Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part I)

 An in-depth response to “An in-Depth Response to ‘GerudoKing’ concerning when Christ’s Existence Began”

Hark! The herald angels sing! I am pleased to announce to the lot of you (who clearly already know,) that Aaron Welch has replied to my articles! This is, like before, going to be a rather long reply, as I am going to be covering each and every one of his points, as well as clarifying a few of my own, or retracting a statement if it was stupid or something.

Here are the links to his replies. I recommend you read these first, as, without the context, you may be lost on what I’m saying. I’m going to try to quote him as often as possible, but this is going to be long enough as it is.

That Happy Expectation: An in-depth response to “GerudoKing” concerning when Christ’s existence began (Part One)

That Happy Expectation: An in-depth response to “GerudoKing” concerning when Christ’s existence began (Part Two)

That Happy Expectation: An in-depth response to “GerudoKing” concerning when Christ’s existence began (Part Three)

I am going to reiterate, as well (especially considering the borderline volatile controversy among usually peaceful folk surrounding this topic,) that although I am going to, again, affirm that Colossians 1:15-17 takes precedent concerning Christ’s grandest glories, that Aaron Welch, even in disagreeing with me, is one of the best, and most practiced writers in the body of Christ, and one of the most studious minds we have. With that in mind, I hope you guys enjoy, and we all come to a greater realization of God, through Christ (Eph. 4:13.)

Concerning ‘An In-Depth Response to “GerudoKing” Concerning When Christ’s Existence Began (Part One)’ Part 1

Is that title confusing enough for you? Good. It was pretty fun to make, not gonna lie.

Aaron first begins by commenting on my statement that the Old Testament is not concerned with the preexistence of Christ. He frames this as though I stated that there are no verses in the Old Testament that consider Christ’s existence beforehand. I will begin, then, by clarifying that this is not what I said; indeed, the same way we can look back at the Old Testament and see the indication of what will be concerning our allotment, the same can be said of the revelation of Christ’s existence before His physical birth. The Unveiling 19:13 calls Christ’s name “The Word of God,” and Colossians 1:15 calls Christ “The Image of the invisible God.” It follows, then, that the Image of the invisible God, that we see in the Old Testament, is most certainly Christ.

For starters, observe Genesis 1:26-27:

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 the flyer of the heavens, over the domestic beast, over every land animal and over every creeper that is creeping on the earth.

So Elohim created humanity in His image; in the image of Elohim He created it; male and female He created them.

The passage carries with it two considerations: what is the plural “Us” and “Our” in 1:26, and what is the “Image” in 1:27?

The “Us” and “Our” is plural, and is connected to the term “Elohim,” which in itself is a plural word meaning “TOWARD-SUBJECTORS.” The non-preexistence sect has proclaimed in the past that this term is ‘just a side-effect of the Hebrew language,’ and proclaim, instead, that the “Our” and “Us” is in relation to other gods that existed at this time (Job 38:7.). Now, if you focused solely on 1:26, this could be true. But take 1:27 into account, and you see that the verse does not say, “So Elohim created humanity in the image of many,” or “multiple images.” It says, directly, “created humanity in His Image.”

The term “Image” in Greek holds the Greek element “SIMULATE,” which means, literally, to replicate something. In Hebrew, the word “Image” is selem, which is symbolized by three Hebrew letters, being the ‘tsade,’ the ‘lamed,’ and the ‘mem.’ The first letter, the ‘tsade,’ represents a man on his knees, and thus is represented in paleo-Hebrew as servitude. The second letter, the ‘lamed,’ is the symbol of ‘learning,’ and ‘teaching.’ And, finally, the letter ‘mem’ can represent water, or ‘chaos’ of man, as well as (funnily enough,) the word of God.

With the structural evidence of each letter in mind, does the term ‘image,’ in its inherent nature, not point to Christ? Who is the ultimate Servant? Who is the greatest Learner, and the greatest Teacher? Who is the Word of God?

This can be backed up, again, by Col. 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.

All has its cohesion in Him, the Image of the invisible God. Seems like a pretty important thing for God to utilize, if all has its cohesion in Him. And sure enough, here’s the Old Testament, using the same diction, proclaiming humanity being created, not merely in God’s Image, but His Likeness (Unv. 3:14.) Both His Image, which is why we look the way we do, and His Likeness, which is why we seek to subject the way we do.

This is the first of many instances in which the Old Testament proclaims Christ as the Image of the invisible God. Here, for example, is John 1:18:

God no one has ever seen.

And, Jesus also says in John 5:37–

And the Father Who sends Me, He has testified concerning Me. Neither have you heard His voice nor a perception of Him have you seen.

Interesting… Then what about Acts 7:2?

Now [Stephen] averred, “Men, brethren, and fathers, hear! The God of glory was seen by our father Abraham, being in Mesopotamia, ere he dwelt in Charan…”

What? Now, if he never heard Him, how exactly did Abraham perceive God? What does Genesis 12:1 say?

Yahweh said to Abram…

Oh. Wait. So Yahweh speaks, and then Abram… hears… the words of God…? How exactly does that work, if Christ doesn’t exist? Moreover, how does this work, in Gen. 15:1–

After these things the word of Yahweh appeared to Abram in a vision…

What the hell is going on?? Are you to tell me that Abram perceived the God of glory?? These are not small quibbles! Here’s another big one, in Job 1:6–

There was a day when the sons of Elohim would come to station themselves before Yahweh, and the Adversary came also in their midst. Yahweh said to the Adversary, From where are you coming? Then the Adversary answered Yahweh and said, From going to and fro in the earth and from walking about in it.

These are some fascinating lines of text. Quick question for you gents: how, if God is invisible (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15,) are the sons of Elohim stationed around Yahweh? Who is Satan speaking to? How is Satan hearing Yahweh? Surely, you would not tell me that God would have a mere messenger on His throne??

There are many more examples of Christ in the Old Testament. You can see Micah 5:2–

Yet you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Inferior to be among the mentors of Judah, From you shall One come forth for Me to become Ruler in Israel; Yet His goings forth are from aforetime, from days eonian.

Aaron will claim later in this article that, because Judah is the tribe in which Jesus comes from, that He could not have existed before His physical birth. Yet God disagrees, here, per Micah 5:2.

Here’s another one, in Isaiah 6:5, Isaiah speaking:

For the King, Yahweh of hosts, my eyes have seen!

Huh! I wonder, if God no one has ever seen, how exactly that happened. There’s also… every time anyone in the Old Testament hears God’s voice? Hmmm. Wonder who the Word of God is? That reminds me… the prime example, being: The Old Testament itself, which is the written Word of God. We today are called the living letters from God, as Christ’s spirit dwells in us today (2 Cor. 3:1-3, Rom. 8:9-10.) The very existence of the Scriptures at all should be sufficient evidence of Christ existing beforehand, beyond the few verses I’ve considered here. So, no, I was not saying, “no verse in the Old Testament proclaims that Christ existed before His physical birth,” but that “no verse in the Old Testament will proclaim Christ’s existence beforehand directly, the way Paul does.”

Now, even with all that considered, it’s become clear to me that my primary statement to Aaron, being that Paul’s letters should be taking precedent, and our understanding of the Old Testament should be contextualized by our apostle first, has been completely ignored. Aaron disregards this by saying:

“…before the start of the apostolic era, God’s covenant people would’ve had no good (i.e. no scripturally-informed, revelation-based) reason to believe that their prophesied Messiah already existed as a non-human, celestial being whose life began eons before his prophesied life on earth was to begin.”

Yeah, so about that…

I don’t care what Israel thinks. I really don’t. Why would you? They don’t know shit! They murmured constantly! We’re talking about a group of the most stubborn folk on the planet (Ex. 19:8.) Why do I care what the Jews interpret, or how the Jews perceived things? At most, I would say that their disposition served as a good contrast to Jesus while on earth, but considering the topic, that’s kind of a backhanded compliment (Rom. 3:1-2, 11:15.) God loves them, yes, but in the Old Testament He does not at all [unironically] inquire of them for information. The same concept can and should be applied here.

No, the Israelites had no good reason to believe their prophesied Messiah already existed. Moreover, they had no good reason to believe that God is love. They had no good reason to appreciate His law. They saw a behavioral system based on conditionality – not grace. Israel was not given the secrets of Paul (Col. 1:26.) First and foremost, we need not inquire of a group of people who cannot see the grace of God (which is why we don’t go to the Baptist church down the street and ask them for info on Jeremiah 12.)

“I find it curious that GK refers to Christ as being ‘born in Abraham’s seed.’ Perhaps that’s simply his way of saying that Christ is a descendant of Abraham (just as Paul referred to himself as “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” [Rom. 11:1]), or that Christ is the promised seed of Abraham referred to in Genesis 22:16-18 (cf. Gal. 3:16).”

Here, I can see Aaron’s confusion. Indeed, I should have said ‘of Abraham’s seed,’ per Gal. 3:16. Ya can’t win ‘em all. Nonetheless, the initial point I have made has not been lost; God’s revelations in Scripture are progressive, not regressive. Gradual, not immediate. Yet in retrospect, the revelation makes perfect sense. For Him to proclaim some Pauline truth to the Israelites would have been inefficient, and dare I say ‘unjust,’ which would make Him unfit to be worshipped.

Consider the following:

Ok.

1. Not only is it clear that Jesus had a mother (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, etc.), but we also know that Miriam conceived – and not just birthed – her son (Luke 1:31), thereby making Jesus the “the fruit of her womb” (Luke 1:42). This wouldn’t be true if Christ existed before the “fruit” of Miriam’s womb came to be.

It is indeed clear that Jesus had a mother, but Aaron’s conclusion is wanting. First, Luke is covering Christ from the perspective as a Man. It is more than this one perspective that Scripture considers Christ. As I will be pointing out numerous times throughout these articles, you cannot look at one perspective and proclaim that as the only thing you need consider (2 Cor. 5:7.) It would be like building the edge of a puzzle and calling the picture finished.

The term “conceived,” as Aaron points out, does not merely mean “pregnant.” What you will find, however, is that the English translators (not merely the KJV or NIV, but Knoch and co,) have had trouble translating the term “conceived.” In the KJV, it is translated 5 times as ‘take,’ 3 times as ‘took,’ 5 times as ‘conceive,’ twice as ‘help,’ and once as ‘caught.’

What do all of these uses have in common? They all display “receiving,” or “getting” something. Sure enough, the term “conceived” in Luke 1:31, in Greek, reads literally, “YOU-SHALL-BE-TOGETHER-GETTING IN BELLY.” This statement, read properly in Greek, does not state that Mary is the source of Jesus’ physical conception, but that she is the channel by which the flesh of the word of God is brought into the world (John 1:10-14, 1 Cor. 11:3, 12, Gal. 4:4.)

And, finally, we must not forget the Father of our Lord’s terrestrial sojourn. It is common knowledge that, when a man impregnates a woman, the child is a composite of both the father’s DNA, and the mother’s DNA. As the One that planted Christ in Mary’s womb is not at all a man, Christ shares this “celestial DNA,” so to speak, just as He shares the “terrestrial DNA” of His mother. This makes Him a proper Mediator – not between God and man, but of God and of man (1 Tim. 2:5.) This makes Him both form “of God,” and “of man,” as Phil. 2:5-8 clarified for us.

2. Christ is said to have “risen out of Judah” (Heb. 7:14). The words “risen out of Judah” express the idea that Jesus belongs to the tribe of Judah (see Heb. 7:5-6, 13), and imply that Judah – both the individual and the tribe – existed before Christ. However, it wouldn’t be true that Christ is “risen out of Judah” if Christ existed before Judah (or if Christ existed at any point before his body came into being).

This line of logic falls prey to the same logic of the Pharisees in Matthew. Observe Matt. 22:41-46:

Now, the Pharisees being gathered, Jesus inquires of them, saying, “What are you supposing concerning the Christ? Whose Son is He?”

They are saying to Him, “David’s.”

He is saying to them, “How, then, is David, in spirit, calling Him Lord, saying,

‘Said the Lord to my Lord, “Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies underneath ‘Thy Feet?’”

If, then, David is calling Him Lord, how is He his Son?”

And no one was able to answer Him a word, neither dares anyone, from that day, inquire of Him any longer.

So, Christ is not merely the effect of David, but the root (Unv. 22:13, 16, Is. 11:10.) The verses Aaron presents are not false, but they are only covering a portion of Christ’s allotment, not His entire Being. Again: to only look at a part of the verses proclaiming Christ (of which there are many more than that which concerns His terrestrial sojourn,) and say that they are all our Lord amounts to, is a major disservice to Paul’s message, and Christ, and God.

3. In Luke 1:32 we read that Gabriel referred to David as Jesus’ “father” (and by “father” he meant male ancestor). In accord with this fact, Jesus is also said to be “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1), “of the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8) and “out of the fruit of David’s loin” (Acts 2:30; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-16). None of these related descriptions of Christ would be true if Christ existed before David (or if Christ existed at any point before his body came into being).

To follow up my previous response, Luke 1:32 clarifies ancestry, as Christ enters the world at a certain point in time, but was not of it. If He were only man, then He would be of it as well, as we were of the world at the time of our birth. Yet Christ did not sin (2 Cor. 5:21, Heb. 7:26,) unlike mankind (Rom. 3:23, 5:12.) Perspective must be kept in mind, and again, the reality is that very little of Christ’s celestial glory is unveiled in the circumcision evangel.

Does this mean His celestial glories, as Paul lays out, are fabricated?? May it not be coming to that! His physical ancestry stems from David, as Aaron astutely points out. But only focusing on this, and not the spiritual side, is fallacious for us in Christ, Who should recognize all aspects of our Lord, not just the one. His literal Father is God. Aaron quoted Rom. 1:3 to point out Jesus as part of David’s seed. Now, here’s the verse in context:

Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, severed for the evangel of God, concerning His Son (Who comes of the seed of David according to the flesh, Who is designated Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead…)

It is when you only focus on the flesh that you come to believe that Jesus is only of Abrahamic lineage (Matt. 22:41-46, Rom. 6:12-14.) There is more than this to Christ, or He would not be able to reconcile both the heavens and earth.

4. Christ himself declared that he is “the root and the race of David” (Rev. 5:5; 22:16). This means that Jesus is the prophesied descendant of David who will establish the Davidic kingdom on the earth so that it will remain “unto the eon” (2 Sam. 7:12-16). With regard to Christ’s “root of David” imagery, the implied seed from which “the root” grows is David (or the “seed of David” that Christ is elsewhere said to be “of” and to “come of” [Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8]). However, Christ wouldn’t be the root of David if he existed before David (for the root doesn’t exist before the seed of which it’s the root).

See, this mixes the metaphors into something they are not. This would be like saying, because “righteous men” are referenced in Proverbs, that the body of Christ must have existed before Paul was called out. Look at Is. 11:1-2–

And a Twig shall fare forth from the set slip of Jesse, and a Scion from His roots shall be fruitful.

In the context, King Hezekiah had not yet given birth to a son – hence why Jesse’s ‘seed’ is not in reference here, but a ‘set slip,’ which has the potential to fail to take root. The prophecy concerns a Twig in relation to the terrestrial ancestry in view, not the entire creation of Christ Himself, Whom we should be recognizing through Paul as having existed before this (Phil. 2:5-8, Col. 1:15-17.) Here’s Knoch on the subject, in Unsearchable Riches Vol. 52, p. 153:

“All the terms illustrate Messiah’s vital union with Israel. The Twig is the natural growth from the stock of David, His forefather, just as the flesh of Christ came from David, through His mother, by generation. Yet the Scion is a graft and is, in a sense, abnormal, however suitable for propagation, as such. The graft in this case is not taken from Jesse, but from Him Who is his root (verse 10). It does not grow from him, but is grafted into him.

This latter picture is suitable to God’s side, as Father of His only begotten Son. Thus Messiah became a graft upon the roots of David’s father, Jesse. The scion is notable in that, although it combines perfectly with its stem, it retains its own characteristics and enhances the beauty of that to which it is grafted. This term “Scion” shows Christ as the One Whom Israel could not produce, though, according to flesh, He is out of the fathers.”

The figure is best explained as man being through woman, as Christ, the Head, coming through Israel. However, it should be clarified that woman is out of man (1 Cor. 11:12.) Thus, in the figure, Israel is out of Christ, and then Christ is grafted into Israel, making Him through Israel. The seed of David is not in view in the passage, nor is David mentioned, and thus we do not need to consider his seed.

Moreover, let’s be clear about what we’re talking about, here. “Seed” of David would not be correlated to “root” of Jesse, okay? Sperm is sperm. Root is a completely different figure, related to plants. I don’t want to sit here and break that down in greater detail than I have to, so, please, just… don’t make me go there, okay? Mixing these metaphors is horrible and, yes, it’s exactly what our religious training taught us to do. This is something we should be heavily avoiding, as it’s our learning to avoid this false reasoning that we come to realize such great truths as our justification and His conciliation, His eonian purpose in Christ, and more. Please seek to forget these lies, and let Scripture be true.

This is called “humility.” This is our Lord humbling Himself to the terrestrial for the sake of the terrestrial. Just as a man needs to humble himself to earn the willful adoration of a woman in a relationship, so also our Lord humbles Himself to earn the willful adoration of Israel during His terrestrial life, and display humble behavior to us who are to imitate Him. Christ’s flesh is a descendant of these men. He had to be born in Israel’s kingship ancestry, because this would confirm the patriarchal promises made to Israel’s fathers (Rom. 15:8.)

But Christ’s flesh is not solely in view when Paul says things like, “Christ is the Image of the invisible God,” or Christ Himself says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” Just as much as He is the Image of the Reconciler, so also He is the Image of the Establisher (and I’ll tell you a secret: it’s the same Image of the same Deity.)

*   *   *

What would Aaron say concerning this secret?

These facts concerning Christ’s lineage are incompatible with GK’s doctrinal position.

Well, they are compatible, when you consider that Christ is not limited as some special man. Alas, I guess you can’t please everyone.

Just as Christians erroneously believe that it was only Christ’s body that died and was roused from among the dead (and not Christ himself), so GK’s view entails that it was only Christ’s body – and not Christ himself – that is “of the seed of David” or “out of the fruit of David’s loin.”

Woah, woah, woah, how did we get here? Look, just because the Christians cannot understand death doesn’t mean that there is no separation between Christ’s flesh and His spirit. The circumcision evangel and the uncircumcision evangel can clarify this much. With a few exceptions, the circumcision evangel prioritizes the flesh, and the uncircumcision evangel prioritizes the spirit. There are entire books written by dispensationalists that strive to clarify this point (Rom. 2:28, John 1:14.)

Moreover, Paul himself says it in Romans 1:3-4, contrasting between Christ as rightful King, and Christ as true Son of God with power. Christ’s terrestrial glory and His celestial glory are undoubtedly two different things, and everything without Paul’s name as a header is **almost** always concerned with unveiling His terrestrial glory. Both evangels concern Christ Himself, but from different perspectives. The terrestrial glory is concerned with His fleshy ancestry, and celestial glory is concerned with His heavenly place, as the Image, the Son, the Expression, of God.

It is not merely Christ’s body of which the above genealogical facts are true. Rather, these facts concern Christ himself. And this can only be the case if Christ’s existence as God’s Son began when he was conceived (which is in accord with what we read in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35, but more on that later). That is, only if Christ (i.e., the “Holy One” who we’re told would be “called the Son of God” by virtue of the fact that he would be generated by God) came into being when (and because) his human body came into existence can it be true to say that Christ himself – and not merely his body – is “the seed of Abraham,” “risen out of Judah,” “of the seed of David” (etc.).

When you consider the refutation I’ve given, and, again, put Paul’s letters first and foremost, and stop dwelling on what Israel thinks, as though that matters in this discussion, the above conclusion is inconclusive. This, I feel, need not be explained to Aaron Welch, but to his readers: when the pillars of an argument falls, the roof, being the conclusion, collapses. Yet I’m sure some who strongly adhere to Aaron’s first conclusion here will claim, even when the reasons and evidence presented are speculative, and even when the other verses that consider the celestial side of Christ are presented, that somehow this conclusion still stands. This is false reasoning, and, though Aaron has presented numerous logically sound arguments in the past, he must look past celestial revelations and continue dancing around in prior revelations in the Old Testament, ignoring the words of our apostle, here. I pray members of His body stop limiting our Lord to prior revelations.

(to be continued...)

- GerudoKing