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

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

Concerning 2 Corinthians 8:9, GerudoKing states that this is ”the first of a few passages in which Aaron is going to limit Christ’s glory.” What GK refers to as “Christ’s glory” is actually the glory of a theoretical, non-human celestial being who (in the imagination of GK and those who share his doctrinal position) was created long before God’s only-begotten Son – the Man, Christ Jesus – was brought into being.

Ah, no – the “Christ’s glory” that I am referring to can be found in Rev. 22:16–

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Origin and the Consummation.

The “Alpha,” “First,” and “Origin” part of the sentence is what has my attention, there. As I quoted Knoch before (and concur with him,) how can one honestly see Christ as the “Omega,” “Last,” and “Consummation,” if He is not in the beginning as well? “In God’s mind” is not an answer, because that, again, makes Christ pathetic, and disables God, making Him unable to produce a Just Representative for the story until Jesus shows up (which also makes Him a liar, as He “appears” hundreds of times to man in the OT.) There’s no verse that says, “God only thought about Christ before setting up the story,” and every time Welch and co. add ‘foreknown’ to random passages that don’t make sense to them personally, they are adding to the text, thus doubting God (Rom. 14:23, 6:12-14.)

Finally, and most importantly, Aaron has not yet presented one single verse that says, “Christ did not exist before His physical birth.” Whereas there are at thirty least verses that proclaim that Christ descends from heaven, and we’ve been given no reason to perceive this as metaphor, simile, or the like, and both implicitly and explicitly proves His existence beforehand, there is not one that Aaron has presented that says, “don’t actually take these verses as fact – interpret them, please!”

You’d think this would bother him, but he seems content on reasoning with Scripture, as opposed to resting in it. There’s no verse that asks or requires our reasoning in order to apprehend the truth. Paul even entreats us to do the exact opposite, and even insults such a notion (Rom. 1:21, 14:1, 1 Cor. 3:20, Phil. 2:14, 1 Tim. 2:8,) and the four accounts that present Jesus’ terrestrial sojourn cite the Pharisees or infirm men as the ones doing such a thing (Matt. 15:19, Mark 7:21, Luke 2:35, 5:22, 6:8, 9:46-47, 24:38.) This notion, that Peter Meye, Aaron, Jason, and others in this sect propose, that we should employ logic, is a gateway to imaginative thinking, and there’s a fancy religion that we are familiar with that employs this exact tactic. Guys, we are to rest in God’s declarations, not theorize on them with our interpretation.

GK again presupposes his own view when he writes that Christ’s being “rich” means that he had a prior existence in heaven as an exalted celestial being, and that being “poor” means being “a Man.” GK then states that one “can't be in poverty if you're dead!”

(Which is a line I still stand by, because that’s pretty sensical – 2 Tim. 1:7.)

But the terms “rich” (i.e., having “riches,” or an abundance of that which is of value) and “poor” (lacking riches) are relative, and the meaning of the former in a certain context depends on the meaning of the latter.

What? Are you to tell me that the meaning of the former in a certain context (Alpha… Firstborn of every creature… Origin…) depends on the meaning of the latter (Omega… Firstborn from among the dead… Consummation…?)

Also, really… what? Aaron, come on. God calls the heavens His throne room, and the earth His footstool (Is. 66:1.) That’s not an “imported” view, but yet another proper understanding derived from the exact words of the text, and its context, by which Paul is comparing the wealth of the saints. Sure, “relative” is fine, but “relatively,” if Christ steps off the throne, empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, that’s pretty “rich to poor.” None of this is unreasonable, nor does it deny Paul’s revelations in the letters to mature saints.

Just as “riches” can refer to something other than an abundance of material wealth or earthly goods/resources, so “poor” can refer to more than lacking material wealth or earthly goods.

Ahhhhhhh, Aaron tossed “earthly” in there! Sneaky sneaky! Don’t think I didn’t catch that! “Rich” may be relative, but this does not limit it to “earthly” wealth – see Matt. 6:19-21, Rom. 11:33, and 1 Cor. 3:11-15. Aaron adds his assumption, there. And, if riches did somehow authoritatively stick to ‘earthly’ (which it doesn’t, but for the sake of argument,) then Christ would have to be “rich” on earth… which, He very obviously was not. And, moreover, He must be rich first, per the verse itself requiring Christ being rich, and becoming poor, so that we are made rich in effect.

One can be considered “rich” in various ways (Rom. 10:12; 11:12; 1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 6:10; Eph. 2:4; Col. 2:2; 1 Tim. 6:18; James 2:5), and thus “poor” in equally various ways. If, in 2 Cor. 8:9, Paul had in mind Christ’s own life (or soul) as being that which was of such great value that Christ could be considered “rich,” then death would indeed have resulted in him becoming “poor” (for it would've deprived him of that which made him “rich”). And we know that Christ’s life was so precious to God that, by sacrificing it to God, Christ secured the salvation of all.

This argument doesn’t work, because if one’s life is what makes them “rich,” then the term ceases being “relative,” as Aaron previously stated. If Christ’s soul is always “rich,” then by no means can Christ become “poor,” because He doesn’t lose His soul. Losing your life doesn’t magically make one “poor.” If you lose your life, your soul is gone, unseen. Thus, you’re not ‘poor;’ you’re freaking broke. As Paul clearly understands the difference between having nothing and being poor, and as the context was not asking the Corinthians to give their life, but their tangible wealth, we can assess that Paul is speaking of something external concerning Christ (here, an external form, in which He empties Himself, descending from a throne, to a manger.)

Moreover, the last sentence of Aaron’s argument should show that, though He most certainly knows the verse by God that states, “There is no Savior apart from Me,” that Christ certainly can be called “Reconciler of all.” The same can be true, if this is Christ’s “Omega,” or “Consummation” position, of His place as “Alpha,” or “Origin.”

Having said all that, I should note that, since the posting of my 2017 article series on the subject of when Christ’s existence began, I’m no longer inclined to believe that, in 2 Cor. 8:9, Paul had in mind Christ’s soul or life when he described Christ as having been “rich” before becoming “poor.”

Boy, that’s a relief. Dunno what I was writing all that for, then. Three-hour lunch?

Instead, I believe the sense in which Christ was “rich” during his life on earth (before becoming “poor”) was that Christ had been given the holy spirit without measure (as is implied by John in John 3:34), such that Paul could later write that, “in [Christ] the entire complement of the Deity is dwelling bodily” (Col. 2:9; cf. 1:19).

Hmmm. In that case, when exactly is He “becoming poor” during His life on earth, in not having the holy spirit without measure? Aaron?

It is this “spiritual wealth” (and the inseparably connected, intimate fellowship with God that Christ enjoyed) of which Christ was deprived when he willingly laid down his soul in obedience to God.

I have a few notes, here… nothing much.

First, “You can’t be ‘in poverty’ if you’re dead!” Aren't we supposed to be of a sound mind?? Why is this so crazy to Aaron, then?? Sticking to the relative terminology, you can’t own anything if you’re dead. That’s not ‘poor,’ that’s ‘broke.’ That’s not ‘very little,’ that’s ‘gone.’ If God wanted to use a greater term than poor (like… ‘died,’ perhaps,) He would have.

Second, why would Paul say, “Hey! Look at how Christ died for you! Now you’re rich, so give to us for the sake of the evangel!” That’s illogical, not to mention manipulative. Borderline “tithing.” However, if He says, “The richest Subjector of all creation humbled Himself to the lowest subjectors of all creation, in order to build us up?” Noooooow you have something cooking! See, that’s called God’s “logical” argument that builds properly, and fits the context of the chapter. Paul doesn’t come across as needy or manipulative, using someone else’s suffering to get something out of Corinth, but properly asking for funds to assist in building the body of Christ, the way their own Lord is building them.

And third, way to limit Christ’s obedience to just ‘the death of the cross!’ Let’s look at Phil. 2:8–

…being found in fashion as a human, [Christ] humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

His obedience to death is not limited to His crucifixion, but is clearly encompassing His entire life on earth (until His resurrection, that is.) Without this proof, He could not be exalted, per Phil. 2:9-11. He clearly had an immeasurable holiness in His entire existence. If He “became poor” on the cross, while still living, then His blood is not precious by the end of the ordeal, and cannot stretch out over all mankind.

Finally: Christ did not lose His spirit. His spirit is always holy (Rom. 1:4,) and this assumption by Aaron is never said in Scripture. His spirit always exists, as it goes back to God (Luke 23:46.) It is His spirit that He willingly gives, but it does not vanish. His soul vanishes. His soul disappears. He never “loses” His holiness; that’s just absurd. He’s not “poor” at any other moment than His literal, physical birth in which He had to be placed in a cow trough, for there was no other place for Him to lay. This is the obvious, clear, direct answer, and that it is denied by Christ’s own is suspect.

Christ became “poor” – i.e., he became deprived of the valuable commodity that Paul had in mind when he referred to him as “rich” – by willingly laying down his soul/giving himself up for the sake of those for whose sins he died (in accord with Paul’s evangel). 

Except it’s not really in accord with Paul’s evangel, because it denies the full scope of our Lord. No death is involved here, but obedience to it, which requires one to be living in some way, most certainly is. Becoming a slave is a pretty good parallel for becoming poor. Here’s the simple definition of “became poor,” ptocheuo –

-       "To be a beggar; lacking riches"

Three-hour lunch…?

Now, in response to my quotation of a remark by A.E. Knoch (who, commenting on Matt. 13:44, wrote, “In order to possess Himself of the treasures, the Son of Mankind gives His all and purchases the world. He has overpaid its price by His blood.”), GK writes, “I don’t know where he gets this quote from – certainly not [Knoch’s] Commentary.”

I’m assuming that GK consulted Knoch’s commentary shortly before he wrote this, so I’m not sure how he overlooked Knoch’s remarks on Matt. 14:44.

I must not have looked hard enough. My fault, broski.

GK then asks, ”how do you get no pre-existing Christ out of this?” To answer GK’s rather odd question, I wasn’t quoting Knoch’s remarks on Matt. 13:44 to prove that Christ didn’t pre-exist (assuming that’s what he meant by “how do you get no pre-existing Christ out of this?”). I was simply appealing to what Knoch wrote on Matt. 13:44-46 to support a particular way of understanding what Paul had in mind when he referred to Christ as “rich” in 2 Cor. 8:9. That’s it.

Right, I know that’s what you were doing, which is why I asked, “How do you get a non-existent Christ from this?” You’re applying a figure from one passage into a figure on another passage, which is exactly what you did with Is. 11:1, the whole “seed of David” and “root of Jesse” schtick. Simply put, Paul didn’t read Matthew’s account of Christ and go, “Oh, wow, Matthew! That’s a great point! I should’ve thought about it like that!” and added to it. According to Aaron, this must have been Paul’s thought process in writing the third letter to Corinth:

“Well, now, I’ll just toss this figure that my friend Matthew wrote about, and I’ll fully expect Corinth to have an encyclopedic knowledge of this account written by my Jewish friend! Then, if they don’t understand it, they’ll have to go find a spare copy of Matthew’s writing, read that whole thing, find the figure Matthew documented, and then – ONLY then – will they be able to understand the mystery that I presented to them, so that they will give me money.”

It was not “a misunderstanding,” my question. It was clarifying that you’re obfuscating the passage to limit something to your view. If the passage had said something like, “God is made poor in losing His Son,” then your interpretation would hold merit. But it doesn’t… because God didn’t say that. Per the previous argument, and the simple definition of “poor,” you can’t be dead in becoming poor, as a dead person is neither rich or poor. The idea that Paul jumped through these mental gymnastics to relay a message to an already-confused ecclesia is, of course, asinine, and I implore any in Christ to drop such a notion.

GK goes on to criticize my view that Jesus’ parables from Matt. 14:44-46 can be understood to support the truth that Christ’s soul was/is precious…

Hold on, hold on, because the irony here is rich. Check this out. So Aaron says I’m criticizing the idea that Jesus’ parable in Matthew is understood to support the truth that Christ’s soul is precious, right? So, that simply isn’t true. I never said that. The quote that he gives to back this idea is out of context and misrepresenting me. But here is what Aaron says, not a paragraph later:

First, “the Divine” didn’t give himself up for his creation (for “the Divine” – i.e., God [Acts 17:29] – can’t die).

So here, it’s not just Jason, but Aaron taking issue with the fact that I’ve called Christ “The Divine,” though He Himself is called the only-begotten God, by John, and a God by Thomas, and is inherently in the form of the Divine God! I’m sitting here literally making the Scriptural argument that Christ is truly in the form of God, and has been from the beginning, like He said (John 1:1.) And I’m the one criticizing the notion that Christ’s soul is not precious??? What a blatant misrepresentation of the argument.

This, folks, is what we in the ‘psychology’ community like to call ‘projection.’ Here’s the textbook-y definition of the term:

“Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.”

In other words, you are blaming me to escape accountability for something you are doing. The Pharisees would do this to Jesus, when they threw a hissy fit and didn’t like them. My younger brother used it often against me, in order to get his way. Now Aaron, a wonderful writer in the body of Christ, is defensively projecting the very things he’s doing onto another, because his view is being challenged. But in order to make the charges fit, he must misrepresent the argument, and turn it into something it’s not.

Now, look, I’m not perfect. I could have elaborated on the above topic better, and I myself made mistakes in my initial argument, which Aaron rightly called out. Don’t think for one second I’m blaming Aaron for a bunch of different things, because I’m not. To err is human, so I’ve been trying not to reach such a conclusion. Moreso, I’ve also mistakenly misrepresented his argument a few times as well. He’s justified, so when all is said and done, this whole thing will feel like a fever dream anyway, and we’ll be the best of friends. What I will continue to do, however, is stick to my Lord’s tactic of remaining truthful, exposing the lie, and entreating. But, come on; a couple of times is fine, but the past article and a half has either been a stretch of the imagination, or clear ignorance with careful pussyfooting around these Scriptural texts. It’s frustrating, seeing someone I greatly admire him respond to each point with ‘well, this just doesn’t make sense,’ or ‘this doesn’t add up,’ and I’m now beginning to suspect that Aaron is remaining purposefully unaware of clear points I’m making, which have Scriptural evidence. It also doesn’t help, seeing him repeat some of his same arguments (like that Heb. 2:14 one, for example) when I absolutely elaborate on them in the later articles he did not read! The man read three parts of a ten-part argument and called it a day! What else am I supposed to think?

In my older articles, Aaron quoted me saying, “This begs the question: how can One seek a pearl, that is, seek Israel, if this One doesn’t even exist at Abraham’s insemination (John 8:58,) and is already borne into the Israelite community?” Aaron replies:

Just as the two men in Jesus’ parables didn’t have to be born before the hidden treasure or pearl came into existence in order for them to subsequently find (and then acquire) the treasures, so Jesus didn’t have to exist before Israel in order to do what we’re told the Son of Mankind came to do – i.e., “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10).

Sure, but again, Christ did not find Israel, per the parable, on earth. Look at the verse again:

Like is the kingdom of the heavens to a treasure hidden in the field, finding which, a man hides it, and, in his joy, is going away, and is selling all, whatever he has, and is buying that field.

The field is the earth (13:38.) So, per the parable, there must simply be a time before Jesus finds Israel. Being the relative Head of all, He must be searching the field in order to find. As we know, He is born into Israel, so if He is already in Israel at the time of His birth, no seeking is required. It is given automatically, and that’s called a ‘copout.’ The “going away” part of the parable is His emptying Himself, His “selling all” is His humbling Himself, and His purchase is His “obedience unto death, even the death of the cross.” Again, Philippians 2:5-8 contextualizes the entire circumcision evangel, and we can treat it as such. It’s a higher revelation that takes precedent, which is why trying to view this parable first and using this, from a terrestrial standpoint, to try and limit the celestial observations in Phil. 2, is foolhardy.

And I mean, goodness, even the verses Aaron quotes! Luke 19:10 says “The Son of Mankind came.” Why is every time God says something like, “dispatched,” “adapted,” “came,” always figurative?? What else could God do besides directly and repeatedly infer and refer to Christ’s descent off the throne? Do you need Him to draw you a map?

GK references John 8:58, where we read that Christ declared, “Ere Abraham came into being, I am.” However, this verse in no way supports the idea that Christ – the promised seed of Abraham (Gen. 22:16-18; Gal. 3:16) – existed before the ancestor whose seed he is.

Really? It doesn’t? Because I thought that was a pretty easy one, you know? The verses Aaron quotes there are according to the flesh, clarified by Paul on verse three of the evangel God is presenting to us, the nations. “Of Abraham’s seed” is as Christ is a Scion, (Is. 11:1-2.)

The expression translated “I am” (egō eimi) doesn’t mean “I existed” (or “I was in existence”).

Right. And the term “Ere” doesn’t mean “I existed.” “Abraham” doesn’t mean “I existed.” “Came into being” doesn’t mean “I existed.” But hey! Look at that! You put them all together and what do you get? “Ere Abraham came into being, I am!” What could have pissed off the Jews more??

Not only did Christ use the present tense for eimi here (rather than the past tense), but – as is the case elsewhere in John’s Gospel (e.g., John 8:24-25, 28; 9:8-9; 13:19; 18:5-6, 8) – the expression egō eimi is simply a way of identifying oneself as a certain individual. It means “I am [he].” As such, there is always something implied concerning a person’s identity that’s being communicated whenever this expression is used.

Hmmm. I’ll repeat my older article: “You’ve heard it here, folks. Finally, after three books, a couple of accounts on His death, and a number of miracles, we finally have the affirmation that Jesus, indeed, designates Himself, here in John 8:58.” It’s about time, Jesus!”

Now, to add to that, going with the understanding that there is “identity” involved here, the question becomes: what is Jesus identifying Himself with?? Maybe, “being there before Abraham came into being,” which, funnily enough, is the setup for the present-tense-identifying-statement? Moreover, it’s the statement Jesus makes there in response to a challenge concerning His age, in John 8:57.

In the immediate context (see John 8:56), Christ had previously referred to the divine promise made to Abraham concerning himself (for it was by Abraham’s faith in God’s promise concerning his future “seed” that Abraham became “acquainted with [Christ’s] day”). Thus, the implied/unspoken information concerning Christ’s identity in John 8:58 is that Christ is he who was promised by God before Abraham came to be (for Christ is the promised “seed” referred to in Gen. 3:15).

See, this is how I know that Aaron didn’t actually read the rest of the articles I’d written, because he’s merely regurgitated his old argument. I covered this already, not just in my article to him concerning the book of John, later in the series, but also in YouTube comments, videos, and other articles. Now, I simply don’t think Aaron watched the videos, because <who has the time to watch an idiot talk about the Bible, I get it,> but if he was responding to a refutation, he should commit to the project or just leave it be. And I know some of his readers most certainly have seen the counterargument (and, it’s not a complicated one,) and simply dismiss it, because… they don’t like it, like the Jews didn’t, I guess.

So, because it’s my calling, I’ll do it again. Here’s the “immediate context” referred to us by Aaron, John 8:55-56–

And you know Him not, yet I am acquainted with Him, and if I should be saying that I am not acquainted with Him, I shall be like you, a liar. But I am acquainted with Him and I am keeping His word. Abraham, your father, exults that he may become acquainted with My day, and he was acquainted with it and rejoiced.

Okay. Couple things, right off the bat. First, what Aaron said concerning this passage is not what the passage says. Aaron’s biased, alas. The text in Scripture makes mention of Abraham’s faith, here, not his seed. Moreover, Abraham had no way of knowing that Christ was prophesied in the garden of Eden, because Genesis hadn’t been written at Abraham’s birth.

Second, this should lead us to really take Paul’s charge to heart in 1 Cor. 4:6–

Now these things, brethren, I transfer in a figure to myself and Apollos because of you, that in us you may be learning not to be disposed above what is written, that you may not be puffed up, one over the one, against the other.

See, I think this is crucial because it highlights that, before you make any inference, or consider some “unspoken” thing, consider what is spoken. If you are disposed above what is written, you will, naturally, be puffed up, one over the one, against the other (like, what’s happening here, with Aaron’s inference that goes against Scriptural revelation.)

And, third, this completely ignores John 8:57, the next verse. This verse is the continuation of the immediate context! What, is it not important?? Here’s John 8:57–

The Jews, then, said to Him, “You have not as yet lived fifty years, and you have seen Abraham!”

Oh! So here we have the Jews directly challenging His age. The question directly denies His identity, indeed, as the true Son of God. The Jews know that, if One is a Son of God, then One must be familiar with God (John 8:52-53.) So, Jesus confirms that He is indeed, in John 8:55, and counters their argument in 8:56. With nothing left, the Jews simply deny Him by commenting on His external appearance, above. Now, if Jesus says, “I am greater than Abraham; I am the Son of God!” then we need not discuss the verse, because it would say what Aaron wants it to say.

But it doesn’t.

It says, “Before Abraham came into being, I am.” No other statement could have pissed off the self-righteous more than the conclusion of a perfect argument that, to them, demeans their earthly ancestry in every regard. If Jesus had said what Aaron wants it to say, then Jesus made a stupid statement, and the Pharisees would probably laugh and walk away, or scratch their heads in confusion – not get ready to stone the Guy.

It’s a clear, direct, simple statement. It means what it says. Focus on what it says first, before theorizing about subtext, please. It’s this presumption of subtext that leads to being disposed above what is written. It’s skipping over verses that leads to being disposed above what is written. If anything, it’s Abraham’s seed that is being argued by the Jews, while Christ is confirming His celestial hand in all. How to believe the celestial matters if you are stuck on the terrestrial (John 3:12??) It’s hard to find Abraham if you don’t exist to find Abraham. It’s hard to hide Abraham in the earth if you don’t exist to hide Abraham.

It’s hard, even, to accept the text for what it says when you’ve gone and said that every. Single. Time. That God says “hey, my Son is dispatched, delegated, sent forth, comes, descends, empties,” and this is always some illusory, distractive term that is not true, somehow, according to man’s reasoning. If we argue the Jews’ points, how can we honestly say that we are attaining to the unity of the faith and coming to a full realization of the Son of God?? As believers, we are entreated to believe God. Let’s do that, shall we?

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing