they are not given such a high honor as ‘Son,’ should be the focus.” Also, we aren’t dealing with celestial observations in Hebrews, as we are in Paul’s letters. Yet Aaron says, on this verse: “If these verses are to be understood as conveying anything meaningful, there must have been a time before the Messiah was begotten by God and became God’s Son.”

Contrary to what GK’s criticism seems to imply, it’s not my understanding that the subject or focus of Heb. 1:5 is “the nonexistence of Christ.” Obviously, the focus of the first chapter is the superiority of Christ to the messengers. The point I was making is simply that what we read in Hebrews 1:5 is not compatible with the commonly-held Christian belief that there was never a time when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, didn’t exist. What’s being affirmed here is that God begat his Son on a certain day (hence the word “today”). However, it wouldn’t be true (and wouldn’t make any sense) to say that a son was begotten by his father on a certain day if the son was already in existence at the time.

Moreover, the begetting of Christ that’s in view in Hebrews 1:5 (and which is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies being quoted here) took place when Christ was resurrected. This is evident from Acts 13:32-33, where we read that Paul declared the following:

“And we are bringing to you the evangel which comes to be a promise to the fathers, that God has fully fulfilled this for our children in raising Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm also, ‘My Son art Thou; I, today, have begotten Thee.’”

This understanding is confirmed by what we read in Hebrews 5:5 (where it’s evident that the author of this letter understood this prophecy to have been fulfilled when Christ was made “a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek”; cf. Heb. 7:15-17).

Now, since Christ ceased to exist when he died (which is in accord with what Scripture reveals concerning the nature of death), we can conclude that Christ’s resurrection was the second time that Christ was brought into existence by his Father. It is for this reason that the word gennaō was used to refer to Christ’s resurrection (again, when used in reference to that for which a father is responsible, the word gennaō denotes the event by which a father brings his child into existence, and thereby becomes the father of his child).

Thus, when understood in light of a correct understanding of Christ’s death and resurrection, the fact that Christ’s resurrection was an event in which Christ was begotten by his Father confirms the view that Christ didn’t exist as the Son of God before he was generated/begotten by God at the time of his conception. Just as Jesus wasn’t alive in another state of existence when he was begotten by God at the time of his resurrection, so Jesus wasn’t alive in another state of existence when he was begotten by God at the time when his mother became pregnant with him (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35).

GK: See, when I hear anything about “God’s Son,” apart from Jesus or the adoption of members in Christ, I am thinking of this verse from Job 38:6-7:

…Who directed [the earth’s] cornerstone in place, When the stars of the morning were jubilant together, and all the sons of Elohim raised a joyful shout?

From here, I’m catching a far, far different assertion than “Christ didn’t exist,” but that even His celestial children, who had raised a joyful should, weren’t impressed enough to die for us. In contrast, Christ, Who is the word before His earthly presence, becomes man (Phil. 2:7,) which leads Him to being Son of God. This proves that He is indeed the only-begotten Son, as opposed to ‘just another one of many.’ See, the Hebrews passage isn’t referring to Christ’s creation, but Him being begotten. There is a critical difference, here – the other sons of Elohim do not hold this same glory as Christ, making Christ the only proper Image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15,) as He is the only One capable of loving so much as to take the form of a man, taking the penalty of the law for our sakes.

Based on his reference to Job 38:6-7 and the distinction he makes between being created and being begotten, I’m pretty sure GK’s response here was very much “inspired” by what A.E. Knoch wrote concerning Heb. 1:5 in his commentary. For Knoch not only references Job 38:7 in his remarks, but states that “the particular point in this passage is the introduction of His Son, not by creation, but by begettal.” The problem with this claim by Knoch is that “begettal” is simply the way in which beings who have fathers are created, or brought into existence. Thus, while not every created thing has been begotten, every begotten being has been created.

When GK writes that “Christ…becomes man, which leads Him to being Son of God,” he seems to be saying that Christ wasn’t the Son of God during the time that he thinks Christ pre-existed as a non-human, celestial being (and that he only became the Son of God when he was begotten, which occurred when he was conceived). However, what GK says later in his response seems to indicate that he doesn’t hold to this view. In any case, the idea that Christ didn’t come into being as the Son of God is undermined by the fact that the sons of God referred to in Job 38:6-7 and elsewhere are sons of God by virtue of having been directly created by God. And the same goes for the first man, Adam (who is referred to as a son of God in Luke 3:38). Since both Adam and the celestial beings referred to in Job 38:7 were created “sons of God,” it follows that Christ – if he preexisted – would’ve also been a “son of God” from the time of his creation (and in fact the only “son of God” in existence until other sons of God were created).

On the other hand, if GK does believe that Christ was a (or the) Son of God before he was begotten by God (which seems to have been Knoch’s view as well), then his understanding is simply contradicted by the meaning of the word translated “begotten” in Scripture (gennaó). As is the case in Matt. 1:1-16 – where we read of fathers begetting sons in the genealogy of Christ – it’s the word used to denote the event by which a father brings his child into existence, and thereby becomes the father of that child. When a father begets his child, his child begins to exist and he thus becomes the father of his child. This being the case, it follows that the generating (or begetting) of Christ that’s being referred to in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 was the event by which God became the Father of Jesus. Consider the following argument:

1. The word gennaō in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 refers to the event by which a father brings his child into existence and thus becomes the father of his child (Matt. 1:1-16).

2. Jesus was generated/begotten by God at the time when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him.

3. God brought his Son, Jesus, into existence (and thus became the Father of Jesus) when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him.

Against this conclusion, GK later claims that Jesus (or rather, the pre-existent celestial being who he believes was given the name “Jesus”) simply “became human” when the event in view in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 occurred. Aside from the fact that gennaó doesn’t mean “became human” (more on this point later), this view implies that it was merely Jesus’ human body – and not the actual, living person who was later named Jesus – that was “generated” or “begotten” when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him. However, this view is contrary to what we read in Luke 1:35. Notice that, according to the words of Gabriel, it wasn’t merely Jesus’ human body that was generated when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him. Rather, it was a person – i.e., the living, sentient individual who would “be called the Son of God” – who was generated by God at this time. In other words, the living human person who was given the name “Jesus” – and not merely Jesus’ human body – was “generated” or “begotten” by God at the time when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with her Son.

Thus, just as it was not merely Christ’s body that died when Christ died (or merely Christ’s body that was restored to life when Christ was restored to life), so it was not merely Christ’s body that was generated when Christ was generated. It was the Son of God himself (and not merely his human body) who was generated/begotten by God when Christ’s mother became pregnant with him.

With regard to Christ’s being the “only-begotten Son of God,” the Greek adjective translated “only-begotten” in the CLNT is monogenēs. This word is derived from the words monos (“only,” “alone”) and genos (“race,” “species” or “kind”). According to the BDAG Greek-English lexicon, the word monogenēs has two primary definitions:

1. ”Pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship”

2. ”Pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind”

When understood with reference to Christ, neither of these definitions of monogenēs requires the view that Christ pre-existed his supernatural conception. What we read in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 concerning how God brought Christ into existence fully justifies the use of the word monogenēs in connection with Christ.

In addition to the above considerations, the fact that Abraham’s son, Isaac, is referred to as monogenēs (“only-begotten”) in Hebrews 11:17 should inform our understanding of the meaning of this term when it’s used to refer to Christ. Although Isaac wasn’t the only (or the first) son of his father – Abraham’s first son was Ishmael (Gen. 16) – he was the only son of Abraham who was born (or “begotten”) of Sarah. In the same way, Jesus is the only Son of God who was born (or “begotten”) of Jesus’ mother, Miriam (cf. Luke 6:12, where a boy whom Christ resurrected is referred to as “an only-begotten son of his mother”).

Thus, Christ can validly be understood as God’s “only-begotten Son” apart from the idea that he pre-existed the event that, according to Gabriel, is the very reason he would “be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

GK: The other passage Aaron mentions is Luke 1:31-35:

And lo! you shall be conceiving and be pregnant and be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus. He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation." Yet Miriam said to the messenger, "How shall this be, since I know not a man?" And answering, the messenger said to her, "Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.

Aaron focuses on the last part, there, the word “generated,” and says something I consider to be, again, shocking for a writer I otherwise have an immeasurable amount of respect for:

"For, in contrast with when a woman “bears” or gives birth to a child, when a man “generates” or “begets” a child it involves the bringing into existence of a human person that previously did not exist."

This is great and all, except for the fact that we miss one crucial detail in the sentence:

God’s not a man.

He doesn’t operate the way men do. Let’s not liken His operations to that of humanity. The way we work, begetting children, is not the way He does.

Contrary to GK’s criticism, my appeal to Luke 1:31-35 in support of my understanding of when Christ’s life began does not depend on or presuppose the erroneous idea that God “operates the way men do.” Obviously, the means by which God generated his only-begotten Son was not in accord with how humans operate. God did not impregnate Miriam by natural means; it was a supernatural act. GK and I are in complete agreement on this.

Rather than being based on a supposed similarity between how God operates and how humans operate, my criticism of the “pre-existence” view is simply based on the meaning of the word translated “generated” in Luke 1:35 and Matt. 1:20, and which is translated “begotten” elsewhere (i.e., gennaō). Thus, GK’s implied claim that I’m somehow likening God’s operations to that of humans is without merit. Again, we both agree that God didn’t impregnate Miriam by natural means, and that the generating of Jesus by God was a supernatural act. But this fact doesn’t support GK’s position in the least. It doesn’t change the meaning of gennaō in the context of Matt. 1:20 or Luke 1:35. It doesn’t change the fact that God became the Father of his only-begotten Son when the event referred to in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 took place. Nor does it change the fact that the very reason why Jesus would be “called the Son of God” is because he was generated by God at the time when his mother became pregnant with him (a fact which Gabriel’s use of the word “wherefore” in Luke 1:35 makes clear).

GK: Again, Genesis to Acts covers a long revelation to Israel, not celestial revelations of the glories of Christ. They are concerned with a kingdom (Matt. 4:23,) while we are concerned with the celestials (Rom. 1:1.) There is a crucial difference in the way Mary, in the above passage, is perceiving what’s happening, and how we, in Christ, are given a greater understanding of what’s going on, here.

Actually, we who are in the body of Christ are concerned with a kingdom as well. As I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere on my blog (see, for example, the following article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/07/did-paul-teach-that-body-of-christ-will.html), the kingdom of God is not going to be located solely on the earth during the eons to come. Before it’s established on the earth, it’s going to be established in the heavens (see Rev. 12:10). And it’s the kingdom of God in its celestial location (which Paul referred to as “[Christ’s] celestial kingdom” in 2 Tim. 4:18) in which we’ll be enjoying our eonian allotment. It should be noted that this is just one of several examples – there will be more to come – in which GK has referred to a certain term/concept (in this case, “kingdom”) as if it pertains distinctively and exclusively to Israel (when, in reality, it belongs to both believing Israel and the body of Christ). 

With regard to GK’s claim that we have been given a greater understanding of what was “going on” when Miriam became pregnant with her son, the fact is that the truth concerning Christ that’s distinct to Paul’s letters does not pertain to how and when Christ was brought into existence by God (and how and when God became the Father of his Son). Although Paul has revealed a number of truths about Christ that can’t be found anywhere else in Scripture, the truth concerning when and where Christ originated is not one of them. That which was “going on” when Miriam became pregnant with her son was precisely what we’re told was “going on” in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (i.e., the supernatural generating/begetting of a certain human being by God).

However, by becoming “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” he whose existence began with a supernatural act of God became worthy of the glory that he now has among the celestials (and which no created being in heaven or on earth has ever had), and was given the authority to establish God’s kingdom on the earth and in the heavens. Thus, the revelation-based understanding that we’ve been given pertains to what’s true of Christ now, because of his great sacrifice on the cross (as well as what this means for those for whom Christ died and became Lord – e.g., all mankind, and especially those among mankind who have been chosen to become members of that company of saints that Paul alone referred to as “the body of Christ”).

GK: If Christ starts as a man, then we’re inherently saying that Jesus starts as a man, which inherently affiliates Him with sin, thanks to that little bit of nonsense with Adam and Eve. He is not the result of a man’s impregnation, as He did not know sin (1 Pet. 3:22.)

For whatever reason, GK seems to believe that, if Christ was brought into being (i.e., generated) when his mother became pregnant with him, God couldn’t have ensured that Christ be (and remain) sinless. However, we know from Scripture that Christ was, in fact, brought into existence when his mother became pregnant with him (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). Scripture is also clear that Christ was/is just as physically related to those of whom he is said to be the “seed” as any other human is physically related to his or her ancestors. Evidently, then, it was not at all difficult for God to bring it about such that Christ be both (a) a descendant of (and thus physically related to) sinful human beings, and (b) sinless (and thus “unaffiliated with sin”).

The most that GK says by way of an explanation for how he thinks that Christ didn’t “know sin” is that he wasn’t “the result of a man’s impregnation.” But this fact –i.e., the fact that Christ wasn’t generated as a result of his mother being impregnated by a man – is something on which GK and I are in agreement. Scripture is clear that God himself supernaturally caused Miriam to conceive by means of his holy spirit operating within her. So I’m not sure why, exactly, GK thinks my understanding of how and when Christ’s existence began is more problematic than his with regard to how Christ could be both human and sinless.

GK continues: He came from another Source, which means He previously held an existence somewhere, but had not yet been called out as the Messiah, the Christ (Matt. 2:15, Heb. 1:5.)

The fact that God is the Source of the human being who was generated/begotten in the womb of Miriam in no way means that Christ existed in some other location before he was generated/begotten by God. GK is simply importing his own view of when and where Christ’s existence began into the inspired account of how and when God brought his Son into being.

GK: The reasoning Aaron brings to the table here boils down to, “You wouldn’t call Abraham or Isaac people that existed beforehand, would you??” No, Aaron, I wouldn’t. I didn’t call them only-begotten sons of God, either.

My reasoning does not, in fact, “boil down” to this question constructed by GK. Again, my understanding is simply that God became Jesus’ Father when Jesus was conceived by God’s holy spirit (and the words of Luke 1:35 were thus fulfilled). God was not Jesus’ Father – and Jesus was not God’s Son – until the supernatural event referred to in Luke 1:35 occurred. God became the Father of his Son when Jesus was generated, or begotten, by God. And this took place when Jesus’ mother Miriam became pregnant with him. And since I don’t think Christ existed before he existed as God’s Son, I conclude that Christ was brought into existence by God when he was conceived. Of course, GK can’t accept this conclusion. But that’s not because it’s not in accord with what we read in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35. It’s because it flies in the face of his interpretation of certain texts like Phil. 2:7 and Col. 1:16 (which, as we’ll see a little later, is based on certain unwarranted assumptions that he’s reading into the text).

GK: Furthermore, I am not saying we existed beforehand, because we are adopted through Christ’s faith, to become children of God (Rom. 8:15 says we got the spirit of sonship, and Eph. 1:4 says it was designated beforehand, but we are first, indeed, human beings, in flesh.) Christ had to be surgically generated, yes, into the lineage of Abraham and David by God, by holy spirit, and not by flesh.

The fact that GK thought it necessary to make it clear to his reader that he’s not saying “we existed beforehand” indicates that, in GK’s mind, the truth of Christ’s sonship has been fused together with the additional idea of his having existed beforehand. But the idea of “existing beforehand” is simply not inherent in the truth of Christ’s sonship. They have nothing to do with each other. Christ’s being the Son of God has everything to do with what occurred when God generated his Son, and thereby caused Miriam to conceive.

As far as GK’s claim that Christ was “surgically generated…into the lineage of Abraham and David” (emphasis mine), I’m not entirely sure what he means here. The generating/begetting of Christ by God was, again, simply the event by which God brought his Son into existence and thereby became the Father of his Son. I doubt that GK would refer to Jesus’ mother Miriam as having been “surgically generated into the lineage of Abraham and David.” But the Son who was generated/begotten by God when Miriam was supernaturally caused to conceive is someone who just as physically and inherently belongs to the lineage of Abraham and David as Miriam herself.

GK: But the word usage is important, here. Look again:

Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.

Holy spirit comes in, and the power of the spirit overshadows her. The spirit supersedes the physical. Because (this is the ‘wherefore’) the spirit is imparting the child to her, the child she is physically birthing is called Son of God. The spirit actively imparts, divinely, in power, which is far and away completely unlike every other birth. He is select and is special, in this regard.

Yes, the supernatural event referred to in Luke 1:35 involved God’s holy spirit coming on Miriam and God’s power overshadowing her. If, by the words “imparting the child to her,” GK means that the spiritual activity referred to in Luke 1:35 resulted in the coming into being of a living, developing human within the womb of Miriam (and who was later born in accord with what we read in Luke 2:6-7), then I agree.

GK: The word “generated” is, then, not referring to His entire existence, but His becoming man.

What GK says here doesn’t follow from anything he said above. Not only has he not shown why the word “generated” shouldn’t refer to Christ’s coming into being, but his assertion that the word refers to his “becoming man” is a 100% made-up meaning for this word, and is motivated entirely by his assumption that Christ pre-existed as a non-human celestial being before this event took place. The problem for GK is not merely that the word “generated” could mean “became man” or “became human,” and that he simply hasn't convincingly argued that it has this meaning here. No; the problem for GK is that the word “generated” just doesn’t communicate this idea at all.

GK: The holy spirit would have nothing to divinely implant if this were true! God’s seed should not be likened to man – it stems from spirit, not from flesh.

This doesn’t follow at all. God, by his spirit, generated his Son by causing Miriam to conceive (and which resulted in Jesus being “the fruit of her womb”). And this supernatural event would’ve involved the creation of a certain human zygote that developed into the child who was born in Bethlehem nine months later. One has to be reading a completely foreign idea into the inspired account of how and when Jesus was generated/begotten by God in order to conclude that, when God’s holy spirit came upon Miriam and his power overshadowed her, this event involved the implantation of a pre-existent celestial being into Miriam’s womb. There is absolutely nothing in the text that in any way suggests that such a thing occurred.

Nevertheless, GK goes on to assert the following: The messenger in the passage is declaring that the Son of God is passing through Miriam’s womb, as it’s by spirit that she is impregnated. The Being in her must have, then, started celestial, which is what this passage boils down to. Spirit is the cause, the physical is the effect. It need not be more complicated than this!

Of course “spirit is the cause and physical is the effect” of what Gabriel said was going to take place. There’s nothing complicated about that. Gabriel was simply revealing how Miriam – despite her being a virgin – would conceive and be pregnant and bring forth a Son. Here, again, is Miriam’s question (after being told that she would “be conceiving and be pregnant and be bringing forth a Son”), and Gabriel’s answer:

Miriam: “How shall this be, since I know not a man?”

Gabriel: ”Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.”

In other words, God himself (and not a man) would be the Father of Miriam’s son, and would be supernaturally bringing about the conception that would lead to Jesus’ birth nine months later. And it’s because the promised child would be generated (and thus fathered) by God himself that we’re told he would “be called the Son of God.” Again, there’s nothing complicated about this. The complication arises when GK attempts to interpret what Gabriel said in such a way as to reconcile the messenger’s words with what he (GK) believes concerning Christ’s pre-existence. GK believes that, in Luke 1:35, the following was being revealed (at least, implicitly) to Miriam by the celestial messenger: A non-human celestial being who was already the Son of God was going to be implanted in Miriam by God. And it is by virtue of his being implanted in Miriam by God that this pre-existent being (who was already the Son of God) would “be called the Son of God.” I’ll leave it to the reader to try and make sense of that.

Later on, GK writes the following concerning his understanding of what it meant for Christ to have been generated: Also, He became human because God, uniquely, plants Him into Mary’s womb. Again: Greek elements of the word “generated” is, literally, “BECAME.”

GK attempts to support his understanding of Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 by appealing to the etiology of the word translated “generated” in these verses (gennaó). However, even if we were to translate the word gennaó as “became” in these verses, the fact is that “became” doesn’t mean “became human” (just as the words “to be” don’t mean “to be human”). The primary, most basic definition of “become” (of which “became” is the past tense) is “to come to be” or “to come into existence” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/become). Only when there is a noun or adjective that specifies what, exactly, someone or something is “coming to be” does the word “become” mean “come to be [something]” (e.g., “they became teachers,” or “he became sick”).

Not only this, but in nearly every other verse in which the word gennaó occurs in Scripture, it refers to either the generating/begetting of a human child by the child’s father (whether literally [Matt. 1:2] or figuratively [1 Cor. 4:15]) or the giving birth to a child by the child’s mother (https://biblehub.com/greek/1080.htm). It should be emphasized that the former meaning of gennaó (i.e., the generating/begetting of a child by the child’s father) is the original and primary meaning of the word; only in a secondary sense does the word denote the birthing of a child (or, in the case of 2 Pet. 2:12, the birth of “irrational animals”).

The only exception to these usages of gennaó in Scripture of which I’m aware is found in 2 Timothy 2:23. In this verse, the word is used to denote the generating of quarrels (or “fightings”). But the use of gennaó in this verse actually serves to confirm that the basic idea being communicated by the word gennaó is the bringing into being of that which is in view. Obviously, Paul wasn’t saying in 2 Tim. 2:23 that “stupid and crude questionings” would cause quarrels/fightings to “become something” that they weren’t before; rather, he was saying that they would bring them into existence (i.e., generate them).

So it’s not that it’s merely unlikely that the word gennaó means “became human” or “became a man” in Matthew 1:20 or Luke 1:35; it’s not even possible that the word has this meaning. And since we’re not told in either verse that Jesus “became human” (the word “human” is completely absent from both of these verses), GK’s doctrinal position has led him to read into these verses a word that isn’t there in order to make the inspired revelation concerning Jesus’ supernatural conception consistent with his belief that Jesus pre-existed his conception as a non-human, celestial being.

GK goes on to write the following concerning Matt. 1:18-21 and Luke 1:31-35:

I would add that these verses do not adequately prove that Christ did not exist beforehand. Aaron is using the physical revelations to Israel as ground-zero statements to stand in, to prove Christ’s non-existence before His physical birth, and yet there are higher revelations and unfoldings that do state that He previously existed, that places the above verses in context (Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:7.)

First, I’m not entirely sure what GK means when he refers to what’s revealed in  Matt. 1:18-21 and Luke 1:21-35 as “physical revelations” (for what we read in these verses are just as much revelations from God – and thus celestial in their source – as anything we read in Paul’s letters). However, if by “physical revelations” GK means revelations that pertain to how Christ’s body – but not Christ himself – came into existence, then he’s simply presupposing a view that’s contradicted by the very verses that he considers “physical revelations to Israel.”

Despite GK’s claim to the contrary, what’s being revealed in Matt. 1:18-21 and Luke 1:31-35 does, in fact, adequately prove that Christ did not exist in heaven as a non-human being before his life on earth began. As we’ve seen, GK has to change the meaning of the word “generated” (which he changes to “became human”) in order to avoid this conclusion, and to make the two most detailed accounts we have of Jesus’ origin conform to his understanding of the verses that he thinks prove that Christ wasn’t generated (and thus fathered) by God when Miriam became pregnant with him. Moreover (and as we’ll see a little later), the two passages to which GK refers here (and to which he referred near the beginning of his response) do not reveal anything different concerning when Christ came into existence than what we read in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35. Instead, GK is reading into these verses from Paul the very idea of heavenly pre-existence of which he thinks the verses provide scriptural proof.

Part Two: That Happy Expectation: An in-depth response to “GerudoKing” concerning when Christ’s existence began (Part Two)