Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part III)

Concerning “A Consideration of Passages Thought to Reveal the ‘preexistence of Christ’: Paul’s letters to the Body of Christ”

 

Alright, homies, this is where it gets real.

1 Corinthians 13:1-4:

For I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers all were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all are baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed. Now the Rock was Christ.

To save a bit of space and time, if I agree with Aaron’s “In a nutshell,” I’m going to just quote it and move on. This is, for the most part, one of those cases:

The “rock” that Paul had in view was the rock at Horeb, from which water miraculously flowed for the Israelites in the wilderness. When Paul wrote that this rock “was Christ,” he was using the same sort of figure of speech as that used by Christ when, during the last supper, he said (concerning the bread), “This is my body.” Paul was, in other words, speaking metaphorically here.

Aaron elaborates on this notion, and I agree with this assessment. Paul is comparing the Israelites’ physical sustenance with our spiritual sustenance in Christ. This is a figure of speech, a metaphor. Does it prove Christ didn’t exist before hand? No. Does this passage really have anything to do with that? No. But it’s good, at least, that he mentions it. I would advise any that seek understanding that Christ did exist beforehand, not to look at this passage as a foundation for it.

2 Corinthians 8:9:

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, being rich, because of you He became poor, that you, by His poverty, should be rich.

Unfortunately, this is the first of a few passages in which Aaron is going to limit Christ’s glory. First, before I get into what he said, let’s establish the context.

2 Corinthians is dealing with the topic of conciliation. By the time chapter 8 begins, Paul is talking to Corinth about how to give for the sake of the evangel, citing the (notably poorer) Macedonia as giving far more than them. To properly convey to Corinth the necessity for, not even the wealth, but the change in their actions, Paul then compares Christ, the very Lord in which they served. This was to show that wealth, that is, physical wealth, should have no bearing on them. Thus, Paul reveals that Christ starts celestial – with wealth, “being rich,” mind you – but because of them (cross ref. 2 Cor. 4:16) He became poor, so that by His poverty, we can be rich.

Now, this is a celestial observation. I can see why Aaron, in this passage, that is, believes it to be a physical, but as far as I’m concerned, the revelations in Philippians and later in Colossians should indeed be recontextualizing passages like this. Here’s Aaron:

To be “rich” is to be in possession of something that is of great value, and for someone who is rich to subsequently become “poor” (as Paul said happened to Christ) is for them to give away, or be deprived of, that which belonged to them, which was of such great value.

This is a good definition of the word “rich,” I guess, but the fact that Aaron starts with the physical shows that he has jumped off the celestial observations being made, here, and instead takes a physical stance on the passage. He has prioritized, here, the kingdom evangel and its physical revelations, placing Paul second, which is not what we are asked to do (1 Cor. 11:1, Eph. 5:1, Rom. 1:1, Gal. 1:1, 6.)

With this physical definition of riches in mind, Aaron continues:

So what was it that Christ gave away which was of such great value, and which (by giving it up) made him “poor,” and placed him in a state of “poverty?” I believe Christ himself answered this question for us in Matthew 20:26-28:

Not thus is it to be among you. But whosoever may be wanting to become great among you, let him be your servant, and whoever may be wanting to be foremost among you, let him be your slave even as the Son of Mankind came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give His soul a ransom for many.

Huh. So, when I read this passage, I’m flabbergasted (yes, I say flabbergasted) that Aaron has used this verse, here, in the evangel of the kingdom, to try and recontextualize the evangel of God. Let’s look, here, at the words.

If you want someone to become great, let him be your servant. This is not surprising. This is what Jesus is doing – physically serving Israel. If you want to be foremost among someone, start by being enslaved to them. This is what Jesus is doing – physically, enslaved, as a human being (cross ref. Rom. 1:1, 6:20-22, 8:15.) Now, even Jesus Himself, here, says “He came, to serve, and give His soul.” He empties Himself, going right along with Philippians 2:7-8, and serves them, which is being enslaved. Last I checked, a slave is not rich. He goes from rich, as a celestial, to poor, as a Man. Also, if He is in poverty, as Paul states, this would not limit Him to His death, as you can’t be in poverty if you’re dead! “Aw, shucks, I died! Hope I can still get my taxes done!”

Again, Christ steps up to empty Himself, whereas the rest of the sons of Elohim do not. Him taking the form of a slave, that is, a human being, is by definition, giving up His soul for the very creation that is through Him (John 1:10.) See how the evangel of God should be recontextualizing the kingdom evangel, and not vice versa? God > kingdom. Celestial > physical. Hell, look at the word “ransom!” He’s speaking physical truths to Israel! Yet we know this isn’t just a “ransom” for many, but, through the evangel of God, it’s a “salvation” of all! Surely, you wouldn’t look at this phrase in the kingdom evangel and seek to limit the ‘salvation of all’ statement from Paul! Yet this is what’s happening pertaining to Christ’s glories!

There is a physical directive with Jesus’ ministry, and pointing to it to supersede or serve as the foundation for an argument to alter the meaning of God’s evangel will not do us, in Christ, seeking His riches, any good. For Aaron, however, this humility doesn’t truly take effect until His Ministry, or, I guess, His death (it’s a little unclear, the lines he’s drawing.) He continues:

The same idea found in Matthew 20:28 was, I believe, expressed by Christ in parable form elsewhere:

Jesus’ parable in Matt. 13:44-46 –

Like is the kingdom of the heavens to a treasure hidden in the field, finding which, a man hides it, and, in his joy, is going away, and is selling all, whatever he has, and is buying that field. Again, like is the kingdom of the heavens to a man, a merchant, seeking ideal pearls. Now, finding one very precious pearl, he comes away, having disposed of all whatever he had, and buys it.

Aaron quotes A.E. Knoch, concerning this parable. “In order to possess Himself of the treasures, the Son of Mankind gives His all and purchases the world. He has overpaid its price by His blood.” I don’t know where he gets this quote from – certainly not his Commentary. Probably Unsearchable Riches, but that’s not my concern. My concern is, how do you get no pre-existing Christ out of this? This is a parable that, as Brother Knoch astutely does point out in his commentary, pertains to Christ as the Man in question, not the sinner. Because His soul is precious, as Peter wrote? Surely, this isn’t the conclusion to reach! I’m reading the Divine loving His creation so much, so as to give Himself up for it! Again, this is a kingdom evangel, so it must be understood as Him speaking to Israel, thus narrowing the relative parable, here. Nonetheless, He gives everything, coming to earth for them as Messiah (Matt. 15:24,) they reject Him, and through their rejection, He saves all. This begs the question: how can One seek a pearl, that is, seek Israel, if this One doesn’t even exist at Abraham’s insemination (John 8:58,) and is already borne into the Israelite community?

*   *   *

Then we have the second most egregious rendering I’ve read so far. Before I disagree with this, please, understand, again, that in almost everything else he writes, I think Aaron is spot on with his writings and arguments. His level of attention to detail is second to none; I just wish it wasn’t working against Scriptural precedent, here. This is the verse I’ve been looking for him to discuss, and now that I’m here, I’m truly surprised that the passage has been shifted in such a way, so as to remove Christ’s glory from the passage.

Observe Philippians 2:5-8:

For let this [humility] be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

I’m going to stick closely to what Aaron says, here, so I’m not misrepresenting his argument:

Strangely enough, those who hold to the view that Christ pre-existed as a human before his conception point to this passage as supporting the view that Christ pre-existed his conception.

How strange.

But if this were the case – and if verses 7 and 8 are to be understood as meaning that Christ became a human when he was conceived - then it would mean that a human who pre-existed his conception subsequently became human by virtue of being conceived as one.

I believe, when Aaron says “a human,” so as to imply that, because we take the “Christ pre-existed” ‘stance,’ we must concede that more humans pre-existed, which is still a logical fallacy that we did not claim. Christ is indeed a separate Being – we didn’t start celestial, but He did, per “being inherently in the form of God… empties Himself.”

Also, He became human because God, uniquely, plants Him into Mary’s womb. Again: Greek elements of the word “generated” is, literally, “BECAME.”

But this, of course, is absurd.

Saying something is absurd before backing the claim? Or… dissecting the verse at all? Please.

I submit that Paul did not have in view the “pre-existence” of Christ (whether as a “human” or otherwise) in these verses at all.

Here is his setup.

Rather, I believe that what Paul had in mind here was Christ’s earthly ministry – a ministry which began when Christ was baptized and anointed with the Spirit of God (Luke 3:21-22), and which later culminated in his “becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

This is the claim Aaron makes – that Paul did not have, in view, the “pre-existence” of Christ in these verses, and that it was Christ’s earthly ministry.

I have so many issues with this statement. Gosh, where do I start?

So, first, Aaron is reading Christ’s earthly ministry in a celestial revelation. All around this verse, we find Christ’s exaltation, His consolations, His humility, His blessing, and more. We are reading of Christ’s various glories, which impart our deportment. Why, in the midst of this chapter, do we go from celestial discussion of Christ, down to His earthly ministry, which had already been discussed by this time, and then back up to the salvation of all in verse 10-11??

This statement of Aaron’s, that we are dealing with the earthly ministry, instantly clarifies the “Achilles’ Heel” of an otherwise phenomenal writer. The verse starts with, “Christ Jesus’” disposition, being humility (see v. 3.) He is inherently in the form of God (cross ref. Col. 1:15,) yet deems it not pillaging to be equal with God (see: Mark 10:6 and 13, where He solely gives God credit for creation!)

In case you thought, “oh, well, that verse could be talking about Christ in His completed form, post death,” Paul clarifies, with a “nevertheless,” that despite being inherently in the form of God, He empties Himself, which lines right up with the point of humility that Paul is making. It also completely throws Aaron’s ‘earthly ministry’ angle out the window. You can’t wrench the terrestrial into the celestial.

Now, Aaron simply doesn’t believe this (and, dare I say, is not believing the Words of God, in this case,) instead stating:

Being “inherently in the form of God” is something that was true of Christ during his earthly ministry, and agrees with what Christ himself declared concerning himself (i.e., that to be seeing and beholding him was to be seeing and beholding the Father; John 12:45; 14:9).

This is nice and all, but this idea limits this verse, that He is inherently in the form of God, to His earthly ministry. It’s implying the idea that one could, indeed, follow the law, if they just tried hard enough! It defeats the idea that God dispatches His son into the world (John 3:17,) and instead imparts the idea that Jesus, as a man, rises above the rest by being picked at His ministry. This is surely a dangerous notion to be spreading, particularly among us, in Christ, in this day and age, when there are so few of us on the planet anymore!

But, let’s give Aaron the benefit of the doubt. I know he knows, at the very least, that Jesus is the physical temple of the Father, even before His ministry. But to presume that, for some reason, Paul is only talking about His ministry, when Paul doesn’t mention it in any way, is exactly what I mean when I say he’s taking the kingdom evangel and editing God’s evangel. We don’t read hell into Jesus’ threats of indignation; we don’t read free will into Paul’s discussions in 1 Cor. 7. We should not, then, be reading a separate ministry into a passage that didn’t ask for it (Gal. 1:1, 6.)

Christ was just as much the “image of the invisible God” while on earth as he is now, in heaven (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4).

And before the earth, too! Again, there is no mention of earth, here! Nothing that gives us the indication that we should be limiting the verses and thus, Christ’s glory!

But what did Paul mean by Christ’s “emptying himself” and “taking the form of a slave?”

As Paul recognizes that humanity is ‘enslaved,’ that being a human is, naturally, being enslaved to the spiritual, as he himself writes in Romans 1:1, and elaborates on in Romans 6, it makes sense that, in Paul’s celestial (Christ Jesus) discussion of our Lord, “taking the form of a slave” is to, literally, take the form of a man. Paul follows up with, “coming to be in the likeness of humanity.” Strangely enough, this seems like the correct rendering of the passage. But let’s let Aaron cook:

Although Christ inherently had great privileges and rights due to his status as the Son of God (as John says, this status entailed his being “equal to God,” in the sense of being able to do certain things that God – but no one else – had the authority to do), Christ relinquished whatever privileges/rights he had during his ministry, and (as Paul says) took “the form of a slave” and came to be “in the likeness of humanity.”

Again, limiting these verses to the kingdom evangel, when this is indeed a separate evangel (Gal. 1:1, 6,) is very, very surprising to me. Again, why limit these verses to His ministry? Did Paul say that? At all? Was Jesus not in the likeness of humanity before His ministry? Are we not reading celestial observations, previously unknown to the Israelites and the bulk of the world?

Paul was not referring to an immortal, celestial spirit-being transforming himself into a mortal, flesh-and-blood human; rather, Paul had in mind the “disposition” that Christ had during his mortal lifetime, and which was most fully manifested when he became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Just making this statement, without the proper verse to contextualize that Paul is speaking of His ministry, makes this not fact, but assumption. An unnecessary correlation, which adds something into the text. This is, by definition, something we are explicitly asked not to do (1 Cor. 4:6,) and practical consequence of this is displayed in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:16, 3:3, 4.) Being disposed above what’s written can lead to more doubt, and, by the length of some of these articles, God’s warning at the start stands out yet again, putting his argument in an increasingly clear perspective for me. This yet another claim being made, one which I’m getting the sense will not be properly elaborated on until much later in this series of articles, during his rebuttal against Zender.

Clearly, Christ’s “taking the form of a slave” didn’t have anything to do with a pre-existent spirit-being becoming “incarnated as a slave” (from a pre-existent non-slave state?).

Oh, wait. He said “clearly.” My fault, guys. He’s right.

In the same way, Christ’s “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” had nothing to do with Christ’s “becoming human” (in fact, it is reasonable to understand Paul’s words in v. 7 as an example of parallelism, in which the same basic idea is being conveyed in two different ways for the sake of emphasis).

The following is a brief study on the word “likeness,” found in Rom. 1:23, 5:14, 6:5, 8:3, Phil. 2:7, and Unv. 9:7. I’m not going to focus on the last one, because it’s prophecy and outside Paul’s letters.

-       Rom. 1:23 – “Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid, changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being.” Here, God’s glory, being Christ (John 13:31-32,) is likened to that of a corruptible human being. Let me ask you: if you are removing the quality of His “pre-existence” that comes with His sonship (Heb. 1:3,) are you not likening Jesus to nothing more than a corruptible human being, Whom God delighted in at a later point in His life?? The view that Aaron takes here disregards, completely, that God, again, must have had Someone to plant in Mary, if Mary were to be given a virginal birth!

-       Rom. 5:14 – “death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam…” This is in reference to Adam’s sin, being directly disobeying God. We did talk about this verse before; they sinned, yes, and death reigned in all mortals at the time, though many didn’t sin like Adam did.

-       Rom. 6:5 – “For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was crucified together with Him also…” This is a fascinating verse to me, because many proponents of Aaron’s theory will proclaim that Col. 1:16, for example, only pertains to the new humanity. I ask, now: how can the old humanity die with Him if they held no spiritual connection to Him?? How can a non-existent Being somehow hold sway over people that had existed thousands of years beforehand?? Furthermore, the word “likeness,” here, discusses being affiliated in the likeness of His death, which all partake of (2 Cor. 5:14.) Obviously, we didn’t literally die, but humanity, this old flesh, is now like dead to God.

-       Rom. 8:3 – “For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh..." Huh. I would think this verse is yet another within Paul's evangel that backs up His preexistence, no? Words like "God's Son was born in flesh" aren't exactly present here! More like, "sent" and "law was infirm through the flesh" are present, as in, it is impossible for the flesh to accomplish law. It seems as though correlating God's Son with a fleshly birth ties Christ directly to humanity, with sin in the flesh. But no, by all means, please tell me more about how this is a mistake on Paul's part.

There’s an increasing realization that this word ‘likeness’ is considering things in ‘simile,’ fashion, which, while a literal ‘figure of speech,’ has no bearing on the next phrase, which is, ‘being found in fashion as a human.’ “Likeness” is homoioma, or, with the Greek elements, “LIKENESS,” while the word “fashion,” used in Phil. 2:8, is schema, or, with the Greek elements, “FIGURE.” He is the figure of a man – the five senses take precedent in “fashion” of a man. The only other time ‘fashion’ is used is in relation to the world itself, in 1 Cor. 7:31, which gives this a word a transient nature, a passing context.

Take all that we’ve just read on, and Scripture becomes clearer. Again:

[Christ] empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the [image] of humanity, and, being found in [perception] as a human, He humbles Himself…

Again, Jesus is not like a man only during His ministry, and the fact that Paul is essentially saying He is like a man would prove even further that He begins above, and descends!

The words “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” are not about a non-human being who, at some point, came to have the “likeness” of a human.

Heck, even if Aaron is correct, that this ‘likeness’ and ‘fashion’ is an example of ‘parallelism,’ how on earth would it prove his initial point, that we’re dealing with Jesus during His ministry?? Also, this statement is still assumption, when no dots have been connected to his initial point.

Rather, these words are about a human being who, despite being unique and in certain ways unlike every other human (being the “Son of the living God”), chose to live and act in such a way that gave him the “likeness” of the rest of humanity (i.e., humanity in general).

Romans 1:23.

Rather than using his God-given power and authority in a way that elevated himself above the rest of humanity (and above all the various evils that are common to humanity, including death itself), he “took the form of a slave” in relation to God, and conducted himself in a way that reflected humanity’s complete dependency on God – even to the point of death.

“Human” and “slave” are synonymous, Aaron. Paul’s connecting the two through the “parallelism” you discuss.

Notice that this also contradicts Aaron’s previous claim, that Christ begins as rich, somehow, before His ministry, as a human. Also, what does “in relation to God,” mean? Perchance, could it mean, celestial? How do we go from physical ministry, terrestrial, to relation to God, celestial?? In the span of, like, a sentence, (less than a sentence, in the passage being discussed,) we’ve gone from a weird mishmash of celestial to physical, back to a celestial glory!

When Paul wrote that Christ was “found in fashion as a human,” he wasn’t suggesting that Christ once existed as something other than a human; rather, he meant that, since Christ was a human, he was able to “empty himself”/“humble himself” to the point of being “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Writing that Christ is “found in fashion” as a human doesn’t make Christ solely human, Aaron! Calling Him “like a human” is an important delineation, in this celestial revelation, because it’s to show that He, indeed, is not mankind’s seed! Are you able to empty yourself, becoming obedient unto death, simply because you’re a man?? What on earth would this mean, in the context of other men?

“Becoming obedient unto death” is Him becoming the fashion of a man. There’s a difference, here: “obedient unto death” is not the same as “death of the cross.” He is murdered in one case, and subject (as man already is) to death in the other.

That is, the fact of Christ’s being “found in fashion as a human” is what made it possible for him to die. And Christ’s mortality as a human is what allowed his decision to “empty himself” to find expression in the act of perfect obedience to God that resulted in his death.

To quote Mr. Gabe Christ (who wrote this to me, but I’m paraphrasing, here):

“The biggest problem with the non-preexistence argument is that it makes Christ an achieving man… worship of Christ the achieving creature… and I hear often the word “obedience” which makes Christ’s adherence to God’s will a work and not just that He was walking in accord with God’s Will. It’s like a back door into free will!”

This man put into words something I couldn’t convey on my own. Thank you, Gabe. And Aaron’s words here display it, accurately and cleanly, here. He “decided” to empty Himself after being born. What if He said, “No!”? What would’ve happened then? A man walking the law perfectly because God said so? That’s far and away a slap in the face to the revelations in John, as well as Paul’s revelations, here. It’s exactly the issue that the Pharisees had! Observe John 9:16:

Some of the Pharisees, then, said, “This man is not from God, for he is not keeping the sabbath.” Yet others said, “How can a man who is a sinner be doing such signs?” And there was a schism among them.

“You’re calling us hypocrites, but you’re just a man!” If Aaron’s assessment here were true, and Jesus truly started as a man, and then made the decision to empty Himself, he’d be agreeing with the logic of the Pharisees! Furthermore, it would imply that Jesus, as a man, was a hypocrite (Rom. 3:4, 10.)

Aaron continues asserting that, because Paul uses the phrase “emptied Himself,” that this must have meant that Jesus chose to be dependent on God, when He could have done the opposite, by exerting His power as Son of God. Observe, now, Romans 9:16-18:

It is not of him who is willing, nor of him who is racing, but of God, the Merciful. For the scripture is saying to Pharoah that ‘For this selfsame thing I rouse you up, so that I should be displaying in you My power, and so that My name should be published in the entire earth.’ Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening.

Then, Aaron asks us to consider Matt. 26:53. So, let’s consider it:

Are you supposing that I am not able to entreat My Father, and at present He will station by My side more than twelve legions of messengers?

Now, Aaron finishes quoting the verse there. Yet it continues, saying:

How, then, may the scriptures be fulfilled, seeing that thus it must occur?

Huh! Yet Aaron says,

Christ – being the Son of God - had the inherent authority to do what no other human being could’ve done in such circumstances.

What authority was that? At this time, He’s in the likeness of a slave, and the passage is the last we should be using to assert that He held an authority on the earth at that time! The only thing Jesus says is that any authority He does have is given by His Father (John 3:17, 4:34.) Hell, A.E. Knoch cross references 2 Kings 6:17. Observe that verse:

Now Elisha prayed and said, O Yahweh, unclose, I pray, his eyes so that he may see. Yahweh unclosed the eyes of the lad, and he saw, behold, the hill was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Huh! So it seems that God places legions of messengers around any who operate under His will! If Jesus held any sort of self-decision-making-authority on the earth at this time, as Aaron must now proclaim, He wouldn’t have been praying in Gethsemane, because He wouldn’t have needed to! He wouldn’t be praying blood, sweat and tears; He’d have just said “Screw this, I’m out!” See, He was emptied of celestial authority, and the authority He does have is from God, which is why, by definition, He’s a slave on earth. This isn’t His decision, but God’s. This will be elaborated on in the book of John, but I’ll save it for when Aaron himself dives into it in subsequent articles.

*   *   *

Now, Aaron proceeds to one of my favorite passages. Observe Colossians 1:13-20:

[God, the Father] rescues us out of the jurisdiction of Darkness, and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins, Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, 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, and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.

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, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, 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.

Notice that, in v. 15, Paul says that Christ IS (present tense) “Firstborn of every creature.”

Okay?

Although the title “Firstborn of every creature” is commonly understood by those holding to the “pre-existence” doctrine to mean that Christ was created by God before every other created thing…

Though, indeed it does,

…this interpretation is not warranted by the facts concerning the meaning of the term “firstborn” (it should also be pointed out that, when understood literally, the term could not even be appropriately ascribed to a “pre-existent” being if his existence began long before he was ever actually “born”).

The term “Firstborn,” by definition, is prototokos, or “BEFORE-most-BROUGHT-FORTH.” How can this be interpreted as anything other than, “First?” Hmm.

In Scripture, “firstborn” (prototokos) is a legal term that refers to one on whom a privileged status is conferred, or to whom a major inheritance is given.

Almost, like, Christ’s privileged status is being the Firstborn of every creature, thus inherits it all, like a birthright?

Although the term is undoubtedly derived from the ancient custom of conferring special privileges or an inheritance on the legal firstborn in a family, it should be noted that this did not necessarily mean that one was born first in time (a well-known example in Scripture of someone failing to receive their legal birthright despite being born first is Esau).

Oop – hang on, “necessarily” is Aaron’s addition to the text, not what was written. I can see where this is headed. Also, are we comparing Christ’s status to Esau? I would hope this isn’t the case! God hated Esau. Where, in Scripture, does Christ fail to receive this birthright? Where does God hate Christ?

Based on this custom, the word came to be used in reference to anyone to whom a preeminent rank or special privileges had been given.

BZZTT. Penalty, flag on the field! Comparing Christ’s allotment to man, when God doesn’t operate this way. The contingency is once again added by Aaron, here, in a verse where no contingent phrase is being given. “Firstborn of every creature” is declarative, not interrogative or speculative. Romans 1:23. We wouldn’t give this contingency to the later “Firstborn,” in v. 18, so let’s not put it here. Five yards back.

For example, the word prototokos appears in the LXX translation of Exodus 4:22 where God referred to Israel as his “firstborn son.”

And?

The word also appears in Jeremiah 31:9 in reference to Ephraim (which is significant, since Ephraim’s brother Manasseh was actually born before him).

**Which is prefaced with the term, “I am a Father to Israel,” which shows Ephraim, despite being second, is considered firstborn through his “Israelite” status. Again; and?

In both of these examples, the term “firstborn” has to do with one’s being “first” (i.e., preeminent) in rank and privilege rather than being first in time.

BZZTT. Penalty, flag on the field! Comparing Israel’s allotment to Christ’s, because see, Israel is first nationally, while Christ is the first celestially – firstborn of every creature! “Firstborn” could only pertain to His rank and privilege if it didn’t say, “of every creature.” I think it’s safe to say that when you can only point to a potential exception, and it’s national, not individual, the simple definition of the word ‘Firstborn’ should suffice. Five yards back.

Aaron references Psalm 89:26-29. Observe:

He, he shall call out to Me, You are my Father, My El and the Rock of my salvation. Indeed, I, I shall make him the firstborn, The uppermost of the kings of the earth. For the eon shall I keep My benignity upon him, And My covenant with him is faithful. I will establish his seed for the future, And his throne as the days of the heavens.

Here, again, the title "firstborn" clearly involves a person being given a preeminent status or rank... The title "Firstborn of every creature" is a title that was bestowed upon the man, Jesus Christ, when he was roused by God from among the dead and given all authority in heaven and earth.

BZZTT. Penalty, flag on the field! Comparing David’s allotment to Christ’s, because there’s no connective tissue between “being given privilege among Israel” and “being the Firstborn of every creature,” especially when there’s zero indication in Colossians so far that we’re dealing with the physical Jesus Christ. Also, he's mixing 'authority' with 'creation.' Safety!

My turn to run the ball. Reread:

[God] rescues us out of the jurisdiction of Darkness, and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His Love, in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins, Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature.

We are, in fact, talking about a celestial kingdom, in verse 13. We are taken out of this jurisdiction of Darkness, which is the world (Gal. 1:4,) and transported into the kingdom of the Son of His Love. This is not the first time we have been introduced to this figure. We are called ambassadors for this kingdom, in the flesh (2 Cor. 5:20.) To complete this figure, we are, figuratively, pardoned of these sins in the kingdom, and we have deliverance. To quote A.E. Knoch:

“So little are the saints familiar with figures of speech that this passage has been the cause of embarrassment to those who saw clearly the vast difference between justification and pardon. No doubt many have been hindered from enjoying the grand grace of justification simply because, in this passage, we are said to have the pardon of sins. Again, the present is so often called “the kingdom,” in a vague way confusing it with the literal reign of Messiah, that one is tempted to avoid further confusion by saying little or nothing about it. But it is a glorious truth, and worthy of our most earnest consideration, that, in spirit, the saints already partake of some of the blessings of the future kingdoms, even though its physical wonders are by no means with us yet.”

Now, why, after this, and after being told that Christ is the Image of the invisible God, do we suddenly switch to “terrestrial-post-resurrection-man-Jesus” and then switch back to celestial discussion of creation in a future kingdom in verse 18? This is, again, adding terrestrial revelations to Israel into a piece of writing concerning celestial matters. Let’s do this crazy thing, and let God’s word speak for itself.

See, the whole point of creation is love. I doubt that Aaron would disagree with this, no? Without it, life really has no meaning! Very quickly, in Genesis 1, we see the creation, both of the first and second heaven and earth, displaying God’s wisdom and power. But it takes God until now, now that Jesus’ death and resurrection can be displayed for all to see, that we can realize, “Oh, shit! Creation is made in love!” As Christ is the Image of the invisible God, and God is love (1 John 4:8,) it’s very plain to see, and very easy to read “Firstborn of every creature,” and go, “Oh, so God using Christ to create everything completes the whole ‘out of love’ Image!”

Anyway, Aaron mentions Psalm 89 again, to little avail (because it’s talking about David, not Christ,) and then stresses that Hebrews 1:5-6 should be read in light of Heb. 2:5, which I guess I can agree with? Hebrews, after listing Christ’s glories and exalted status, launches into comparison of Christ and God’s previous messengers, then of the future kingdom and beyond. Does it prove that Christ didn’t exist? No, but it’s nice that he studies his Bible. People don’t do that anymore, so congratulate Aaron, whenever you see him. I know I will.

When Paul referred to Christ as the “firstborn from among the dead” a few verses later, he was revealing when Christ became the “firstborn” - i.e., when he was roused from among the dead by God.

No, that’s the job of the second ‘Firstborn,’ referenced in Col. 1:18, which is, “Firstborn from among the dead.”

It is AFTER Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” that God “highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name...”

Was this before or after He emptied Himself?

The “name above every name” referenced is pertaining to the new humanity. Paul wouldn’t give two separate paragraphs (being Phil. 2:5-8 and 9-11) and discuss the same thing – especially not in a letter like Philippians, where there are only like 4 pages.

It is in his risen and vivified (not “pre-existent”) state that Christ “enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they [the messengers]” (Heb. 1:3-4).

Hmm. This is true, when you discuss the authority Christ is given over the heavens and earth, relatively speaking, but absolutely doesn’t detract from Paul’s “Firstborn of every creature” statement, thus rendering his parenthetical statement a moot point. Also, still mixing the kingdom and God evangels together. It’s like mixing vodka and whisky. You’ll get a tummy ache.

it was when Christ was roused from among the dead that he became what he now is: the “Firstborn of every creature.”

Logic question time: how to be the Firstborn of every creature without actually being the firstborn? According to Aaron, because Israel was the firstborn nation and because David was appointed king over them, called “firstborn,” this also means that Christ is “titled” Firstborn of every creature. Nevermind that it doesn’t say something like, “made Firstborn of every creature,” how David’s does, or that the second “Firstborn” is taken literally, as “Firstborn from among the dead,” concerning the new humanity, or even that the old humanity certainly dies with Him, almost like He’s inherently connected to them – it must be that He is “titled” this! Nevermind the love, the whole sacrifice stuff, because that’s just stuff, see – because the kingdom evangel concerns the Messiah, we must not read Christ’s existence through all of Creation to mean all, but only after a certain point.

Do you hear how this sounds? This sounds like, because Jesus mentioned ‘carcasses in a valley,’ hell must be. This sounds like, because Jesus said He and His Father are One, the Trinity must be. This sounds like, because we are asked to confess our belief in Romans 10, that works are required for salvation. Everything I’m reading, here (which I’ve displayed very clearly, for you yourself to read, so far,) is working around the intent and context of the passage itself, to work ‘Firstborn of every creature’ out of it. Just as much as we are asked not to be disposed above what is written, we are just as much entreated not to add or remove anything from it (Prov. 30:5-6.) Don’t reconstruct what God did not ask us to reconstruct, lest we remove one of Christ’s greatest glories from the reading!

But what about verse 16?

*sigh* What about verse 16, Aaron?

In the last installment, it was shown that Christ, Paul and God himself all affirmed that the universe was created by God alone, with no indication that God was accompanied by anyone, or used any intermediary to accomplish his creative work.

No, it really wasn’t, as you were seeking answers in the wrong places, from terrestrial revelations given to Israel, but for the sake of your argument, please continue.

However, those who affirm the pre-existence of Christ believe that this verse proves that everything God created was created through, or by means of, Christ.

Yes.

First, it needs to be kept in mind while reading verse 16 that the one in, through and for whom everything in view is said to be created is Christ Jesus, who (in v. 13) is called the “Son of [the Father's] love.”

Honestly, we should be keeping in mind while reading verse 16, the previous verse, which calls Him the “Firstborn of every creature,” but I guess if you want to think of the “Son of the Father’s Love” statement, you can, considering the universe, being made out of God and through Christ (1 Cor. 8:6,) would show that love drives creation. So… sure.

But as argued earlier, scripture is clear that “the Son” did not personally exist as such until he was begotten by God.

As you argued earlier – not as Scripture argued earlier. There’s a difference between being only-begotten and being created entirely. I’m skipping his reaffirmation on Hebrews 1:5-6, because I believe I already commented on them.

Second, what did Paul have in view when he said that all is created in, through and for Christ, both in the heavens and on the earth?

I, and many other believers who have studied these mature epistles with great detail, have reached the conclusion that Paul’s “view” when saying “all is created in, through and for Christ, both in the heavens and on the earth,” he was very likely thinking, “Man, one of Christ’s glories is that all is created in, through and for Him, both in the heavens and on the earth!”

Please, hold your applause until the end.

After I came to reject the Christian doctrine of the “triune God,” my understanding of Paul’s words here was as follows: God originally created everything with his Son in mind, as the ultimate reason and explanation for God’s creative act.

Huh. I’m glad that you essentially call this is an “ex-belief.” Please, show me the verse that says, “God originally created everything with His Son in mind.”

As I was reading these verses in the Concordant Literal New Testament one day, I noticed something interesting that, as far as I know, is not present in other translations. Whereas most Bible translations have translated verse 16 in such a way that the creation event in view appears to be something that took place in the past, the relevant portions of verse 16 are both translated in the CLNT as follows: “...for in Him IS all created...” and “...all IS created through Him and for Him...” “Is” created, not “was” created.

Yeah, as creation is a living story, and not an object of the past, I’d imagine that this is a pretty good sentiment, on God’s part.

Why, then, didn’t Knoch simply use the past tense to reflect this belief, if the text allowed for it?

Because Knoch’s views didn’t stem from his own reasonings; his views began in Scripture and remained in Scripture. Indeed it’s very difficult to find flaws or holes in Knoch’s understanding, mainly because he didn’t like to hold views if they couldn’t be adamantly proven. Clearly, using the present tense in this passage doesn’t detract from his understanding, nor should it detract yours or mine.

I discovered that, in the last part of v. 16, Paul was using what's called the “perfect passive indicative” of the Greek verb ktizō (to create). According to Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, Paul’s use of this particular tense conveys the idea of everything’s “standing created” or “remaining created.”

Fascinating.

(No seriously, I know I’m generally sarcastic, but that’s really interesting!)

Thus, it seems that what Paul was actually intending to convey here is that all things in heaven and on earth stand (or remain) created “through” and “for” Christ.

Does this prove that He didn’t exist beforehand? If things remain created in Him, even in His death, there’s no real issue between “pre-existing Christ” and the passage that blatantly states, “through Christ all is made.” I would say that this is, in actuality, pretty good news, (literally) all things considered.

This understanding is consistent with what we read in Hebrews 1:3, where it’s said that Christ is “carrying on [or “upholding”] all by His powerful declaration.”

I can only agree to an extent; considering the Hebrews passage is more limited in scope, focused on His declarations, thus, by verse three zoning in on His authority, the passages are certainly consistent, but not in the way I fear Aaron is trying to discredit Paul’s blatant celestial observations.

In other words, the authority that God gave Christ when he made him “Lord of all” after rousing him from among the dead means that the universe “stands/remains created” by virtue of Christ's authoritative declaration that it be so.

No, see, this mixes the two passages together when Hebrews isn’t revealing the same celestial observations, and adds “stands/remains created” when the Hebraist is speaking of carrying on through His declarations.

Although everything in the universe has its ultimate origin in God (who originally brought everything into existence), everything in the universe remains created and continues to exist by virtue of Christ’s God-given authority.

Blatant statement against God’s evangel. All is out of Him, not in Him (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6, 2 Cor. 5:18,) while everything is in Christ (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-16.) The simple fact remains that Aaron has not adequately disproven the statement, and, again, though I respect the vast majority of his writings, he is writing against God’s divine revelation in the above passage.

Now Aaron finally reaches 1 Corinthians 8:6, saying,

Paul expressed the same idea in 1 Corinthians 8:6… Notice the use of the present tense here. All that is “out of” God is said to be (presently) “through” Christ.

Yet another logical fallacy. Aaron adds the word “presently,” a word not in the text. The “present tense” doesn’t mean the words only now take precedent, especially when John 1 certainly speaks of His creation before the world begins, nor does the present tense detract from the revelation itself. I hate to insult Aaron, and I hope I don’t, of course, but this is missing the forest for the trees. The revelation is lost because the text is read too hard. Observe Romans 12:3:

For I am saying, through the grace which is given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to be overweening, beyond what your disposition must be, but to be of a sane disposition, as God parts to each the measure of faith.

It’s okay, at some point, to accept what’s written as fact. What God says can indeed be true; yes, we’ve all been burned by religion in some extreme way. Yeah, Satan’s a bitch. Yeah, it’s a miracle any of us are graced with Christ’s faith at all! But this doesn’t mean we should be so wary as to ignore these very clear, very literal revelations. When you have to work around the passage ever so delicately, and implement a bunch of supposition into the passage, you lose the very special significance of the message God’s relaying to you!

That’s what I struggle to understand the most about this. It looks as though Aaron has spent a lot of time disproving the Trinity, and this is a positive, effective work in this eon. In this sense, Aaron brings an evangel of good. But we must also understand that the Trinity itself is a logical fallacy from adding something to the text that isn’t written, and if our purpose, in reading Scripture, is only to disprove others, then we cease to get all there is to get out of each verse! These are God’s revelations to us. Yes, there are passages difficult to apprehend because it’s in English, but if we think about every single word the way Aaron is considering this passage right now, things get so contingent on interpretation and hearsay that it becomes impossible to, literally, read the verses like normal people! You could read anything anywhere and it becomes a jumbled, alliterative, illustrative, any other ‘ative,’ plus more simile and metaphor. It’s a big mess, then, and inadvertently detracts from what God said.

*   *   *

Ever since God gave Christ all authority in heaven and on earth, everything created by God is remaining in its created state by means of Christ, who is “carrying on all by His powerful declaration.”

BZZTT. Using the “perfect passive indicative” to completely change the word is to remains. Again, here’s the text:

[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, 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...

God says “in Him is all created,” while Aaron says, “in Him is all remaining created now that He’s ascended,” when the context not once requires you to read this into the text.

In the first part of Col. 1:16, we read that “in Him [Christ] is all created.” Here, Paul is using the “constative aorist passive indicative” of ktizō.

*sigh*

The aorist tense “presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence.” 

Yeah? Almost like this is an “absolute” statement?

This tense basically describes an action as a bare fact.

Hell yeah, it does.

Since we know that Paul had in mind everything’s “remaining created” through and for Christ in the last part of v. 16, we can understand him to have had this same event in mind in the earlier part of v. 16, viewed “as a whole” and as a “bare fact.”

Logical fallacy, from reading extra words into the text. "Is" means "is," and just because the verb form gives the is a 'stands' (don't forget 'stands') or 'remains' quality does not change the word entirely, nor does it add a word to the text that would cancel out the previous statements.

Finally, in verses 17-18, we read:

He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him. And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be coming first...

Notice, again, the present tense used: “IS before all,” not “WAS before all.”

Because He’s not a guy, and He’s still alive; being alive makes it really hard to say, “He was before all,” if He still is. It’d be like saying, “McDonalds is the oldest fast food chain.” If McDonalds is the oldest, the other fast food chains won’t magically out-age McDonalds, will they? How ridiculous I’d sound to say, “McDonalds was the oldest.”

Paul was not talking about something that was true of Christ at some point in eons past (i.e., prior to the creation referred to in Genesis 1:1).

Well, because Aaron said it, it must be true. I must wonder what he thinks, then, of passages such as Romans 3:22. Does he not truly believe it’s “Christ’s faith,” though Paul blatantly says it?

Rather, what Paul had in view was something that was true of Christ, the Son of God, at the time he was writing (and which remains true of him now).

*sigh*

The Greek word translated “before” in v. 17 is the word pro, and can refer to time, place or position.

Here, it refers to time, because we’ve been dealing with creation. If we’re reading “before,” or, pro, as somehow “before... in stature,” then we are disconnecting verse 17 from the previous one. Furthermore, Aaron continues:

The central idea is clearly that of Christ’s preeminence. In light of this fact, it is noteworthy that the word translated “before” in Col. 1:17 (pro) can mean “in a higher or more important position than.”

Should it be disputed in any way that He has authority over all? No. This passage doesn’t concern His authority, or, essentially, “Headship” over all, because otherwise, the passage would have said, “Head over every creature,” or something to that effect. It doesn’t. God says “Firstborn.” He also says, “and all has its cohesion in Him” right after “He is before all,” so we know creation is still at the forefront of the passage.

Anyways, let’s watch Aaron hop evangels, again. Here’s James (James, the literal not-Paul,) 5:12:

Now before all, my brethren, do not be swearing, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor any other oath. Now let your "yes" be "yes," and "no" be "no," lest you should be falling under judging.

I wonder how Aaron read this passage, which considered the person, in relation to the words of Jesus, and said, “this proves Christ didn’t exist!” Before I read what he wrote, he also mentions 1 Peter 4:7-8:

Now the consummation of all is near. Be sane, then, and sober for prayers, before all, having earnest love among yourselves, for love is covering a multitude of sins.

In both James 5:12 and 1 Peter 4:8, the expression pro pantōn (“before all”) conveys the idea of something’s being of greater importance than something else, rather than of something’s being chronologically prior to something else.

How about that.

I submit that the same idea was being expressed when Paul used the same expression in Col. 1:17.

Yet both passages referenced a) concern man, not the celestial revelations of Christ, b) concern Israel, not us, or the celestial revelations of Christ, and c) even for the sake of argument, the passage fails considerably to convey anything meaningful with Aaron’s suppositions (as His authority and Headship over all had already been unveiled as early as Romans 5:18-19, through conciliation, and maybe even earlier than that.)

Let’s read this entire passage, with Aaron’s additions and suppositions:

Who is the Image of the invisible God, now Firstborn of every creature, post Resurrection, for in Him is all remaining 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 presently created through Him and for Him, and He is before all in stature, and all has its cohesion in Him now that He's been given authority.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I spotted several big mistakes. Thirteen, to be exact. Thirteen additional, suppositional words that must be included, if the passage is going to read exactly how Aaron renders it.

This meaning of “before all” in Col. 1:17 is, I believe, confirmed by what Paul wrote just two verses later. In v. 19 Paul wrote that Christ is “…Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first…”

Aaron bolds “that in all He may be becoming first,” so as to emphasize this statement. Yet Aaron forgets the very previous statement, which I will now bold: “Firstborn from among the dead.” The part of the verse he bolded is in connection to the next glory that’s listed, being “Firstborn from among the dead.” This properly transfers us from one glory, being “Created in all,” to the next glory, which is “reconciling all.” This is the “parallelism” (if I’m using that word right,) that Aaron was seeking in this passage, but because his intent was to prove his own point, as opposed to embracing the words God wrote (sorry, Aaron,) the second Firstborn may be lost on him, simply because he added so many contingencies to the first one.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing