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.
IAmGroot wrote: "So wait if you believe that Christ didnt pre exist his birth on the planet 2000 years ago then does that mean you believe Satan is the first being God created therefore making Satan first born being that God created?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think Scripture reveals that God created Satan before he created any other celestial being. Based on what has (and hasn't) been revealed, it seems just as possible - perhaps even more likely - that Satan was the last celestial being created before God created the heavens and the earth. It's also possible that all of the celestial beings were created simultaneously by God (which is what I'm inclined to believe).
In any case, none of the celestial beings can be considered "firstborn" according to the literal meaning of the word (see part 3 of my response to GerudoKing for more on this point). And even if one of them could be considered the highest-ranking created being at one point (and thus "firstborn" in the secondary sense of the word), he's not anymore. Christ is.
IAmGroot: "Also when Paul says in 2nd Corinthians chapter 8 verse "For you know the grace of our lord Jesus Christ, that, being rich, because of you He became poor, that you by His poverty, should be rich". The rich in this context can't mean death, and it can't mean material riches."
See part three of my response to GerudoKing.
IAmGroot: "And also in First Corinthians chapter 8 verse 5 and 6"
Please see my article, "One God and One Lord" (from June 17 2023). Here's the link: thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2023/06/one-god-and-one-lord.html
IAmGroot: "God created EVERYTHING, old and new creation, using His Son Christ."
That's not what we read in Scripture, though. That's your own interpretation of a verse (or verses) that actually say something other than what you wrote.
IAmGroot: "This isn't some trinitarian bull shit because well it is saying Christ was created BY God before the creation of the universe, and then God USING Christ created the universe, just like God THROUGH Paul gives us the scriptures."
We're not told in Scripture that Christ was created by God before the creation of the universe. That's something you've INFERRED, based on your interpretation of certain verses from Scripture that say something different than what you've inferred.
Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting. I hope you'll take the time to read the rest of my responses to GerudoKing, or - at the very least - that you'll read the article to which I provided a link, above.
Aaron
Kudos to you for keeping an open mind. I'm in college as well and can appreciate how busy things can get. Excited to read these responses Aaron, and if I forgot to mention, excellent work on your last two articles!
ReplyDelete