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

Concerning “Was Jesus Christ Alive Before His Life On Earth Began (Part Two)”

In Romans 8:29 we read that those in the body of Christ were foreknown by God and designated beforehand.

Yes.

The saints in the body of Christ didn’t exist when they were foreknown by God; had they existed, they wouldn’t have been “foreknown” by God. They would’ve simply been known.

Yes.

Now consider 1 Peter 1:20…

Okay, what of it?

…we’re told that Christ was “foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of you…” Had Christ personally existed before the disruption of the world, he wouldn't have been “foreknown” by God at this time. He would have simply been known.

No! Aaron, all due respect, you didn’t hop on the cross to deliver us from sin, and neither did I! We are not Jesus Christ! Yet a man does not fulfill the law! Romans 3:20! It was God’s divine, only-begotten Son that accomplishes this goal, separating Him from humanity, as He is the only One given this ability!

Let’s look at the previous verses, starting with 1 Peter 1:17:

And if you are invoking the Father, Who is judging impartially according to each one’s work, you may behave, for the time of your sojourn, with fear, being aware that not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, were you ransomed from your vain behavior, handed down by tradition from the fathers…

This is the setup. First: we are still dealing with physical unveilings, from Peter, here. Peter + Paul do not go together (Gal. 1:1.) Peter is making a terrestrial point about works and ransom, not a celestial point about faith and peace. There is a difference.

…but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a flawless and unspotted lamb, foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of you…

Ah, so now we have a clearer focus on what’s being said, here. We are not speaking of Christ Himself, but Christ’s sacrifice. The blood of Christ, similar to the blood of a flawless lamb, is foreknown before the disruption. Of course, no one would say that Christ dies before the disruption of the world! Peter is stating that the sacrifice was foreknown, not Christ Himself. I would advise any in Christ not to take these words out of context, lest we misapprehend and begin to work around the celestial unveilings previously revealed, by this time, in the Himalayas of Scriptural revelations (being Philippians and Colossians.)

Let’s move on to Hebrews 1:1 (interestingly enough, Aaron doesn’t immediately cover Heb. 1:2, but we will get there.)

By many portions and many modes, of old, God, speaking to the fathers in the prophets, in the last of these days speaks to us in a Son…

Couple things to keep in mind, which I’m going to share before I share what Aaron says on this verse. I’m not saying this under the impression that Aaron doesn’t know this, nor would I like to make a habit of saying something before letting Aaron’s point speak for itself, but this seems kind of important.

I picked this up from reading every one of Paul’s letters, Peter’s letters, and James’ letters. The beginning of a letter, especially at this point in time, serves a couple of purposes. First, who is speaking? Second, who are they speaking to? Third, any titles we should be aware of?

Romans, for example. First: Paul. Second: Roman ecclesia. Third: slave, apostle, severed.

1 Corinthians. First: Paul and Sosthenes. Second: Corinthian ecclesia, the saints. Third: apostle, through God.

James. First: James. Second: the twelve tribes in the dispersion. Third: slave.

With little exception, this is how letters worked (as envelopes didn’t exist) and that certainly applies to Scripture. Now, take Hebrews, which is, admittedly, structured differently, as God apparently did not want the name of the Hebraist to be revealed:

First: unknown (God, I guess.) Second: To the Hebrews. Third: Son, enjoyer, maker of eons, Effulgence of glory, Emblem, carrier of all, cleanser, seated in the heights, better than messengers.

Keep this in mind as you begin Hebrews, because along with revealing the various glories of the Son (including the name ‘Son’) to the Hebrews, we are revealing the context and purpose through which Hebrews can be understood. This is the first time, aside from John, that any Israelite is blatantly learning of a celestial placement for their Messiah.

Now, what does Aaron have to say on this matter?

The Son has not always been the means (or even “a” means) through which God has spoken to humanity.

Sure.

The Son is simply the most recent (and the ultimate/final) agent through whom God has chosen to speak and make himself known to his creation.

Prophetically speaking, yes.

The “last of these days” does not refer to any time prior to when Christ was “generated” by his God and Father.

So far, so good.

This means that any celestial being speaking on behalf of Yahweh at any time prior to when Christ was generated by God (and which some Christians have claimed or suggested was the “pre-incarnate Christ” speaking to people) was, necessarily, not the Son of God.

In a sense, yes. What’s being referred to here, per Heb. 1:1, is “prophets.” All those names I can’t pronounce in the Old Testament? Nahum? Zephaniah? Habakkuk? Zechariah? Joel? All of these are prophets of old. They are the physical “BEFORE-AVERRERS” through Whom God speaks to the rest of mankind. The Son of God, is the ultimate prophet through Whom God speaks to the rest of mankind. There are prophecies that came after His time on earth (namely, John’s vision in the Unveiling,) but this is does not supersede Jesus.

The part I find myself disagreeing with here, is “celestial,” because we aren’t given any indication whatsoever that a “celestial Christ has not spoken to anyone in the Old Testament.” John 1:1 calls Jesus the “word,” thus the “word” of God is the “pre-incarnate” Christ, as Aaron likes to say (I’ll admit that I’ve never heard such a term before? I’d love to meet Aaron one day and talk about what on earth that means, but I’m pretty sure I can derive the meaning from his context, i.e…. he doesn’t like it, haha.) A “prophet” is physical, not celestial. They are human, not divine. Thus, Hebrews starts physical, and builds to a revelation of the celestial. He’s a prophet. But what’s special about Him? He’s God’s Son, and enjoys all. How does He enjoy all? Well, God used Him to make all. Why Him? He’s the Effulgence of God’s glory, Emblem of His assumption. But how? He carried on God’s declarations, cleansing sin. Why? So He can be given authority over it. I thought He was a prophet? My friend, he’s become so much more.

As a member of the body of Christ (this isn’t an insult, Aaron, but a constructive criticism,) we should know better. If we are reading Scripture like a book (point A to B, as God intends,) then by the time we reach Hebrews, God’s highest unfoldings have already been conveyed to us through Paul. His teachings are preparation for the final hundred pages of the New Testament, which take us back to the physical to explain Israel’s state, where they are headed, and how their kingdom will still come about. Hebrews falls under these last hundred pages, and we should not forget what we learned with Paul (Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:7,) just because we’ve hopped over to the other evangel, and in fact, the other evangel should be contextualized properly, now that we understand what God is explaining through Paul. These verses are indeed explaining Christ’s glories (albeit in lesser fashion, physically speaking) to the Hebrews.

After using his idea on Hebrews 1:1 to again, state that Christ didn’t pre-exist, he ends his paragraph with the sentence, “to know and believe in Christ in accord with the truth of Paul’s evangel, we must know him according to his post-conception identity.” Hold on, hold on. Now we’re just saying things. This is a half-truth, still not impactful, as Aaron, as of yet, has not properly proven that Christ didn’t exist before His physical birth.

In order to know and believe in Christ in accord with the truth of Paul’s evangel, we must know what He did (ref. 1 Cor. 15:1-4.) The bulk of Paul’s first teaching on justification, laid out at the beginning of God’s evangel, in Rom. 3:24-26, considers Christ’s sacrifice, and His resurrection. Then, in order to fully appreciate His blessings and grow in maturity of faith (ref. 1 Cor. 13:8-13,) we must read from the higher revelations and comprehend the entirety of Paul’s message laid out in Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, of which Christ’s pre-existence is very much laid out. I’ve been referencing them so far, but please, observe Colossians 1:15-17:

[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, and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.

Now, last I checked, “all” means “all,” full stop. But I know that this is yet another verse Aaron is going to take issue with, so let’s let him cook, first.

*   *   *

Aaron turns to Paul’s declarations in Athens, in Acts 17:24-25, 30-31. Observe:

The God Who makes the world and all that is in it, He, the Lord inherent of heaven and earth, is not dwelling in temples made by hands, neither is He attended by human hands, as if requiring anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all.

“Indeed, then, condoning the times of ignorance, God is now charging mankind that all everywhere are to repent, forasmuch as He assigns a day in which He is about to be judging the inhabited earth in righteousness by the Man Whom He specifies, tendering faith to all, raising Him from among the dead –”

Aaron begins dissociating Christ from the creation of the world here, in Acts 17:24. The passage above states that “God makes the world and all that is in it.” No one disputes this, Aaron – all of us in Christ, I believe, understand this. You essentially ask, “Are you adding Christ and making two deities create the world?” It’s a trick question, because no one, whether mature or immature in Christ’s faith can say “Yes” without giving up a critical aspect of Paul’s evangel, namely, as you reference, 1 Cor. 8:4-6. But you (and others that hold this view) can’t presume that any objection, like the one I’m about to give, somehow means that the answer automatically becomes “yes.”

Martin said in his rebuttal to these essays that “context is important.” I’d be remiss to even call it that complicated, though context, for Aaron’s second verses, matter a little more. I’d say word usage matters – when Paul says, “God made the earth and all in it,” he’s obviously not wrong. To claim, then, as Paul does in 1 Cor. 8:6 and Colossians 1:16, that it is through Christ which God creates, is also true. These statements are not mutually exclusive. In one, we read of God creating the heavens and the earth. In the others, we read His method of doing so. He uses Christ to accomplish the goal. This is because Christ is visible and God is not. God speaks words to create. This is elaborated on in John 1.

The context is crucial for the second passage because a) this was said to the Athenians, but the book of Acts is still a revelation to the Jews. That book was not written to display Paul’s teachings, but to display the transferal of God’s operations, from the scope of the kingdom, all the way to Christ – from Israel, to the nations. As such, the bulk of Paul’s teachings are not broken down in Acts. And b), when you read, “Man Whom He specifies,” you are still reading from the terrestrial perspective, from Luke, to the Jews. The passage is concerned with “repentance” and “judgment” through righteousness, not the secrets of Christ’s celestial glory (or any celestial glory, for that matter.)

Then, to elaborate on God being the sole creator of the universe, Aaron references Matt. 19:4:

Now He, answering, said, “Did you not read that the Maker from the beginning makes them male and female, and He said, ‘On this account a man shall be leaving father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh’?

Putting aside the fact that this passage is concerned with divorce, and not creation, taking credit for creation in this passage is the last thing that Jesus would and should have done, considering the Pharisees couldn’t even comprehend that He was the Messiah! How can you understand His glories if you can’t even understand that He is? In response to this, Martin Zender writes, “[Taking credit] would have been the most ludicrously-timed and counter-productive thing He could have said, especially when addressing the Pharisees.”

This passage, while eventful for Jesus and the Pharisees, has zero bearing on Christ’s existence before His birth, nor does it prove that God didn’t utilize Him to create the eons, the heavens and earth, humanity, etc. Jesus gives credit to God, because it was God that created the heavens and earth! Using Christ, or operating through Him to do so doesn’t change the fact that credit should indeed go to God for all of creation.

Aaron also references Mark 10:6:

Yet from the beginning of creation God makes them male and female.

And Mark 10:13:

in those days will be affliction such as has not occurred from the beginning of the creation which God creates till now, and under no circumstances may be occurring.

Mark 10:6 is also concerned with divorce, so I hitherto apply the same statement I made on the Matthew verse, but 10:13 changes the context, so I’ll comment on it. In Mark 10:13, Jesus is speaking of the final days! Woop woop! Does this mean that He was nonexistent? Nope nope! Does this mean He wasn’t operated through? Nope nope! Does this mean He will be allowing affliction on the earth? Yup yup! Let’s move on!

**I’d like to reaffirm, again, before I continue: I greatly value Aaron’s work and contributions in Christ and any criticism I am giving is not at all preying on his downfall or any such disregard for his beliefs!! I am merely defending a presupposed viewpoint and, though the rest of this section may sound harsh, please, both readers (and Aaron,) understand that I have nothing but respect for the man, and merely have disdain for the unscriptural view.**

Now, with zero consideration on the verses so far that actively state that God is operating all through Christ, which is what does prove Christ’s pre-existence, we have, after an article and a half, reached Aaron’s first claim. Yes, I call it a claim, because it’s not proven, yet. Everything we’ve read so far is nothing more than flavor text, resulting from standing in the lesser, directed revelations from the kingdom evangel, as opposed to God’s evangel. Let’s take a look:

Those who hold to the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ typically deny that God, the Father, was the one who directly created the universe.

I almost disagreed with this, but sneaky sneaky Aaron says “directly,” here, to accentuate that Christ is God’s medium, through Whom He creates the universe. In this sense, I will not at all deny that God, our Father, created the universe. I haven’t ever disputed that, nor will I ever. I will liken Christ, however, to the method in which God creates it (and, no, I’m not calling Christ Himself “a method” or some metaphorical gobbledygook. I’m talking about a process, not calling Christ ‘a process.’)

Rather, they believe that, after directly creating Jesus, God then created everything “through” Jesus, with God using Jesus as an intermediary agent in his creative work.

Yes, because that’s what Paul says in 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-17, and Phil. 2:7. Still interested to hear his thoughts on the verses, as we will surely get to them.

I assume that those who believe that God created everything through the pre-incarnate Jesus believe that Jesus created everything through the exercise of his will in some way.

I’m not entirely sure what Aaron means by this. I don’t know if he’s intentionally filling what he perceives as a gap in our reasoning? My understanding of Christ’s pre-existence only stems from what’s written, and I refuse to be disposed above it. I’ve no idea how correct Aaron is on his assumption, here, but I will quote John 5:19:

Jesus, then, answers and said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, The Son can not be doing anything of Himself if it is not what He should be observing the Father doing, for whatever He may be doing, this the Son also is doing likewise…

Thus, it is the Father’s will that drives Jesus’ will. This lines up quite nicely with The Father dictating and operating through the Son.

Oh, and then Aaron says,

Thus, according to this view, it was Jesus – and not God – whose will directly brought everything into existence.

Which, per John 5:19, is just not true, and us pre-existing Christ folk didn’t make this claim. Jesus is subject to His Father. I notice, again, that sneaky sneaky Aaron adds “directly” to his statement. This is another trick, because Aaron said before, “they deny that God directly created the universe,” but this is a different verb attached to “directly,” thus a different concept entirely. His first ‘directly’ discusses Creation, in which He creates through Christ, and the second ‘directly’ relates to His will, which is directly driven by God Himself.

This is why Jesus gives God credit for the creation of the universe, Aaron. The universe being brought into existence stems solely from God’s will, not Christ’s. If a man uses a hammer to drive a nail into the wall, he isn’t going to give the hammer credit for his work. He may say, “I used a hammer to drive this nail in, without which I wouldn’t have driven the nail into the wall,” but he wouldn’t say, “It was the hammer that made me do it!” Though Christ is certainly alive and not a literal tool, the analogy remains the same. If God creates the universe through Christ, He would not credit Christ for His work. He may say, “I used Christ to create the universe, without Whom I wouldn’t have purposed creation,” but He wouldn’t say, “It was Christ that made me do it!”

The assumption that, because Christ is used to create the eons, that Christ’s will directly drove the decision to create the eons, is a logical fallacy that no believer of Scripture should be holding. Aaron is correct to point out that this is a logical fallacy, but incorrect in stating that, by believing Colossians 1:16, that one automatically subscribes to it. The fallacy is created, here, by Aaron’s assumption of our understanding, not the text itself.

He then quotes three passages from Isaiah. Let’s take a look:

Is. 45:12

I (Yahweh) Myself made the earth And created humanity on it; I, My hands stretched out the heavens, And all their hosts have I instructed.

Is. 48:13

Indeed My hand, it founded the earth, And My right hand, it measured out the heavens.

Is. 66:1-2

Thus says Yahweh: The heavens are My throne, And the earth My footstool; Where then is the house that you shall build for Me? And where then is the place of My rest? Yet all of these My hand has made, And all these are Mine, averring is Yahweh.

So, after studying these phrases, and their respective contexts, which I’ll get to in just a moment, I… I think he got me. I believe him.

No, I’m just kidding. Sorry, Aaron. I guess, because of the day and age and world that we currently live in, I can only go, “Herr de derr this is my interpretation of this text,” but I had always assumed that when God says “My hand,” we’re dealing with a physical representer of God accomplishing a goal that He commands? Maybe, like, the Image of the invisible doing what God tells Him to? Effectively, God willing something to be done? Observe Genesis 1:3:

And Elohim said: Let light come to be! And light came to be.

So, Elohim says, and then the action gets done. The spiritual, drives the physical. This pattern occurs all throughout Genesis 1, the very creation, albeit of the second earth, that we’re talking about! It happens again in 1:6, 1:9, 1:11, 1:14, 1:20, 1:24, 1:26, and 1:29. Everything the spirit proclaims, by word (ref. John 1:1,) is then completed in action, physically.

I’ll have more to say on that later, but for now let’s study the context that Aaron unfortunately doesn’t dive into with these verses. The first one, Is. 45:12, is to prove that Yahweh is responsible for all. This starts in 45:5. This is, once again, proclaiming God to be the Creator, along with the various phrases that go with it. Even still, to tell Cyrus (to whom this chapter is directed,) “Hey, and by the way, my method to creating this all by Myself was through My Son,” would have been completely illogical and, dare I say, ridiculous for God to say in that moment.

This is a relative statement, listing everything God is directly responsible for (see, I used the word ‘directly!’) None compare to God, in this regard, but note the relative title “Yahweh,” in this passage, to highlight that He speaks to Israel relatively, here, that is, with direction and relation to Cyrus, who seemed to be crediting other elohim with God’s accomplishments. Notice that this passage is discussing their current misapprehension of Him, as He was concealing Himself (Is. 45:15,) and culminates in them calling Him “Savior.” Now, I’m no genius, but I certainly know that God’s method to saving them was by sending Christ down there, becoming Jesus, and suffering law’s consequence for their sakes. So unless we want to misinterpret this entire passage beyond recognition, let’s stick to the relative context, which is made clearer when we understand that God is teaching them a lesson on His authority (45:4.) He was imparting rule on Cyrus, and made it clear to Israel by listing His comparative accomplishments.

Again, it need not be more complicated than this. The kingdom evangel is not concerned with this information until a much later time, first explained in John. Isaiah is not the prophet that fully unveils His Son. Hell, Jesus Himself didn’t go into all His various glories, though He certainly did hint at them (again: John.) It is the evangel of God, which is foretold by these prophets but not fully unveiled (Rom. 1:1) which is finally concerning His Son (Rom. 1:2.)

Is. 48:13 comes next. Similarly, we are dealing with God comparing Himself to lesser gods by, comparatively, listing His achievements. Observe Is. 48:4-5:

Due to My knowledge that you are obstinate, That an iron sinew is the nape of your neck And your forehead is bronze, I was also foretelling to you hitherto; Ere it was coming to pass I announced it to you, Lest you should say, ‘My fetish did them, And my carving and my molten image determined them.’

In contrast, God founded the earth. No carving can compare. Nonetheless, the same intuition, that the evangel concerning God’s Son has not been revealed yet, thus searching for “His Son,” being the One through which God performs the physical act of creating, in these passages, cannot have literally been revealed at this time.

Finally, we have Is. 66:1-2, which… honestly, it surprises me that Aaron would quote this passage at all. If you’re trying to prove the non-existence of Christ before Jesus’ birth, surely this is not the way to do it! Read the passage again:

Thus says Yahweh: The heavens are My throne, And the earth My footstool; Where then is the house that you shall build for Me?

Hold on, pause. “Where, then, is the house that you shall build for Me?” The context is right here! We start with, “what has man done for God?” We finish with:

Yet all of these My hand has made, And all these are Mine, averring is Yahweh.

Look at what God has done for man. Nowhere in here are we reading, “By the way, I, Yahweh, have not created my Son yet!” This passage is informing Israel that their will is incomparable to God’s will. He can accomplish what they cannot.

*   *   *

Aaron begins talking about Psalm 33:6 and 9, here. At the risk of sounding trite, I’ll say beforehand that, again, celestial revelations of Christ’s glories are found in Paul’s letters, but because I know twelve people will say, “You wErEn’t thOrOugH eNoUGh” if I don’t discuss the context, here, so let’s go ahead and do it. Observe:

By the word of Yahweh, the heavens were made, And by the spirit of His mouth, all their host.

For He spoke, and it came to be; He enjoined, and it stood firm.

By the word (ref. John 1:1) of Yahweh, the heavens were made. The spirit of His mouth. This is the spiritual facet of God. Israel inherently recognizes that God is indeed invisible. Just like my explanation, in Genesis, God says something, and then Christ accomplishes. It was, again, not time for Israel to learn or comprehend this truth of their Messiah.

Aaron, man, I love you. Please tell me that you know the definition of “enjoin!” Please tell me you know, because we should be on the same page, here! This word is sava, in Hebrew. It is a verb. It literally means, “to instruct someone!” “To command!” It is used to ‘command’ Adam (Gen. 2:16, 3:17) to ‘command’ Noah (Gen. 6:22,) Pharoah ‘commands’ his men (Gen. 12:20,) Abimalech ‘commands’ his men (Gen. 26:11,) Joseph ‘commands’ his men (Gen. 42:45,) and God actively gives ‘commands’ to Moses in almost all of Exodus! Go ahead, hunt the use of the word in a Strong’s Concordance, and tell me, with a straight face, that there’s even one other use of this word that is directed at – nothing, or, a ‘nonexistent being.’ The closest you could get is, maybe, Job 38:12, where God is “instructing the morning,” and even still, the morning itself is not alive unless, perchance, it is created in a Living Being (maybe like Colossians 1:16 says it is.) Nonetheless, Job also isn’t the place for God to say, “Job, you’re annoying as all hell! You don’t listen, and by the way, I used Christ to create the universe.” It’s a different context, and again, has zero bearing on Christ being used to effect the Words spoken.

While we’re talking, generally, about commandments and spoken words, Aaron turns his attention to Gen. 1:26. Observe:

And Elohim said: Let Us make humanity in Our image and according to Our likeness. Let them hold sway over the fish of the sea and over the flyer of the heavens, over the domestic beast, over every land animal and over every creeper that is creeping on the earth.

Aaron says, concerning this passage (as well as Gen. 3:22 and 11:7):

Some see the word “us” as a “veiled reference” to either a multi-personal God (consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) or to God and a pre-existent Son (who was either directly or indirectly involved in the creation of humanity and the confusing of humanity’s language at Babel.)

I’m familiar with this idea, and I’ll admit, it’s one I’ve held until very recently. However…

A more likely interpretation of these verses is that God was speaking to, and on behalf of, the celestial members of his heavenly court.

Remember, I’m responding to Aaron, not solely refuting. This is a really great thought, and one that I had kinda considered, but not really believed, until really diving into his argument. Upon hearing this… honestly, that makes sense! I can’t argue too heavily, but I would take it a step further and say, it’s probably not explicitly the elders and celestial members of his heavenly court. Reminder of Job 38:7:

…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?

It is my humble opinion that it is the sons of Elohim whom God refers to, when speaking of “us.” Of course, Aaron’s correct that they could be, literally ‘celestial members’ in God’s court, but this is a case where I think Christ is included in the ‘us’ spoken of, as He is indeed a son of Elohim, but not revealed  as only-begotten yet, thus this ‘us’ is in a broader context, and includes a much greater number of celestial beings.

Martin is accurate concerning Aaron’s claim that, once again, because God lists His accomplishment, that all is out of Him, that He did not use Christ to effect His goal. First, let’s look at how Isaiah 44:24 looks, ripely out of context:

Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, And your Former from the belly: I am Yahweh, Maker of all, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, Stamping out the earth, and who was with Me?

Once again, the context, that God is dealing with Israel’s crimes of idolatry, are found from a careful reading of Isaiah 44. The passages referenced by Martin, I believe, are sufficient rebuttal:

44:8:

You are My witnesses; Is there an Eloah apart from Me? There is no other Rock; I know none.

44:9:

The formers of a carving, all of them are ineffectual, and their coveted idols bring no benefit.

44:10:

Who would form an el, and fabricate a carving to no benefit?

44:15:

Indeed he shall make an el and worship; he makes it a carving and shall fall down to it.

44:17:

And the remainder of [wildwood] he makes into an el; his own carving! To it he shall fall down, and he shall worship and pray to it, and say: “Rescue me, for you are my el.”

It must become obvious, at some point, that the messaging here is, again, not currently directed at unveiling the Messiah, the Son of God, to Israel – that’s for a little book at the end of the Bible, called, “The Unveiling of Jesus Christ.” God did indeed unveil Jesus and His various glories to them at a later date, and they completely and utterly ignored Him, considering the very idea that Jesus existed before His physical birth to be self-righteous heresy (John 8:57-59.)

Again, at the risk of sounding trite: if I build a doghouse, I’m not going to say, “Hey, me and my tools built a doghouse!” I’m going to say, “I built a doghouse!” No other god helped Yahweh create the universe, and in fact, God created those very gods to attempt to take credit for His works – but nowhere in here are we reading either that Christ did not exist beforehand, or that God doesn’t operate creating all in Christ (1 Cor. 8:6.) I don’t know if Aaron, or others that hold his general view are saying that this implies that God needed help or something creating the universe? It’s like saying, because Breaking Bad is projected on your TV, that the TV must have needed Breaking Bad in order to accomplish its goal of projecting television. While it’s true that God could indeed have created however He damn well pleased, the reality is that Paul explains that this universe’s meaning is Christ (1 Tim. 2:4, 4:10, 1 Cor. 15:27-28.)

*   *   *

Aaron goes on to (naturally) debunk the claim that, in pre-existing His physical birth, that Jesus was somehow a celestial ‘human being.’ I honestly don’t know where or how this viewpoint came about, save maybe some overthinkers in the Trinitarian department. Aaron points out that Paul says, very clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:45-47, that Adam is the first human being. There are likely many secrets and riches in Scripture that, in our human, corruptible bodies, we may never apprehend, but let’s not presume God’s here to trick us, or feed us false information! With a proper translation, or at the very least, a general understanding of Greek and Hebrew linguistics, we can understand what He is saying to us. It takes some work, these days, because Satan has a job, too, but that doesn’t mean for one second that a ‘human being’ is said to have existed before Adam. I don’t know, man, people are weird. Props to Aaron, here, for calling out that silliness.

Alas, my props ends here, as Aaron continues with:

Moreover, Paul explicitly wrote in this same passage that the “spiritual” is NOT first, but rather “soulish.”

The passage Aaron is referring to, here, is found in 1 Cor. 15:45-47. Observe:

If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, “became a living soul:” the last Adam a vivifying Spirit. But not first the spiritual, but the soulish, thereupon the spiritual. The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven.

Here’s something important, that we have to consider when reading 1 Corinthians 15: it’s concerning humanity, as in, the human aspect of life, revealing for the first time, during our first reading, our celestial glory. Previously, still, Paul writes in 1 Cor. 8:6, that Christ is the Channel through which God creates the earth. When bringing up the Adam/Christ analogy, either in the previous section (15:20-22,) or in Romans 5:18-19, the idea is comparing humanity with celestial glory. Similar to what Yahweh told Israel in Isaiah, man cannot accomplish the justification and deliverance of itself, whereas the celestial One, in man’s form, can.

As such, we are, again, dealing with a different context, as the topic of discussion here is celestial and terrestrial glories, not “whether Christ pre-existed.” By this same logic, Aaron would have to argue that God, being inherently Spirit, would have been second to some physical or soulish body. This is indeed a dangerous line of thinking that I doubt any of us should want to follow. We are dealing with a following of man’s glories, starting corruptible in Adam, and only becoming celestial through the One, Christ, Who by definition must stem from celestial allotment (see the words: Lord out of heaven, in 15:47,) considering the whole point of this story is, literally, that man cannot fulfill the law on its own (Rom. 3:20,) so God sends a righteous representative, emptied into the form of a man (Phil. 2:7) to deliver all.

Continuing with his (otherwise solid) argument that Christ was not a man in pre-existence, Aaron says:

Instead of reading about Adam being “a copy of Christ,” we read of Adam being a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14).

For clarification on the verse:

…death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be.

Now, when you’re reading this, are you going to think to yourself, “Hmmmm… well, because Adam is a type of Him Who is about to be, that must mean Christ didn’t exist beforehand,”? I would hope, before seeking this answer, you would want God to speak first. Here is the reality, which is, again, that we are, in the midst of this passage, concerning the terrestrial Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:11,) not the celestial Christ Jesus, Who is being unveiled to the nations by Paul, here (Rom. 1:2.) There’s an important reason Paul doesn’t say “Christ Jesus,” in this passage, and it’s because he’s contrasting the period of time, from Adam to Moses, in which law did not exist – thus has nothing on humanity – to the period now, in which we live by faith – meaning law has nothing on humanity. Adam is, terrestrially speaking, the type, or sinful counterpart of Jesus. Two different physical time periods, thus physical Beings, are being contrasted.

This implies that the antitype (Christ) didn’t actually exist yet.

As such, Aaron, I’m sorry, but no, it doesn’t. This is an “assumption,” that Christ did not exist, which you have not proven as a Scripturally sound viewpoint, yet. Up until this point, we’ve still only read one real claim against the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence, the idea that those believing Col. 1:16-17 don’t believe that God created the universe, and it falls flat when the verses used by Aaron are either taken out of context or fail to consider that Christ is not unveiled as a Son to Israel, but as a King, a Priest, a Messiah, a physical person to be seeking. Now, we’ve reached this point where Aaron has now slid into Paul’s evangel, and, intentionally or not, is mismatching passages and mashing them together. This is reminding me, very much, of my days in the Baptist church, where they would say to me, “Oh yeah, man has a free will, because it’s implied in 1 Cor. 7:35-40 that we do, and of course, if God isn’t saying He is hardening hearts, then it’s up to man to decide to stay hardened!” They are, of course, making similar assumptions, and I will again entreat any in Christ not to be disposed above what is written.

Aaron continues, leaving Paul’s evangel, now:

We also read of Christ partaking of the same “flesh and blood” in which all humanity is presently participating (Heb. 2:14) and of his being “made LIKE the brethren,” “in all things.”

This is another section that I’m kind of confused on. What is Aaron getting at? I’m not asking in a derogatory way – I really don’t know. I would like to think I’ve given a pretty good counterargument so far, and wouldn’t like to believe I’m unqualified (though I believe Aaron posted his first article on this subject when I was first coming into knowledge of the truth,) but I cannot wrap my head around what he’s saying. I don’t know if I’m not able to rationalize his argument, or if he’s reading too hard into the text. Maybe both? That said, I don’t believe the crux of his argument, that Christ didn’t pre-exist, could be found, here. I would think he would have come at Hebrews 2:10, before using 2:14, but I digress. I’m sure he’ll discuss that later, as well.

I will, however, say that (I think) Aaron is using this passage to claim that man was not made in the image of Christ. I would be concerned as to how, exactly, he plans on explaining Genesis 1:27, considering God doesn’t have an image (ref. Col. 1:15.) Now, he does seem to mention Genesis 1:26 (here’s a recap):

And Elohim said: Let Us make humanity in Our image and according to Our likeness. Let them hold sway over the fish of the sea and over the flyer of the heavens, over the domestic beast, over every land animal and over every creeper that is creeping on the earth.

I think Aaron was referring, when he says “LIKE our brethren,” to this passage, here, but he completely glosses over the Our image phrase, here, which may not be solely directed at Christ, but, as Christ is a son of Elohim, would certainly include Him. Is this to call Christ or the other sons of Elohim human? No; but this is to proclaim the sons of humanity as being made in their image. Saying the sons of Elohim are human because God made them in His image is like saying God is Christ because He made Christ in His image. We don’t create this logical inconsistency in one spot, so it’s wise not to fabricate it in another. This isn’t to say Aaron thinks that, of course; like I said, I’m still confused as to what his initial point on this verse really was, but don’t worry; if he reads this, he’ll spend fifteen blog posts elaborating on it.

I’m kiddinggg! Kidding, Aaron. Anyway, I find your final statement, apart from this verse, to be… kind of funny. Observe, you first say:

It was after Christ was vivified and glorified that he then became the “original” from which future “copies” will be made:

And then reference Romans 8:28-30, to back this claim. Observe:

Now we are aware that God is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are called according to the purpose that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.

Now, I’m not insulting him, but given he has not yet adequately proven his thesis statement, that Christ did not exist beforehand, this comes off as a completely new claim, at the end of his second article!

He uses Romans 8:28-30 to attempt to prove it, but folks, a simple reading of the context once again shows that this it’s a logical fallacy to try and stuff Christ’s nonexistence into the passage. See, Paul, in this passage, is not referencing Christ – he’s already done that, and honestly, Romans seems more concerned, in general, with His faith, and how we are affected by it, as opposed to Christ’s pre-existence – but us, in relation to Christ. Unlike Christ, Who is from the start of creation (Col. 1:15-17,) we are merely foreknown, designated beforehand, and conformed to Christ’s Image, through His faith. The last part, that mentions He is the Firstborn of many brethren, is in relation to His intimate relationship with the believer. To quote George Rogers:

“The firstborn is related to the later born as one of the same family. We may incidentally remark that to the firstborn belong the rights of kinsman-redeemer. The word ‘firstborn’ emphasizes His relationship to His brethren as distinct from His relationship to God. In relation to God, He is the Only-begotten and the only Image. In relation to the ‘called,’ He is the Firstborn among many who, through Him, should become sons of God.”

This is discussing the new humanity, Aaron, the start of the new humanity. See, in Christ, at 2 Cor. 5:14, “All died.” It’s hard for all to remain alive if all of creation is made through Him, and the Channel literally dies. The ones vivified, in spirit, through His faith, naturally then enjoy this resurrected allotment (Rom. 6:3-11, 2 Cor. 5:15-17.) As He is the Firstborn of every creature (Col. 1:15,) so is He also the Firstborn from among the dead (Col. 1:18.) Contrast this with 1 Cor. 15:20-28, and a very clear image begins to form, that the new humanity is the process through which God is diluting sin out of creation. None of this proves that Christ didn’t exist beforehand. 

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing