Responding to Aaron Welch (Preexistence Response, Part IV)

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

Let’s talk about Peter (the apostle, not Meye.) Here’s 1 Pet. 1:18-20–

…not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, were you ransomed from your vain behavior, handed down by tradition from the fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a flawless and unspotted lamb, foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of you, who through Him are believing in God, Who rouses Him from among the dead and is giving Him glory, so that your faith and expectation is to be in God.

Based on GK’s response here (which I found quite puzzling), it would seem that he thought I was arguing as follows:

1. The saints in the body of Christ were foreknown by God.

2. Christ was foreknown by God.

3. Therefore, we’re the same as Christ in every way.

Not quite. The first two points are indeed what Aaron initially said, but the last point is an over-exaggeration. My response was to go beneath the surface of your point, Aaron. It was intentionally obtuse. The point is that plugging the term “foreknown” into Christ Jesus and using that as a platform to claim that Christ did not exist before His physical birth, when 1 Pet. 1:20 doesn’t at all deny Col. 1:15-17, is doing nothing but prioritizing Christ’s fleshy arrival as opposed to His spirit.

My actual point is simply based on what it means to be “foreknown,” and the fact that to be foreknown by God at a certain time (e.g., before the disruption of the world) implies that one didn’t yet exist at that time.

Oh, and you know, Jesus throwing dead bodies into Gehenna during the kingdom implies that God sends unbelievers to hell!

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought it was okay to convey personal interpretations and treat them as fact?

We know that, in 1 Peter 1:21, the “Him” to whom Peter was referring (i.e., in the expression, “who through Him are believing in God”) is Christ.

That’s great, but the sentence and its context is very clear. Peter contrasts what the Jews were ransomed with, and then describes the blood. “Of Christ,” simply, is a descriptor, as it is written in the genitive case. “Blood,” on the other hand, is in the dative case, which is to relate an indirect object to a verb or preposition. The following, “as of a flawless and unspotted lamb,” then, is not in relation to “Christ,” but His sacrifice. You would not look at this verse:

Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, severed for the evangel of God…

And say, “Christ Jesus is a called apostle, then.” And yet, “Christ Jesus” is genitive, just like in 1 Pet. 1:19, and this is obviously not how Romans 1:1 reads. So why are we trying to apply this logic in 1 Pet. 1:19?

Try viewing Peter’s statements here as a train of thought, not a three-pronged argument. Blood of Christ –> flawless and unspotted –> foreknown –> a murder manifested recently –> that through Him believe God. This is not a difficult idea to convey. 1 Peter 1, like the term “begettal,” has nothing to do with whether or not Christ preexisted.

In other words, the pronoun “Him” in v. 21 is referring back to “Christ” in v. 19 (and not “blood”).

Cool.

This means that the referent of the prior expression (i.e., “yet manifested in the last times because of you...”) is also Christ (the “Him” of v. 21), and not Christ’s blood…

This seems as if we’ll simply end up disagreeing, because “blood” is the object in discussion, per 1 Pet. 1:17-18, and Aaron seems to really want to use this verse to prove Christ exists only in the foreknowledge of God, and is not actually present, per John 1:1.

It is very much plausible to make the claim that the precious blood of Christ, in contrast to the silver or gold, “handed down by tradition from the fathers,” was manifested at the approximate time of Peter’s writing. Aaron quotes some other (notably circumcision) letters to proclaim Christ being manifest in the last days, which is fine, but this is covering, again, the terrestrial perspective. This is according to the flesh. And, yes, Peter does shift in verse 21, with a pronoun. The shift is at the point Aaron references – it does not mean that the prior statement suddenly must be modified.

Now, even if you were adamant that this is in relation to ‘Christ being manifested in the last times’: the flesh of Christ, indeed, did not yet exist (John 1:14.) His sacrifice, indeed, is foreknown before the disruption (and this can be contrasted with Unv. 13:8.) If Aaron must, he could argue that Christ according to flesh is foreknown, being that Peter is, literally, to the circumcision and considering Christ’s fleshly glories. But the way I see the verse isn’t the way he’s going to see the verse, and the way he sees the verse isn’t the way I’m going to see the verse. And in either case, neither deny His preexistence.

Seriously, I want to clarify: there is no verse that has been presented so far that denies the preexistence of Christ. Each verse has been discussing Christ from a relative context, and Aaron has been using these verses while simultaneously ignoring the verses concerning Christ’s prior celestial glory.

Now, let’s move on to Hebrews 1:1 (again.)

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…

I don’t want to spend too much time on this one either. You all know that the crux of our argument is that, simply, I believe this is in reference to Christ as Prophet, as opposed to Christ’s entire existence, whereas Aaron believes that this is in relation to Christ’s entire existence, and not merely Him as Prophet. Thing is, one of us has proof, here, being the word “prophets,” and not, “existence.” Aaron yet again adds his implication here, as opposed to sticking to what the verse itself says, and moreover, the circumcision context.

Now, when I wrote about this verse, I cited John 1:1 as a reference as to Jesus’ prior existence. Aaron replies:

As far as GK’s reference to John 1:1 (one of the “proof-texts” for his doctrinal position), notice how he is assuming – and reading into the verse – his own doctrinal position when he writes that this verse “calls Jesus the ‘word’.” Not only is Jesus not called the “word” in this verse, but there’s no good (i.e., no non-question-begging) reason to believe that the “word” referred to in John 1:1-4 was a person (i.e., a sentient, intelligent being).

He’s right that “Jesus is not called ‘The Word’ in John 1:1. Here’s the verse for that, in Unveiling 19:13, when speaking of Christ’s second descent on the earth, at the end of the seven year tribulation–

Now [Christ’s] eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems, having names written of which no one except Himself is aware, and He is clothed in a cloak dipped in blood, and His name is called “The Word of God.”

Never have I ever heard a more direct statement in Scripture. Jeez, our evangel uses more complex language than this. Yet the statement is plain, and clear. I mean, I get if something were hidden, or structured strangely, but come on, guys. This is just a direct statement! That it’s denied by so many in Christ boggles my mind!

Now, what of the word of God?? Could it be that it is directly claimed by John to be there at the start? Here’s John 1:1 in the concordant version:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word.

Now, Aaron says there’s no good reason to believe that the word in John 1:1 is sentient. Hrm. Well, I’d start by saying, the word being “toward” God should clarify sentience?? How to be toward something if you are not sentient?? How to have life in the word if the word itself is not living (John 1:4)??

Now, John 1:1 must be viewed in Greek. I’ve come to realize, in my studies, that there is no satisfying way to read John 1:1 in English. It’s never going to translate properly. This is one of those points that went completely untouched by Aaron, because he didn’t go past article three concerning my response to him. Article four breaks down his argument against John 1:1, so I won’t repeat myself here. I will, however, build off of it.

The word “God” means “Subjector.” The first use of “God” in John 1:1 has a definite article in front of it. The Greek definite article is almost always used to give a noun a proper name. The second use of “God” in John 1:1, however, does not have a definite article in front of it, so it is not a proper name, but descriptive of the subject, being the Word. Observe:

Clearly, “the” is in front of the first use of “God,” and not the second. I discussed this in my older article, when Aaron brought this verse up, and, as Knoch rightly points out, if you plugged in the definition of “God” into the sentence, it would be:

In a beginning was the word, and the word was toward the Subjector, and a Subjector was the word.

Why Knoch did not implement this kinda pisses me off, because the CLV is supposed to clarify these points, not obscure them further. Anyway, this conclusion is further enforced when you study the respective case of each noun in the sentence. The term “word,” used three times in John 1:1, is in the “nominative” case, which reveals it as the subject of the sentence. The first use of “God,” on the other hand, is in the “accusative” case, which is to reference the direct object of the sentence. If the second use of “God” were the same, then the second use of “God” must also be “accusative.” Yet this is not the case (pun intended.) The second use of “God” is, like “word,” in the “nominative” case, because it is taking us back the subject of the sentence.

You can see this in the suffix of the word. Observe:

Now, with all of this considered, it becomes apparent that a “god,” by definition, must be living in order to be termed “a god.” Moreover, it becomes apparent that, lest we want to fall prey to the opposite extreme of the Trinity (being to drive a wedge between God and His Son,) we should trust God here and believe what He is saying concerning His word, which, is clearly His Son, given not only His direct statement in Unv. 19:13, but His revelation that Jesus is the word that becomes flesh, per John 1:14. Please do not ignore your Father on the matter (Eph. 4:30.)

The Greek word translated “word” in John 1:1 (“logos”) literally denotes the spoken declaration by which a complete thought is expressed, or the communication of a thought through speech (see, for example, John 6:60).

And yet, per the context, the term clearly denotes the Expression of God, being Christ. Christ is the Expression of God. God’s form of Expressing Himself is in Christ (John 5:19.) The Son is completely subject to the Father, as one’s expression is completely subject to the expressor. He expresses how He wants, and He explains that He expresses Himself through His Son. If creation is His expression, then Christ must have all created in Him, as Paul says. The Son’s physical, external qualities change with the way God chooses to express Himself, but the Son’s spirit is not magically nonexistent at any point during this time frame, or God is a liar who does not express Himself through His Word, per these first few verses of John 1.

Now, none of this comes into conflict with Psalm 33:6 and 33:9, and to this day I have no understanding as to why the non-preexistence sect makes the claim that it does. Moreover, Aaron quotes 2 Pet. 3:5, 7, and Is. 55:10-11, that, when considered with the later revelations of the New Testament, are in perfect harmony with John 1:1, and Colossians 1:15-17. I guess we’ll see why Aaron thinks otherwise, here.

It was through this divine word that everything was brought into existence by God. Jesus did not “pre-exist” as God’s word (which, given the literal meaning of the term “word,” is literally impossible); rather, God’s word – i.e., the spoken declaration by which God expresses his thoughts and accomplishes his purpose – came to be represented and “embodied” by Jesus (as is expressed in the following words of John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us…”).

How about we do something different, here? Martin Zender, of MZTV fame, asked numerous times to “Please present one verse, even one, that says, ‘Christ did not exist before His physical birth.” This is because there are plenty of verses that state the opposite of what Aaron just said, namely:

[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, firstborn of every creature, for in Him is all created… all is created through Him and for Him…

It’s funny that that Aaron can say (write,) with a straight face (…finger…) that it is through the divine word that everything was brought into existence, while simultaneously denying that Christ is the word, though God says it, and denying that all is created through Christ, though God says it. Instead, he once again limits the discussion to Christ in the form of Jesus, in the terrestrial, and ignores the clear declarative statements written by Paul and John.

And, I find it interesting that Aaron has been claiming that I am adding to Scripture, and yet here we have the term “represented” and “embodied” replacing the word “became” in John 1:14.

Even when John referred to Christ as “the Word of God” in Rev. 19:13, it’s not literally true that Christ is God’s “word.”

Really? Because the Greek disagrees with you, yet again. The term “it,” used in John 1:3, is actually autos, a pronoun, in the masculine case. Sounds a lot like an identifiable Being.

for examples in which John used the expression “the word of God” to refer to God’s literal word, see 1 John 2:14; Rev. 1:2, 9; 6:9; 20:4.

Okay, first, I find it wholly ironic that Aaron quotes 1 John 2:14 to ultimately try and deny Christ’s existence beforehand, when that verse, and the verse prior, explicitly claim that Christ is from the beginning. And, second, why don’t these uses identify Him? Unv. 1:2 says:

John, who testifies to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever he perceived.

As the word of God is a different form of Christ (Phil. 2:5-6,) it’s clear that this quoted verse can easily be understood as Christ from two different perspectives, for one. With that, it seems as though Aaron importing his view into the text, which is funny, because it’s what he had blamed me of doing a few sentences prior.

Moreover, once again, the context of the phrase “word” must be considered. If all is created through the word of God, and Christ’s name, His literal name, the way that the Unveiling says, His name, is “The Word of God,” and He is from the beginning (1 John 2:13-14,) and all comes into being through the word of God (John 1:3, 1:10,) and it is confirmed directly by Paul that all is created in Christ (Col. 1:16,) and all is through Christ (1 Cor. 8:6,)… “I mean, what is going on?? This is a real mystery!!”

**Aaron takes a moment here to insert a citation to two of his ‘Bible Student Notebook’ articles that are similarly argumentative concerning John 1:1-3 and 1:10-13. I have already provided a refutation in parts 4, 5 and 6 of my original articles, and, as Aaron has not replied to them, I have no reason to re-cover his argument here.**

Now, to requote something I’d said in my old article:

“A ‘prophet’ is physical, not celestial. They are human, not divine. Thus, Hebrews starts physical, and builds to a revelation of the celestial. He’s a prophet. But what’s special about Him? He’s God’s Son, and enjoys all. How does He enjoy all? Well, God used Him to make all. Why Him? He’s the Effulgence of God’s glory, Emblem of His assumption. But how? He carried on God’s declarations, cleansing sin. Why? So He can be given authority over it. I thought He was a prophet? My friend, he’s become so much more.

As a member of the body of Christ (this isn’t an insult, Aaron, but a constructive criticism,) we should know better.”

Aaron replies:

I’m not sure what motivated GK to share his “constructive criticism” here, as there’s nothing I wrote that indicates or suggests that I believe Christ is merely a prophet (rather than being “so much more” than a prophet).

My motivation was, and still is, love. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t write anything, say “forget y’all,” do my own thing, and give no one the time of day. I don’t say this directly to Aaron (though his misapprehension of my priority here may very well be in line with the non-preexistence sect,) but it seems as though many have come to perceive me as arrogant because, when God reveals something to me, I never leave it. I want to share, now, that this is not arrogance, but confidence. It is okay to walk this way in Christ. In fact, I’ve become convinced that many in Christ viewed Paul this way, namely Corinth, the immature ecclesia, in their idea that Paul just “wanted money” without ever caring to hear or believe his motivation in asking (see 2 Cor. 7-8,) which led them to doubt his very apostleship (and in 1 Cor. 9, Paul speaks to his defense on this.)

I say this because it’s easy to demonize another perspective simply because you disagree. I’ve spoken very strongly on this subject, because it’s clearly correlated with a mature understanding of the evangel (Eph. 4:13, Col. 1:26,) and the alternative is agreement with the Jews (John 6:42, 2 Cor. 6:14-16.) But there’s been a nasty misconception that, because those of us who understand Paul’s doctrine in Philippians and Colossians have made the Scriptural argument that the non-preexistence is a sect, and immature in their view of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Tim. 2:16, 23,) that somehow they cease to be a temple of the living God. Yet Paul never says this concerning the Corinthian ecclesia. He expresses frustration, sure, but not once does he try and “bar” them from Christ, and as such, not once have I done this (1 Cor. 11:1, Eph. 5:1.) I have patiently been giving responses, even as lies are spread about myself (again, not by Aaron specifically, who is interpreting my words here, but from the sect he is teaching.)

I stand firmly with Scott Hicko on the matter, being that one side of the argument, while less mature than the other in its blatant disregard for direct, declarative statements, is not somehow “teaching another Jesus” in effect, or is doctrinally removing themselves from Christ. Failing to apprehend something is not the same as knowingly denying something God says, and I’ve consistently been giving my brothers the benefit of the doubt, in grace. Their coming against me personally has been a wonderful confirmation of my celestial place, hidden with Christ in God. Thankfully, I haven’t seen Aaron attack me personally (nor do I hope he thinks I am personally attacking him.) But I feel the need to write this out at the end of some of these articles, to keep the tie of love and peace in mind (and, I believe it is okay, because Paul does the same thing in his letters, after sharing doctrine.)

Now, to finish: I do not think that Aaron believes that, at present, Christ is ‘merely’ a prophet. Hebrews must be viewed in its context. Christ is not currently operating in prophetic fashion (in the terrestrial sense that Hebrews is unveiling, here,) and I believe that me and Aaron both see eye to eye on this. But this verse, Hebrews 1:1, does not say, “Christ did not exist before His physical birth,” and is clearly focused on the prophetic scope of our Lord, and expanding on it dramatically for the faithful Hebrews, in light of His resurrection.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing