Before
I begin sharing my understanding of certain passages from the letter to the
Hebrews that are commonly thought to be inconsistent with the position I’ve
been defending concerning when Christ’s life began (which will be the subject of my next article), I want to first address a
few objections I’ve received from other believers on the subject of Christ’s
preexistence. After this, I want to share a few more thoughts on Col. 1:15-17
and the related subject of Christ’s authority and preeminence.
Response to Miscellaneous
Objections
Objections
will appear in red.
Should the view
that Christ was not the oldest created being in existence when he was conceived
be considered “wrong until proven right”?
“More people believe that Christ preexisted his conception than
don’t. This is not only the case today but has been the case throughout “church
history.” Thus, the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ should be our
starting point when we approach scripture to determine what it teaches. It’s
the “undisputed champion” that must be considered the “default winner” until
one can bring a scripture-based, knock-down argument against it.”
If majority
acceptance and tradition are to be understood as determining which doctrines we
should assume to be correct when we approach scripture (at least, unless we’re
given compelling reasons to believe otherwise), then the doctrine of the
preexistence of Christ is, without a doubt, the “undisputed champion” in
comparison to the position I’ve been defending (but, of course, Goliath was
considered the “undisputed champion” in his day, and we all know how that
turned out). Despite the fact that the position to which I hold is not a
popular or well-respected one, I believe it is more than capable of “holding
its own” against the more commonly-accepted view.
With
regards to the subject of when Christ’s existence began, the prophetic
narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures concerning the identity of the Messiah and
the simple, straight-forward account of Jesus’ origin in the Greek Scriptures
should, I believe, be our true starting point. And when we let this be our starting
point, I believe it will be difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that Christ’s
existence began when he was supernaturally conceived in his mother’s womb, and
that Christ – the “last Adam” - has never been (nor was ever prophetically
spoken of as being) anything other than a human being. In other words – and contrary
to the preexistence view - Christ was not
the oldest created person in existence when he was conceived in the womb of his
mother. On his seventh birthday, our Lord turned seven years old. And when he
was around the age of thirty-three, our Lord committed his spirit to God,
breathed his last, and died.
The
belief that the life of a human being – even one supernaturally generated – does
not begin until they’ve been conceived is one of the most
natural and reasonable beliefs to which one can hold. Believing that Jesus’
life began when he was conceived in his mother’s womb is not something that one
should be expected to reject or doubt until
one can be 100% certain that the rest of scripture is consistent with it. Even
apart from what I see as the scriptural evidence for this position, the belief that
Jesus’ life began at conception is, I submit, a reasonable starting point when
we’re thinking about the question of Jesus’ origin. And if this is, in fact,
the case, then it is actually those who deny
that Jesus’ life began when he was conceived in his mother’s womb from whom one
should demand compelling, “knock-down evidence” (apart from which, the position
that Christ’s life began at conception should be seen as the most natural and
reasonable one to take).
So, is there any such compelling “knock-down evidence” for
the view that Christ’s life began long before he was actually generated by God
in his mother’s womb, and that he was, in fact, the oldest created person in
existence when he was conceived? After having examined all of the primary proof-texts
that are thought by proponents of the “preexistence” view to provide the sort of compelling evidence
needed to overturn what I consider to be a completely reasonable and natural
position to take, I’ve found each and every one of the “proof-texts” to be completely
consistent with the view that Christ is, and always has been, a human being
whose life began at conception. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that,
despite my attempt to demonstrate that every “proof-text” for the preexistence
view is, in fact, consistent with my own view, I could be wrong about how I
think one or more of these passages should be understood. However, it should be
noted that, even if my own understanding of a certain verse or passage is mistaken,
it doesn’t mean the verse or passage
necessarily supports the preexistence view rather than my own overall position.
To say otherwise would be like saying that the doctrine of the trinity must be
true just because an opponent of this doctrine has misunderstood one of the
passages thought to support it.
Does the doctrine of
the preexistence of Christ honor and elevate Christ more than the alternative view?
“Why do you not see how glorious and wonderful it is that our
heavenly father begot his precious son in heaven billions of years ago? This
view elevates and honors Christ more than the view which says his life began in
the womb of his mother, and that he has never been anything other than a human
being.”
Ironically, this same sort of argument is made by Trinitarians and Modalists against those holding to a “unitarian” view of God and Christ (including the “Arian” view) all the time. It is said that any view which denies that Christ is “fully God” and does not affirm that he is an uncreated, eternal being is less honoring to Christ (and less glorious and praiseworthy) than one that affirms his “absolute deity.” But of course, this simply isn’t the case. The view that most honors and glorifies Christ is whatever view that is actually affirmed by scripture.
Given
this fact, I can’t say that I see the view that Christ was begotten “in heaven
billions of years ago” as more “glorious and wonderful” than the one to which I
hold, simply because I don’t see it as being taught in scripture. I believe our
heavenly Father begot his Son when he was supernaturally conceived in the womb
of his mother. This, to me, is a more glorious and wonderful truth simply
because I believe it’s scriptural. As I’ve argued in my first post on this
subject, the very title “Son of God” is inseparably tied to the fact that Jesus
was supernaturally generated by God in the womb of his mother, thus making God
his Father. The scriptural view is that Christ was begotten on earth (twice, if
you count his resurrection), not “in heaven billions of years ago.”
If
anything, it is the view which affirms that Christ has never been anything
other than a human which I believe makes far more of Christ’s faith than the view which implies that he spent
billions of years in heaven in the very presence of God before being
“incarnated” as a human on earth. In fact, I'm inclined to believe
that Christ's faith in God was actually GREATER than it would've been had he originally
existed in heaven in the very presence of God for billions of years.
According
to the view which I believe to be most scriptural, Christ had no memory – and couldn’t have had any memory – of having
once existed in heaven in the presence of God as a glorious, spiritual being
among other celestial beings. The only life he knew while on earth was the life
into which he was born and in which he grew up. The memory of previously
existing as a glorious spiritual being dwelling in the presence of God among
other celestial beings was just as foreign to him as it is to us. Before he committed
his spirit to God and breathed his last on the cross, he had no memory or
experiential knowledge whatsoever of what it was like to be anything other than
a mortal human being – a being who had seen other mortals die and (with only a
few miraculous exceptions) remain dead. And even more than this, it doesn’t
seem like Christ had any more knowledge of what would happen to him after he
died than is provided in the scriptures. It was in these somber and sobering circumstances that Christ - in full obedience to his God and Father - took that last step into the darkness and into the "shadow of death." And the only thing that enabled him to take this final step of obedience was his faith in God, and the expectation that was based on the faith that he had.
When
we contrast the doctrine of Christ's preexistence in heaven with the view which affirms that Christ's existence began as a human on a sin-and-death ravaged earth during
this “present wicked eon,” it seems to me that the latter view makes far, far more
of Christ’s faith than the former.
More on the Word of God
in John 1:1-5
“I agree that God’s “word” is something that can be personified
(just like God’s wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8). However, I don’t see how
the “word” referred to in John 1:1-5 can be interpreted as “merely” that which
God spoke whenever he declared or commanded something. For one thing, we’re
told that life and light were “in” this word. How can that be said of a spoken
word? Also, Jesus is explicitly called “the Word of God” in Rev. 19:13.”
The Greek word translated
“word” in John 1:1 and elsewhere (logos) is simply the spoken declaration by which a complete thought is expressed, or the manifestation of a thought through speech. In Gen. 1:2 we're
told the Spirit of God was vibrating over the surface of the waters, with no
indication that God was speaking anything yet. Then, in v. 3, we're told
that God began to speak ("And God said..."). This is repeated throughout the remainder of chapter one. Each command that God spoke (and which resulted in what we read of throughout Gen. 1:3-24) is, therefore, an example God's word. It was not a person distinct from God, but something God said to express what he was thinking.
The most natural and straightforward interpretation of
John 1:1-5 would, therefore, be to understand the “word” referred to as that which God
literally spoke whenever he is described as speaking in Scripture (including in Genesis 1:3). Again, this
is the literal meaning of the word “word” (logos), and all of the examples I
provided of the “word” of Yahweh in the Old Testament are examples of something
(i.e., a command or message) being spoken/declared by God. Even the “word of
Yahweh” that we’re told came to Abraham in a vision (Gen. 15:1-4) was a spoken
message declared to Abraham, and which was heard by Abraham
during the vision (with the voice that Abraham heard being either the voice of
Yahweh himself or a celestial messenger speaking on Yahweh’s behalf). But the
“word of Yahweh” referred to in this verse was not literally identical with
whoever it was directly speaking to Abraham in the vision; rather, the “word of
Yahweh” was the message that was declared to Abraham and heard by him in the
vision.
But in what sense can it be said that life (which is said to be
“the light of men”) was “in” God’s word? Well, we know that, during Christ’s
earthly ministry, the “word of God” came through Christ (John 14:24; 17:6, 8,
14). That is, when he spoke to people, it was as if God himself were speaking
to them. And significantly, we’re told that the very declarations that Chris
spoke were “spirit and life” (John 6:63). If
one can make sense of the statement that Jesus’ declarations were “spirit and life,” one shouldn’t
have much difficulty making sense of the idea that “life” as well as “light”
(i.e., truth, or knowledge) was “in” God’s word (which is implied in places
such as Psalm 119:105, where we’re told that God’s word is “a lamp to my feet
and light to my path”). Christ also said that God’s word “is truth” (John
17:17), which - given the figurative meaning of “light” - was equivalent to
saying that God’s word was “light.” Again, if one can make sense of this
statement by Christ, then one shouldn’t have much difficulty in understanding how
“life” and “light” could be said to be “in” God’s word.
As far as Jesus’ being called the “Word of God” in Rev. 19:13,
this is a title applied to the Man, Jesus Christ. It is nowhere said to be the
title of a person who came into existence billions of years ago and (after
existing for billions of years as a celestial spirit-being) was eventually
transformed into a human. Jesus was not the “word” that existed in the
beginning, but rather is what the word of God became when it “became flesh” and
“tabernacled among us” (John 1:14). The logos of God - the spoken declaration by which God expresses his thoughts to his creatures - “became flesh” in the
sense that it came to find its full expression and manifestation in a human being.
Since this time, Jesus could appropriately be referred to as the “Word of God.”
Through his words and actions, Christ – like the literal “word of Yahweh” that
we read about in the Hebrew Scriptures - made known God’s thoughts and heart
in a way that cannot be said of any other created being.
Further Remarks on Christ's Words in John 6
“It is clear that what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking
his blood in John 6 cannot be interpreted literally (Roman Catholic beliefs
notwithstanding). This was clearly a figure of speech. But I don’t see how the
same can be said about Jesus’ ‘descent from heaven’ language in this chapter.
Why not just take these words literally here?”
As argued in my earlier article in which this language from John 6 is examined, I understand Christ’s “descent from heaven” language as being an example of the same sort of figurative imagery as found in James 1:16 and 3:15, 17. As I remarked in the article, these verses from James do not mean that the good things in our lives literally descend from heaven (much less that they undergo some kind of mystical, supernatural transformation before we receive them). What James meant is clear enough: God is the author and source of the good things in our lives (including the wisdom by which the saints should live). And just as God is the direct source of “all good giving and every perfect gratuity,” so God was the direct source of the ultimate blessing – i.e., the Son whom he supernaturally generated in the womb of Miriam (Luke 1:34-35).
Even
aside from the arguments I made in the original two-part article I wrote in
defense of what I believe concerning when Christ’s life began, there is good
reason to understand Jesus’ “descent from heaven” language as being the same
sort of figurative imagery found in James. As I pointed out in my explanation
of John 6, if one wants to take Jesus’ words about descending from heaven
literally, they should also (to be consistent) believe that it was Jesus in
his mortal, fleshly body that descended from heaven, since that’s what
Christ identified the “Bread from heaven” as (see John 6:51, 58). If those holding
to the doctrine of Jesus’ pre-existence don’t
believe that Jesus descended from heaven with a mortal, flesh-and-blood body,
then perhaps they should reconsider their view that Jesus’ words in John 6 support
the doctrine of Jesus’ preexistence.
“But in John 6:46, Jesus said that only he had seen God literally. I just don’t see
how this can mean anything other than that Jesus existed in heaven before his
conception.”
The
word “literally” wasn’t used by Jesus in John 6:46. The fact is that the word
translated “seen” in John 6:46 (horaō) can,
in some contexts, be understood to mean something other than “to see with the
eyes.” The word can also mean to have knowledge, understanding or realization
of something. A similar idiom is used by English-speakers as well, such as when
one says “I see” instead of “I understand” (and I’m sure it will not have
escaped the reader’s notice that I intentionally used this alternate,
figurative usage of “see” in the very wording of the objection itself).
For
example, in 3 John 11 we read, “Beloved, do not be imitating the evil, but the good. He who
is doing good is of God. He who is doing
evil has not seen God.” Clearly, no one among the saints to whom John wrote had literally
seen God with their eyes (1 John 4:12). What John meant here was that those who
were “doing evil” (which, in the context, meant doing what someone – i.e., Diotrephes
- was doing within the ecclesia) had an ignorance of God (compare these words
with Paul’s similar rebuke in 1 Cor. 15:34, in which he said that certain
people within the ecclesia in Corinth had “an ignorance of God”).
In
John 14:7-9, the words “see” and “know” are even used interchangeably to convey
the same basic idea: If you had known
Me, you would have known My Father
also. And henceforth you know Him and
have seen Him." Philip is saying to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing
us." Jesus is saying to him, "So much time I am with you, and you do
not know Me, Philip! He who has seen
Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, 'Show us the Father'?
When
Christ said “and henceforth you know him and have seen
him,” he was using two different words to convey the same idea for the
sake of emphasis (cf. 1 John 3:6). Had the disciples literally seen the Father with their own eyes? No.
But as a result of the approximately three-year period of time they’d spent
with Jesus during his earthly ministry, they had come to know the Father better, and – in this sense - can thus can be said
to have seen him.
As
far as John 6:46 goes, the sense in which Jesus alone had seen the Father is
that the Father had revealed himself more clearly to Jesus than to anyone else,
such that Jesus alone had come to truly know
the Father in the greatest possible sense. And because Jesus alone had been
given this intimate knowledge of who God is, he could then unfold the Father to
others (John 1:18), so that when they “saw” (i.e., acquired knowledge of) Jesus
they “saw” (acquired knowledge of) the Father.
Further Remarks on
Colossians 1:15-17
Here,
again, is Colossians 1:13-20 (I’ve placed in bold the verses I’ll be focusing
on):
13 “[God, the Father] rescues us out of the
jurisdiction of Darkness, and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His
love,
14 in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins,
15 Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature,
16 for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him,
17 and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.
18 And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first,
19 for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell,
20 and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.
14 in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins,
15 Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature,
16 for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him,
17 and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.
18 And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first,
19 for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell,
20 and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.
In my original explanation of these verses, I
pointed out that, according to New Testament Greek scholar A.T. Robertson,
Paul’s use of the verb translated as “is created” in the CLNT (ktizō ) expresses the idea of everything’s remaining created, or standing
created, in and through Christ. That is, in Col. 1:16, Paul was conveying the
simple truth that God is presently maintaining all in its created state by
means of his Son, Jesus Christ. In this sense, it expresses a similar (if not
identical) idea as that found in Heb. 1:3, where we’re told that Christ is “carrying on all by His powerful
declaration.”
In chapter eight of his book The Minister and His Greek New Testament (page 101), A.T. Robertson
further explained why the word translated “is created”
(ktizō ) should be understood in this way (emphasis mine): “In summary fashion Paul employs the constative aorist
indicative (passive) for the work of creation [i.e., in the first part
of Col. 1:16]. Then he resumes the subject and
repeats what he has said, but with the present perfect (passive) tense: “All
things have been created (stand in the
state of creation) through him and unto him.” Notice how Robertson expresses the
meaning of the second use of the verb ktizō
by Paul in v. 16 as, “stand in the state of
creation.” Robertson then goes on to say, ”But
Paul is not quite done with the supremacy of Christ in creation. He adds: “And
in him all things consist” (1:17) or “stand together” (another present perfect
indicative).”
In other words,
according to Robertson (and as evidenced by the tenses used by Paul), Paul had the same basic idea in mind in v.
16 as he did in v. 17. According to Robertson, Paul used the “present
perfect indicative” for the words he used in both verses 16 and 17. Verse 17
can, therefore, be understood as clarifying for his readers what sort of
“creating” Paul believed Christ was/is responsible for in v. 16. That Robertson understood the word sunestēken [translated as “has its
cohesion” in the CLNT] in v. 17 as conveying the same basic idea as ektistai” [“is created” in the CLNT] is clear
from what he wrote in his commentary. Commenting on
Col. 1:17, Robertson noted that the word sunestēken [“has its cohesion”]
“repeats the
statements in Col. 1:16, especially that in the form ektistai” [“is created”].
Again, this is
all from a Greek scholar who had no theological bias against the doctrine of
Christ’s pre-existence (since he believed this doctrine himself). What
Robertson had to say concerning the Greek tenses and their meaning in the above
quotes is, to me, compelling evidence that Paul had in mind all of creation’s
“standing in the state of creation” or “remaining in a created state” in Col.
1:16-17. Even if one does not see this grammatical evidence as a “knock-down
argument” against the pre-existence interpretation of verse 16, one must
admit that what Paul wrote in these verses is CONSISTENT with the view that
Christ’s life began when he was generated in the womb of his mother by God, and
that everything Paul wrote in Col. 1:13-20 can be understood as involving the
preeminent status and work of Christ since the time of his death and
resurrection.
The Preeminence and
Authority of Christ
Further support
for this understanding of Col. 1:16-17 is found in the fact that, until Christ
died in perfect obedience to God and was subsequently roused in glory by his Father,
Christ didn’t have the absolute authority over all creation that enabled
(and enables) him to do what Paul describes him as doing in Col. 1:16-17.
Consider the following: In
Hebrews 1:4 we’re told that Christ became “so much better than the messengers as He
enjoys the allotment of a more excellent
NAME than they.”
The “allotment of a more excellent name” refers to a superior and preeminent
position and rank. But when did this take place? When did Christ begin enjoying
“the allotment of a more excellent name than they?”
Was it before Christ’s death and
resurrection, or after? Answer: The
writer of Hebrews apparently believed that it was after Christ’s death and resurrection that he received this
elevated, preeminent position (see Heb. 2:5-9). In perfect harmony with this
fact, we find in Phil. 2:8-11 that it was only after Christ became “obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross” that God “highly [exalted]
him, and [graced 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.”
Did
any of the messengers – or indeed, any
other created celestial being at all - have such great authority as to be
the agent in and through whom everything in the heavens and on the earth “is
created?” No. Christ himself wasn’t even given “all
authority in heaven and on the earth” until after his death and
resurrection (Matt. 28:18). This being the case, it is simply not logical (as
far as scripturally-informed logic goes)
in saying that Christ was the one through whom God created everything in the
heavens and on the earth BEFORE Christ was “highly exalted” by God, graced with
“the name that is above every name,” and given “all authority in heaven and on the earth.” The Son
of God through whom all “is created” is the
same Son of God who received this preeminent authority and complete superiority over all
creation by virtue of having made “a cleansing of
sins” by his sacrificial death, and who (because of his obedient death)
is consequently now “seated at the right hand of the
Majesty in the heights.”
There
are several ways in which this argument could be more formally and succinctly
expressed. Here’s just one example:
1.
In order for any created being to be able to do what Christ is described by
Paul as doing in Col. 1:16-17 (i.e., be the one in and through whom everything
in heaven and on earth “is created” and “has its cohesion”), he would need to have the same
supreme authority and preeminent position/rank as that referred to in Matt.
28:18 and Phil. 2:8-11.
2.
Christ didn’t receive the supreme authority and preeminent position/rank
referred to in Matt. 28:18 and Phil. 2:8-11 until after his death and resurrection.
3.
What Paul wrote concerning Christ in Col. 1:16-17 is not something that
could’ve been true of Christ until after
his death and resurrection.
4.
(Conclusion) Col. 1:16-17 pertains exclusively to Christ in his risen and
glorified state.
Moreover
(and as noted in the article previously referred to), the title “Firstborn of every creature” means that Christ is
preeminent in rank and privilege in relation to “every creature,” while “Firstborn from among the dead” means that Christ is
preeminent in rank and privilege in relation to those who have died. Even if Christ had been the first being
created by God, it was Christ’s obedient, sacrificial death on the cross
that made him worthy of the preeminent rank and privilege that is being
expressed by these titles. Simply being created first wouldn’t have
entitled our Lord to the glory and honor he received because of his obedient
death. Both of these titles came to be applicable to Christ after he was
resurrected by his Father and highly exalted by him, gracing him with “the name that is above every name.” It was when Jesus
was roused and vivified by his Father (and not eons before he was generated)
that he became “so much better than the messengers as
He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.”
In
light of the above, let’s now briefly consider Revelation 5. In this chapter,
we read that God gave his Son a sealed scroll that “no
one in heaven, nor yet on earth, nor yet underneath the earth” was
worthy or able to open, or even “to look at.” In contrast with every other
created being in the universe, Christ alone is said to be worthy to open the
scroll and look at it. Why? By virtue of what,
exactly, is Christ so much worthier than every other creature in heaven and on
earth and under the earth such that he - and no other created being – is able
to open the scroll and look at it? Is it because (as those who affirm the
doctrine of Christ’s preexistence believe) Christ was the first creature
created by God, and the one through whom God created everything else? Not
according to what we read in this particular passage (however, it’s worth
noting that, in Rev. 4:11, we read that God
is “worthy…to get glory and honor and power” by
virtue of the fact that it is by his
will that all things “were, and are created” -
and notice the interesting distinction made between everything’s having been
created by God, and everything being, or remaining, created by God).
Again,
I ask: By virtue of what, exactly, is
Christ so much worthier than every other creature in heaven and on earth and
under the earth that he - and no other created being – is said to be able to
open the scroll and look at it? I submit that we can answer this question in a
completely satisfactory way without having to bring (or rather, force) the
doctrine of Christ’s “preexistence” into the equation at all. In fact, I
believe that to
attempt to account for Christ’s supreme worthiness – even in part – by
appealing to the idea that he was the first creature created by God (or that he
was the agent through whom God created everything else) is only a distraction from the true basis of Christ’s exalted status
and worthiness in relation to the rest of creation. The fact that Christ - a
sinless human being who was supernaturally generated by God - died on behalf of
all in perfect obedience to God is the true basis of the worthiness that
enables him to be the one who opens the scroll:
And one of the elders is saying to me, “Do not
lament! Lo! He conquers! The Lion out of
the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, is to open the scroll and to loose its
seven seals!” And I perceived, in the center of the throne and of the four
animals, and in the center of the elders, a
Lambkin standing, as though slain…And when It took the scroll, the four
animals and the twenty-four elders fall before the Lambkin, each having a lyre,
and golden bowls brimming with incenses, which are the prayers of the saints.
And they are singing a new song, saying, “Worthy
art Thou to be taking the scroll and to open its seals, For Thou wast slain and
dost buy us for God by Thy blood.” Revelation 5:5-9
To
argue (as some who hold to the preexistence of Christ have argued) that, after
his death and resurrection, Christ was simply restored to the same elevated,
preeminent position that he is thought to have had before he was “incarnated”
is, I believe, to lose sight of (and, to a certain extent, to fail to
appreciate) the full magnitude and significance of Christ’s death, and what Christ
accomplished through it. It is Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross that
fully accounts for his supreme worthiness in relation to the rest of creation
that we read about in the above passage. And insofar as this is the case, the
doctrine of Christ’s “preexistence” simply becomes a distraction from the truth
of the all-sufficiency of Christ’s death.
