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

 

Concerning “A Consideration of Passages thought to Reveal the ‘Preexistence of Christ’: John’s Account, Part One”

Now let’s take a look at John’s revelations. Aaron dives right in. John 1:1:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being.

In these verses we are told that the word (logos) was “with (or “toward”) God,” and that the word “was God.”

We are not told this. We are told that “God was the word.” There’s a notable difference (a difference that A.E. Knoch argues countless times in his Unsearchable Riches passages,) but let’s let Aaron make his point. Please:

What does the word “God” (theos) represent here?

Good question.

What meaning did John intend the word to convey to his readers? 

The pre-existence of Christ, haha. Oh, Aaron disagrees, calling us theorists.

To test this theory, let’s substitute the expression, “the word,” with the expression, “the pre-incarnate Son,” and replace the word “God” with “the Father.”

Bit strange, but go ahead.

“In the beginning was the pre-incarnate Son, and the pre-incarnate Son was with the Father, and the pre-incarnate Son was the Father.” That doesn't work.

Aaron is right; that doesn’t work. I used to think this as well, until very recently. Let’s try this again, but this time, instead of transposing the name “Father,” here, which is an entirely different Greek word (pater,) let’s try using “Subjector,” which is what theos, or Elohim, in Greek or Hebrew, actually means:

In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was toward Subjector, and Subjector was the Son.

Huh. Very different rendering, here, that leads to a far different conclusion. A.E. Knoch, do you care to clarify? Unsearchable Riches, Vol. 45, p. 134:

“The A.V. and the latest R.S.V. read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” We have been told that the “Word was God” conclusively proves that Christ is God. Others, however, insist that “One Who is with God cannot be God.” It seems that this passage definitely decides two contrary convictions. This shows clearly that there is something wrong with the versions, for God would not inspire two contradictory statements in the same breath. But if we substitute a true translation for the title “God,” the differences disappear. Then it would read, the Word was toward the Subjector and a Subjector was the Word, as in the C.V. sublinear, changing “God” to subjector.

So rendered, there is no contradiction, for the Son is the To-Subjector (Placer,) that is, the Subjector Who subjects all to the Supreme Subjector. There are, indeed, not two Gods, One of Whom is with another, but two Subjectors, One of Whom subjects all to Himself, through another Subjector Who subjects all to Him. These opening lines in John’s account are in perfect harmony with all other Scriptures, not in contradiction to them, when translated in accord with the inspired Greek and Hebrew.”

Indeed, this is not the only passage that Christ is referred to as a “Subjector.” Observe 1 Cor. 15:27-28:

For [Christ] subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to [Christ,] then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that [the Subjector] may be All in all.

It would be wise if we not only learned to implement “Subjector” in John 1:1, but in any passage that references the title “God” when discussing our Father. Keep in mind that God is not visible. When God speaks, the words manifest results (see Gen. 1:3.) There’s an inherent method to how God communicates, here, and though He uses messengers physically throughout the Old Testament, and does not formally display His Son as a human until much, much later, it is evident that He does indeed speak at many, many different points in Scripture, and His words, which Aaron must concede in some way are distinctly separated from and subject to God, per this verse, are the ‘pre-incarnate’ Christ. This is to show that yes, God Himself creates all, all is out of Him, but it is through the word, through the Christ many are denying so heavily, here, that He accomplished His goals.

Aaron takes a different route, here, instead saying:

First, we need to identify the being referred to as “God” in the first part of verse 1. Since scripture is the best interpreter of itself, we'll do this by comparing verses 1 and 4 from John chapter 1 with what John wrote in his first epistle:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word… in it was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1, 4)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, at which we gaze and our hands handle, is concerned with the word of life. And the life was manifested, and we have seen and are testifying and reporting to you the life eonian which was toward the Father and was manifested to us. (1 John 1:1-2)

Aaron continues:

By comparing these two passages, it is evident that the title “God” in John 1:1 refers to the Father.

Not quite; when taking the entire passage referenced into account, it becomes evident that John begins with, “That which was from the beginning,” as in, the same beginning he references in John 1:1. When he says, “we have heard,” “we have seen,” and “at which we gaze and handle,” he is noting that that which was from the beginning, they had now seen. This was Israel’s apostleship qualifications, as noted in Acts 1:21, and is what clearly separates this from Paul’s revelations in Colossians (Eph. 3:8.) Paul had to be forced into apostleship (Acts 9:1-5.) The scope of John’s ministry is clearly different, as it’s focused on the earth, which reveals Christ as Son of God to the earth, while Paul reveals Christ as Son of God in relation to the celestials.

Taking this into account, John’s statement that “life was manifested” makes far more sense than Aaron’s erroneous claim that “life was created.” There’s an important distinction between “Father” and “God” (as passages like 1 Cor. 15:24 illustrate.)

So the “word” of which John wrote was, in the beginning, divine in nature, but it was not numerically identical to the Father himself.

This is a long study already, but I still have to say it: this is why I still appreciate both that Aaron took the time to research this rabbit hole, and why I still 100% believe he’s in Christ, and is merely reading the text with his logic, in this case. The “word” of which John wrote was divine in nature, but he also recognizes that the two aren’t identical, because the Trinity, simply put, is bullshit. This is also why I refuse to, like, talk down to Aaron or think he’s lesser or something (1 Cor. 12:20-25.) He has much to still teach, impart and share with us on the words of his Father. Aaron’s wreath of righteousness will still be bestowed upon him at the dais of Christ, and we will have front row seats to the glory Christ bestows on him. Can’t wait!

Moreover, the word that was “with God in the beginning” cannot be understood as Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, since the only-begotten Son of God was, and is, a human being – i.e., a descendent of the first man, Adam - and did not exist until he was conceived/begotten in the womb of his mother Miriam by the “power of the Most High” (Luke 1:30-35).

Anyways, he’s wrong about this. It’s toward God, not with, and while it cannot be understood as Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the physical manifestation of Christ, it can be understood as the ‘pre-incarnate’ Christ, as I’ve grown accustomed to saying, I guess. The only-begotten son of God is a human being, but did exist beforehand, just not ‘only-begotten’ (ref. Heb. 1:4-5.)

Rather, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the “word made flesh.” Christ is the human being (the person composed of “flesh”) which the word “became” (or was embodied as) at a certain point in time (v. 14).

Word “becoming” flesh is exactly Christ “becoming” man (Phil. 2:7-8.)

But what then is the “word” that was “with” or “toward” God “in the beginning?”

The pre-existing Christ, haha.

Answer: the “word” (logos) here simply refers to the spoken word of God - i.e., the divine declaration or utterance by which God brought everything into existence, and which is the expression of God’s wisdom, purpose and character.

Huh… almost like exactly what Christ is defined as by Paul? See 1 Cor. 1:24, 20-28, Col. 1:13-20, 2 Cor. 4:4, 6?

The best part about this is that Aaron then references a bunch of moments that God speaks in the Old Testament, in relation to creation. You’ve gotta love it – you know, that you can look back at the Old Testament and see, now that John’s recontextualized it, how every time God speaks directly to man (not through messengers or prophets on the earth,) it’s through the “pre-incarnate” Christ. Aaron simply doesn’t believe that Christ is there, in the Old Testament, both the spoken and written word of God, though John plainly states it, here. It seems as though anything not explicitly expressed as “human” bothers Aaron, and leads me to wonder what he must think of the celestial realm in general. There are many beings that exist celestially that certainly aren’t human; does this mean they don’t exist? That’s a silly question, and I guess I can assume Aaron’s answer, but that’s not the point. The inconsistency here will paint believers a certain way, especially a believer as highly respected and regarded, especially celestially, as Aaron. Again, I advise many in Christ to believe the words written, as Christ’s faith makes this entirely possible. I desire maturity in you all, as Paul did.

I’m going to jump down to his next assertion on John, now, because I don’t feel like going through each individual point in the OT when I believe I’ve already spotted the inconsistency of his initial misunderstanding. Observe John 1:10-13:

In the world He was, and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him not. To His own He came, and those who are His own accepted Him not. Yet whoever obtained Him, to them He gives the right to become children of God, to those who are believing in His name, who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God.

After laying the groundwork and providing correct context for the passage (other than his further misapprehension of John 1:1,) Aaron writes:

Although [John 1:10] is commonly understood to be referring to Jesus Christ in a pre-existent state, I believe John had the Father in view here. As we’ve noted, the Father is said to be both “light” and “life eonian,” and it was by sending his Son into the world that the Father came into the world.

BZZTT. Likening God the Father to a human Man – Romans 1:23. “Representation” is not the same thing as the Father literally entering the world. The first part of the verse says “In the world He was.” Our Father is not in or of the world, but the world is out of Him. When the “Word” in verse 1 is properly understood as Christ, this verse, which begins referring to Him as a man, and properly introduces us to His change from celestial to terrestrial, is very easily and commonly understood. We need not jump through mental gymnastics or, again, work around the passage to “make it make sense” to a particular worldview. Aaron clarifies:

It is not that Christ is the same person or being as Father, but rather that Christ represented and manifested the Father through his words and deeds.

No, but see, this interpretation implies that it is Christ that brings the Father into the world, which not only leans back into free will, but is inconsistent with the initial claim that this verse is still referencing the Father. You can’t say this verse “references the Father,” while also saying that because “Christ represents the Father, the Father is manifested through His words and deeds.” Nothing in John’s revelations until this point states or even implies that this is how this verse should be understood, and this idea puts Christ above God, as though it is Christ’s will that pulls God into the world. If this were the case, then the “manifested Father” would have died with Christ, by the end of John, which leads to yet another logical fallacy. Even moreso, God is clearly defined, like verse 1, as a separate Entity, as we see in verse 12. “He,” being Christ, allots for others to become children of God (ref. Rom. 3:21-26.) We know, celestially speaking, that God’s grace is what saves, but this is, again, terrestrial observations, thus a limited scope of our Father.

Paul also affirmed this truth when he wrote that “God was in Christ, conciliating the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

This is a great passage, but doesn’t display that Christ manifests the Father on earth. It is still the Father manifesting Christ on earth. Also, Paul’s past tense here implies greatly that we are speaking of His earthly ministry in this passage here. It displays that God, through Christ, conciliates the world to Himself. Again, still a very difficult task to accomplish if Christ isn’t even around for the majority of the wicked eons.

It may be objected that the world cannot be said to have come into being “through” God, since God is the first and absolute cause of everything.

This is an interesting objection, one I hadn’t thought of, but I’d have to disagree on account of Romans 11:36. Aaron correctly states:

However, the Greek word dia does not necessarily mean or imply that something is a secondary cause, or that it is less-than-absolute with regards to causation.

Does this word, through now explicitly disprove Christ’s preexistence? No, and it certainly doesn’t prove that this passage isn’t discussing Christ, either. It’s a word explicitly relative, here, given the terrestrial context, and thus makes far more sense being attested to Jesus Christ and not God. Then Aaron says:

When we read in v. 11 that “to His own he came,” it is commonly thought that the pronoun “his” is a reference to Christ. However, this can just as easily be understood as a reference to the Father.

Now how on earth do you reconcile this?? Aaron intuitively understands that “His own” is Israel, yes, and we read time and time again in the Old Testament that Israel belongs to and awaits their Messiah, but God did not touch down on earth and start raising hell! This is a terrestrial introduction that we’re moving into, in relation to the Son of God, because the entire book that follows is directly related to His ministry!! This passage must be heavily strained in order to read this. Observe:

In the world [God] was, and the world came into being through [God,] and the world knew [God] not. To [God’s] own, [God] came, and those who are [God’s] own accepted [God] not. Yet whoever obtained [God,] to them [God] gives the right to become children of God (?), to those who are believing in [God’s] name, who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God (?).

It becomes a big ol’ mess when you consider Rom. 11:36, stating that all is out of Him. How was He in the world, then in the next sentence go into the world, when the world is out of Him? It seems like the only “out of” Aaron is doing is reading Christ out of the written Word.

…Oh come on, that was funny! Don’t hate me, please. I’m just a guy who likes comedy.

Aaron goes on about how the nation of Israel are children of God, and so on. This doesn’t disprove Christ’s existence, nor should Christ be removed from the text about His very relationship to God celestially. The dissection he gives is dodgy and concerned with turning much of the words into figurative language. I can’t even discern what his argument is in these last couple paragraphs. I’ve been trying not to go, “Oh I just don’t get it, so there’s no argument,” and I hesitate to think that way now. But seriously, try and make sense of this:

Despite the unique sense in which Israel could be considered God’s “own,” the unbelieving Israelites to whom Christ spoke did not know God, and Christ even rebuked them for being “children of the Adversary” rather than being children of God.

So what?? What does this have to do with the immediate argument? How does this conclusively write Christ’s glory out of John 1:10-13? Israel belongs to God, which is why He’s sending a Messiah at all. It’s why they and they alone are promised a thousand-year kingdom, and why they receive such terrestrial glories that go along with it. But that’s not covered in this passage! It’s covered in succeeding passages, as well as the previous accounts! Why on earth would John be relaying this information, either to Israel or the reader, in relation to God, like this, when the Old Testament has already clarified Israel’s allotment, at least twice per book, as well as God’s authority and power in relation to them? If this were all John were saying, his account would be an unnecessary addition to the New Testament.

I can’t understand it. It doesn’t frustrate me that I can’t understand it, either. I’m writing in frantic, italicized sentences, but that’s what I do. It’s a writing voice. Truth be told, if I’m frustrated at all, it’s because that of another member in Christ is not currently apprehending Christ’s glory, though it’s cleanly and simply unveiled by Paul. I wasn’t lying when I said I highly respect most of Aaron’s writings, but now I must highlight the word most. This, this right here, I’m sorry – it’s not a writing that I truly respect. Not this one, and not the previous one, either. Maybe – maybe – there was an understandable case in the first two installments. Though I disagreed, initially, I thought, I mean, maybe this could make sense, I guess, if you turn it in some kaleidoscope sort of way. I guess it depends on where you stand or something. But these last few topics have been stretches of the imagination. I hesitate to start calling it ‘embarrassing,’ the way Zender did, as I don’t want Aaron to jump on the defensive, assuming I’m not here with a complete desire to, literally, expose the fallacy, rebuke or disapprove of the conclusion, and entreat him to appreciate what’s written. I know Paul was harsher back then, but now more than ever we need to be on the same page with this stuff (1 Cor. 1:10-13,) especially with something like this. Please, don’t let your hatred of the Trinity drive your writings! We already know it’s a sorely mistaken doctrine, and many that argue with Aaron’s (or Drew Costen’s, or Martin’s) previous writings against it have their minds completely shut off. They are dead, in the eyes of God (Rom. 6:13, 2 Cor. 5:14-15.) Instead, let the love of Christ consume your craft. The love of Christ will rebuke the Trinity, but does not lose sight of Christ, or the fact that those caught in or teaching the doctrine are still, ultimately, saved by God. Don’t read so hard into the text that our Lord’s very qualities are passed over! We need not make points for Him; He can speak for Himself.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing