Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part I)
The following is going to be a (rather long) response to the following series of articles, written by Aaron Welch:
.png)
That Happy Expectation: Was Jesus
Christ alive before his life on earth began? (Part Two)
That Happy Expectation: A Rebuttal
to Martin Zender's "The Preexistence of Christ"
At the end of this first post, I have links to the rest of the series concerning Christ's preexistence.
Note, before I begin, that I must say “response,” and not “rebuttal” or “refutation,” because, truth be told, I agree with Aaron Welch on a great deal of his assertions in the passages he references! I can only find myself disagreeing on his conclusion that ‘thus, Christ did not exist beforehand.’
I would also like to say that I think Aaron Welch is one of the greatest writers in the body of Christ. Him, Martin Zender, George Rogers, A.E. Knoch, Dean Hough, and a few others come to mind in my ‘top 5’ writers (excluding Paul, that is.) I want to make it clear that my spirit, in tackling such a refined and practiced writer, is not to, essentially, shit on him or anything like that. We know, from 2 Tim. 4:2, that we should “expose, rebuke, and entreat with all patience and teaching.” This is my goal, and I’m humbled and privileged to do so. I wish Aaron all the best and, though he may not remember me, I do believe I met him at a Richmond conference in Virginia, back in 2018, where I’d first heard of his blog (which you can access through the links above, titled “That Happy Expectation.”) I’ve read much of his work and his work in Christ is sound, so don’t assume for one second that I believe he’s not in Christ or some nonsense.
Furthermore, please understand that I
am not a “Trinitarian,” that I would believe Christ and God are the same
person, plus the spirit. That idea is a far sillier conclusion than “Christ didn’t
exist until His earthly birth,” and ignores critical aspects of the
evangel of God. Finally, the links above are crucial, as I fully expect
you to have read Aaron’s article beforehand, and to have a critical mind
on both his articles and mine, going into this. I pray, through these studies,
that we all come to a better understanding of Scripture and God’s profound
revelations to us, His little adopted children in Christ (Romans 8:14-16.)
Peace to you all!
Concerning “Was Jesus Christ Alive Before His Life On Earth Began (Part One)”
Aaron Welch’s first
article here begins with the impression that the view that “Christ existed
before His birth” is an intrinsic and crucial part of the Trinity. Believe it
or not, though I disagree with His conclusion, I do agree that this is indeed a
critical aspect of the Trinitarian idea.
However!
When studying the
Trinity, it becomes clear that this notion is not the main principle of
the Trinity, but in the grand scheme of that lie, is a small part of the whole.
You could not say “I am a Trinitarian, but do not believe Christ pre-existed,”
while in contrast, you can say, “I am not a Trinitarian, but I do
believe Christ pre-existed.” Indeed, Aaron himself agrees with this, stating:
“I need to emphasize that not all who believe in the pre-existence of Christ agree with Trinitarians and Modalists that Christ is an uncreated and eternal person/being.”
However, he goes on to label this view “Arianism,” which I will kindly
ask him and any other in Christ not to do. I understand completely that he’s
not attempting to segregate the body of Christ with sects or something, but
nonetheless, observe 1 Corinthians 1:10:
Now I am entreating you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that all may be saying the same thing, and there may be no schisms
among you, but you may be attuned to the same mind and to the same opinion.
As such, I’m not going to label Aaron as a “non-preexister” or, I
believe as Drew Costen has said, a “Socinian.” Again, I understand how and why
members in Christ delineate in this fashion, but I’m going to avoid labels
here. I’m not partaking in an “Arian” viewpoint, but solely studying the
Scriptures to seek the answers. Paul is the one that provides the answers to
any questions we could possibly have these days, and as such I will affirm that
I am a member in “Christ,” as is Aaron and other believers. I refuse, even, to
see anything among you believers except Christ and Him completed.
* * *
The first passage Aaron
references in proving this viewpoint is Matthew 16:13-17. Observe:
Now Jesus, coming into parts of Caesarea Philippi, asked His disciples, saying, “Who are men saying the Son of Mankind is?" Now they say, "These, indeed, John the baptist; yet others Elijah; yet others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He is saying to them, "Now you, who are you saying that I am?" Now answering, Simon Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now, answering, Jesus said to him, "Happy are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood does not reveal it to you, but My Father Who is in the heavens."
Aaron first clarifies Simon’s response: “You are
the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This disproves the idea of
Trinitarianism, and I’d be hard pressed to find or need another verse to prove
this point (though there are many.) There’s a critical and necessary
distinction between Christ, the Son, and the living God, the Father.
He then uses this statement as a platform for his next statement:
The Messiah had consistently been prophesied in the Hebrew
scriptures as being a human man – a created person belonging to Adam’s race –
and thus distinct from the one God of Israel.
To prove this, Aaron
references a ton of Old Testament references, namely:
· Gen. 3:15
· Gen. 12:3
· Gen. 22:18
· Gen. 28:14
· Gen. 49:10
· Num. 24:17-19
· Deut. 18:15
· 2Sa 7:12-13
· Ps. 45:2-7, 17
· Ps. 72:1
· Ps. 89:3-4
· Ps. 110:1
· Ps. 132:11
· Is. 7:14
· Is. 11:1-5, 52-53
· Jer. 23:5
· Jer. 30:21
· Dan. 7:13
· Zech. 6:12-13
· Mic. 5:2
· 1 Chron. 17:13
Thank
you Aaron! I have taken the time, now, to study each and every one, but the
only conclusion I can reach is that if you are using these verses, either
as evidence of the Trinity or of Christ’s pre-existence, then you are incorrect,
because you’re looking in the wrong place. Here we consistently see the
prediction of a coming King, to rule and bless Abraham’s seed, Israel as a
whole. Here’s the thing; The Old Testament is not concerned with the
later revelations of the New Testament, where Christ is indeed revealed to have
existed beforehand (Col. 1:16, Phil. 2:7.) Israel is not ready for such
a revelation – it is not their time yet to understand this, as it’s their
allotment to be ruled, not to rule. There is a completely
different revelation going on at this point in time; it’d be like trying to jam
the idea of “conciliation of God” into the book of Job. You simply won’t find
it, because it’s not the time for such an idea to be revealed yet. Naturally,
they are not going to be told, “I am withholding your Messiah,”
but “your Messiah will be born in Abraham’s seed at a later time.”
That being said, there is a passage in here that I find quite interesting that he quotes, being Psalm 45. If anything, this passage would disprove Aaron’s argument, would it not? Observe:
You are lovely beyond the
sons of humanity; Grace is poured out upon Your lips; Therefore Elohim has
blessed You for the eon. Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Master, Your splendor
and Your honor. And in Your honor prosper, ride forth On spbehalf of truth and
humility and righteousness; Then may Your right hand direct You in fear
inspiring deeds. Your arrows being whetted, Peoples, beneath You shall they
fall, Struck in the heart of the King’s enemies. Your throne, O Elohim, is for
the eon and further; A scepter of equity is the scepter of Your kingdom. You
love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore Elohim Your Elohim has
anointed You With the oil of elation beyond Your partners.
Now, I stand by what I
said before, that the Old Testament is revealing Christ to Israel, and
not to the world, thus we are dealing with a pointed revelation as to their physical
King, and thus should not be seeking a celestial understanding of
Christ in these passages. That being said… these are all ‘present tense’
phrases. David, here, is singing to Someone. You could argue that he’s
prophesying, as he is indeed called a prophet in Acts 2:30, but I’m confounded
by the idea that he would be directly addressing Christ, despite His
[then] nonexistence!
This is reinforced in
Aaron’s reference to Psalm 110, which, while sound, holds one glaring oversight
– though prophetic, the chapter begins with David recognizing his coming
Messiah as his Lord, i.e. his Master. We are indeed discussing
the coming kingdom, but Yahweh is certainly speaking to Someone – the
word “averring” (n’um, in Hebrew,) does not imply anything, but to proclaim
something to someone in declarative fashion. Oftentimes, the word is
followed by prophetic declaration, yes – but it is not by any means
spoken to nonexisting people (ref. Gen. 22:16, Num. 14:28, 24:3, 24:4, 24:15,
16, 1 Sam. 2:30, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2 Kings 9:26, 19:33, 22:19, 2 Chr. 34:27, Ps.
36:1.) Why, in every other instance of this word, is there an existing
person being spoken to, prophecy or otherwise, except in this specific
use?
Aaron particularly calls
out Daniel 7:13 as well. The book of Daniel, when declaring the kingdom,
focuses on prophetic revelations. Again, it’s not focused on proclaiming,
explicitly, that Christ exists at this time, the way Colossians and Philippians
do, because it’s concerned primarily with revealing Israel’s promised kingdom
and the terrestrial unveiling of their Messiah. Again, this is all fantastic
stuff if we’re disproving The Trinity, but does not at all deny
Christ’s very existence in the celestial realm.
**It should be made clear
that, up until this point, Aaron has effectively disproven the Trinity, but
not Christ’s existence before His physical birth. He has shown and proven that
He has not been given rule over the kingdom of Israel, as we know His death on
the cross purchases this authority, but not at all that Christ did not exist.
The passage initially referenced in Matthew 16 is not a moment that ignites Jesus’
sonship, but one in which Peter recognizes such a truth.**
Now, let’s talk about Hebrews 1:5:
For to whom of the messengers said He at any time, “My Son are you! I, today, have begotten you?” And again, “I shall be to Him a Father And He shall be to Me for a Son?”
Now, when you read this
passage, the nonexistence of Christ would surely not be the first thing that
comes to mind, no? I would be thinking, “Well, the subject, being the messengers,
and the fact that they are not given such a high honor as ‘Son,’ should be
the focus.” Also, we aren’t dealing with celestial observations in
Hebrews, as we are in Paul’s letters. Yet Aaron says, on this verse:
“If these verses are to be understood as conveying anything
meaningful, there must have been a time before the Messiah was
begotten by God and became God’s Son.”
This is surprising to me, because I’ve never gotten this out of the above verse. See, when I hear anything about “God’s Son,” apart from Jesus or the adoption of members in Christ, I am thinking of this verse from Job 38:6-7:
…Who directed [the
earth’s] cornerstone in place, When the stars of the morning were jubilant
together, and all the sons of Elohim raised a joyful shout?
From here, I’m catching a far, far different
assertion than “Christ didn’t exist,” but that even His celestial children,
who had raised a joyful should, weren’t impressed enough to die for us. In
contrast, Christ, Who is the word before His earthly presence, becomes man
(Phil. 2:7,) which leads Him to being Son of God. This proves that He is indeed
the only-begotten Son, as opposed to ‘just another one of many.’ See,
the Hebrews passage isn’t referring to Christ’s creation, but Him being begotten.
There is a critical difference, here – the other sons of Elohim do not hold
this same glory as Christ, making Christ the only proper Image of
the invisible God (Col. 1:15,) as He is the only One capable of loving
so much as to take the form of a man, taking the penalty of the law for
our sakes.
Then, Aaron references
two passages. First, Matthew 1:18-21:
Now Jesus Christ's birth was thus: At the espousal of His mother, Mary, to Joseph, ere their coming together, she was found pregnant by holy spirit. Now Joseph, her husband, being just and not willing to hold her up to infamy, intended covertly to dismiss her. Now at his brooding over these things, lo! a messenger of the Lord appeared to him in a trance, saying, "Joseph, son of David, you may not be afraid to accept Miriam, your wife, for that which is being generated in her is of holy spirit. Now she shall be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus, for He shall be saving His people from their sins."
Now, before we continue, let’s clarify: there’s a major difference
between Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus. We are talking, in the
above passage, not of the celestial Christ Jesus, but of the formation
of the terrestrial Messiah, that had been proclaimed in the Old
Testament to rule the Jews. If you need evidence on this, look no further than
Matthew 1:1, in which we are given his kingship lineage, from Abraham.
Contrast this with Luke, which covers His lineage in the opposite
direction (3:23-38,) but does not stop at Adam, instead taking another
step, and going “of God.” Luke takes you backwards, to the beginning
of man, and then precedes even that! Only when Jesus is baptized is
He formally unveiled to Israel as God’s Son, in Whom He delights (Matt.
3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22.)
The other passage Aaron mentions is Luke 1:31-35:
And lo! you shall be conceiving and be pregnant and be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus. He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation." Yet Miriam said to the messenger, "How shall this be, since I know not a man?" And answering, the messenger said to her, "Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.
Aaron focuses on the last part, there, the word “generated,” and says something I consider to be, again, shocking for a writer I otherwise have an immeasurable amount of respect for:
For, in contrast with when a woman “bears” or gives birth to a child, when a man “generates” or “begets” a child it involves the bringing into existence of a human person that previously did not exist.
This is great and all, except for the fact that we miss one crucial
detail in the sentence:
God’s not a man.
He doesn’t operate the way men do. Let’s not liken His operations
to that of humanity. The way we work, begetting children, is not the
way He does. Again, Genesis to Acts covers a long revelation to Israel, not
celestial revelations of the glories of Christ. They are concerned with a kingdom
(Matt. 4:23,) while we are concerned with the celestials (Rom. 1:1.)
There is a crucial difference in the way Mary, in the above passage, is
perceiving what’s happening, and how we, in Christ, are given a greater
understanding of what’s going on, here.
If Christ starts as a man, then we’re inherently saying that
Jesus starts as a man, which inherently affiliates Him with sin, thanks
to that little bit of nonsense with Adam and Eve. He is not the result of a man’s
impregnation, as He did not know sin (1 Pet. 3:22.) He came from another
Source, which means He previously held an existence somewhere, but
had not yet been called out as the Messiah, the Christ (Matt.
2:15, Heb. 1:5.)
The reasoning Aaron brings to the table here boils down to, “You wouldn’t call Abraham or Isaac people that existed beforehand, would you??” No, Aaron, I wouldn’t. I didn’t call them only-begotten sons of God, either. Furthermore, I am not saying we existed beforehand, because we are adopted through Christ’s faith, to become children of God (Rom. 8:15 says we got the spirit of sonship, and Eph. 1:4 says it was designated beforehand, but we are first, indeed, human beings, in flesh.) Christ had to be surgically generated, yes, into the lineage of Abraham and David by God, by holy spirit, and not by flesh. But the word usage is important, here. Look again:
Holy spirit comes in, and the power of the spirit overshadows her. The spirit supersedes the physical. Because (this is the ‘wherefore’) the spirit is imparting the child to her, the child she is physically birthing is called Son of God. The spirit actively imparts, divinely, in power, which is far and away completely unlike every other birth. He is select and is special, in this regard. The word “generated” is, then, not referring to His entire existence, but His becoming man. The holy spirit would have nothing to divinely implant if this were true! God’s seed should not be likened to man – it stems from spirit, not from flesh.
Now, Aaron uses the above Luke passage to then state that it is solely
because of this occurrence that Jesus is titled “Son of God.” While it is
indeed true that this is evidence of Jesus’ celestial Father, it is not
evidence that Jesus wasn’t a Son of God beforehand. The messenger in
the passage is declaring that the Son of God is passing through Miriam’s womb,
as it’s by spirit that she is impregnated. The Being in her must have,
then, started celestial, which is what this passage boils down to. Spirit
is the cause, the physical is the effect. It need not be more
complicated than this! “Son of God” is unveiling the glory to Miriam,
not placing man as the root cause of Jesus’ existence, which is
highlighted by her question in the previous verse.
Aaron then states:
The assertion of uninspired Roman Catholic and Protestant
creeds notwithstanding, there is no suggestion in Scripture that Jesus was
“begotten by the Father before all ages…”
Aaron then states:
There is absolutely nothing said in these accounts or elsewhere about a pre-existent Christ - human or otherwise - entering into Miriam and being transformed into an (embryonic) human person.
* * *
One thing I'd like to say, before I go, and it's minor: I initially wrote these articles in a word document. As such, the font and format of what I wrote is a little weirder, here, because I'm not an expert at this 'blogspot' format. As such, I'm sorry if the formatting is a little strange, here. I poured a lot of time and effort into this, so I'm admittedly a little bummed that I couldn't perfect it. I honestly wish I could have done a little better in this regard, to make it easier for your sakes, but I simply can't. If I can find a way to rectify this, I will. If any of you are interested in the entire argument, please let me know and I can just send you a pdf file of the entire argument in one body of work.
Anyways, peace, and thank you for your time! It's all love!
* * *
The following links can connect you to the rest of this study.
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part II)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part III)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part IV)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part V)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part VI)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part VII)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part VIII)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part IX)
Responding to Aaron Welch (End of the Preexistence Series)
* * *
On Oct. 31, 2023, Aaron Welch replied to this study. The following link will take you to his reply, as well as my own, with the links to the rest of the study:
Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part I)
Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part II)
Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part III)
Responding to Aaron Welch (Preexistence Response, Part IV)
Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part V)
Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part VI)
Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part VII)
Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part VIII)
Responding to Aaron Welch (End of the Preexistence Response)
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment