Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part VIII)
Concerning “A Consideration of Passages
Thought to Reveal the ‘preexistence of Christ’: The letter to the Hebrews”
Hebrews 1:1-4 are, admittedly, my primary concern, here, and little else
of the book is necessary for me to make the point of the preexistence of Christ,
as the book simply isn’t primarily concerned with it, the way John and
Colossians concern themselves with it. As such, the bulk of this response will,
I think, be a little more relaxed. That said, I’m still going to rebuke the
idea that anything in Hebrews actively disproves Christ’s existence.
Heb. 1:1-4
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, Whom He appoints enjoyer of the allotment of all, through Whom He also makes the eons; Who, being the Effulgence of His glory and Emblem of His assumption, besides carrying on all by His powerful declaration, making a cleansing of sins, is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights; becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.
Those who believe Christ’s life began prior to his conception
usually understand the last part of v. 2 as supporting this fact.
Yes, we do.
The assumption is that “the eons” referred to are not just
the eons of the future, but the eons of the past as well. For those who already
believe (or are inclined to believe) that scripture clearly reveals that the
Son of God pre-existed his conception, it’s not hard to see why they would want
to believe that “the eons” in view here include both those eons that are
future as well as those which began before Christ
was conceived.
It’s not hard, no. And it need not be assumption, either. Truth
incoming: “Eons” can mean “eons.”
However, if one is not already convinced of this position
(and has reasons to believe that the Son of God has never existed as a
non-human being), then it will not seem so obvious that “the eons” that the
author had in mind in this passage include those which began before Christ was
conceived.
What reason would that be? We’re not talking about a ‘theological bias,’
here, but of the written word of God.
In light of the immediate and larger context, I believe it is
reasonable to understand the writer as having had in mind the two glorious eons
during which the Son of God will be reigning.
How do you figure that?
As has been argued elsewhere, Jesus is the “Son of God” by
virtue of his having been supernaturally generated by God in the womb of his
mother (Luke 1:35).
I’ve already talked about Luke 1:35, so I won’t repeat myself. But I
disagree with this.
Thus, when the writer tells us that it is through the
Son that God “makes the eons,” it is most reasonable to infer that the
eons in view are those which Jesus Christ, as the Son, will be
involved in making.
Ref. Col. 1:15-16.
Consider also the fact that, in the introduction
to the letter to the Hebrews, the writer is emphasizing what became true after God
began “speaking to us in a Son” in “the last of these
days.”
No, the passage doesn’t say after God
begins speaking to you in a son. Again, written letters back in the day are introductory
in fashion. They don’t just start barreling through teaching. You hear that
Paul’s ‘a slave,’ but he doesn’t elaborate on it until much later, in Romans 6.
The same can logic can and should be applied here.
In other words, the immediate context in which
we’re told that God “makes the eons” through the Son is not about
what occurred before God began speaking to us in a Son.
No, ‘in the last of these days’ contextualizes the
timing of the letter and God’s operation, not the Son Himself. The Son
Himself is titled as the one “through Whom God makes the eons.”
Moreover, it’s reasonable (as far as
scripturally-informed logic goes) to say that Christ became the one
through whom God “makes the eons” after he became “so
much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent
name than they.”
No, He is revealed to have ‘become so much better
than the messengers’ after being titled as ‘seated at the right hand of
the Majesty’ in verse 3. The scope shifts from His glory in creation to authority,
in the same pattern as Philippians and Colossians.
Did any of the messengers – or indeed, any other
created celestial being at all - have such great authority as to be
the agent through whom God “makes the eons?” No.
*sigh*
Some may be inclined to object that “the eons” spoken of
aren’t specifically referred to as future eons, and that the
most “natural” way to interpret the expression “the eons” is as a reference
to all of the eons.
Yes, and I’ll affirm that I’m among those that ‘position myself’ here.
The Hebraist writer clearly knows the difference between ‘eons’ and ‘eons of
the eons,’ because he explicitly speaks of the ‘eons of the eons,’ both
in Heb 1:8 when quoting Scripture, and at the end, in Heb. 13:21. He
speaks of future eons as ‘eons impending’ in Heb. 6:5, and speaks of the
‘conclusion of the eons’ in Heb. 9:26. He knows what he’s talking about. It
would be foolish of me to consider that the Hebraist “meant something” other
than what he said, because it’s an example of ‘being disposed above that
which is written’ (1 Cor. 4:6.)
However, this sort of objection fails in light of
the simple fact that the two future eons are, in other contexts,
referred to as both “the eons of the eons” as well
as simply “the eons.”
Aaron lists some examples to prove his point.
Let’s run through his examples, shall we?
-
Matt. 6:13 – “And mayest Thou not be bringing us into trial,
but rescue us from the wicked one.’” This passage doesn’t mention the eons.
I’ve looked around them, and even did the CTRL+F, but the word “eons” isn’t
even in Matthew. “Eon,” singular, is used, but not plural. I don’t think Aaron
intentionally did this, so I’m just going to move on.
- Luke 1:32-33 – “And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation." This passage is concerned with the very relative kingdom. It's a figure of speech that contextualizes the use of 'eons,' here. The messenger also states that His kingdom will have no consummation. Would you use this passage to say that His kingdom is eternal?
-
Rom. 1:24-25
– “Wherefore God gives them over, in the lusts of their hearts… those who alter
the truth of God into the lie, and are venerated, and offer divine service to
the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for the eons! Amen!” Why
is this only referring to the future two eons? If all is created in Him, He may
not have immediate authority, but it’s certainly a blessing to be used
in this manner. I guess you could argue that it is limited to the last
two eons, by breaking down or interpreting it to a specific kind of blessing
(as I’m sure some in Christ will do,) but even still, this would only provide further
proof that the meaning of word “eons” here is only changed within the context of the passage.
-
Rom. 9:5 –
“…out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all, God be
blessed for the eons. Amen!” The same should apply here, too. Last I checked,
God is blessed for the eons. The eons are His.
-
Rom. 11:36 –
“out of Him and through Him and for Him is all: to Him be glory for the eons!
Amen!” I would certainly not be using this passage to prove the
point. Aaron has had trouble with the word ‘all’ throughout this series,
limiting it solely to the future. This is arguably the most absolute statement
in Scripture. Does He not have glory in everything? It would be pretty
damn silly of us to say that He doesn’t hold glory in His achievements
(Rom. 1:20,) simply because it’s ‘not apparent’ to humanity right now.
-
Rom. 16:27 – “…to the
only, and wise God, through Christ Jesus, be glory for the eons of the eons.
Amen!” The passage specifically says “the eons of the eons.”
-
2 Cor. 11:31
– “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, Who is blessed for the eons, is aware
that I am not lying.” He’s done this a few times now. Am I missing something,
here? Being ‘blessed for the eons’ accomplishes one of two things: it either,
a) does not solely apply to the future eons (which I don’t believe it
does, but I’m 100% sure Aaron and those who propose this theory will disagree,)
or b) there’s something about the word ‘blessed’ that is explicitly tied
to the word ‘eons,’ which would, again, back my point that anytime ‘eons’ is
used to limited future eons, it’s only when there’s been an
explicitly future context in the word use. We’ve had so far one use
of this word in relation to future eons, and it was contextualized by
the passage. If this passage is considering future eons only, then it’s
evident that the phrase, being ‘blessed for the eons,’ is an exclusive term,
one which is noticeably absent in Heb. 1:2.
-
Heb. 13:8 – “Jesus
Christ, yesterday and today, is the Same One for the eons also.” Another use of
‘for the eons’ that’s directly preceded by the words ‘Jesus Christ, yesterday
and today,’ which is, again, a context that limits us in the
use of the word ‘eons,’ here. Furthermore, the “Same” here is a pronoun,
which directly connects us to His personality, not His kingdom. To
quote A.E. Knoch, “The same One pours out grace upon us and indignation on the
nations in the Lord’s day. The same One Who was weary at Sychar’s well is now
all-powerful. He Who was once lowly is now exalted, Who healed hundreds when on
earth, refused to remove Paul’s thorn in the flesh, Who hung on Calvary’s cross
and lay lifeless in the tomb is now alive and has ascended to God’s right hand.
His person, service, and dispensations change to accord with God’s purpose, but
He Himself remains the Same.” Clearly, we are dealing with a deliberate separation
between His human suffering on earth, to His current exaltation,
in ‘yesterday’ and ‘today.’
-
Jude v. 25 – “to
the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty,
might and authority before the entire eon, now, as well as for all the eons.
Amen!” Almost a compelling case, save for the fact that “all” is explicitly used
right in front of this use. Furthermore, the fact that ‘glory’ is used in
relation here would give the impression that the previous use, the ‘glory
for the eons’ in Rom. 11:36, can be very easily understood as all, and
not ‘only the future,’ especially considering that passage’s absolute nature.
Thus, I see no compelling reason why the reference to “the
eons” in Heb. 1:3 can’t be a reference to the future eons of Christ’s reign.
One of my favorite shows growing up was Lost. At the time, the
emotional context was fun. I got to exercise my brain, think of all sorts of
solutions to the issues and mysteries presented on the show. The first four
seasons, particularly, were my favorites. The biggest mystery was that of a
‘smoke monster,’ which was floating around on the island. It was hard to
understand what it was, but the producers kept saying, ‘We have a plan! We know
what it is! We will provide answers!’
Yet, when the smoke monster’s persona was finally unveiled in the last
few episodes, most of the fanbase was pissed with the answer – namely, because,
once you receive an answer in a mystery show, especially that of a
person or thing, you’re supposed to be able to go back through said show and
go, ‘oh, yeah, I get now why this was the way it was! I see the
motivation of the smoke monster at this season, or that season!’
The problem was that the only dot they could connect to the answer they
gave, in relation to the monster, was in the first season of the show. They
found one character motivation and stuck with it, and it revealed that
they had fabricated their answer, and did not have a true plan for the
show, because the rest of the show doesn’t align with the character motivations
of this smoke monster in the last few episodes. There were too many
instances where this smoke monster was doing things that would actively harm
the plan he had in the last few episodes. It made no sense.
An easier example would be Palpatine in The Phantom Menace. Too
often, Palpatine does random stuff (such as saying, ‘kill the Jedi immediately’
in the opening scenes,) that would actively harm the plans he had,
unveiled later in the film. It’s a confusing mess that detracts from the
overall beauty of the story.
Do you see what I mean? At best, Aaron has one
dot -- maybe two -- to connect in the above responses to his claimed verses (assuming you
aren’t satisfied with my response or something.) It’s very much not
enough to fully change the meaning of the word ‘eons’ in Hebrews 1:2, to only
discuss ‘the future eons’ in this particular passage. In every other
reference (save maybe one, again, assuming you take issue with my
responses,) to the future eons, the term ‘eons of the eons,’ or ‘eon of
the eon,’ is used. There’s no proper connection, nothing in the immediate
context that tells us that we should be limiting the use of ‘eons,’ here
– especially because the Hebraist himself knows the difference,
as he uses ‘eon of the eon’ in a quote 7 verses later. To change it to mean
what Aaron says:
A Son, Whom [God] appoints enjoyer of the allotment of all, through Whom
He also makes the future eons.
This may be the tenth time that Aaron has added or subtracted from
Scripture. Guys, God said what He said. He meant it. He wasn’t lying. He
wasn’t fooling you, He wasn’t planting a bunch of tripwires to distract you,
but the world. The leap in logic is Aaron’s, not God’s. Don’t
answer for the Hebraist, and instead, just appreciate what he said.
Hebrews 1:10-14:
And, ‘Thou, originally, Lord, dost found the earth, And the heavens are
the works of Thy hands. They shall perish, yet Thou art continuing, And all, as
a cloak, shall be aged, And, as if clothing, wilt Thou be rolling them up. As a
cloak also shall they change. Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be
defaulting.
This entire passage (i.e., verses 5-14) is a scripture-based
defense of the claim made in v. 4 that Jesus, the Son of God, is superior to
the messengers of God.
Yes, it is.
The passage also has a certain logical structure, with
different verses being linked together to form a distinct argument for the
overall position being advanced by the writer of this letter.
Indeed, that’s true. He explains that the arguments are bulked. It’s hard
to see the argument’s structure if you’re reading from a King James or a New
American, or even if you’re reading the Concordant Literal Version online. The
best way to read Hebrews is through the book’s text on the CLV. The
first ‘proof’ for verse 4 is v. 1:5-6, the second ‘proof’ in 1:7-9, and the
third ‘proof’ in 1:10-12, and the final proof in v. 13. It loops on itself
(notice the repeating phrases in v. 5 and 13; the argument against the
messengers being superior in any way to Christ bookends the middle, which
reveals and proves, with sight and logic to the Israelites, the
celestial revelations of the Son.) The last verse of the chapter concludes the
argument.
The writer used the word “for” (gar)
to introduce his first scripture-based argument, and then used the
word “and” (kai) to introduce his second argument.
Okay?
Moreover, when the writer of Hebrews
contrasted a verse or passage with another, he used the word de (which,
in the CLNT, is translated as two different words in Hebrews
1: “now” in verses 6 and 13, and “yet” in v. 8).
Duly noted. Thanks, Aaron. De is ‘now.’
Moreover, when the
writer quoted an additional Old Testament verse to support the same point being
made by the verse previously quoted, he linked the verses with the
word “again” (palin) rather than the word “and” (kai)
alone.
Why
is this crucial to our understanding of the argument? Paul’s done this before,
too. The words are purified, not tightened and edited to a hyper-obscure
degree. The Hebraist shouldn’t have to say And again instead of and in
order for us to get the message.
Thus, had the author intended his quotation of Psalm 102 in
verses 10-12 to be understood as another example from the Old Testament of how
Christ is superior to the angels, he would’ve most likely used palin (“again”)
or kai palin (“and again”), and not merely kai (“and”)
alone.
Martin Zender is many things – above all else, I think he’s one of the wisest
writers in the body. Entertaining and a bit of a showman, yes, but his
exposition is nearly unmatched in the body. That said, I think it’s very
poignant of him to point out that Aaron has done a fair bit of ‘overthinking’
during this series. I’m not saying that to throw out a petty insult, and I
don’t think Martin did, either. If the third proof isn’t elaborating on
what’s being proven in relation to Christ and the messengers, then there’s no good
or proper reason for it to be written at all, as you can just read
Psalms for this passage.
It can therefore be inferred that, by using kai alone
in v. 10 (rather than using palin or kai palin),
the writer is beginning a new argument (which, again, means
that verses 10-12 are linked with verse 13).
What new argument is this? Hopefully Aaron elaborates on this claim.
What purpose do verses 10-12 serve in the writer’s argument?
In order to answer this question, we first need to identify the person being
addressed in these verses. Verses 10-12 are a quotation of Psalm 102:25-28.
What sleight of hand! Yes, Psalm 102 is being quoted. The person being
addressed in the verses are still the Son. The New Testament, especially all
writers after Jesus, have a habit of recontextualizing Old Testament verses.
Paul himself employs this tactic on numerous occasions (Romans 9-11 comes to
mind, off the top of my head.) Notice, by the way, how we’ve left Hebrews
and entered Psalms. Now, I don't know if you agree, but having an encyclopedic knowledge of a bunch of passages from Psalms is not necessary to grasp Hebrews. It's helpful to know the quote, sure, as in this case it clarifies that the astute member of Christ's body can transpose the knowledge of Colossians 1:15-17 into the Old Testament in a more useful and practical way, now, but does not share with us the idea that we must use Psalms to change Hebrews.
This Psalm is actually the fourth Psalm quoted in Hebrews 1.
The last Psalm that was quoted by the writer of Hebrews is Psalm 45, and (unlike Psalm
102, as we’ll see below), this Psalm is clearly “Messianic” in its focus and
theme.
Yes, the Hebraist likes quoting Psalms. Psalm 45 covers His Messianic
kingdom (note the use of “eon of the eon.”) Interesting that Psalms here was
speaking to nobody, huh?
The person of elevated status
being prophetically referred to in this Psalm was clearly not Yahweh himself,
for he is distinguished from Yahweh.
Highlighted by “to the Son,” in verse 8, which Aaron has ignored.
In contrast with Psalm 45:6-7, there is no good,
contextually-informed reason to believe that the person being addressed in
Psalm 102:25-28 is anyone other than Yahweh himself, and it’s highly unlikely
that the original recipients of the letter to the Hebrews would’ve understood
it in any other way.
Thiiiiiiiiiiis is a far, far shoddier understanding of the passage.
We’ve been unveiling Christ to the Hebrews! Why are we now focused on
Yahweh? When is Yahweh’s name used in Hebrews? When is ‘Elohim,’ or hell, even
‘theos’ used?? Where does Old Testament Yahweh fit in to the claims about the
messengers?? The original passage
speaking of God does not mean the Hebraist is making a new argument
concerning Him, here! Goodness, I’m not at all an expert on Hebrews,
which is why I was expecting to lay low during this article, but I know I’m really,
really dumb, and yet I can still, at least, see a structured argument, here.
I’m sure an atheist could, as well. So why is one of Christ’s own
reinterpreting Hebrews this late in Scripture’s career?
That the person being addressed throughout the entirety of
this Psalm is Yahweh himself seems clear from even a cursory reading of Psalm
102 (see Psalm 102:1-2 and 12-24).
Really? Because Habbakuk 2:4 certainly wasn’t referencing the
body of Christ, and yet Paul quotes it in Romans 1:17. Isaiah 43:6 certainly
wasn’t referencing the body of Christ, and yet Paul quotes it in 2
Corinthians 6:16. Could it possibly be that the New Testament writers
are taking liberties to get their points across? Could it possibly be
that the Hebraist is affirming for the Israelites the glory of Christ that Paul
brazenly unveils in Colossians? Could it possibly be that this is just a
big white rabbit chase? The original context for the passage applies,
but is recontextualized, or modified, by the New Testament. This
is a critical part in understanding how the Old Testament is utilized in the
New – the passages’ original meaning doesn’t recontextualize the point
being made in the passages. Looking at the Hebraists’ argument, we have a rough outline:
I. Introduces the Son, and His glories - namely, presents that Christ enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than the previous messengers that He had commissioned
II. Proof 1: God
had not appointed any other messenger as His son
A. The “and
again” is to clarify that He makes the same point in both quotes in his proof
B. The ‘Firstborn’
is being led into the inhabited earth – thus the messengers are the ones worshipping Him. This completes the first proof.
III. Proof 2:
Contrast the allotment of the messengers with the allotment of the Son.
IV. Proof 3, then, would be following Christ’s glories, being greater than the messengers.
V. Proof 4 completes that He’s a Subjector, with the highest physical authority, representative to God, in contrast to the messengers, who are subject to Him.
VI. The argument concludes the idea that the messengers and the Son are completely separate. A sound three pronged argument that need not crumble from the twisting of Scripture.
From verse one it’s evident that the Psalmist believed
himself to be addressing his prayer to Yahweh, and he clearly believed himself
to be addressing the same divine being in verses 25-27.
Right, but not the Hebraist, who has a clearer understanding,
per John and belief in Jesus’ ministry, that He is the word that’s
subject to God. News flash: Scripture is the written word of God. Utilizing
the passage to simply refer to Yahweh obscures the Hebraist’s argument and
causes it to stick out like a sore thumb, especially when it’s made
clear by verse 13 that he’s still on the same train of thought he was on
in verse 4. Randomly gushing about God in the middle of the passage isn’t how
Scripture works – there’s a line of reasoning. It culminates in
revelation of His glory, which deserves praise.
Moreover, it should be noted that the
words “Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be
defaulting” (v. 12) is simply a way of emphasizing God’s inability
to die.
Right, no way this could be referencing the Son,
the way verse 8 says it does. No way we’re talking about Christ’s imperceptible
glory in the celestials. That would be nuts. The Son, as Knoch writes in his
commentary, and Paul writes in Philippians 2:5-8, becomes a different
form, but His spirit absolutely doesn’t change, and never will.
A verse can serve more than one function,
especially with current celestial revelations made known. This is, to my
surprise, not a case of mixing the evangels, but in prioritizing the previous
revelation over the later.
That the “Lord” being addressed in Psalm 102:25 is Yahweh,
the God of Jesus Christ (rather than Jesus, his Son), is not only evident from
the context of Psalm 102, but it is also evident from how the “He” of verse 13
points back to the “Lord” who is in view in the previous verses.
The Lord is actually name dropped here to display Master,
as in, Head, as in, Jesus Christ, the Lord of the
Hebrews. If you read Psalm 102:25, you won’t see “Lord” titled anywhere in
there. This is to highlight that the Hebraist is modifying the verse.
This isn’t for us to do, but for God to do. He’s smarter than us,
so He can.
Now, verse 13 is not connecting ‘He’ back to the ‘Lord’ of verse
10. Look at ‘God’ in verse 1, and then ‘He’ in verse 4, and then ‘He’ in verse
13. It’s a sound, solid argument, laid out throughout the chapter. No need to
splice things in where they don’t belong.
This is further evidenced from Hebrews 2:6-8, where the
writer quotes from another Psalm:
Yet somewhere someone certifies, saying, “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him, Or a son of mankind, that Thou art visiting him? Thou makest him some bit inferior to messengers, With glory and honor Thou wreathest him, And dost place him over the works of Thy hands. All dost Thou subject underneath his feet."
Notice the expression “The works of Thy
hands” in v. 7. This same expression was used in the author’s quotation of
Psalm 102:25.
*sigh* What, then?
Even apart from what has already been said, it would be
reasonable to believe that the person being referred to with the possessive
pronoun “Thy” in Heb. 2:7 is identical with the person being referred to as
“Thy” in Heb. 1:10-12.
No, this passage is concerning Yahweh, as 2:5 says:
For not to messengers does [God] subject the impending inhabited earth,
concerning which we are speaking.
The quotation highlights that which the Hebraist is considering.
In 1:10 it was the Son. In 2:5, the impending inhabited earth is on display,
and will be subject to God, through Christ placing the now-celestial
kingdom (Col. 1:13) onto the earth (Unv. 21:10.) The Hebraist explicitly says
‘We’re concerning the impending earth,’ as though to clarify that we’ve truly
left the previous argument, and entered this one. The context here
has zero to do with different use of the words “Thy hands,” and shouldn’t be
the focus in reading Hebrews. It’d be like saying because Paul says ‘celestial
body’ in 1 Cor. 15, that no one could possibly use that phrase apart
from Paul himself.
What purpose does Psalm 102:25-28 serve in the writer’s
argument? …The idea being conveyed here (perhaps more so in this passage than
in any other passage of scripture) is that God is absolutely sovereign over the
universe. He created the heavens and the earth, and when he decides it’s time,
he will replace the heavens and the earth.
If I could roll my eyes harder than my man Stanley over here, I would. I
would love a behind-the-scenes look at the writing of Hebrews.
Hebraist: “And then, what if, in the middle of my already elaborate
argument, I just added this random bit here about how God is sovereign? Then,
to really show ‘em, I’ll go back to my initial argument about
the messengers in relation to His Son, and conclude it before sliding into my
next point.”
If this were true, the Hebraist would arguably be the worst writer
in Scripture, because he has a directive that gets lost if he
randomly goes on a diatribe about how God is sovereign. To the Hebrews no
less! They are the ones that needed this writing on how Christ was
superior over all, celestially! They could hardly apprehend that Jesus, the
random guy born in a cow trough, was the Messiah. How on earth are they
going to apprehend that God is sovereign, when it actively takes Paul eight chapters
(behind the topics of justification and conciliation) in order for him to
unveil this to the Roman ecclesia, who were in the body of Christ?? What
kind of information would this unveil, as well, when the original passage
has already clarified that He’s sovereign over the universe, and
Israel didn’t listen then?
Then Aaron jumps around in Psalms 110, which is where his line of
reasoning officially dies, for me. We’re not in Psalms, Aaron, but in
Hebrews. The Hebraist didn’t ask you to jump over to Psalms 110 to try and add
a point he wasn’t making.
* * *
Hebrews 10:5-7:
Wherefore, entering into the world, He is saying, Sacrifice and approach present Thou dost not will, Yet a body dost Thou adapt to Me. In ascent approaches and those concerning sin Thou dost not delight. Then said I, "Lo! I am arriving-In the summary of the scroll it is written concerning Me-To do Thy will, O God."
Some – but not all - who believe that Christ pre-existed his
conception understand this passage as supporting their position.
I don’t, really, other than “entering into” the world, which is most
certainly literal. The passage should be read with His pre-existence in
mind, again, as I believe all of these passages should, considering the evangel
of God reveals this to us directly, but it’s not really a point of contention
(at least, not to me.)
It’s believed that, when we’re told that Christ was “entering
into the world,” this involved a pre-human being being “incarnated” as a human,
and being provided a human body.
Ref. Phil. 2:5-7.
First, it should be noted that the words “entering
the world” don’t necessarily involve being conceived. In John 17:4 and
16 we read that Christ’s disciples were “not of the world” in
the same sense that Christ is said to have been “not of
the world.”
“Of the world” is a different phrase. Not being
“of the world” has no bearing on the Hebraist saying “entering the world.”
Jesus is clearly speaking of ‘keeping His word’ in John 17:14, which leads
right into verse 16. His word is not of the world, and it’s in them, thus they
aren’t of the world, according as He is not of the world, either. I’m not of
the world, and neither is Aaron. We are ambassadors. We are transported
out of the jurisdiction of Darkness, in spirit. This is the same thing that
happened to the disciples.
In other words, Christ’s disciples – who, like Christ, were
“not of the world” – were dispatched into the world in the sense in which
Christ was dispatched into the world by his Father. Of course, none of this
language used by Christ implies or presupposes that Christ’s disciples
pre-existed their conception.
Alright, well, I guess we’ve left Hebrews. Need I remind Aaron that the
‘disciples’ and ‘Jesus’ aren’t in the same league. The language here and
the discussion here, in John 17, now, I guess, isn’t implying that the
disciples pre-existed, but Christ did. You still can’t be ‘not of the world’
as a human being without first coming into knowledge of the One that is,
literally, not of the world. Jesus Himself says to them in
John 15:19 that He chose them out of the world. You’re supposed
to understand that, when you’re reading John from start to finish, so that when
you reach this point, that they are then dispatched, you’re not
confused as hell as to what Jesus is saying, as Aaron says:
Thus, in whatever sense we are to understand how Christ
dispatched his disciples into the world, it is in this sense
that we are to understand how Christ was dispatched into the world by his
Father.
The only time that the disciples are listed as ‘not of the world’
are literally here, where there’s a clear-cut context, if you’ve read
the previous chapters.
* * *
The recent views on my blog are everything I could ever ask for. Everyone reading in Christ is beautiful. Thank you so much for taking the time, whether you agree or not. You all are inherently necessary to the body (or as Seth Christ likes to say, you are all Crüüüüsh!) I hope you've enjoyed this and I pray you wear as much of Paul's evangel as you possibly can. Let's end this eon on a strong note! The One within us is strong, so let's walk worthily of our calling, in peace, a little while longer! In the spirit of this strength: there's a conference coming up in Des Moines, Iowa, from September 15-17. Please, please, show. The fellowship, seeing your brothers who will be reigning with you, who also have measures of God's spirit dwelling in them, is so necessary in seeing how we all fit together. If you need help getting there, I'll do my best to assist. I want to meet as many of you as possible as we await our expectation in Christ!
Nonetheless, thank you so much for your love and support as I put myself out there. I'm a bit more of an introverted guy, so it feels good knowing that I've helped someone in some way. I plan on finishing this argument, and will continue plowing through Romans. I've been moving out of my friend's home, finding my own apartment, so I am quite busy post-Arizona conference, with this and other social nonsense (I've got bills to pay, mouths to feed... ain't nothin' in this world's free!!) I have a few things planned when I finally get settled - big series on my YouTube channel is on the way, and I plan on unveiling a larger project that I guess I'm going to be working on for a long, long while. I'll post a video on YouTube explaining exactly what I plan on doing. Please bear with me in the meantime! Again, all love from me to you. Stay blessed.
(to be concluded)
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment