Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part VII)
Concerning “When Did Christ’s Life
Begin? A Response to Some Miscellaneous Objections + Further Remarks on
Colossians 1:15-17 and the Preeminence and Authority of Christ”
Aaron structures this
article a little bit differently, sharing objections to his perspective
in red. As such, I’m going to copy the objections in red font, and then respond
to Aaron’s responses.
“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.
Aaron’s right, here. Very few of us even exist on the planet today. If
‘majority rule’ were the stance, then shit, free will, eternal torment, and the
Trinity would be true. Democracy fails for a reason. I still don’t think that
this disproves Christ’s pre-existence, but it makes sense that Aaron puts this
objection first.
That said, Aaron says:
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 this, I highly disagree with. Our true starting point should be
Paul’s letters, discussing the evangel of God. This is a point of contention
I’ve held against his entire line of reasoning. Using the terrestrial revelations,
pitting the designated “Messiah” to Israel against the celestial observations
made known to us in Christ, is a logical fallacy; I cannot stress this
enough. This is the same issue I have with the ‘Acts 28’ theory! We should
be standing in the evangel, and contextualizing our understanding of
Israel’s revelations in effect, not the other way around. The Israel
revelations are limited in scope, meant for you to look back at
later.
This is why, though I respect Aaron, I call this view an “infirm” one,
because it isn’t rooted in the evangel of God, but in the evangel of the
kingdom. Just because it’s ‘not as simple’ of a viewpoint doesn’t make it less
true. Paul’s words are difficult to apprehend (2 Pet. 3:16,) but they are
sound in spiritual logic.
“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.”
Aaron has continually correlated the ‘preexistence of Christ’ with a
Trinitarian view, but it’s John and Paul that have continually reaffirmed His
pre-existence. The Trinity does this thing where it takes the truths of
the Bible and twists them. There are many views in the Trinity
that stem from proper truth, namely:
- God exists
- Jesus exists
- Jesus teached in a ministry
- Christ pre-exists
- God is invisible
- Operates in spirit
- Christ is the Image of the invisible God
- Christ’s will and His Father’s will are
identical
Unless we are going to disprove all the other views that go along
with the sum of the Trinity, I think it’s safe to say that the Trinity’s
credibility falters in its combination of these truths to try and make a
new one. This is the false view, the false perception that humanity
makes of God. That doesn’t mean we should deny the above truths in order
to deny the Trinity. There are many, many verses we can use, when properly
translated, to discard the Trinity’s demonic teaching.
That said, the ‘objection’ presented has its flaw, too. There’s nowhere
in Scripture that says Christ was created billions of years ago. Scripture says
it’s through Christ that God creates the eons, so it would follow that an
‘eon,’ being a literal period of time, is not the period in which Christ
is created. He would be created before the eons, which doesn’t fall
under the jurisdiction of ‘time,’ making the ‘billion years ago’ claim
unfounded. Moreover, the claim that Christ was created ‘in heaven’ is a fallacy
too, because Him being used to create ‘all’ would include the heavens
themselves.
Anyways, Aaron continues:
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.
Because…? Would this be because it makes Christ out to be a man in
nature…? Romans 1:23…?
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.
Right, so Jesus just did what, exactly? Figured it out one day whilst
sipping hot tea?
The only life he knew while on earth was the life into which
he was born and in which he grew up.
Let it be known that, apart from supposition and human reasoning, Aaron
has still done zero to prove this, or faithfully ‘re-interpret’ Colossians or
Philippians, in their celestial glory. He’s tried framing it differently, but
this argument has proven itself to be Aaron vs. Paul, not Aaron and Paul vs.
The Trinity.
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.
Let it still be known that John and Jesus Himself disagrees vehemently,
in John 1:1-13, 3:13 and 6:33.
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.
Oh, oh – I see it, right there in John 19:29.5. Observe:
And Jesus did not know of God’s previous works of creation,
having no memory of that which He proclaimed of Abraham. The Jews laughed, holding
the sponge, knowing they were correct. When, then, Jesus took the vinegar, He said, “It
is accomplished!” And reclining His head, He gives up the spirit.
See, this doesn’t really do anything. The proper objection
here should be: “The written word glorifies Christ. Everything God does
in Scripture, and in life, is to reveal Christ to creation. These eons are
building to Him subjecting all through Christ. Now, how does Christ
not existing somehow glorify Christ? If the whole point is to display that God
accomplishes what man cannot, how can a terrestrial being now
accomplish something through works that no other man could accomplish?” The
answer to this question, sadly, requires a heavy workaround – you must
either recontextualize the entire argument to answer it, or you must bury the
question in more convoluted logic and reasoning, twisting more verses
to prove your point. Verses shouldn’t be standing on their heads – we
shouldn’t be trying to convince each other that verses mean the opposite of
what they blatantly say.
“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.
Aaron is right that this indeed defines the term “word,” or, logos, in
Greek. However, it’s important that we look at the context in which logos
is presented. Observe:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was
the word.
When the word is being defined as toward something, as well as
presented as a Subjector, and this lines right up with Christ’s celestial revelations
to us in Scripture, this verse ceases to make sense apart from the fact
that it’s been personified as Christ, as the word becomes flesh in 1:14.
Simply repeating the claim of your previous argument doesn’t now make it true.
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.
Now what does this mean? Are we going to claim that, because Gen. 1:3 is
the first spoken word by God in Scripture, that this means that He had
never utilized the word previously? Considering the rigamarole involved in
creating the second earth, I would imagine the first earth requires a
similar treatment, especially when John 1:1, Col. 1:15-17, and Heb. 1:2 back
this theory. Also, Genesis 1:1 states, “In a beginning, not the beginning.”
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.
Yes – again, let the New Testament modify
the Old Testament, not the other way around. If John reveals that Christ is the
word, then the spoken word of God would, by definition, be Christ manifested in
the Old Testament, concerning Himself. And, by the way, yes, there’s a
difference between Yahweh speaking and Elohim speaking. Yahweh is a name, not
the title of “Subjector” the way that Elohim (or theos, in Greek,) is.
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).
*sigh* The word that’s a separate Entity, as being toward God?
In what sense can it be said that life (which is said to be
“the light of men”) was “in” God’s word?
Well, I would imagine that the life being in God’s word
would be Christ, as Christ is the light of men, whereas no
other man compares (John 14:6.) I would imagine that the life being
in God’s word would be Christ, as Christ is in the
word, and it is through the word that anything comes to be. It’s almost,
again, like Scripture lines itself up really perfectly, here.
Well, we know that, during Christ’s earthly ministry, the
“word of God” came through Christ.
Yes, and this is not an absolute context, but please, continue.
And significantly, we’re told that the very
declarations that Christ 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”).
Jesus, Aaron would be proving my point if he
hadn’t said his previous sentence.
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.
Yes, and also, that God’s word is a Subjector, as laid out in
John 1:1. Thus it is a separate Being referenced in the passage.
Otherwise, again, John has no reason to write this, and he might as well have
started with John 1:6, or 1:10 or something.
As far as Jesus’ being called the “Word of God” in Rev.
19:13, this is a title applied to the Man, Jesus Christ.
*you can’t tell, but I’m putting on my nerd glasses.
Actually, Aaron, it’s not applied to the Man, Jesus
Christ, because Jesus, in His earthly ministry, and the word of God are
certainly delineated in Unv. 20:4. Observe:
And I perceived thrones, and they are seated on them, and judgment was
granted to them. And the souls of those executed because of the testimony of Jesus
AND because of the word of God, and those who do not worship the wild
beast or its image, and did not get the emblem on their forehead and on their
hand- they also live and reign with Christ a thousand years.
Two separate concepts, One of an earthly Man, and another of the
celestial Subjector. Two separate forms in the same sentence for
you to deny or explain away, I guess.
Also, Aaron writes:
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).
Which is funny, because I thought that in order for the word of God to become
flesh, it must first be the word of God. Silly me, I must not have
been wearing these nerd glasses before I started. Now I know that if you become
something, you were never the original thing to begin with. If I become a
new creation, does this mean I was never the old? If I become drunk,
does this mean I was never sober? If I become tired of reading these
articles, does this mean I was never excited to do so?
Sorry, Aaron. I’m an asshole.
“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?”
This is arguably the first objection I’d
take a real side with. The problem is that Aaron spends the first part of his
response repeating the James fallacy and the idea that you must state that
Jesus was a flesh-and-blood mortal in heaven. The next objection, in response
to this:
“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.
Aaron’s correct that “literally” isn’t used in the
passage. I didn’t comment on this in my initial response (or maybe I did; I
don’t remember.) Nonetheless, I didn’t really think it worthy of mentioning,
since, if you read Christ’s pre-existence into John 6, and into John in
general, the passages that you must read around become crystal clear, and fit
like a glove. I’m sure Aaron will say something like, “Well, this has always
made this kind of sense to me,” but the reality is that, again, he’s
had to go through the entire book of John to write Christ out of the
very book that’s primarily conveying His ministry from His glories as the
Son of God, and has indeed sided with the misapprehending Pharisees on
numerous occasions.
That being said, this passage (John 6:46,
specifically) could be conveyed as an idiom, whether Christ’s
pre-existent glory is written into it or not (another one of those John 17 passages.)
Again, similar to the John 1:15, 26-30 passage, I don’t believe at all that
this is how you should be reading the passage, considering the blatant context
explicitly discussing His preexistence, but Aaron does give adequate evidence
to suggest that this statement could be perceived as idiomatic, and not as
literal. I don’t quite agree with some of his statements in the evidence
he provides, but I don’t want this to consume my life, and I have other things
I’d like to write on as well.
* * *
Aaron reiterates the Colossians 1:13-20 passage.
I’ll repeat it here:
[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.
In chapter eight of his book The Minister
and His Greek New Testament (p. 101), A.T. Robertson further explained
why the word translated “is created” (ktizō ) should be
understood in this way: “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.”
Again, almost like the passage starts with
what’s already been created (passive,) and then continues at the end of the
verse with all is remaining created, as in, irrespective of His
death, which should be highlighting the beauty and nature of His death even
further, being subject to it when He most certainly didn’t need to be – I still
don’t see what Aaron is getting at by trying to subtract from Scripture
by inadvertently adding to it.
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).”
God, again, what is Aaron getting at, here? Repeat
1:17:
…and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in
Him.
No tense erases this. No tense can ignore this. No
passage of Scripture should be turned into a maze of forms the way the above
passage has been obscured. There’s too many variables, guys, because
you’re fighting to deny something God wrote right here, very clearly. I’ve
already pointed out that in order to read this, the passages needs to be turned
on its head, and critical words in the passage need to be ignored. If he’s
talking about reconciliation in verses 18 through 20, he wouldn’t be saying the
same thing in ‘broader fashion’ in verse 15 and 16.
Paul had the same basic idea in mind in v. 16 as he did in v.
17.
Oh, so now I
get what Aaron’s saying. He’s saying this:
All is created through Him and for Him
Is ‘contextualized’ by this:
and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.
As though, now, all having its cohesion in Him is the way in
which all is created through and for Him. Again, I ask: do we not know what
cohesion means? The word is sunistemi, or “TOGETHER-STAND.” Words in
Scripture do not cancel each other out. If Aaron reads, “in Him is all
created,” and then reads, “and all has its cohesion in Him,” I would think that
all has its cohesion through the creation. The word
“remaining” is nowhere to be found in here – if the ‘present passive
indicative’ indicates “stands,” as Aaron points out, then maybe we should
notice that together-stand should be completing the sentence, not
getting lost by the word ‘is.’
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, if all having its cohesion in Him describes,
or clarifies, or breaks down how Christ is created in all,
how does this prove, conclusively, that Christ didn’t exist? The ‘for in Him’
that starts verse 16 should connect us to “Firstborn of every creature,”
which should display the context in which all ‘remains’ created.
All having its cohesion in Him only further displays the method being ‘through
Him.’ Where’s the issue?
There’s still undeniably a point A to point
B unfolding, here. Starting in v. 13, ‘out of jurisdiction of Darkness’ to ‘into
the kingdom of the Son of His love,’ to ‘having the pardon of sins in His
kingdom’ to ‘Son is the Image of the invisible God,’ to ‘He’s the Firstborn of
every creature,’ to ‘in Him is all created,’ elaborated as ‘that in the heavens
and that on earth, visible, invisible, thrones, lordships, sovereignties, and authorities,’
to ‘all is created through Him,’ to ‘also created for Him,’ to ‘He is before
all,’ to ‘all having its cohesion in Him.’ This is the succinct
revelation of our apostle. It starts in one place, and comes back around
on itself by verse 20.
Also, I don’t like that Aaron says “Paul believed.”
That’s really weird. I’m being nitpicky again, because yes, it is
something Paul believed, but especially in this evangel of God, we
should be understanding that Paul is the guy Christ has labeled, and Christ is
subject to God. These words are from God, using Paul – Psalm 12:6.
Again, I know Aaron knows this, so I’m just being difficult, I guess, but
please, let this reflect in the writing, brother. The fact that this is so
argumentative against the written word makes this type of statement
stand out to me more than it would otherwise.
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).
I would assume Robertson thought this way because
the passage he was studying told him this was true? And, maybe that studying some
Greek words in this passage and not others, and reorganizing the passage
wasn’t on Robertson’s mind, and he didn’t find the evidence above to somehow
conflict with Scriptural truth?
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.
BZZTT. Taking
Scripture out of context, per verse 15 (‘Firstborn of every creature,’
guys, hasn’t lost its way,) and also removing the force behind the word ‘all,’
limiting it to post Resurrection because He ‘starts’ as a man. Romans
1:23. Please stop limiting God’s glory.
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.
This passage doesn’t concern His authority until verse 18, where He is
listed ‘Firstborn from among the dead.’ The passage did not say, “All is
beneath Him.” This passage doesn’t concern subjection, because if
that were true, ‘death’ itself would already be subject to Him, and it’s
clearly not, yet (1 Cor. 15:24-26.) This passage (v. 15-17 is bigger than
the relative authoritative qualities of the Lord, per the first ‘Firstborn.’
This passage concerns His celestial glory, and as such need not be
limited in such a relative way.
What the passage said was, “Firstborn of every creature, for
in Him all is created.” This doesn’t give Him authority over them,
that is, in the immediacy of His creation. The glory is allotted, yes
(Matt. 28:18, John 17:5,) but is not given or displayed yet until after He
becomes Firstborn from among the dead. What this means, then, is what it
says. In Him, it’s created, which, you could argue, is what sets
Him up for the throne (you know, like a birthright, which, in
Israel, is what a literal firstborn receives.)
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.”
While I consider that, you consider the following:
In Jonah 1:17 we’re told that “Yahweh assigned a great fish to
swallow up Jonah,” and “Jonah came to be in the bowels of the fish three days
and three nights.”
Oh, that has nothing to
do with the immediate celestial revelations of Colossians in Christ, you say?
Well, now you know how I feel when I hear Aaron mix evangels. Please stop doing
it.
The “allotment of a more excellent name” refers to a superior
and preeminent position and rank.
Yeah, as in, “authority,” which is what the kingdom evangel, by
name, is concerned with.
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.”
Fascinating that both
Colossians 1:18 and Phil. 2:8-11 are preceded by the celestial glory
that all are made in Him, and that He held a high position beforehand, only
to empty Himself – almost like the celestial takes precedent over the physical,
contextualizing it, that it’s the effect of the spirit around and in
us, not the cause.
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.
With this in mind, let’s contextualize
the authority over heaven and earth properly as a relative operation,
stemming from the kingdom evangel, and appreciate the beauty of Paul’s passage,
here, stemming from God’s evangel. Need I remind you all that these are higher
revelations.
* * *
Aaron summarizes his
argument as such, so I will summarize my responses:
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.
Creation and authority are not the same thing. This doesn’t make Christ the proprietor. God is the Source (Rom. 11:36, 2 Cor. 5:18, 1 Cor. 8:6,) and Christ is the method, not the secondary Creator. The Channel, not the television itself.
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.
He receives authority – there is no mention of ‘preeminence’ in His death and resurrection, because He has always been superior. The whole reason Israel expected someone kingly was because they thought that He would look superior in stature. He wasn’t. He was a random Guy from Bethlehem. They simply couldn’t recognize His superiority in the flesh.
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.
Well, this is just words, really, words I’ve already responded to, from his previous articles. I can say words, too. I want a smoothie.
4. (Conclusion) Col. 1:16-17 pertains
exclusively to Christ in his risen and glorified state.
Notice that it is his third
and fourth points that were initially his first, in his third
article. You would think that, because he referenced them first, that they would
take priority, but no. Now his argument has shifted its foundation. He
now stands in the first two points first, leading to his previous
statements. The stance isn’t solid. I’m honestly willing to cut him much slack
in this regard, considering these articles were all published in the span of a
month or so, so he was probably studying as he went along. Even still, a
shifting foundation should display the lack of footing, here. He may disagree,
of course, but I must clarify, again, that I’m upset with the view, not
Aaron himself. I still greatly respect him.
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.
Finally! I’ve poured over these articles, looking
for him to really talk about that second ‘Firstborn.’ Glad, at least, that he’s
finally covering it.
Anyways, he’s wrong about this. He is literally
the Firstborn from among the dead (1 Cor. 15:23.) This isn’t ‘just’ a
ranked privilege, but a literal First. It should follow that the first
‘First’ is also literal. Also, is that really what he gets out of
the title, ‘Firstborn from among the dead’? Say that again?
“Firstborn from among the dead” means that
Christ is preeminent in rank and privilege in relation to those who have died.
What?? So now ‘Firstborn from among the dead’
becomes ‘Firstborn in relation to those who have died’?? You would think that ‘Firstborn
from among the dead’ would display, like, alive, or, resurrected, because
the definition of ‘resurrected’ is made alive from among the dead, and
Christ is the first to be completely resurrected, death fallen away, new
life, all that? How is this only now in rank and privilege?
(And I swear to Christ, if someone pulls out the ‘Lazarus’
card, I’m going to write another 100-page series. Lazarus is not alive
today. He’s dead. His spirit returned, but he had no new body. Death still
holds him, right now, so respectfully, shut the hell up.)
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.
The second title, sure, because that pertains to His authority, and is certainly
a literal title, as First of the new creation (‘from among the dead,’) as
well as the fact that verses 19 and 20 clarifies that He is reconciling all. In
order to reconcile all, you must have been created in all, as
verse 16-17 clarifies.
Simply being created first wouldn’t have entitled our Lord to
the glory and honor he received because of his obedient death.
Correct (though I’ll highlight His foreknown
glory, here as well, if that means anything at all.)
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.”
No, only one of them relates to His death (‘of the dead.’)
The other does not, and doesn’t pertain to authority the way the second one
does, per His sacrifice.
* * *
Aaron references Revelation 5, now, but I don’t see a real reason to
cover it. Revelation concerns His authority and God’s indignation, not His
entire creation. That was for the revelations in John and Colossians and, in
some small part Hebrews. Until next time.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment