An Antidote to Arianism: Part fourteen

For part thirteen of this series, click here: An Antidote to Arianism: Part thirteen

In the last section of chapter six of “The Origin of the Creation of God” (“The Purpose of Christ’s Emptying”), we read the following:

Thus, as important as it is for Christ to be Man, it is just as important for Him to be the Head of the celestial realm. If Christ is solely a Man, on earth, with no connection to the celestial realm, then He has every ability to reconcile the earth, but no stake in the celestial warfare upon which our terrestrial warfare is founded. He may restore the earth, but the celestials would remain turbulent and irreconcilable.

To solve this, Paul clarifies, in the very passage under scrutiny, that Christ’s origin is celestial (being made in the outward appearance of God, in Phil. 2:6,) but that this origin is voided, made of no effect (Phil. 2:7.) This is only so that He may reconcile the earth, through the promise He made with His chosen people first and foremost, as well as establish the ecclesia which is His body.

Arian and non-Arian members of the body of Christ are in complete agreement that Christ is “the Head of the celestial realm” (and that it’s important that he be “the Head of the celestial realm”). We all agree that Christ is “the Head of all” (Eph. 1:22), including the Head of “every sovereignty and authority” (Col. 2:10).

In addition to believing that Christ is the Head of the celestial realm, non-Arians also believe that Christ is, at the present time, the only human who is also a celestial being. Paul is clear that, although we’re presently “soilish” and “wear the image of the soilish,” we’re one day going to be “celestials” when we come to wear “the image also of the Celestial” (1 Cor. 15:48-49; cf. 2 Cor. 5:1-3). Paul even referred to our spiritual body as being “out of [i.e., derived from] heaven” (2 Cor. 5:3). Even now, while we’re still soilish beings, it’s true to say that “our realm is inherent in the heavens” (Phil. 3:20). And just as we’ll become “celestials” when we’re vivified, so Christ became a celestial when he was vivified.

Thus, even if it were the case that Christ had to be a celestial being in order to be the one through whom God reconciles the celestial realm to himself in the future, there’s no need to believe that he had to start off as a celestial being in order for this to be the case. Even according to the non-Arian view, Christ is now a Celestial (and always will be).

But how and when did Christ become the Head of the celestial realm?

In accord with their interpretation of Hebrews 1:10-12, Arians believe that “the heavens are the works of [Christ’s] hands,” and that Christ has been the Head of the celestial realm for as long as the celestial realm has existed.

This view, however, is mistaken. Christ was not the Head of the celestial realm before his death and resurrection. Instead, it’s because of Christ’s death that he was made the Head of the celestial realm. But let’s prove this from Scripture.

In Eph. 4:10 and Heb. 7:27 we read that Christ ascended “up over all who are of the heavens,” and has thus come to be “higher than those of the heavens.” And in Eph. 1:20-21 we read the following: 

“…rousing [Christ] from among the dead and seating Him at His right hand among the celestials, up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending.”

Peter undoubtedly had in mind this same state of affairs when he declared the following concerning Christ: “Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted…” (Acts 2:33) And in his first letter he declared that Christ “is at God's right hand, being gone into heaven, messengers and authorities and powers being subjected to Him” (1 Pet. 3:22).

It’s clear from these (and other) verses that Christ has been exalted by God to the highest position in the universe. There is no higher, more exalted position that any created being could possibly have than that which Christ has. And since Christ has this highly exalted position, it necessarily means that Christ is Lord of all.

Notice, also, Paul’s declaration that Christ is “up over…every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending.” This is in accord with what’s said in Phil. 2:9 (where we read that Christ has been graced with “the name that is above every name”) and Heb. 1:4 (where we read that Christ became “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they”). For Christ to enjoy “the allotment of a more excellent name than [the messengers]” and be “up over…every name that is named” can only mean that he has been graced with “the name that is above every name.” This point should be obvious to anyone reading.

Moreover, in these contexts, the term “name” is associated with rank, rule, and authority. Christ’s “name” is inseparably connected with his status, rank and authority in the celestial hierarchy. In Eph. 1:21, “name” is structurally grouped alongside political and spiritual titles of rank and authority. And in Heb. 1:4, Christ’s having “a more excellent name than” the messengers implies that he has a higher rank and greater authority than they.

I think it also goes without saying (or should go without saying) that for Christ to have “the name that is above every name” (and thus for him to be “up over…every name that is named”) means that Christ is Lord of all. One can’t be Lord of all and not have “the name that is above every name” and be “up over…every name that is named.”

All of these verses are clearly about the highly exalted position that God has given Christ. Based on what we read in these verses, we can conclude that Christ is the highest-ranking created being in the universe. Only God himself – who is the Head of Christ – has a higher/more exalted position.

It should also be emphasized that Paul’s words in Phil. 2:9 and Eph. 1:20-21 complement each other perfectly:

Phil. 2:9

“God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name…”

Eph. 1:20-21

“…rousing [Christ] from among the dead and seating Him at His right hand among the celestials, up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending.”

What we read in Eph. 1:20-21 simply provides us with more detailed information on what it means for God to have highly exalted Christ and graced him with the name that is above every name. And again, in order for God to have graced Christ with “the name that is above every name,” (such that he is “up over every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending”), Christ had to have made him Lord of all.

In accord with this point, it’s evident from what Paul went on to write in Phil. 2:10-11 (i.e., “that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing...and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord”) that he had in mind Christ’s Lordship here. “Bowing” is an expression of submission and deep respect toward someone of higher rank/status. And although Christ is going to save all and reconcile all to God, it’s not the fact that “Jesus Christ is Savior” that “every tongue” will be “acclaiming” at this future time. Rather, it’s the fact that “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

But when and how did this state of affairs come about? Paul tells us in Phil. 2:8-11. In these verses we read the following:

“…and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.”

The words translated “Wherefore, also,” mean, “For this very reason, also.” In other words, it’s because Christ “humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” that “God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name…”

Thus, it’s because of Christ’s obedience unto death that Christ has been highly exalted by God and graced with the name that is above every name, and is now seated “at [God’s] right hand among the celestials, up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending.”

And since Christ’s highly exalted position at God’s right hand is inseparably connected with his being “the Head of all” (Eph. 1:22) – including the Head of “every sovereignty and authority” (Col. 2:10) – we can conclude that it’s because of Christ’s obedience unto death that he is now the Head of the celestial realm (and that he wasn’t the Head of the celestial realm before is death and resurrection).

In his first letter, Peter also wrote that Christ is “at God's right hand, being gone into heaven, messengers and authorities and powers being subjected to Him” (1 Pet. 3:22). It’s clear that Peter understood Christ to be the Head of the celestial realm. But it’s also implied by the grammatically parallel expressions “being gone into heaven” and “being subjected to Him” that the subjection of “messengers and authorities and powers” to Christ coincided with his ascension to heaven and his sitting at God’s right hand. We can thus conclude that Christ became Head of the celestial realm after his death and resurrection (and not before).

The Hebraist also alluded to Psalm 110:1 when he wrote that “[Christ] is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights; becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.”

Again, sitting at the right hand of God is the position of one who had been made the Head of the celestial realm. If Christ has been Head of the celestial realm for as long as he’s existed, then what we read in Heb. 1:4 wouldn’t be true. If Christ has been Head of the celestial realm for as long as the messengers have existed, then there was never a time when he didn’t enjoy “the allotment of a more excellent name than they,” and there was thus never a time when Christ became “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.”

Moreover, since Christ’s highly exalted position at God’s right hand is based on his having been made Lord of all, we can further conclude that Christ wasn’t Lord of all before his death and resurrection. This is confirmed by what Paul wrote in Romans 14:9:

“For for this Christ died and lives, that He should be Lord of the dead as well as of the living.”

If one is looking for a single verse in which Paul provides a clear and succinct answer to the question, “For what reason did Christ die?” this is that verse. As is indicated by the words, “For for this,” Paul is revealing the purpose/reason for which “Christ died and lives.” And that purpose/reason is to “be Lord of the dead as well as of the living” (i.e., Lord of all, for every created being is either dead or alive). Paul included Christ’s death as being just as necessary to his present Lordship as his life. In other words, it’s not just the case that Christ wouldn’t be Lord of all he wasn’t alive; it’s also the case that Christ wouldn’t be Lord of all if he hadn’t died. Thus, based on what we read here, we can conclude the following: Since Christ died and lives to be Lord of all, it means that Christ died to become Lord of all. And once again, the implication of what Paul wrote here is that Jesus wasn’t “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” before his death and resurrection. 

In accord with this consideration are the following words that Christ declared after his resurrection (and shortly before his ascension):

“Given to me was all authority in heaven and on the earth” (Matt. 28:18). 

To be given all authority in heaven and on the earth is to be made Lord of all. Peter likely had these very words of Christ in mind when, after quoting Psalm 110:1, he declared that God made Jesus Lord (Acts 2:34-36) – i.e., Lord of all (Acts 10:36).

We also read that it was because of Christ’s death that he was “wreathed with glory and honor” (Heb. 2:9). From the context, the “glory and honor” in view is that with which humanity (as represented by Adam and Eve) was originally given, and which was lost when Adam sinned. This glory and honor involved man being placed over “the works of [God’s] hands,” and all being subjected “underneath his feet,” such that “nothing” is left “unsubject to him” (Heb. 2:5-8).

Again, the clear implication is that Christ has been wreathed with the glory and honor referred to in Heb. 2:7, and that mankind’s position over “the works of [God’s] hands” (such that all is subjected “underneath his feet,” and “nothing” is left “unsubject to him”) is, through Christ, going to be restored. This also means that, prior to his death and resurrection, Christ did not have this particular glory and honor. But if Christ was already Lord of all, there’s no reason why he wouldn’t have had this glory and honor.

That Christ’s death was essential to his becoming Lord of all is also implied by what we read in Rev. 3:21 and Rev. 5:1-9. In Rev. 3:21, it’s evident that Christ’s present, highly exalted position on God’s throne was granted to him by God because of his having “conquered” (i.e., because Christ was obedient unto death). And in Rev. 5:1-9, it’s evident that Christ’s worthiness to open the sealed scroll (and thereby bring about the series of divine judgments through which this present wicked eon will brought to an end, and the kingdom of God will be established on the earth) is also based on his having “conquered” (v. 5). And based on what we go on to read in v. 9, the “conquering” by which Christ was made worthy to open the scroll is clearly inseparable from his sacrificial death.

It’s also evident that to both sit with God on his throne and perform the act through which the kingdom of God will be established on the earth (and of which no other being in heaven or on earth was worthy) means that one has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. That is, it means that one has been made Lord of all. And since Christ’s sacrificial death is the basis for these states of affairs, we can conclude that it was because of his death that Christ was made Lord of all.

According to what Stephen and Seth believe, however, Jesus was Lord of all prior to becoming human, and remained Lord of all during his life on earth (although this was not apparent to the rest of humanity):

“He is outwardly a slave – inwardly, however, He is the Lord of all; at no point in Christ’s journey has this ever not been the case.”

Although I sharply disagree with the view expressed in these words, I do appreciate the directness with which it’s expressed (as well as the doctrinal consistency that it reflects). According to the Arian view, Christ has had, from the beginning of his existence, the highest-ranking, most exalted position/status that a created being could possibly have. However, as has been demonstrated, this view is mistaken. Christ was not Lord of all before his death and resurrection. Rather, it was because of his death that Christ was made Lord of all and given the exalted position at God’s right hand that he now has.

At this point, the Arian may be inclined to object, “Even if one were to grant that Christ’s death was essential to his becoming Lord of all, Christ still had to have had a connection to the celestial realm from the beginning in order to reconcile those in the heavens to God (or, as Stephen/Seth put it, “If Christ had no prior place, He could not make the celestials new.”). But this objection only betrays the Arian’s belief that, with regard to Christ’s ability to reconcile all to God, what was true of Christ before his life on earth began is of greater consequence than (or is just as consequential as) Christ’s death. As soon as one says that Christ’s pre-human origin and existence is more important than (or is just as important as) his death with regard to his ability to reconcile all to God, one is minimizing – if not outright denying – the sufficiency of the cross.

As already noted, Christ’s ability to reconcile celestial beings to God is due to the fact that he’s their Lord and Head. And he became their Lord and Head when God made him Lord of all. And God made Christ Lord of all because of his obedience unto death. Thus, the peace that God makes by reconciling estranged beings to himself through Christ is said to be “through the blood of [Christ’s] cross.” It’s what Christ achieved through his sacrificial death (becoming Lord of all) – and not a prior “connection to the celestial realm” – that makes it possible for him to be the one through whom God reconciles all to himself.

The Arian view of Christ thus contributes nothing with regard to Christ’s ability to reconcile the celestial realm to God. Because of Christ’s death, he’s now a celestial human (and thus has an inseparable connection to the celestial realm). And because of his death, Christ was given all authority in heaven and on the earth). Thus, Christ’s death is sufficient to explain how Christ is able to reconcile all to God, “whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.”

Stephen/Seth went on to say, “Paul says elsewhere that it is only since Christ descended that He is also able to ascend (Eph. 4:8-9.) This means what it says; it is His celestial origin alone that enables Him to ascend to where He was.”

With regard to Ephesians 4:8-9, we’re not told in these verses that Christ had a “celestial origin” (and we certainly aren’t told that it was “His celestial origin alone that enables Him to ascend to where He was”). Here’s how Eph. 4:8-10 read in the CLNT:

Wherefore He is saying,

Ascending on high, He captures captivity

And gives gifts to mankind.

Now the 'He ascended,' what is it except that He first descended also into the lower parts of the earth? He Who descends is the Same Who ascends also, up over all who are of the heavens, that He should be completing all.

In v. 8, Paul was quoting from Psalm 68:18. In v. 9, the expression “the lower parts of the earth” refers to Sheol/Hades (i.e., the domain of the dead). This is evident from Psalm 63:9 (cf. 86:13). Here’s how this verse reads in Young’s Literal Translation: “And they who for desolation seek my soul, go into the lower parts of the earth.”

In fact, the expression that’s translated “the lower parts of the earth” in Eph. 4:9 (eis ta katōtera merē tēs gēs) is almost identical to how Psalm 63:9 is translated in the Septuagint (eis ta katōtata tēs gēs). For other examples in which similar terminology is used to refer to Sheol, see Isaiah 44:23, Ezekiel 26:20, 31:14 and 32:18, 24.

We thus have good reason to conclude that when Paul referred to Christ as having “descended also into the lower parts of the earth,” he was using terminology that’s derived from the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to Christ’s death (which makes sense given the fact that, in v. 8, Paul was just quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures).

This understanding of what Paul had in mind in Eph. 4:9 is further confirmed when we compare what he wrote here with what he wrote in Romans 10:7:

“Who will be descending into the submerged chaos? -- that is, to be leading Christ up from among the dead.”

Consider, also, Christ’s own prediction of his death in Matthew 12:40:

“…thus will the Son of Mankind be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”

The expression “the lower parts of the earth” in Eph. 4:9 is equivalent in meaning to “the heart of the earth” in Matt. 12:40 and “the submerged chaos” in Rom. 10:7.

Thus, what Paul wrote in Eph. 4:8-10 actually confirms the truth that it was Christ’s death – and not a supposed “celestial origin” – that enables him to ascend “up over all who are of the heavens, that He should be completing all.”

In other words, Christ’s death is sufficient to account for why he was able to ascend to heaven and why he is able to reconcile all estranged, celestial beings to God. And thus we return to what is perhaps the biggest and ugliest problem with the Arian view. It detracts from the sufficiency and greatness of Christ’s death (and what Christ accomplished by it) by substituting it with the view that Christ’s “celestial origin alone” is what “enables Him to ascend” to heaven and to reconcile celestial beings to God. Whereas Paul attributed Christ’s exalted, celestial position to his obedience unto death, and nothing else (Phil. 2:8-11), the Arian attributes it to Christ’s supposed “celestial origin alone.”

If I was an Arian, I’d be embarrassed by this view, and ashamed to know that my Christological view had such implications as this.

Even in the letter to the Hebrews, it’s implied that it was because of Christ’s death – and not because of a “celestial origin” (let alone a “celestial origin alone”) – that Christ was able to enter heaven. In Heb. 9:11-12 we read the following:

Now Christ, coming along a Chief Priest of the impending good things through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; not even through the blood of he-goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered once for all time into the holy places, finding eonian redemption.

“The holy places” into which Christ entered “through His own blood” refers to heaven itself (for we go on to read the following in Heb. 9:24: “For Christ entered not into holy places made by hands representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to be disclosed to the face of God for our sakes”). Just as it was by means of the blood of an unblemished animal that the earthly chief priest was able to enter the most holy place, so it was by means of Christ’s own death that he was able to enter heaven (i.e., “the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitches, and not a man” [Heb. 8:2]). It was by this act of obedience that Christ was “perfected” (Heb. 2:10; 5:8-9; 7:28) and was thus able to ascend to heaven and sit at God’s right hand.

In response to the point that this view necessarily minimizes and devalues the sacrifice because of which Christ was highly exalted and graced with the name that is above every name, Stephen/Seth have responded as follows: 

As with every other topic in the scriptures, there is a paradigm shift when “glory” is viewed in light of the cross. Christ was a just Judge prior to the cross, but the cross proved it. Christ was a just Saviour prior to the cross, but the cross fulfilled it. Christ was a just King prior to the cross, but the cross demonstrated it. So, with glory, Christ held pre-eminent glory prior to the cross (Phil. 2:6, John 17:5.) Yet Christ is over-heightened on the return trip. He is not merely given what He had before, but has been given the ability to make all things new, so that all can be saved.

To proclaim that this is simply a “return” not only demeans the sacrifice of the cross, but also projects that connotation onto others. His sacrifice is of greater consequence, for without it, believers are unable to even exist (Rom. 3:25.) Without the cross, you lose the justification of creation, the freedom of creation from vanity, the new humanity, the nullification of all unjust powers, and thus true and intelligent worship of Deity, through a recognition of His character and stated plan, is impossible.

When Stephen/Seth wrote that Christ “is not merely given what He had before, but has been given the ability to make all things new, so that all can be saved,” the implication is that Christ’s being Lord of all prior to the cross wasn’t enough for Christ to be able to save sinners from death. But if Christ was indeed Lord of all prior to the cross then he would’ve had the “ability to make all things new, so that all can be saved” at this time as well. He would’ve been able to ensure that believers “exist,” he would’ve been able to bring about “the justification of creation, the freedom of creation from vanity, the new humanity,” and “the nullification of all unjust powers.” For the realization of each of these states of affairs involves the use of Christ’s God-given authority.

For example, God was able to justly pass over “the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God” because those whose sins he forgave are going to be vivified by Christ in the future (and Christ is able to do this because he was given the authority to do it). In the same way, sinners are able to be justified by God now – which results in the death of “the old human” and the creation of “the new humanity” – because all are going to be vivified by Christ in the future. Creation is going to be freed from vanity because Christ is going to use his authority to free it. The unjust powers are going to be nullified because Christ is going to use his authority to nullify them.

In 1 Cor. 15:25-28 we read that Christ is going to reign until death, “the last enemy,” is “abolished,” and all have been subjected to him (at which point Christ “also shall be subjected” to God, “that God may be All in all”). And in Phil. 3:21 we read that Christ “will transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him even to subject all to Himself.”

How will Christ accomplish this? Answer: He’ll simply use the authority God gave him (which is “all authority in heaven and on the earth”). To bring about this universal state of affairs – the abolishing of death and the subjection of all to him – Christ will only need to “give the word,” and it will be done.

Thus, all that Christ needed in order to carry out God’s will that “all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth” is the authority to do it. Both Arians and non-Arians believe that Christ has this authority. The question is, how and when did he acquire it? The Arian believer answers, “God gave it to Christ when he created him before times eonian. He’s had it for as long as he’s existed.” The non-Arian believer answers, “Christ became worthy of this great authority by his obedience unto death, and he received it from God after his death and resurrection.”

By conveying Himself to all, through the cross, Christ thus accomplishes His goal. He has established a deliverance from sin, on the basis of His blood. As God calls out the lowest on the earth, Christ is finally exalted by mankind. For the first time in history, humanity is able to grasp the righteous grace of God. They are able to grasp Who He is – something even His own people, during His time on earth, deeply struggled to apprehend (see the later chapter on John 6.)

It should be kept in mind that the above paragraph is part of Stephen and Seth’s explanation of Paul’s words in Phil. 2:9. Apparently, it’s their belief that the words, “God highly exalts [Christ], and graces Him with the name that is above every name” mean, “Christ is finally exalted by mankind” and “humanity is able to grasp the righteous grace of God. They are able to grasp Who He is.”

Needless to say, I’m not at all convinced that this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote what he did in Phil. 2:9. As has been demonstrated earlier, God highly exalted Christ by “seating Him at His right hand among the celestials, up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending” (Eph. 1:20-21).

So while it’s important that we “grasp the righteous grace of God” and “grasp Who God is,” this isn’t what Paul had in mind when he wrote that “God highly exalts [Christ], and graces Him with the name that is above every name.” The state of affairs to which Paul was referring here is one that’s true regardless of whether or not humanity believes it, or has been given a realization of the truth concerning God and his grace. It was true even before Paul knew it was true.

Stephen/Seth went on to say,

God, in His vast love of His Son, does more than give His Son an affirmation with a few lucky souls who found it within themselves to believe. God instead crafts a thankfulness in man, through the death of His Son. Christ finally receives willing adoration and true, joyful declaration. Men may no longer ask, “Who is the Son of God?” but cry, in satisfaction, “Praise be the Son of God!”

Non-Arians can (and should) whole-heartedly agree with Stephen and Seth that, through Christ’s death, God “crafts a thankfulness in man,” and that the adoration that Christ will one day receive from a universe of saved and reconciled beings will spring from hearts that are filled with thankfulness and love for the one who gave himself for us. And we can (and should) also agree that, because of the cross, we’re able to have “true and intelligent worship of Deity, through a recognition of His character and stated plan.” We all agree that Christ’s sacrificial death was an act of love for all sinners (Rom. 5:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Gal. 2:20), and that a realization of what Christ did for us will make it possible for all to one day worship the Father in truth, “through a recognition of His character and stated plan.”

However, being filled with thankfulness and giving Christ willing adoration and praise is not equivalent to God highly exalting Christ and gracing him with the name that is above every name. Rather, it is because Christ has been highly exalted by God and graced with the name that is above every name that the willing adoration, praise and recognition-based worship to which Stephen referred can and does/will occur. Neither that which God is doing for believers now nor that which God will do for all later (and which will result in the universal realization of the love of which Christ’s death is the ultimate expression) is equivalent to what Paul was referring to in Phil. 2:9.

Moreover, in order for Christ’s death to have been the expression of love that it was (and through which we can come to a realization of God’s character and stated plan), there must have been a reason why he had to die for our salvation that is separate from the fact that his death was an expression of love. That is, the salvation-securing reason for which Christ died couldn’t have been to demonstrate how much he loves us. There has to be reason why he needed to die in order for his death to be a loving act. There has to be something that Christ died to accomplish – a salvation-securing state of affairs that his death was intended to result in – that’s distinct from the fact that he was motivated by love to do it (and which, because it was necessary to our salvation, makes it possible for us to then recognize Christ’s death as an act of love). And Paul tells us what that is in Romans 14:9 and Philippians 2:9-11. Christ died to acquire the authority by which he can vivify all, subject all to himself and reconcile all to God.

In other words, becoming Lord of all is precisely what Christ achieved by his death, and it’s this that enables Christ to save everyone and reconcile all to God. No matter how Stephen/Seth attempt to explain Phil. 2:9 and reconcile what’s said here with their Arian Christology, their explanation will always run up against this fact. The position/status that Stephen and Seth say Christ already had prior to his death is the very position/status of which Christ became worthy by his death, and has because of his death.

Stephen went on to write the following:

Nowhere does Paul (or any other writer) claim that one who followed every serif of the law would be given a right to “ascend” to the right hand of God. One who follows the law is considered “righteous,” would be “justified” (Rom. 2:13,) and would be expected to live (Lev. 18:5.) There is no bonus “ascension” legally offered to the doer of law. The One Who descended, then, and follows law, can both serve as the Head of man – for, because of His kenosis, everything concerning His prior form, from its origin to its place, was made of no effect – and also, upon being resurrected, further ascend to where He was formerly.

Let’s zero in on the following statement: “One who follows the law is considered “righteous,” would be “justified” (Rom. 2:13,) and would be expected to live (Lev. 18:5.)”

I’m assuming that when Stephen refers to “one who follows the law,” he means someone who keeps the whole law and discharges its demands perfectly. If so, I agree that such a person would, indeed, “be expected to live.”

Here’s how Lev. 18:5 reads in the CLV: “You will observe My statutes and My judgments, for the human who does them will also live by them: I am Yahweh.”

Similarly in Ezekiel 20:11 we read the following: “And I give to them My statutes, And my judgments I caused them to know, Which the man who does--lives by them.”

And then, of course, there’s Romans 10:5 (where Paul quotes Lev. 18:5): “For Moses is writing of the righteousness which is of law, that a man who does the same shall be living in it.”

So based on these (and other verses), we can conclude that one who keeps the whole law and discharges its demands perfectly would, indeed, “be expected to live.” And not just this, but – given the fact that God is perfectly just – we could further say that anyone who keeps the whole law (without “tripping in one thing,” as James says) and discharges its demands perfectly should live. He would be undeserving of death and worthy of life.

Conversely, we know that sin – i.e., a violation of God’s law – makes one justly deserving of death. In Romans 1:32, we read that it’s a “just statute of God” that those who sin “are deserving of death.” In accord with Paul’s words here, we read in Ezekiel 18:20 that “the soul who sins shall die.” And the fact that God goes on to say that the one who “turns back from all his sins that he has done” and keeps the law will “surely live” and “not die” implies that, if one were to obey God’s law perfectly without sinning (and thus be righteous in an absolute sense), he would be justly undeserving of death. He’d be worthy of life, and ought not to die.

This understanding of the connection between obedience and life (and between disobedience and death) is in accord with what we read in Genesis 2-3. In Gen. 2:16-17 we read that death was the penalty with which God threatened Adam for disobeying his command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

“From every tree of the garden you may eat, yea eat. But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it; for on the day you eat from it, to die, you shall be dying.” 

In Gen. 3:17-19 we find a record of the judgment of Adam. The judgment ends with the following pronouncement of Adam’s certain death:

“By the sweat of your brow shall you eat your bread, until you return to the ground, for from it were you taken. For soil you are, and to soil you shall return.”

In verses 22-24 it’s revealed how God made Adam’s death inevitable:

And saying is Yahweh Elohim, “Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!” And Yahweh Elohim is sending him away from the garden of Eden to serve the ground whence he is taken. And He is driving out the human, and is causing him to tabernacle at the east of the garden of Eden. And He set the cherubim, and a flaming sword turning itself, to keep the way of the tree of the living.

In these verses we find that, on the very day that Adam sinned, both Adam and his wife Eve – and, by extension, all of their future posterity – were banished from the garden of Eden, and thereby denied access to the tree of life (vv. 22-24). Humanity was, in other words, excluded from the only means by which we could’ve lived indefinitely on the earth without the inevitability of death.

We can thus conclude from the historical record of the first command and threatened penalty given – and the judgment that followed Adam’s disobedience – that (1) sin makes us deserving of death and (2) perfect obedience makes us undeserving of death. Had Adam obeyed God’s command and never sinned, he would’ve been undeserving of death, and would not have lost access to the tree of life.

Now, we know that Christ is the only man who has ever perfectly obeyed the law. He always did what was pleasing to God, and never sinned. He continuously kept what he, himself, declared to be the greatest precepts of the law – i.e., “You shall be loving the Lord God out of your whole heart, and out of your whole soul, and out of your whole comprehension, and out of your whole strength” and, “You shall be loving your associate as yourself” (Matt. 22:36-40). And because of Christ’s lifelong, perfect obedience to the law, he was justly undeserving of death. That is, because of his perfect obedience to God’s will, Christ had a legal right to life.

With this point in mind, let’s now return to the following claims by Stephen and Seth:

Nowhere does Paul (or any other writer) claim that one who followed every serif of the law would be given a right to “ascend” to the right hand of God. One who follows the law is considered “righteous,” would be “justified” (Rom. 2:13,) and would be expected to live (Lev. 18:5.) There is no bonus “ascension” legally offered to the doer of law.

It’s true that “there is no bonus ‘ascension’ legally offered to the doer of law.” According to God’s law, the only blessing to which one who perfectly keeps the precepts of the law has a legal right (and can justly expect) is life. But what’s troubling about the above argument is what it implies.

The implication of what we read above is that Christ’s sacrificial death was no more pleasing to God than the prior acts of obedience that Christ performed throughout his life. It implies that none of the benefits that Christ presently enjoys are based on his death. According to their view, Christ’s obedience unto death was equivalent in value to, and no greater than, a perpetual life of obedience. It made Christ worthy of nothing more than that of which he was already worthy of before he died (and which he was “expected” to have as a “doer of the law”). But this view completely misses the point of Christ’s death.

Christ’s death is in a different category of obedience completely. All of Christ’s prior obedience was, of course, important and essential (for had Christ failed to be obedient even just once during his life, he would’ve been just as deserving of death as those for whom he died). However, it was Christ’s death alone that was efficacious with regard to securing the justification and salvation of all mankind (as well as the reconciliation of all to God), for it’s because of Christ’s death that he is Lord of all. Our justification and salvation isn’t based on Christ’s sinless life or lifelong obedience to God. It’s based on Christ’s obedience “unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Christ’s obedience unto death directly resulted in him suffering the very thing of which he alone was justly undeserving (i.e., death). That is, it directly resulted in the very opposite of that of which he alone was worthy, and to which he alone had a legal right (i.e., life). This is a key point. As a perfectly righteous man who never sinned but only did that which was pleasing to God, Christ was worthy of life. And yet, as an expression of his faith in God, Christ willingly allowed himself to be arrested, beaten, mocked and crucified so that God’s will concerning him (as it’s revealed in prophecy) would be done.

The fact that Christ was perfectly righteous (and thus just undeserving of death/worthy of life) makes Christ’s declarations and actions in Gethsemane all the more amazing. As has been pointed out previously in this series, Christ acknowledged that, had he chosen to, he could’ve used his God-given authority as the Son of God to avoid being arrested (and thereby avoid not only the subsequent suffering he endured but – more importantly – the death in which it culminated):

Then Jesus is saying to him, “Turn away your sword into its place, for all those taking the sword, by the sword shall perish. Or are you supposing that I am not able to entreat My Father, and at present He will station by My side more than twelve legions of messengers? How, then, may the scriptures be fulfilled, seeing that thus it must occur?” (Matt. 26:52-54)

Despite the fact that Christ was worthy of life (having been perfectly obedient to God throughout his life), Christ relinquished his right to prevent what he knew was going to lead to his own death. Rather than using the authority he had as the Son of God, he took the form of a slave, and thereby came to be in the likeness of the very humans for whom he was going to die (and who, unlike him, had no legal right to life or God-given authority to prevent their own death). So what happens when a sinless, perfectly obedient man – a man who is worthy of life, and who ought to be able to live – becomes “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross?” We don’t have to guess. We don’t have to speculate. Paul tells us in Phil. 2:8-11:

“…and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.”

But how can this be? How could “becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” result in such an outcome as this? It must, again, be emphasized that Jesus – although worthy of life – suffered the very thing to which a perfectly righteous man isn’t justly liable. And not only this, but he did so willingly, as an expression of his faith in God and his love for sinners. This made Christ’s obedience unto death exceedingly more pleasing to God than a lifetime of obedience – even an endless lifetime of obedience – ever could be.

Moreover, given the fact that Christ was worthy of life when he died, it wouldn’t have been just for God to have only resurrected Jesus (for life is what Christ was already worthy of before he died). Christ’s obedience unto death made him worthy of far more than that of which he was already worthy before he became obedient unto death.

Now, according to Stephen and Seth, “There is no promise that a righteous man’s death would lead to the benefits Christ presently enjoys.”

I assume that, by “a righteous man,” Stephen/Seth mean “a righteous man who never sinned.” In other words, I assume they’re not merely referring to a man who, in a relative or comparative sense, is referred to in Scripture as “righteous.” Since we’re talking about Christ, I assume that they’re referring to a man who is righteous in an absolute sense (and of whom Christ is the ONLY example). For those who are “righteous” in merely a relative/comparative sense, their death shouldn’t be surprising. No matter how relatively righteous any other man has been, he can’t be an example of one whose faithful, lifelong obedience to God makes him worthy of/gives him a legal right to life.

Concerning a righteous man who never sinned, we wouldn’t expect there to be a “promise” that, if he died, his death would result in “the benefits Christ presently enjoys.” The very idea that a perfectly righteous man would die is contrary to the fact that he’s justly undeserving of death, and worthy of life! So we shouldn’t expect there to be a verse that promises certain blessings to a righteous man who dies. Such a state of affairs is not in accord with the fact that a perfectly righteous man shouldn't die (just as Adam wouldn't have died if he hadn’t sinned).

Nevertheless, in what is arguably the most important Messianic prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., Isaiah 53), we’re provided with a glimpse of the blessings that the death of a perfectly righteous man would result in. Here’s how verses 8-12 of this chapter read in the CVOT:

From restraint and from judgment is He taken, and on His generation, who shall meditate? For He was severed from the land of the living; because of the transgression of My people was He touched by death. And He is given His tomb with the wicked, a cave from the rich, in His death. For He does no wrong, and no deceit is in His mouth, yet Yahweh desires to crush Him, and He causes Him to be wounded.

Should you place His soul for a guilt approach, He shall see a seed. He shall lengthen His days, and the desire of Yahweh shall prosper in His hand. From the toil of His soul shall He see light. And He shall be satisfied by His knowledge. My righteous Servant shall justify many, and with their depravities shall He be burdened.

Therefore I will apportion to Him among many, and to the staunch will He apportion the loot, insomuch that He gives up His soul unto death, and with transgressors was counted; and He bore the sin of many, and for transgressors is making intercession."

Based on how v. 10 begins (“Should you place His soul for a guilt approach”), it’s clear that the blessings referred to would be a consequence of the death of Yahweh’s “righteous Servant.” This includes the blessings expressed by the words, “the desire of Yahweh shall prosper in His hand” and “My righteous Servant shall justify many.” 

That the blessings referred to in these verses are the result of (and are given because of) the death of the righteous Servant is further evident from the following words of v. 12: “insomuch that He gives up His soul unto death.”

Moreover, since the words, “the desire of Yahweh shall prosper in His hand” and “My righteous Servant shall justify many” imply that Christ will have the authority to cause “the desire of Yahweh” to “prosper” and to “justify many,” we can conclude that Christ’s death resulted in his being given great authority (which, after his resurrection, Christ referred to as “all authority in heaven and on the earth”).

With regard to the meaning of v. 12, Albert Barnes provides the following helpful remarks in his commentary:

This verse is designed to predict the triumphs of the Messiah. It is language appropriate to him as a prince, and designed to celebrate his glorious victories on earth. The words here used are taken from the custom of distributing the spoils of victory after a battle, and the idea is, that as a conqueror takes valuable spoils, so the Messiah would go forth to the spiritual conquest of the world, and subdue it to himself. Rosenmuller renders this, Dispertsam ei multos - ‘I will divide to him the many;’ that is, he shall have many as his portion. Hengstenberg, ‘I will give him the mighty for a portion.’ So the Septuagint, ‘Therefore he shall inherit (κληρονομήσει klēronomēsei) many.’ So Lowth, ‘Therefore will I distribute to him the many for his portion.’ 

As Barnes notes, the words translated in the CVOT as “Therefore I will apportion to Him among many” could also be translated in such a way that the “many” are what God promised to give/apportion to his righteous Servant. For a scholarly (and, I believe, convincing) defense of this translation and understanding of Isaiah 53:12, I recommend the following article by John Olley: ”The Many”: How Is Isa 53,12a To Be Understood? (Biblica, Vol. 68, 1987, pp. 330-56).

In further support of this understanding (and as noted by Barnes, above) is how Isaiah 53:12 is translated in the LXX (i.e., “Therefore he shall inherit many”). According to this translation, the “many” are what Christ shall “inherit” (or shall “enjoy as an allotment”) because of his death. This translation is in accord with what we read in Psalm 2:7-9:

Let me recount the statute of Yahweh: He has said to Me, My Son are You; I, today, have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations as Your allotment, and as Your holding, the limits of the earth. You shall smash them with a club of iron; like a vessel of a potter, You shall shatter them.

But if the nations are the “many” that Yahweh promised to give (or “apportion”) to Christ because of his sacrificial death (“insomuch that He gives up His soul unto death”), in what sense does Christ then “apportion the loot” to “the staunch?” The answer, I believe, is found in Revelation 2:26-27:

“And to the one who is conquering and keeping My acts until the consummation, to him will I be giving authority over the nations; and he shall be shepherding them with an iron club, as vessels of pottery are being crushed, as I also have obtained from My Father.”

Here we find that Christ – who has been given the nations as his allotment (and thus has authority over the nations) – is going to give authority over the nations to faithful Israelites. It’s in this way that Christ will “apportion the loot” (i.e., the nations that God has apportioned to him) to “the staunch” (those who are “conquering” and “keeping [his] acts until the consummation”).

In any case, it’s clear from Isaiah 53 that there are some rather significant blessings that Christ was promised to receive because of his death. Thus, Stephen/Seth’s claim that “There is no promise that a righteous man’s death would lead to the benefits Christ presently enjoys” is undermined by one of the greatest Messianic prophecies in Scripture. Of course (and like I said earlier), Isaiah 53 provides us with only a glimpse of what would be given to Christ because of his death. But the little that it does reveal is enough to conclude that the blessings secured by Christ’s death include far more than the blessing to which one who perfectly keeps the law has a legal right. Christ’s death made him worthy of far more than just the life of which he was worthy before he died.