For part twelve of this series, click here: That
Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part twelve
In this (and the next) installment of my “Antidote to Arianism” series, I’m going to be responding to certain claims made by Stephen Janowski and Seth Fahlenkamp in their recently-posted (and ongoing) series/online book, “The Origin of the Creation of God.” This article will not be an exhaustive, comprehensive response to what Stephen and Seth have written so far in this series of articles. Instead, the parts to which I’ll be responding are those that provide me with an opportunity to emphasize, clarify or expand upon certain points I’ve already made. If I feel I’ve already provided a sufficient response to a certain claim or argument made by Stephen/Seth, I likely won’t be responding to it in this article (of course, if I think the point is important enough, I’ll make an exception). I should also add that there are a number of responses and points made by Stephen/Seth in this series that are responses to statements that have been made by other non-Arian members of the body of Christ. Unless their responses to these other believers applies to something I’ve written (and to which I haven’t already responded in a previous article), I won’t be responding to them here.
After providing some historical information on the doctrine of the “pre-existence of Christ,” Stephen/Seth explain their methodology in seeking out the truth on the subject of when Christ’s existence began. We should start with Paul’s letters, and allow his “contextualization of any and every doctrine that we can consider from the Old Testament” to “take precedent.” They then add, “Of course, Paul does not speak on every issue, but if he is the right source, then we must first scan his letters to ensure that anything Paul says on this matter, first and foremost, is heeded.”
I agree with this methodology. However, when we use it to help us determine the truth concerning Christ’s origin and the order concerning his earthly and celestial existence, I think we’ll find that Paul is in agreement with the scriptural revelation of how and when Christ’s existence began. That is, I think we’ll find that Paul’s revelations are in accord with (and do not contradict) the revelation of Christ’s origin that we find in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35, and confirm that Christ has been human for as long as he’s existed (and that it was only after Christ’s death and resurrection that he became a heaven-dwelling, celestial being.
The fact is that nearly everything that Paul has to say about Christ pertains to what is, and has been, true of Christ since the time of his death, resurrection and ascension. Of course, the very evangel that Paul received “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) – and which he heralded among the nations (Gal. 1:16; 2:2; Eph. 3:8) – affirms the truth of Christ’s death for our sins, his entombment and his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4). And in accord with its great importance, Paul refers to Christ’s death and resurrection often in his letters.
Regarding prior events in Christ’s life, Paul has relatively little to say. Because of its relevance to the body of Christ, Paul did refer to an important event in Christ’s life that took place “in the night in which [Jesus] was given up” (1 Cor. 11:23-26). And in a passage concerning which there is much controversy (Phil. 2:5-8), I believe that Paul referred to what is arguably the most pivotal event in Christ’s earthly life (and apart from which the most important, prophecy-fulfilling event of Christ’s earthly life – i.e., his crucifixion – wouldn’t have occurred). That is, I believe that Paul had in mind the time in Christ’s life when, instead of exercising his inherent right as the Son of God to prevent his arrest and subsequent crucifixion, Christ willingly emptied himself by taking “the form of a slave,” and humbly became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
In addition to what’s said in these verses, we find a reference to Christ’s promise-fulfilling role as “the Servant of the Circumcision” (Romans 15:8). And in Galatians 4:4, Paul affirmed the fact of Christ’s having come “of a woman” and “under law.” In accord with this truth, Paul also affirmed the truth of Christ’s lineage/ancestry (Rom. 1:3; 9:5), and – in his last letter – reminded Timothy of the truth that Christ “is of the seed of David, according to my evangel” (2 Tim. 2:8).
Now, later in this series, Stephen/Seth comment on Romans 1:3-4 as follows:
[Christ’s] flesh comes from David – the lineage in which He was grafted into. It is this that is “generated” in Miriam’s womb. This is entirely in accord with the fleshly scope of Matthew, which is concerned primarily with the narrative of Christ as King, in flesh, and Luke, which too is concerned with the narrative of Christ as a Human.
Here, Stephen/Seth seem to acknowledge the fact that the word translated “being generated” in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (i.e., gennÅmenon) does, in fact, mean “being generated” (i.e., being brought into existence), and not “becoming” (i.e., becoming something different than it was). But since they can’t believe that the Son of God himself was generated when his mother became pregnant with him, they say that it was only Jesus’ flesh that was generated in Miriam’s womb.
The problem with this view is as follows: According to the words of Gabriel as recorded in Luke 1:35, it wasn’t merely Christ’s flesh that was generated when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him. Rather, it was Christ himself who was generated by God at this time:
“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.” (Luke 1:35)
In other words, it was the living Son who was given the name “Jesus” (and, later, the title “Christ”) – and not merely Jesus’ flesh – that was “generated” (i.e., brought into existence) by God at the time when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with her Son. Moreover (and as pointed out in part one of this series), the word translated “wherefore” in Luke 1:35 means “for this reason” or “because of which.” Thus, according to Gabriel, the very reason that Miriam’s first-born Son can be “called the Son of God” is because of how he was generated (which was by a direct, supernatural act of God).
Now, as also argued in part one of this series, the words “comes of the seed of David according to the flesh” in Rom. 1:3 emphasize the fact that Jesus’ descent from David was not merely legal (as it would’ve been if only Joseph – and not Miriam – had been a descendent of David). Paul wasn’t saying that Christ originated before his flesh did; Stephen/Seth are reading this idea into the text. The “spirit of holiness” according to which Christ is “designated Son of God with power…by the resurrection of the dead” isn’t Christ’s own spirit/life-principle (i.e., that which Christ committed into his Father’s hands when he died), but rather the spirit of God (i.e., the same spirit that descended upon Christ at his baptism). That is, God’s own spirit is “the spirit of holiness.” Paul referred to God’s spirit as “the spirit of holiness” because it’s by this spirit that we’re “hallowed,” or made holy (Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess. 2:13).
Just as we know that it was God who roused/vivified his Son (and that Christ didn’t rouse/vivify himself), so it was because of God’s own spirit – and not Christ’s spirit – that Christ was roused/vivified. Just as “He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying [our] mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in [us]” (Rom. 8:11), so Christ was roused/vivified because of God’s spirit as well. As Christ himself declared, “The spirit is that which is vivifying” (John 6:63). Similarly, Paul wrote that “the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying” (2 Cor. 3:6). And because it was by God’s holy spirit that Christ was roused, it was according to this spirit that he was “designated Son of God with power…by the resurrection of the dead.”
A similar contrast between Christ’s flesh and the spirit of God by which he was vivified is found in 1 Peter 3:18. In this verse we read that Christ was “put to death, indeed, in flesh, yet vivified in spirit, in which, being gone to the spirits in jail also, He heralds to those once stubborn…” The spirit in which Christ was vivified (and in which he subsequently heralded to certain disobedient spirits) is the spirit of God. As A.E. Knoch notes concerning this verse, “The flesh was the means, or instrument, by which [Christ] was put to death. So also the spirit is the means by which His body was recalled to life” (Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+66++1975.pdf, page 124).
Stephen/Seth refer to Christ as having been “grafted into” David’s lineage. The idea suggested by the use of this terminology is that Christ didn’t originate from the lineage of David. But Jesus’ flesh isn’t “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1). It’s Jesus himself who is “the Son of David,” “of the seed of David” (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 of Christ if Christ originated before David existed (or if Christ existed at any point before his body came into being). For Christ to be “the Son of David,” “of the seed of David” and to be “out of the fruit of David’s loin” means that he – and not just his flesh – came into existence after David. That’s the only way that Christ could be “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” and “of the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). It’s because Christ was in the loins of his father David that he could validly be referred to as “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1). And since Christ himself – and not just his flesh – was “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” (and was thus “the Son of David”), he couldn’t have existed before David. Christ – the one who is the Son of David – had to have come into existence when his flesh did.
Now, aside from what’s said in Phil. 2:5-8, the main passage from Paul’s letters to which Arians most often appeal in support of their belief that Christ pre-existed is Col. 1:15-16.[1] But as demonstrated in part nine of this series, Paul was referring to what has been true of Christ since the time of his resurrection and ascension (and not to what was true prior to Christ’s life on earth). What Paul wrote here is perfectly consistent with the scriptural revelation of how and when Christ’s existence began, and the fact that Christ Jesus has been human for as long as he’s existed.
A large portion of Stephen and Seth’s “Origin of the Creation of God” series is devoted to defending the Arian interpretation of Phil. 2:5-8. It should be noted that Stephen/Seth consider this passage to be one of the strongest and most compelling “proof-texts” for the Arian Christological view in all of Scripture. For example, they begin their chapter “The Character of Christ” as follows:
Paul’s answer to the question, “Did Christ exist prior to His physical birth?” is found for us in Philippians 2:1-11. When we study this passage, we will read Paul’s definitive resolution to the problems presented by man’s corrupted theology.
And then in the addendum to chapter 8, we read the following:
At this point, we believe the two theories – that Christ “is God,” or “1/3 of God,” and that Christ “did not exist” prior to His birth – have been thoroughly debunked. At the height of revelation, Paul’s language evokes the necessary middle ground. Christ is not God, but the Image and Form of Him. Christ did exist at the beginning of creation, yet relinquished all for our sake. As far as we writers see, this argument is firmly laid to rest by this one passage.
So it’s clear that Stephen/Seth think that Phil. 2:5-8 is a compelling proof-text for the Arian view (and that, even if there were no other verses that they thought supported this view, this passage by itself would give us sufficient reason to believe that Christ pre-existed in heaven before his life on earth began). Thus, if this passage fails to support the Arian view (as I believe is the case), then the overall case for the Arian position is significantly weakened (and one would have good reason to suspect that the Arian is equally mistaken about how he is interpreting other passages that he considers to be evidence for the Arian view).
Now, in part eight of this series I wrote the following:
Here is what the Arian needs to prove in order to prove that Phil. 2:5-8 is incompatible with the non-Arian understanding (and that these verses thus support the Arian view):
1. Christ wasn’t “inherently in the form of God” during his life on earth.
2. The words “empties himself” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
3. The words “taking the form of a slave” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
4. The words “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
If the Arian can’t prove this, then there’s no good reason to think that what Paul wrote in Phil. 2:5-8 supports the Arian view.
That the words “being inherently in the form of God” are foundational to the Arian interpretation of the entire passage is evident from what Stephen/Seth say later when explaining why they think Christ was able to ascend to heaven after his resurrection, and how Christ is able to reconcile celestial beings to God. They write that “…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,).” In other words, they see the words, “inherently in the form of God” as clear evidence that “Christ’s origin is celestial” (hence the words, “Paul clarifies”).
Concerning the word translated “being inherently,” Stephen writes the following:
Huparchon, “being inherently,” is not always translated thus. Oftentimes, the term is translated “belong,” for it recognizes a permanent possession of something. This is demonstrated by its elements, “UNDER-ORIGINATE.”
Christ is, inherently, or, belonging, or, possessing, IN the form of God. This term, inherently, helps us recognize that this is Christ’s default state – in the Image of His Father, as Paul proclaimed for us in the minor administration (2 Cor. 4:4.)
This is very important to note now, for we will see Paul’s contrastive statement in verse 7 when describing Christ taking the form of a slave, and be able to understand God’s pattern far more clearly. Christ under-originates here. This is His default; He is inherent, here, He belongs here, He possesses here. All other forms, then, are derivations which do not fully reflect Him.
It follows: if Matt. 1:18-23, and Luke 1:30-35 is the origin of our Lord, then the rest of this verse must say, “Being inherently in the form of a man,” or “form of a child,” or “form of a–
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Peter used the same word translated “being inherently” when he declared that David was “inherently a prophet” (Acts 2:30; see also Acts 21:20 and Rom. 4:19 for other examples of this word being used). Just as David was “inherently a prophet” during his life on earth, so Christ is inherently “in the form of God.” And just as David didn’t need to exist before his life on earth began in order for him to have been “inherently a prophet,” so Christ didn’t need to exist before his life on earth began in order for him to have been (and to be) “inherently in the form of God.”
Stephen/Seth say that Paul used a “contrastive statement in v. 7 when describing Christ taking the form of a slave.” They elaborate on this later when they say that Christ’s being “in the “form of God” is clearly and directly contrasted by taking “the form of a slave” in verse 7. It may be asked: when Christ takes “the outward appearance of a slave” in verse seven, does He cease being the representative of God, having ceased being in the form of God?
There is not one iota of scripture which infers that Christ is, at any point not representative of God; to proclaim that “form of God” speaks solely of representation, then, denies that Christ represents God even in the form of a slave (Matt. 1:23, 2 Cor. 5:18-19.) Christ discards the form of God (emptying it, per Phil. 2:7,) and therefore cannot refer to representation, as if “form of God” were a rank or title, since it is taken away.
They also write, “The problem is that one form juxtaposes another, meaning when He’s in one form, or “outward appearance,” it would be irrational to suppose that He is simultaneously in the other contrasting form as well” and “…given the juxtapositions of the genitive cases – “of God” to “of a slave” – it is readily apparent that one form precludes the other.”
However, we’re not told that, when Christ took the form of a slave, he ceased to be “inherently in the form of God.” Stephen/Seth are simply assuming this (because their position requires that this was the case), and are reading it into the text. But Paul doesn't say it. There is no good reason to think that Christ’s being inherently in the form of God and his later taking the form of a slave were mutually exclusive states of affairs. It is by no means “readily apparent that one form precludes the other.” Again, Stephen/Seth are simply assuming this to be the case.
As far as I can tell, the most that Stephen/Seth say in defense of this view (i.e., that one form precludes the other) is their claim that, when Christ emptied himself, he discarded the form of God. But this, too, is simply their assumption. We’re not told that, when Christ emptied himself, he “discarded the form of God,” or that the “form of God” was “taken away.” Again, their view requires that this is what happened, but this is simply their assumption, and being read into the text.
Moreover, Stephen/Seth’s interpretation of what it means for Christ to have emptied himself is inconsistent. They claim that Christ emptied himself by “discarding the form of God,” but don’t think Christ also ceased to be “equal with God”[2] when he emptied himself. But why wouldn’t this be the case? If the words “empties himself” mean that Christ discarded the “form of God,” why wouldn’t they also mean that Christ lost his equality with God?
I suspect that the reason Stephen/Seth apply the words “empties himself” to the form of God (rather than to Christ’s being equal with God) is because their view of what it means for Christ to be (or to have been) “in the form of God” requires that this was “discarded” by Christ. In contrast, it wouldn’t support their view to say that Christ’s equality with God was also “taken away.” In any case, it’s clear that their interpretation of the word “empties himself” – as well as their interpretation of the words “taking the form of a slave” – is based on their interpretation of the words “being inherently in the form of God.” So let’s consider what they have to say in defense of their understanding of the words “in the form of God.”
They begin by pointing out (correctly) that Christ’s being “inherently in the form of God” doesn’t mean Christ is “intrinsically God”:
This outward appearance helps us recognize that He is not intrinsically God, for the word form denies us this theory. He is no more “God” than the Jews were keeping “law,” nor was He any less Himself than He was in a different form from His resurrected body in Mark. In this, we can note that Christ has a physical appearance. As such, Christ is not the Creator of all. Christ holds the outward appearance of the Creator of all.
This One, as such, is created – a critical factor which Arius is correct to assert.
This will be critical for when we return to the circumcision writings, which calls Christ the “Original of the creation of God.””
The only part of the above excerpt with which I disagree (and it’s a relatively minor point) concerns their translation of Revelation 3:14. Although their use of the word “creation” is a definite improvement upon how the CLNT translates the noun ktiseÅs (which is, in this version, perplexingly translated “Creative”), I don’t think the word “Original” is the best way to translate the word arché. A better translation of this word would be “Chief” (as we read in Young’s Literal Translation) or “Sovereign.” In fact, the CLNT translates the word as “Sovereign” in Col. 1:18 (where we read that Christ “is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead...”).
The word arché – along with the noun archón (“chief”) – is derived from the primary verb archó (which means “to rule over” or “to be chief of”; see Mark 10:42 and Rom. 15:12). It denotes that which is first in order of rank, dignity, or excellence, and in the Greek Scriptures (as well as in the LXX) is often used as a title (or office) for certain high-ranking human and celestial beings. When it’s used in this way, it’s translated as “sovereignty” in the CLNT (e.g., Luke 12:11; Rom. 8:38, Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; Titus 3:1).
Thus, the word arché in Rev. 3:14 most likely refers to Christ’s preeminent rank/status since the time of his resurrection. In accord with this understanding, Christ is referred to in Rev. 1:5 as “the Firstborn of the dead, and the Suzerain of the kings of the earth.” The word translated “Suzerain” in this verse (archón) is a cognate of archÄ. And given the similarities between what’s being said concerning Christ in Rev. 1:5 and in Col. 1:18, I think it’s reasonable to understand the word arché in Rev. 3:14 in a similar way.
Now, although Stephen and Seth are correct in their view that Christ’s being “in the form of God” is contrary to the Christian view that Christ is the same being as God (or that Christ is “God” in the same sense that the Father is God), their understanding of what, exactly, it means for Christ to be “inherently in the form of God” is still erroneous. For they believe that Christ can be “the Image of the invisible God” without also being “in the form of God.” In fact, they believe that, although Paul referred to Christ as “being inherently in the form of God” Christ wasn’t “in the form of God” during his life on earth.
Now, Stephen/Seth would agree that Christ is visible, and has a form, or outward appearance. What one sees when they see Christ is his form, or outward appearance. Christ's form/outward appearance is an inseparable part/aspect of himself. Stephen/Seth are also clear that Christ’s status as the “Image of the invisible God” involves being God’s visible representative. Consider the following excerpts:
As we will dwell on when we further consider Colossians, the word “Image” in Greek carries the element “SIMULATE.” Christ is not literally God, but His Just Representative. He simulates the invisible God, that mortal, three-dimensional beings are able to rationally conceptualize Him (even the pronoun “Him,” here, occurs because we must figure God in some anthropomorphist fashion.) One of these Beings is invisible, while the Other is visible. This is a clear distinction between the Two.
An Image is, in every sense of the word, an exact representation of the Original. We can point at the Lincoln Memorial and say, “This is Lincoln!” Is this literally Lincoln? No. Of course not. But when we see this statue of Lincoln, we see Lincoln.
Christ is above this. He is not a dying or permanently dead Representative. He is the Representative. When we see Christ, we see the Father. “The only-begotten God, in the bosom of the Father; He unfolds Him” (John 1:18.) “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one is coming to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. Are you not believing that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The declarations which I am speaking to you, I am not speaking from Myself. Now the Father remaining in Me, He is doing the works” (John 14:6-10.)
Stephen/Seth are also clear that, when Paul referred to Christ as the Image of the invisible God, the reader need not conclude that Christ existed before his life on earth began:
It is true, of course, that Christ being called the “Image” of the invisible God does not immediately suppose that Christ existed prior to His physical birth. This is why we began with Philippians – a passage which needs no other in order to assert such truth of our Lord.
The problem is not with their understanding of what it means for Christ to be the Image of God. The problem is that they’re attempting to drive a wedge between Christ’s status as the Image of God and his being “in the form/outward appearance of God.” But here’s what Stephen and Seth are missing: Since Christ is the Image of his God and Father (such that, when one sees Christ, one sees the Father), it necessarily follows that Christ’s own form/outward appearance is also the form/outward appearance of his Father. In other words, it’s by virtue of the fact that Christ is the Image of his God and Father that Christ’s form/outward appearance is the form/outward appearance of his God and Father. Being the Image of God explains how Christ is “inherently in the form of God.”
How could it be otherwise? If Christ is the Image of the invisible God (and he is), how could it not be the case that Christ’s form/outward appearance is also the form/outward appearance of the One of whom he is the Image?
An image is a visual representation or likeness of something/someone else. And a representation is someone or something that represents something/someone else. So if the one of whom someone is an image (or visual representation) is invisible, then the following must be true: being his image/visual representation means visibly representing him. That’s the only way someone could be the image of an invisible being. Consider the following from A.E. Knoch on the subject of Christ’s status as the Image of God (emphasis mine):
Christ is the visible Image of the invisible God. Men can see Him and hear Him and feel Him. He manifests God. If He were invisible He could not be a Mediator. There is no such thing as an invisible image. It is a contradiction in terms. Liberty is invisible, but the statue of liberty in New York harbor would be a hoax if it could not be seen. As the dictionary says, an image is a visible representation of a person or thing. An invisible Christ is totally unfitted to mediate. He cannot reveal God to men. He is practically non-existent. Unsearchable Riches Volume 19 1928 (page 71)
Since we know that Christ is “the Image of the invisible God” – i.e., the one who visibly represents God to mankind – it means that to see Christ is to see the Father. That is, Christ’s status as “the Image of the invisible God” is such that, when one sees Christ, one sees the Father:
“He who is beholding Me is beholding Him who sends me” (John 12:45).
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
And since Christ is the visible representation of God (and thus manifests God), it necessarily means that Christ is in the outward appearance (or “form”) of God. One cannot be the visible representation of God without being "in the form [outward appearance] of God." They are inseparable states. If, as the Image of the invisible God, Christ “manifested God” to other humans during his earthly ministry (and he did), then it necessarily follows that Christ was in the form/outward appearance of God during this time. When other humans saw Christ, they saw the Father. As the Image of God, Christ’s form/outward appearance was necessarily the form/outward appearance of God. And since Christ is just as inherently “the Image of the invisible God” as David was “inherently a prophet,” Paul could write that Christ is “inherently in the form/outward appearance of God.”
Now, to be clear (and to anticipate a possible objection from the Arian), I’m not saying that the words “is the Image of the invisible God” are equivalent in meaning to the words “being inherently in the form of God.” Rather, I’m saying that the state of affairs to which the words “being inherently in the form of God” refer is one that’s based on/derived from the status that’s referred to by the words “the Image of the invisible God” (such that Christ is “in the form of God” because he is “the Image of God”). Because Christ was the Image of God during his earthly ministry, he manifested God to others during this time. And that means that his outward appearance during this time was also the outward appearance of the one of whom he was the Image.
To object that this can’t be the case because Christ’s outward appearance during his earthly ministry wasn’t “glorious enough” is simply to presuppose the Arian view. This objection only betrays the fact that the Arian is equating the words “inherently in the form of God” with whatever he thinks Christ looked like before he became human. He is, in other words, begging the question. His reasoning is as follows: “We know that Christ wasn’t ‘inherently in the form of God’ during his earthly ministry, because being ‘inherently in the form of God’ means having the outward appearance that Christ had before he became a human.” The very foundation of his interpretation of Phil. 2:5-8 is the presupposition that Christ pre-existed in heaven as a glorious celestial being who sat on Yahweh’s throne! This also drives his interpretation of the words “empties himself” (which, for the Arian, must mean that Christ ceased to have the glorious outward appearance he’s thought to have had during his “pre-human” state).
But even according to the Arian view, a being who sat on Yahweh’s throne as his visible representative could only be said to be “inherently in the form of” Yahweh by virtue of being God’s visible representative. For again, according to the Arian view, Yahweh himself is absolutely invisible. He himself has no outward appearance, and cannot be directly seen by his creatures. And no visible being could ever come close to resembling, in appearance, a being who is absolutely invisible (and thus who has no outward appearance). Make a certain celestial being as glorious in appearance as you like, and there would still be no visible resemblance between him and an absolutely invisible God. Regardless of what kind of outward appearance that the Arian thinks Christ had in his pre-human state, it’s impossible for Christ to have visibly resembled or “looked like” a being who is absolutely invisible. There is no visible, personal form that can simulate – i.e., “imitate the appearance of” – a being who has no appearance at all.
So if, as the Arian believes, God himself is invisible in an absolute sense (and thus doesn’t actually “look like” anything), then Christ’s being “inherently in the form [outward appearance] of God” can only mean that Christ is God’s appointed, visible representative – i.e., the one whom God had appointed/authorized to visibly represent him to others (such that, when any other being saw and spoke to Christ, it was as if they were seeing and speaking to God himself). In other words, it is by being “the Image of the invisible God” that Christ is “inherently in the form of God.”
I suspect that the only reason Stephen and Seth don’t “see this” (pun intended) is that they are, without realizing it, equating the words “inherently in the form of God” with whatever they think Christ looked like before he became human. In other words, they’re simply reading into these words their own belief regarding Christ’s “pre-human” state. This would explain why they’re so confident that the words “inherently in the form of God” support the Arian view. They’re simply equating this with whatever appearance they think Christ had in his “pre-human” state. But regardless of what Stephen and Seth think a certain non-human celestial being looked like (or may have looked like) at this time, the ONLY way it could be said that this being was “inherently in the form of God” is that he was, at that time, Yahweh’s visible representative (such that he manifested Yahweh to others by virtue of being his visible representative).
Thus, when Stephen/Seth later state that “one form juxtaposes another, meaning when He’s in one form, or “outward appearance,” it would be irrational to suppose that He is simultaneously in the other contrasting form as well,” it’s clear that they’re presupposing that Christ’s being the Image of God and his being “inherently in the form of God” are distinct states or conditions. But they’re not distinct. For Christ to be the Image of the invisible God means that he visibly represents and manifests the invisible God to others (such that, when one sees Christ, one sees the Father). So for Christ to be the Image of God necessarily means that Christ’s own form (or “outward appearance”) is also the form (or “outward appearance”) of the One of whom he is the Image.
Stephen/Seth went on to write the following:
Outside of this passage, scripture documents a wealth of “form” changes by Christ. On the holy mount, Christ was transformed (metamorphoo, Matt. 17:2, Mark 9:2.) As previously mentioned, Christ appeared in different forms to people after His resurrection (Mark 16:12.) Mary did not recognize the form of the resurrected Son of God (John 20:14.) Shoot, we cannot even claim that the form that Paul sees on the road to Damascus, or the form that the apostles saw when He finally appeared to all of them are the “same forms” mentioned previously! And none of these cases could be used to argue that Christ ceased being the “representative” of God.
Since Christ was just as much “the Image of the invisible God” during his time of earth as he is now, it follows that he was “inherently in the form of God” during this time as well. It doesn’t matter how many different forms he appeared in to people after his resurrection. Insofar as Christ remained the Image of God throughout these changes in form, every form in which he appeared to others would’ve been “the form of God” as well. As long as Christ is the Image of God (and thus visibly represents/manifests God to others), his outward appearance will always be the outward appearance of the one of whom he is the Image.
Stephen/Seth further object as follows:
Christ cannot be said to be God, sure – but He also cannot be said to carry the outward appearance of God while in sin’s flesh!
Stephen/Seth are alluding to Romans 8:3 (where we read that God sent Christ “in the likeness of sin’s flesh”). They would agree that Christ was the Image of the invisible God while he was “in the likeness of sin’s flesh.” And since Christ’s being in the form/outward appearance of God is based on his being the Image of God (again, for Christ to be the Image of God implies that his outward appearance is also the outward appearance of the one of whom he is the Image), it follows that being “in the likeness of sin’s flesh” and being “in the form of God” aren’t mutually exclusive conditions.
Stephen/Seth then add:
Otherwise, we could all lay claim to being in the “form of God,” when saved. I’m in the form of God, if this is the case – having been justified under law, as Christ is! The same would be true of you, or others under Paul’s message.
Their argument here is invalid. When we change the words “in the form of God” to the words “is the Image of God,” the fallacy becomes clear:
1. Christ was the Image of God even when he was “in the likeness of sin’s flesh.”
2. We who are in the body of Christ possess “sin’s flesh,” and still sin.
3. Therefore, every member of the body of Christ is the Image of God as well.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. It’s a non-sequitur. And since being “inherently in the form of God” is based on being the Image of God, it follows that being a justified sinner does not entail that one is also “in the form of God.”
Stephen/Seth: It also directly denies the physical property of the word “form,” which is an error so obvious I need not expound further upon it.
When they say that there is a “physical property of the word ‘form,’” I assume they mean that having a “form” implies that one is a physical being (or, at the very least, that one is manifesting visible features that give one an outward appearance). Initially, I was inclined to agree. However, we know that having a “form of devoutness” isn’t a physical property, and that these words don’t refer to the physical features of those having this “form.” That is, Paul was not saying that some have certain physical features that make them look more devout than others. This refers to certain actions/conduct. Two people could be identical twins and one could have “the form of devoutness” while the other doesn’t.
Now, it’s true that Christ’s own form/outward appearance has a physical basis (it’s based on his visible, physical attributes/features). But just as Christ’s status as the Image of God during his life on earth wasn’t based on the fact that he had certain physical features that others may or may not have had, so the fact that he was in the form/outward appearance of God wasn’t based on any specific physical features he had. It was simply based on the fact that he was the Image of God, and thus manifested God to others (such that those who saw him saw the Father). And this being the case, a change in his physical features (such as occurred when he appeared to others in different forms) wouldn’t have resulted in him not being “in the form of God.”
We can thus conclude that the words “being inherently in the form of God” are perfectly consistent with the revealed truth of how and when Christ’s existence began, and is in accord with the revealed truth that Christ is (and was, during his earthly ministry) “the Image of the invisible God.” If anything, Stephen and Seth have only proven that they (and other Arians) are simply presupposing their own Arian Christology and equating the words “inherently in the form of God” with whatever they think Christ looked like before he became human.
Stephen/Seth went on to write the following (emphasis mine):
It is further argued by the (rather insistent) Socinian group that, since God is Spirit (John 4:24,) and thus invisible (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15,) that God thus has no outward appearance. This is, of course, a faulty conclusion, for it denies that Christ is inherently identified as the outward appearance of God, per the plain claim from our apostle. God no one has ever seen (John 1:18.) It is Christ, consequently, Who unfolds the Father in His various forms (John 1:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 1:15.)
Notice the words, “Christ is inherently identified as the outward appearance of God.” Recall that I earlier quoted Stephen/Seth as saying that Christ is “the Image and Form of [God].” Notice that, rather than saying that Christ is “the Image of God and in the form of God,” they identified Christ as both “the Image of God” and as the “Form of God.” They even capitalized the word “Form,” so as to make it parallel to “Image” (which is capitalized in Col. 1:15, since Paul was identifying Christ as the Image of the invisible God).
This may seem like a trivial detail to point out, but it’s actually important. Stephen/Seth are identifying Christ as not only the Image of God, but also identifying him as the “Form of God.”
This isn’t the only time that Stephen/Seth have referred to Christ as “the form of God” (and left out the words “in the”). For example, in another response to me, Stephen wrote the following (emphasis mine):
“Every time you see Yahweh in the Old Testament, the form of Yahweh, the outward appearance, is Christ.”
And then in a another article we read, “In other words, God did not lower Himself, but demanded that man raise itself up. Man, of course, failed to do this – hence the descent of His Form.”
Here, Stephen/Seth are expressing their view that Christ is “identified as the outward appearance of God” and is “[God’s] Form.” In other words, they’re again saying that Christ IS the form of God.
This identification of Christ with “the form/outward appearance of God” – i.e., their claim that Christ isn’t just “in the form of God,” but that he IS the Form of God – is essential to their response to the objection raised by the “Socinian group.” So let’s examine this view a little more closely.
As already stated, Christ is clearly identified as “the Image of the invisible God” in Col. 1:15. In other words, Christ wasn’t just “made in the image of the invisible God”; rather, he “IS the Image of the invisible God.” He is the ultimate/ideal visible representative of God to mankind. However, in Phil. 2:6, Paul did not identify Christ as “the Form of the invisible God,” or even as just “the Form of God.” Instead, Christ is said to be “inherently IN the form [outward appearance] of God” ( áœÏ áŒÎœ ΌοÏÏá¿ ÎεοῊ áœÏάÏÏÏÎœ).
There is a difference between saying that Christ is “inherently IN the form of God” and saying that Christ “inherently IS the Form of God.” The two statements are not equivalent in meaning. Stephen/Seth’s response to the “Socinian objection” involves disregarding the word “in,” and conflating the truth that Christ is “inherently in the form of God” with an error (i.e., that Christ is the form of God). However, the word áŒÎœ (“in”) does not identify Christ with the form/outward appearance of God.
Am I just being pedantic by pointing out Paul’s use of the word “in” here? No. Elsewhere, Stephen/Seth actually draw attention to Paul’s use of the word “in” in another verse to make a point about the meaning of the word “form.” When disproving the fact that “form” doesn’t refer to “inner essence” (as Trinitarians erroneously believe), Stephen/Seth wrote the following concerning the use of the word in Galatians 4:19:
Well, if we look at the Greek, we find two words, side by side – morphoo, “FORM,” and en, “IN.” It is only because the word “in” is present that we can recognize that an internal quality is being discussed. If “form” referred to something internal on its own, Paul would not need to write “in.” That these two are side by side shows us that ‘in’ is absent from “form.”
So Stephen and Seth know how important the little word “in” can be. Given this fact, it’s perplexing that they would claim that, in Phil. 2:6, Paul was saying that Christ IS the “Form of God,” and was identifying Christ “as the outward appearance of God.” Rather than identifying Christ as the form/outward appearance of God, Paul identified Christ as someone who was/is inherently IN the form/outward appearance of God. And this point matters.
Now, like most (if not all) Arians, Stephen and Seth believe that God is absolutely invisible. I've argued elsewhere that this view is mistaken, and that the Father DOES have a personal, outward appearance (including a face) that those among the celestials (including Christ himself) can perceive. Stephen/Seth seem to think that those who believe this are guilty of (or are in danger of) changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being and flying creatures and quadrupeds and reptiles.” But that’s absurd. Would anyone say that Christ (or any other created celestial being, for that matter) has “the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being?” No.
Thus, if Yahweh has chosen to manifest himself to the celestial beings who have access to his presence in heaven with a personal form that is similar to their own, then believing that this is the case is not to “change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being.” Or to put it another way, to believe that the being at whose right hand Christ is now sitting has a personal form – and that there was, therefore, someone sitting upon the throne of God during Christ’s earthly ministry (Matt. 23:22), whose face certain holy messengers were/are “continually observing” (Matt. 18:10) – does not make one guilty of changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being.”
But let’s assume that I’m mistaken on this point. That is, let’s suppose that God is invisible in an absolute sense. If that’s the case, then it necessarily follows that God himself has no form/outward appearance. If he did, he wouldn’t be invisible in an absolute sense. An absolutely invisible being doesn’t have an outward appearance. He can have a visible representative (i.e., someone who is his “image”), but he himself can’t have an outward appearance.
So when Stephen/Seth identify Christ as the “Form of God” and as “the outward appearance of God,” they’re simply contradicting what they believe concerning the invisibility of God. If Christ is identical with the form/outward appearance of God (which, again, is the claim they’re making when they say Christ is “the Form of God” and is “identified as the outward appearance of God”), then the following would be true: (1) Christ would be an inseparable part of God (rather than a created being distinct from God), and (2) God wouldn’t be absolutely invisible. For to be visible means one has an outward appearance. If one has an outward appearance – if they appear a certain way to others – then they’re not invisible. Moreover, Stephen/Seth can’t respond to this objection by saying that Christ is the Form/outward appearance of God only in a representational sense, because that would mean agreeing with their non-Arian opponents that Christ’s being “inherently in the form of God” is based on his representational status as the Image of God.
So again, if God does have a form/outward appearance – and that form/outward appearance is (i.e., is identical with) Christ himself – then God wouldn’t be invisible. He’d be just as visible as the visible part/aspect of him is. Thus, Stephen/Seth’s interpretation contradicts their own belief that God is invisible in an absolute sense. It’s an incoherent belief that’s based on their misunderstanding of what it means for Christ to be “inherently IN the form of God.” If God is absolutely invisible, he necessarily doesn’t have an outward appearance. According to Stephen and Seth’s own view of what it means for God to be “the invisible God,” the only way in which a visible being can be “inherently IN the form of” an invisible being is that he visibly represents the invisible being to others. And that’s precisely what Christ does. As God’s Image, Christ visibly represents God to others.
So Stephen/Seth’s response to the argument of the “(rather insistent) Socinian group” involves not only altering/modifying what Paul wrote (and claiming that Christ IS the Form/outward appearance of God instead of “being inherently IN the form of God”), but it involves the following contradictory beliefs: (1) God is absolutely invisible (and thus has no outward appearance) and (2) God does have an outward appearance (and not in the sense that a being distinct from himself is his Image, or visible representative).
Regarding the fact that Christ emptied himself and took the form of a slave, I demonstrated in part eight that it was by taking the form of a slave that Christ emptied himself (i.e., abased himself), and that it was by taking the form of a slave that he came to be “in the likeness of humanity” (i.e., in the likeness of all other humans). Nothing that Stephen and Seth have said in their “Origin of the Creation of God” series has proven that the words “empties himself” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth, that the words “taking the form of a slave” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth, and that the words “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” can’t refer to something Christ did at some point during his life on earth.
Stephen/Seth claim that Christ, “in emptying Himself, ceased to be in the form of God, going from the Head of the universe to the lowest of men.”
But as already noted, we’re not told that Christ emptied himself by ceasing to be in the form of God (or by going from “the Head of the universe to the lowest of men.”). Stephen/Seth are simply assuming this. What Paul wrote is perfectly consistent with the view that Christ emptied himself (abased himself) by taking the form of a slave. And as I’ve argued in part eight, Christ took the form of a slave when he gave up his right as the Son of God to use his God-given authority to prevent the shameful mistreatment and suffering that he went on to endure (i.e., from the time of his arrest in Gethsemane to the time of his death on the cross). It was at this pivotal time in history – and not when (or shortly before) Christ’s mother became pregnant with him – that Christ outwardly appeared to others as a slave (and was indeed treated as one).
I further argued in part eight that Stephen’s interpretation of “taking the form of a slave” involves adding to the text (such that it reads, “taking the form of a slave to death/corruption”). But Paul didn’t add any words to qualify “slave” here. We have no good reason to think that, when Paul wrote that Christ took the form of a slave, he was using the word “slave” to mean something other than “a person who is legally owned by someone else and has no personal freedom” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/slave). That is, we have no good reason to think that Paul used the word “slave” to mean something other than what it literally means – i.e., the meaning that Paul had in mind when he referred to those in the body of Christ as “slaves and free” (1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Eph. 6:8) and exhorted believers who were slaves to be obeying their masters (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22).
In light of these considerations, I believe that Stephen/Seth have failed to prove that the words “taking the form of a slave” refer to something other than what Christ did in Gethsemane on the night before his crucifixion. Unlike the complete lack of scriptural evidence supporting the Arian’s belief that Christ was in heaven when he took the form of a slave, we actually have scriptural evidence for the fact that, toward the end of his earthly life, Christ took the form of a slave. In fact, there’s no better scriptural evidence of someone willingly taking “the form of a slave” (who wasn’t actually a slave) than what we find recorded in Matthew 26-27, Mark 14-15, Luke 22-23 and John 18-19. If you were to ask any knowledgeable student of Scripture, “Was there any time in Christ’s earthly life when he (1) relinquished his right as the Son of God to use his God-given authority and (2) took the outward appearance of a slave?” I suspect that he or she would point to what we read in these chapters.
Stephen/Seth’s objection that Paul doesn’t mention “Gethsemane” in Phil. 2:6-8 fails, for Paul doesn’t name or specify any location in these verses (including heaven). We have zero evidence that Paul believed that Christ was in heaven when he did what we’re told he did in these verses. Just as Stephen/Seth are presupposing the Arian view by equating the words “the form of God” with the outward appearance that they think Christ had before his life on earth began, so they’re assuming that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being when he emptied himself and took the form of a slave. The fact is that the name of the specific geographical location in which Christ took the form of a slave is of far less importance and significance than the fact that he did take the form of a slave before his crucifixion (and thus there was no good reason for Paul to specify the location in which Christ did this).
As far as what Stephen/Seth have said concerning Christ “coming to be in the likeness of humanity,” I think that what I’ve written in part eight of this series is a sufficient response to it, and demonstrates that what Paul wrote is perfectly consistent with the scriptural testimony of how and when God brought his Son into existence (i.e., generated him).
Part Fourteen: An Antidote to Arianism: Part fourteen
[1] There are a few other verses to which Arians will sometimes appeal in support of their belief that Christ pre-existed, but I’ve argued elsewhere that these verses are also consistent with the scriptural revelation of how and when Christ’s existence began, and the fact that Christ Jesus has been human for as long as he’s existed.
For example, the event that Paul had in mind in 2 Cor. 8:9 (i.e., when Christ went from “being rich” to becoming “poor”) occurred when Christ – who was spiritually rich (having been given the spirit without measure) – gave himself “a correspondent Ransom for all.” It was by dying that Christ “became poor” (i.e., destitute of the spirit that he’d been given without measure) so that we “should be rich” (which occurs when we obtain the promise of the spirit and are thus sealed with the spirit of God). Paul is clear elsewhere that it’s because of Christ’s death that we’re able to obtain “the promise of the spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14).
In accord with this understanding of what
it means for us to be made rich because of Christ’s death, Paul understood
that, by heralding the evangel among the nations (which resulted in people
obtaining the holy spirit), he was “enriching many” (2 Cor. 6:10).
[2] As noted in part eight of this series, I believe that Christ’s being “equal with God” refers to a representational equality that’s based on Christ’s unique status as the Son of God (John 5:18). Regarding the meaning of the words, “deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,” Knoch wrote the following:
This statement concerning equality with God, however, does not identify Him with the Deity. Rather it distinguishes Him from His God. If He were, in substance, all that this form indicated, the question of pillaging the One Whom He represented could not arise. God cannot rob Himself. Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+74++1983.pdf (page 104)
As the Son of God, Christ was given the authority and prerogative to speak and act on God’s behalf during his life on earth, and do what no other human had the power and authority to do (e.g., forgive sins, which led the scribes to reason in their hearts, “Blaspheming is he! Who is able to pardon sins except One–God?”).
No comments:
Post a Comment