Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part IX)
Concerning “A Rebuttal to Martin
Zender’s ‘The Preexistence of Christ’”
It’s the one we’ve been
waiting for. The last (and longest) article that Aaron has produced on the
topic of Christ’s preexistence is laid out here. As far as I’m concerned, this
is Aaron’s ultimate say on the subject, as (most) of the objections laid out by
Martin are objections I’d agree with. Thus, this last article will give the
in-depth analysis of Aaron’s claims, scrutinizing them carefully.
**By the way, Aaron once
again has the objector (in this case, Martin) in red font. As such, I will do
the same. Okay, let’s go.
Introduction
I don’t have much to say
on this front. Aaron talks about how he met Martin, and it’s sweet. He does say
this:
I suppose it goes without saying that I don't think Martin
has (yet) given me any good reasons to “recant” what he calls my “evil
teaching.”
Which is a bummer, really. After studying Aaron’s articles closely, I
can see why Martin jumped to “evil teaching,” because it’s certainly not proven
in Scripture by any means, and can serve a solid introduction to the teaching
of free will, whereas the preexistence of Christ is scripturally sound.
Christians use it as a platform to push the Trinity, but that is its own
doctrinal error founded in misguided logic.
I don’t yet think that the position he’s trying to defend
really poses a threat to my position (and no amount of “proof-texting” or talk
of the “evil teaching” of those who disagree with him on this subject can
really help his position).
This is another statement that bums me out, because it’s not about
Martin “posing a threat.” The evangel doesn’t ‘pose a threat’ to you, and if
someone’s rebuking the claim with sound logic, as Martin (though harsh,) generally
did, it should be enough to self-reflect on the view taken. I’ll admit that
when I said I’d do this, I was nervous, because I had read this
introduction before, and I didn’t want to start writing if I didn’t feel it
would make any difference. However, some in Christ have expressed being torn on
Christ’s pre-existence, so I’ve gone ahead with this project.
He does talk about how he doesn’t think Martin’s defense landed, which,
I guess, is natural if you’re taking the opposition. That said…
“Knockout Punches”
and the Burden of Proof
After highlighting
Martin’s position, and reaffirming his, Aaron says:
I would be very much
surprised if I were to learn that Martin believes that, when Joseph and Miriam
first heard and believed the words declared to them by the messenger Gabriel in
Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:30-37, they thought to themselves: “I can’t believe
it! The oldest created being in existence – the one through whom God created
the universe – is about to be ‘incarnated’ on earth as “an Adamic human”!”
They were not thinking
this, brother. Joseph thought his wife was a whore and Miriam was confused as
all hell. They could hardly wrap their heads around the physical nature
of the situation, let alone the celestial. The things John reveals in the final
account aren’t even relayed to Israel until, well, Jesus’ ministry, and when
John published the writing. Nowadays many (in Christ, that is, and I
guess some religious zealots with their own evangel) ‘presuppose’ this truth,
but mainly because it has been unveiled in Colossians and is open, brazen for
all to see.
the belief that Jesus’ life began at conception is an
entirely reasonable starting point when we’re considering the subject of Jesus’
origin, and one shouldn’t be embarrassed to demand compelling scriptural
evidence to the contrary rather than having to provide a “knockout punch”
argument against a position that is nowhere hinted at or suggested in the
actual inspired accounts we have of Christ’s origin.
Aaron has been saying this the entire time. He’s standing in the kingdom
evangel, not the evangel of God on this, and thus his understanding has
been limited. After reading all this, I’m surprised that I didn’t read his
statement that “those in the preexistence camp must prove Christ’s existence.”
I would argue that any position on anything in Scripture requires
proof, but this is a case where the solution is easily resolvable – by
putting Paul before the kingdom evangel, Matthew and Luke are contextualized
properly. There become moments where you can read something like
Luke 1:35 and understand that it’s a relative statement being spoken to
a terrified woman who thought she was going to get some sleep that night.
There’s no room for a celestial revelation, here, because there’s a great
deal of apprehension required to even realize that He was born through a
virginal womb to begin with. It’s why Paul’s words are so difficult to
apprehend to the Jew – the Jew had signs, whereas we do not. They demand
proof of concept, when all Paul can (really) do is say it, through
faith. This, I think, Aaron, is part of the reason Martin’s writings were
‘fiery’ in nature.
Anyways, Martin was shocked by Aaron’s three point argument, provided
here:
1. The person who
was given the name “Jesus” and the title “Christ” is said to have been
“generated” (gennao) by God.
2. When referring
to an event for which the father of a child was understood as responsible, the
word translated “generated” or “begotten” in scripture (gennao) is to be
understood as involving a person’s being brought into existence.
3. The person who
was given the name “Jesus” and the title “Christ” was first brought into
existence by God within the womb of his mother, Miriam, and after he died was
subsequently brought back into existence by God when he was roused from among
the dead.”
The argument, when considering Phil. 2:5-8 and Col. 1:15-17, untainted
and still proudly standing, apart from Aaron’s additions and suppositions
therein, falls flat, and goes against the very evangel we stand in. To become
something is not to be created, whereas Col. 1:16 declares, very
strongly, that all is created in Him. The scope has shifted from
one terrestrial, in the four accounts, to one celestial.
Martin simply thinks that Christ is the “exception to the
rule” of premise two.
Yes – as do most of us in Christ, having studied Colossians. Romans 1:22-23:
Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid, and they change
the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a
corruptible human being…
Scripture clearly and undoubtedly takes issue with
changing the glories of God into that in which man should be proud of. Turning
Him into a man, literally, makes Him corruptible. That Christ is the Image of
the invisible God, which is a glory in and of itself, should show that creating
Christ first and foremost as the image of a corruptible man is, to God,
stupidity. The ‘father/son’ dynamic of man is not the Father/Son
dynamic of God and Christ, as clarified in His emptying Himself to become
like man, becoming Son of God (Luke 1:35.)
Was Aaron
too generous to the “preexistence of Christ” doctrinal position?
Luke
1:31-35:
“And lo! you shall be conceiving and be pregnant and be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus. He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. 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." Yet Miriam said to the messenger, "How shall this be, since I know not a man?" And answering, the messenger said to her, "Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God."
As
remarked in my first article on this subject, the exact idea that the writer or
speaker intended to communicate by means of the Greek word translated
“generated” in Luke 1:35 (gennaō) depended on its usage. When the word was used in reference to
what a child’s father was understood as being responsible for, it means “to
generate” or “beget” (see, for example, Matt. 1:2-16). In fact, this is the primary meaning of the word…
Right, which is
completely true of men, and true of God’s generating Christ as man,
but, as the later passages reveal, this use of ‘generate’ is
recontextualized in Paul’s revelations to us in the love epistles. Interesting,
though, how Aaron now cares about the primary meaning of a word, but
when it’s “Firstborn” it’s contingent on something, or secondary. Here,
“generate” is contingent on the later revelations of His existence
(which is why Knoch translates it “generate” in reference to our Lord and not
“beget.”)
When a person is generated or begotten by their father, does
this event involve an already-existing person being transformed into some other
form? No.
No – because my earthly
dad isn’t God, and yours isn’t, either. Martin’s earthly dad wasn’t God. You
aren’t God to your children. There’s a separation between God and man.
We are an analogy – an example of sin’s effects through generations of death
and decay, completely opposite God’s Son, Who remains created in all, even in
the form of a slave, both in obedience to death and dying Himself. It’s a
necessary contrast between flawed human operations and God’s operation.
Also, we aren’t dealing
with a person, but God. Please stop likening the glory of God to man.
Rather than denying this simple, straightforward truth
just because one has always believed that certain other verses contradict it, I
believe one would do well to rethink their interpretation of these other
verses.
Yet another statement that perfectly embodies what I mean when I
say, the evangel of God is primary revelation for us in Scripture,
whereas the rest falls into place through that. It is, indeed, a
straightforward truth that the baby Jesus comes out of His mama’s womb. It is,
indeed, also a straightforward truth, revealed later by the evangel of
God, that the baby Jesus is the Image of God in the likeness of man. It’s
okay to believe both, and it does line up, Scripturally, as the later
revelations reveal a celestial glory, whereas the previous did not.
this is especially so given the fact that we in the body of
Christ have good reason to be suspicious of standard Christian interpretations
of scripture.
I will
now make a claim. Aaron is scared, here, and interprets Scripture differently
out of fear of being hooked into another religious sect or its beliefs.
Now, I’m not dissing him when I say that – we should be scared; fear is
not hated in Scripture (only in Star Wars.) We are asked to fear the
Lord (2 Cor. 5:11,) that is, in a master/slave manner. We are also asked to
fear authorities by Paul, in Romans 13. This is in reference to governmental
powers, but on a social level I would find it wise to fear religious
organizations to some degree as well, considering they are front and center in
this current jurisdiction of Darkness.
However!
It should also become
apparent at a certain point that, in the body of Christ, there already is a
fine attention to detail. Martin very may well could have believed this truth
his entire life, but it comes from heavy study of the prison letters! He
wouldn’t just ‘believe’ without verses being apparent. Neither would A.E.
Knoch. Heck, neither would I, and even through studying these verses on
an intense, exhaustive level the way that Aaron has, I see no reason why the
literal rendering of these verses cannot be, considering it fits in proper
context. Literal, if possible, is the rule of thumb with all verses.
Figures of speech are present, yes, but always defined by the context
(ex. 1 Cor. 10:1-4.) The only figure of speech in Colossians 1:13-20 is 14,
where we are said to have the ‘pardon of sins’ in the kingdom of the Son, but
even the kingdom of the Son is a literal kingdom in the celestials, as is the
jurisdiction of Darkness around us presently. The rest, while following a
pattern, or maybe relate to some ‘parallel,’ doesn’t mean we’re dealing with
anything less than literal.
We know what it means for a human to be
“generated” or “begotten” by their father.
*sigh* likening God’s glory to man. Romans 1:23.
This isn’t something that anyone should
consider “open to interpretation.”
No one said it was.
Colossians modifies, doesn’t erase.
But this, I submit, is essentially what Martin is doing here.
He’s having to explain away the meaning of the word gennaō in reference to
Jesus’ origin simply because the actual meaning of the term in this context
doesn’t suit his doctrinal position.
I’ll admit I’ve only briefly read Martin’s rebuttal (seriously, I read
the first part a couple times, the second part once, and maybe like half of the
third part,) so I can’t say for certain that Aaron’s claim that this is what
Martin did is true. Martin doesn’t usually act ‘interpretive’ on his own terms,
and when he does, he usually says, “It’s just my opinion, but…” Here, however,
he needs no such statement, because the evangel he stands in clearly
contextualizes Matthew as a state change, becoming only-begotten, not
solely being created. If he’s only using this to suit a ‘doctrinal
position,’ then please charge Paul with the same crime.
Earlier,
I quoted Martin as saying, “Bethlehem
in 3 B.C was where and when He was generated as an Adamic human.” If by “generated” Martin means the event for which Jesus’
Father was directly responsible (i.e., Jesus’ conception), then this event most
likely occurred in Miriam’s home town of Nazareth (Luke 1:26-27).
100%
agreed. It’s a bit more technical, I think, but yes, He would have to have been
generated 9 months prior, in Nazareth. Bethlehem is where he exited the canal.
Good catch.
Regardless of where Miriam was where Christ was generated,
however, for Christ to have been generated/begotten (brought into existence) by
God “as an Adamic
human” (to use Martin’s
somewhat peculiar expression) he was still brought into existence by
his Father.
Right, but Paul actively points out that this wasn’t the beginning
for Christ, but only for His time on earth, in Phil. 2:5-8. That’s why Martin
calls Him human. That said, I also find “Adamic” human to be a peculiar phrase.
One area where I disagree with Martin is in that he believes Christ was a human
(albeit a divine One) before being sent to earth as well (and finds there to be
a delineation between the word ‘human,’ as a result.) It’s the one aspect of
Martin’s argument that I must disagree with. John 1:1 calls Him the Word, not
the pre-existent human. I can’t find anywhere else that Martin elaborates on
this topic, so I can’t say much more on why he understands the topic this way.
Aaron re-elaborates his argument on Matt. 1 and Luke 1, with little new
addition in relation to what he’s previously said, so I won’t cover it all
again just to restate two separate evangels. I will say that He again reaffirms
that Jesus is not called “Son of God” until His birth, which makes sense,
because obviously, He shouldn’t be called “Son of Joseph.” It’s a title in
relation to His terrestrial Body, as before, He was called ‘the word,’
inherently in the form of God. The title becomes necessary for humanity to
comprehend why and how He’s being given authority over all
heavens and earth.
For those who don’t yet “see it,” consider the following: We
know that other created, non-human persons are called “sons of God” or “sons of
the Most High” (Gen. 6:1-2; Deut. 32:8; Job 1:6; 38:7; Psalm 82; 89:5-7), and
that these non-human beings were directly brought into existence by the agency
of the same being (which I believe to be God himself). Thus, if Christ had been
the first being brought into existence by God, we can reasonably conclude that
he – perhaps more so than any other celestial being - would’ve been deserving
of the designation, “Son of God.”
Right, except none of them were called the ‘word,’ which is
Christ’s privilege alone. This separates Him from them.
For the sake of clarity, here’s a more formally expressed
version of the above argument:
Premise 1: Non-human celestial
beings who were directly brought into existence by God before God created
mankind on the earth are called “sons of God” and “sons of the Most High” (Gen.
6:1-2; Deut. 32:8; Job 1:6; 38:7; Psalm 82; 89:5-7).
Premise 2: If Christ was the first being brought
into existence by God (i.e., before all of the other “sons of God”) and thus
existed before his mother became pregnant with him, then he would’ve been the
“Son of God” and “the Son of the Most High” during this time of “preexistence.”
Premise 3: Scripture reveals that Jesus’ being
the “Son of God” is the result of his being generated/begotten by God (Luke
1:35; Matthew 1:24), and that it was at this time that God became Jesus’ Father
and Jesus became God’s Son.
Conclusion: Christ Jesus, the Son of God,
didn’t exist before he was generated/begotten by God.
Premise 1: True.
Premise 2: Logical
fallacy, because He’s titled ‘Son of God’ as man, not as the word. He was exalted
in nature – Firstborn of every creature. He was used by God to create
the celestials (Heb. 1:2.) He was ‘inherently in the form of God,’ a much
higher existence. He then found it ‘not pillaging to be deemed equal to
God.’ Confusing… how does a non-sentient, non-existent being have the ability
to reach any conclusion on anything if they don’t exist?
Premise 3: True. He’s entering
at that time, on earth. The curtains are being unveiled. God is telling the
story for a reason. Christ and His various glories are being unveiled through
every single aspect of creation’s history. Son of God as man is no
different from Adam in Luke 3. He was also a son of God. That was the point of
the title – that Paul would be able to contrast Adam and Jesus by Romans 5.
It’s important to keep this stuff in check, lest we reach erroneous
conclusions. Speaking of which,
Conclusion: Inconclusive
– Rom. 1:23, Phil. 2:5-8, Col. 1:15-17
Given everything said above, I feel that I’ve been giving the
preexistence doctrinal position far too much credit.
Interesting. Thankfully, we need not rely on Aaron’s feelings, but
Paul’s facts.
The
‘Exception to the Rule’ Argument
To first
reiterate what Martin said:
Needless to say, Jesus Christ is an exceptional human being.
Needless to say (except I apparently need to say it), Jesus Christ is the
exception to pretty much every rule, but especially the rule of preexistence;
He is the only being Who chose to come here. For humans, the word “generated”
is understood as “involving a person’s being brought into existence,” because
no human being besides Jesus Christ existed before his or her earthly
existence. In Jesus Christ’s case, He did exist before His earthly existence.
We know this from the eight verses I listed at the beginning of this article.
These verses are written of no one else but Christ. None of them apply to you
or to me. This makes Jesus Christ unique. Any verse stating Jesus Christ to be
generated as a human being, therefore, makes no comment as to His preexistence
in another form.
Christ is clearly an exceptional human being in a number of
important respects. The problem with this (at least, insofar as Martin’s
argument is concerned), however, is that there is absolutely nothing about
Christ’s exceptional nature that gives us any good reason to even suspect (let
alone conclude) that when Christ was generated by God he wasn’t
brought into existence by God.
Except God’s evangel, but continue.
We cannot simply argue that, because Christ is an “exceptional human being,” therefore X [fill in the blank] is true, or even probably true, of him. Here are just a few examples demonstrating why the “Christ is an exceptional human being” argument just doesn’t work:
“Jesus Christ is an exceptional human being. Therefore, he never cried.”
“Jesus Christ is an exceptional human being. Therefore, he didn’t have to learn obedience.”
“Jesus Christ is an exceptional human being. Therefore, he didn’t have to learn or be taught anything.”
“Jesus Christ is an exceptional human being. Therefore, he couldn’t have been ‘tried in all respects like us.’”
“Jesus Christ is an exceptional human being. Therefore, he never suffered physical pain.”
When Martin called Christ
an ‘exceptional human Being,’ he was referring to Christ being the literal exception
to the ‘begotten-by-man’ rule, in relation to His preexistence, which John
and Paul both certainly clear up for us. Christ being a human being is
why He did suffer, He did cry, He did try to do things, and He did have to
learn about the ways of the world (recall, He didn’t even realize Who He was
until He reached puberty, Luke 2:41-52.) There are verses that clarify
His ‘exceptionality’ as a person, most notably that He came to fulfill law
(Matt. 5:17,) which, as we learn from Paul, man cannot do apart from God. If
Jesus were simply a man, He would not be able to accomplish His very goal.
The fact is that, unless scripture clearly informs us
of how Christ is the exception to some rule concerning human
existence, we shouldn’t simply assume that he is.
And thankfully, Scripture does. I tire of quoting the same verses, so
from here on, please understand that when I’m affirming that Scripture does display
His preexistence, I’m referring to John 1, Phil. 2:5-8, and Col. 1:15-17,
specifically.
‘Christ…
foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world’
Aaron makes the argument that because Christ was said to be
foreknown (1 Peter 1:20) and members of the body of Christ are also said to be
foreknown (Romans 8:29), that therefore Christ did not exist before His birth
because we did not exist before our births. Well, hmm. The commonality of being
foreknown should not get anyone too excited that they and Jesus are running in
the same race. I am pretty sure that dinosaurs, raisins, redwood trees,
snowblowers, underwire bras and French’s mustard were also all foreknown.
I don’t really agree with
Martin’s assessment, here, and certainly believe this could have been better.
The truth is, again, that 1 Pet. 1:19-20 are referencing His Sacrifice as
being foreknown, not He Himself. As such, though I disagree with Aaron’s conclusion,
I certainly see why he found this argument wanting.
Heb.
1:1-2 and “The Last of These Days”
I don’t,
again, have too much to say on this topic, as again, the discussion of Christ
as prophet on earth is a relative one, concerning His terrestrial life
on earth. No other prophet could be called “Son of God,” with this knowledge.
if Martin believes that the “pre-incarnate Christ” ever spoke
to “the fathers” during the time of his “preexistence,” his position would
entail that God had been speaking “in a Son” long, long before “the last of
these days” actually began.
But He didn’t – He spoke through the Word, which was subject to Him
(John 1:1.) The ‘last of these days’ is to begin contextualizing Christ as Son
of God. Scripture is argumentative in nature – the Hebraist sets up, here, the
proof of His superiority in prophecy. Notice how this is on the tail end of
revelations to Israel concerning their Messiah!
This would, I believe, completely trivialize the contrast and
point being made in verses 1-2. It would be like saying, “Although God spoke to
the fathers in a Son before the last of these days began, the Son wasn’t a
prophet at the time!”
The Son wasn’t even a prophet until His earthly ministry began, my guy
(or, you could argue, that He began as a prophet as early as 12 years old, per
Luke 2.) He becomes prophetic during His life, as the other prophets do
as well. They aren’t spitting facts during their 8-day old circumcision. Case
in point: Luke 2:52 displays that, in His being emptied (Phil. 2:5-8,)
He needed to learn about His Father again. Becoming a prophet
took time in the flesh, for Jesus. Being a prophet at all requires a knowledge
of what God is up to. Aaron quotes 1 Pet. 1:20 to drive his point home,
again, that prophetic discussion was certainly in relation to His earthly ministry,
which is true. The other messengers (being human messengers, not
angelic, considering we are discussing prophets,) did not have the same title
as ‘Son of God’ the way Jesus did. He was manifested in the last times,
having not been manifested on earth at any previous time.
“Through
Whom He also makes the eons”
The writer of Hebrews, in order to make sure that no one such
as Aaron Welch could mistakenly conclude from this “speaking as a prophet”
business that the Image of the invisible God never spoke before or in any other
way besides that of a prophet, finishes Hebrews 1:1-2 with: “...through Whom He
also makes the eons.” Aaron never mentions this part of the verse, in this
context. Obviously (to most people, anyway), a Being Who “created the eons,”
would have necessarily existed before His manifestation in flesh in Bethlehem
(which occurred during the eons) and thus before being appointed a prophet in a
long line of mere Adamic spokespeople.”
I’ll simply give three reasons why I believe the immediate
context in which the words “through whom he makes the eons” are found is more
supportive of the interpretation for which I’ve argued elsewhere than Martin’s
interpretation.
1. It is through his Son that God makes “the eons” which the
writer had in view. However (as argued earlier) Jesus is God’s Son by
virtue of the fact that he was generated/begotten by God. It was at
this time (and not before) that God became the Father of Jesus, and Jesus
became the Son of God. This fact make sense of why God hadn’t
spoken to anyone in his Son until “the last of these days”
began (for the Son of God in whom God is now speaking didn’t exist yet). It
also means that, if the Son must already be in existence before he can be the
one through whom God makes “the eons” that the writer had in view, then these
eons cannot have begun prior to the human lifetime of the Son.
As Paul has already clearly conveyed to the
reader, in Colossians, that God created all in Christ, there’s no reason
we cannot comprehend the verse this way. The Hebraist points out that He is
appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all. You cannot enjoy the allotment
of all unless you can understand where ‘all’ are and stand, and this
cannot be done unless you actively know already (John 8:57-58.) Hard to
enjoy what you don’t know. If you need more evidence, please
observe that the word ‘appoints’ is a fact-state verb form. Please
observe what a fact, state, and fact state verb form is below:
The Hebraist clarifies, ‘through Whom He also makes the eons,’ and clarifies with ‘He is the Effulgence of God’s glory and Emblem of His assumption.’ Did God not have a brilliance in glory before Christ’s coming? Sounds a little Christian in reasoning to suppose that, because the glory was not known to us before this, that the glory must not have existed! Did the first 4,000 years of man’s history, or the first heaven and earth not occur? Though Aaron’s explanation of the verses here are far better than his more convoluted assertion in his Hebrews article, there’s still not enough grounds for us to read this differently, especially knowing Paul’s revelations.
2. Related to the above point, the expression “in the last of
these days” can be reasonably understood as providing us with not only the
timeframe for when God began speaking to us in his Son but also for
when “the eons” in view are being made (or will begin to be made – the tense of
the word “makes” allows for a present or future act) by God through the Son. In
other words, since the focus of v. 2 is clearly on what began to be true “in
the last of these days,” it would be more reasonable to understand the making
of “the eons” in view as being the activity of God through the Son during the
“last of these days” as well. Again, it is this period of time that is the
focus of this passage (and arguably the entire book of Hebrews). A reference to
some event in the distant past after having just put the focus on what was now
true in “the last of these days” would be completely out of place.
The ‘last of these days’ is connected to how God is speaking, terrestrially,
to man. The celestial is being unveiled here, which for us to
comprehend, must start terrestrial and lead to celestial. God is
kind enough to the Hebrews to follow this pattern.
The one that stands out the most to me is ‘makes,’ the present tense. This
is another far better argument than his previous article, and I wish he’d
written more on that. It probably would do a better job convincing me otherwise
on this passage. However, it should be noted that ‘makes’ being present tense
doesn’t denote a future act. He would be doing something.
Clearly, the kingdom is not being made as of now, but we are in
the midst of being called out. This passage still lines up with the ‘present
tense’ of the revelations in Colossians, and again, as a reader in the present
day we should be understanding this like a book, peeling back the layers of our
understanding. The evangel of God should still be contextualizing this,
and when you do that, ‘makes’ becomes far more sensible as pertaining to the eons,
and not just future eons.
We’re also told in the
same verse that it is the Son “whom [God] appoints enjoyer of the allotment of
all.” Like the expression “in the last of these days,” this, too, should be
understood as providing us with a particular time frame revealing when God
“makes the eons” through his Son. When we understand when and why Jesus
was “appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all,” we find that this is yet
another indication that the writer had the eons of Christ’s reign in view.
Verses 3-4 shed some important light on this. There, we read concerning the Son
of God: “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.”
It was Christ’s sacrificial death that made him (and no one
else) worthy of this supreme allotment. And it is this “allotment of a more
excellent name” that we can reasonably conclude enables Christ to be the one
through whom God “makes the eons.”
This last point jumbles up the passage. God appoints Him, because it
was through Him that the eons (continue to be, present tense,)
created. And again, being the Effulgence of His glory should be
indicating that, to the Christ member, being in the Image of God would
highlight His lack of ‘human’ qualities in the celestial, making Him the
Channel through Whom God creates the eons.
Furthermore, Aaron switches the allotments, here. Now it’s not “God
using the appointed Enjoyer of the allotment of all to make the eons,” but “God
using the appointed Enjoyer of an allotment greater than the messengers to make
the future eons.” Switching the passages around creates this contingency, not
the direct line of reasoning laid out in Hebrews itself.
Moreover, let’s consider what it actually means for
God to “make” an eon, or for him to “make” multiple eons.
Oh boy. I’m thinking of Job 38, but go ahead, continue.
To better understand what this involves, let’s consider what
it is that separates one eon from the next. What, for example, is it that
separated the present eon from the last eon, or the last eon from the first
eon, or the first eon from what came before it? It must be some event(s) that
take place which mark the beginning or end of an eon.
We know about the giant cataclysmic events separating the eons. What’s
your point?
Thus, making an eon involves, at the very least, causing or
bringing about whatever events that are needed to take place in order for an
eon to begin or end.
This is an aspect, not the crux. The point of an eon is the story
being displayed. The goal of the eons is for God to be all in all, but
the only method He provides is through Christ.
There is no indication from scripture that Christ was
involved in bringing about any of these cataclysmic events.
So, because Jesus the Man wasn’t wandering about on the water, waving at
the ark in Genesis 8:23.5, this must conclude that Scripture, that the
Hebraist, that Paul, is wrong about the assertion that Christ is in all?
.png)
It’s reasonable to conclude that the sort of authority that
one would need to have in order to bring about such cataclysmic, world-ending
events was not even given to Christ until after his death and resurrection
(when he was made “Lord of all” and given “all authority in heaven and on
earth”).
And sure enough, no word is given by God in destruction of the
first or second earth. God declares, and Noah heard it, which
indeed means there was a voice (almost like there must have been a
Voice, which isn’t possible for the spirit to directly convey to flesh,
Rom. 8:23.) Moreover, the entire written word should be enough to
display the “through,” here, as John clarified in John 1 that the word
is Christ.
(to be concluded)
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment