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

 10 Reasons Why that one Reader’s box is Screwy. Also, concerning ‘When Did Christ Take the Form of a Slave?’

This is where things get complicated. Mainly, because of this:

I need to point out that, during the six years since I posted the original series of articles to which GK has responded, I’ve come to understand what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:7 a little differently (and, I think, more accurately) than I originally did.

Oh boy.

This advancement in my understanding occurred after reading a short but insightful article by Clyde Pilkington (which was a response to a question asked by a reader concerning the “emptying” of Christ to which Paul referred in Phil. 2:7; see “Reader’s Question Box #35” in Bible Student’s Notebook issue 806).

I don’t understand. So now I’m responding to Clyde as well? Well, shoot! Let’s do it, then. No one is safe (Heb. 4:12.)

Here is Clyde’s Reading Box in its entirety:

“Q: How could Christ ‘empty Himself’ (kenosis) after He was conceived?

A: The timing of Phil. 2:7 is not concerning Christ’s conception, but rather the 24 hours from Gethsemane to Golgotha. The legitimate Son of God “emptied Himself” of His rights and glory during this grievous process.

The One Who had the right to call for “twelve legions of messengers” to His aid, to deliver Him from this shameful ordeal, suffered without opening His mouth in opposition. The context of Phil. 2:6-8 is ‘the death of the cross’ (:8), not His conception and birth some 33 years earlier.

Here is the passage with my commentary in brackets:

Who [Christ], being inherently in the form of God [God’s only-begotten Son], deems it not pillaging to be equal with God [the icon of God on Earth – Strong defining “equal” (isos) as “similar” (through the idea of seeming)], nevertheless empties Himself [at Gethsemane – “not My will, but Thine, be done!”], taking the form of a slave [throughout the process from Gethsemane to the tomb; prior to this He was anything but a “slave” – commanding wind, water, and unclean spirits (Luke 8:25, 29), as well as forgiving sin, multiplying food, healing the sick, and raising the dead, etc.], coming to be in the likeness of humanity [He entered the pinnacle likeness of humanity when He suffered and died the ordeal of Calvary; on the other hand, being virgin born, His conception and birth were anything but ‘in the likeness of humanity’], and, being found in fashion as a human [again, from Gethsemane to the tomb, being immersed into the dark depths of the human condition – feeling immense separation from God (“My God! My God! Why didst Thou forsake Me?”)], He humbles Himself [the rightful Son of God and King of Israel being humiliated in shame, disgrace, mockery, and nakedness], becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Yeah, so… funny thing about all that…

It’s not true. Not a word of it. Every ill-conceived word is a lie, straight up. I almost thought I’d skip past this, save for the fact that Aaron just praised it like it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now, there are many issues with this whole blurb of text, but I still have to respond to other nonsense from Aaron. So, to shorten my response to this, here are 10 reasons why this random Reader’s Box is wrong.

1)    There is no evidence whatsoever that “Gethsemane” is what Paul had in mind when writing Phil. 2:5-8. I list this first because, you would think, with people as studious as the body of Christ, that we would know, per our religious training, that inferring our own ideas into the text is clearly a bad thing, but I guess I need to state it here anyway.

2)    Let’s read Philippians 2:5-8:

For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also, Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God, nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Ahh! So here we see one reference to a 24-hour period in which Clyde claims “Christ finally became man,” being at the end of the passage. If this is the case, then He is not man prior to this 24-hour period, which blows up every single one of Aaron’s points so far anyway (not to mention ignores half of Scripture.) The phrase “even the death of the cross” comes after He takes the form of a slave, not before. And, moreover, there’s the phrase, “becoming obedient unto death” before this as well, which is not limited to the ‘death of the cross,’ per the word ‘even.’ So, it would fit Clyde’s view better if the verse said:

Nevertheless empties Himself, unto the death of the cross, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, taking the form of a slave.

3)    Clyde limits the term ‘empties Himself’ to the 24-hour period at Golgotha, when we are not required to give this limitation at all in the passage, as Christ’s death is built to. It does not “contextualize” the passage, but concludes it. At no point does a sensible argument make you have to read the sentence backwards in order to understand it. Christ isn’t Guy Pearce in Memento, guys.

4)    The “emptying” is in direct reference to Christ being “inherently in the form of God.” Clearly, He is not in the form of God at His birth (John 1:14,) per every argument Aaron has been making so far concerning Matt. 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35. His “taking the form of a slave” is the effect of His emptying, not the cause – otherwise, Paul would have written that first, and Clyde’s view would hold some kind of merit.

5)    “Form of God” and “God’s only-begotten Son” are undoubtedly not the same thing. Only-begotten is reflective of the character and quality of the Son (unique of His kind,) not the external image of Him, as the term “form” refers to the external, not internal. Here’s Knoch:

“Form refers to external appearance. [Niceans] insist that it must include internal essence. We ourselves were carried along with this traditional view, notwithstanding the concordant evidence against it. The following passages constitute the scriptural evidence:

morphe, FORM

-       Mk. 16:12 He was manifested in different form to two of them

-       Ph. 2:6, 7 being inherently in the form of God, taking the form of slave

morphoo, FORM

-       Ga. 4:19 until Christ may be formed in you

morphosis, FORMing

-       Ro. 2:20 having the form of knowledge and truth in the law

-       2 Tim. 3:5 having form of devoutness, yet denying its power

Leaving the Philippian text out of consideration, only one of these passages will allow the popular idea that “form” is intrinsic and essential, and is “indicative of the interior nature.” In Galatians Paul is certainly speaking of an inward work of grace, not mere outward copy. He desired to see Christ formed in them. This passage satisfied us, at one time, that the word “form” meant more than what strikes the eye. We failed to note that this sense is conveyed by the word in, not by the verb form. Its presence is against our supposition. It would not be needed if form itself meant an inward work. It proves positively that “in” is absent from its meaning.”

Soooooooo, that takes me back to my original statement, that Aaron criticized earlier: God’s not a man. If Christ is the Image of the invisible God, and Clyde is claiming that, during His earthly ministry, Christ was the form of God, then man is in the form of God, which is directly against Romans 1:22-25.

6)    Somehow, we go from “Christ deems it not robbery to be equal with God,” to “Christ is the Icon of God on earth.” Christ is indeed similar with God, but considering Aaron’s comments thus far, that Christ is only man, this actually works against Clyde’s point. Moreover, Clyde adds ‘on earth,’ when ‘equal’ and ‘form of God’ don’t include the limitation ‘on earth’ – Clyde did.

7)    Clyde adds “at Gethsemane” at “empties Himself,” when we have been given no indication thus far that this is the case, which mixes the two evangels, adds to the word, and thus doubts God.

8)    If Aaron believes that Luke 8:28-29 denies His place as “man,” that is, a “slave” (Rom. 6:18,) then we are, again, dealing with a complete contradiction of his initial points, that Christ is born a man. You can’t be in the form of God and in the form of a slave at the same time. The two are in complete contrast to each other, and, as if to prove this, the two phrases are pitted against each other, separated by an “empties Himself,” not parallel. Moreover, Luke 8:28-29, and the other miracles Christ performs, proves that God is in Christ, not that Christ Himself is in a different external form than man at that time.

9)    Clyde adds “pinnacle” to likeness of humanity in Phil. 2:7. So, what, is He not in pinnacle likeness of humanity at His degrading birth? Is the form of God the ‘regular’ likeness of humanity? What am I reading?

10)                  Clyde’s commentary on “found in fashion as a human” implies that, somehow, Christ is not found in fashion as a human prior to Golgotha, which consummates this commentary as, arguably, one of the least effective and contradictory commentaries on these verses, as even the nonpreexistence sect understands that Christ is in the form of man at His birth. That Clyde’s exhortation implies that this is not the case, or that God needs to explain this to us for some reason in the highest revelations of Scripture, is highly questionable and suspect writing on his part.

*   *   *

I pray Aaron’s study of the text is not this poor, though I’ll admit, thanks to his endorsement, things aren’t looking too bright.

Although I privately shared my revised view of Phil. 2:7 with a few believers who shared my understanding of when Christ’s life began, I eventually decided to write another article on Phil. 2:7 that reflected the change in my understanding that had occurred a few years earlier (here’s a link to the newer blog article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2023/06/when-did-christ-take-form-of-slave.html).

*sigh* It’s not your ‘understanding,’ it’s your theory. Here's some more constructive criticism for you: you really should have kept this reasoning silent, because we're in the new year now and I'm still shaken that you believe something so unprovable. Well, let’s take a look at this article, then.

According to how verses 6-7 of the above passage are commonly understood by Christians, Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human, celestial being, and “emptied himself” by divesting himself of his heavenly glory and transforming himself into a human zygote.

Um, no, the Christians perceive this verse as evidence of the Trinity, because they don’t know how to read the Greek text. How believers read the text is, “Christ is inherently in the form of God, but empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of man.” This is a simple sentence that needs no addition or subtraction, lest the simple, direct meaning of the passage is lost.

In contrast with this view, I will be arguing in this article that what Paul wrote in these verses pertains exclusively to what was true of Christ during his lifetime on earth (particularly the final twenty-four hours with which his mortal life concluded – i.e., the span of time that began with his betrayal and arrest in Gethsemane, and which ended with his sacrificial death on Golgotha).

In v. 6 we read that Christ Jesus is “inherently in the form of God,” and that he did not deem it “pillaging to be equal with God.” But what kind of being did Paul have in mind when he referred to “Christ Jesus?”

A celestial one – and this is particularly given away with the phrase, “form of God,” as opposed to, say, “form of slave.”

Answer: Paul had in mind a human being – specifically, a man (Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5).

This is an incorrect answer, as “found in fashion as a man” and “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” comes in Phil. 2:7-8, after “empties Himself.” And, as previously argued and confirmed, “Christ” is not solely ‘man.’ Being the Son of God, delegated, come of a woman, His being ‘man’ is only half the picture. Context matters, and in both verses quoted, Christ’s sacrifice (1 Tim. 2:4-6,) and the effects of the sacrifice (Rom. 5:15-17,) confirm and contextualize the statements made (as well as 1 Cor. 15:45-47.)

"Form of God!" said Paul. "No, form of man," replied Aaron. 

"Sweet! Thanks for that correction, Aaron! I always knew I should have listened to you instead of my Lord!"

What Paul wrote concerning Christ’s humanity is in accord with a number of prophecies concerning Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., in Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; 49:10; Numbers 24:17-19; Deuteronomy 18:15; 2 Samuel 7:12-13; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Psalm 45:2-7, 17; 72:1; 89:3-4; 110:1; 132:11; Isaiah 7:14; 11:1-5; 52-53; Jeremiah 23:5; 30:21; Daniel 7:13; Zechariah 6:12-13; Micah 5:2).

Good. Also, what Paul wrote concerning Christ Jesus in Phil. 2:5-6 absolutely does not deny the verses quoted, and in fact highlights the humility of these verses therein. Also, Micah 5:2 is one of the most interesting to me, because it explicitly says that Christ’s going forth is aforetime, which again, adds more weight to the circumcision’s scope.

Okay, okay… scrolling through this article here, looking for a new point… hmmm hmmm hmmmmm… ah! Here we go:

…what did Paul mean by his use of the title “God” in Phil. 2:6? Answer: Paul was referring to the being who he referred to in the opening and closing verses of his letter, as follows:

“Grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. I am thanking my God at every remembrance of you…”

“Now my God shall be filling your every need in accord with His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. Now to our God and Father be glory for the eons of the eons! Amen!”

Perhaps the clearest and most concise statement by Paul explaining how he understood and used the term “God” in his letters is found in Ephesians 4:6. In this verse Paul affirmed that there is “one God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all.”

Right. Now what did Paul mean by the word “form of” in Phil. 2:6? Answer: Paul was referring to the external structure of the Being through Whom all is, who he referred to in the opening and closing verses of his letter, as follows:

“Grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. I am thanking my God at every remembrance of you…”

“Now my God shall be filling your every need in accord with His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. Now to our God and Father be glory for the eons of the eons! Amen!”

We can thus conclude that, when Paul referred to Christ as being “inherently in the form of God,” he meant that Christ is inherently in the form of the Father (i.e., the God and Father of all, including Jesus Christ). And when Paul wrote that Christ “deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,” he meant that Christ did not deem it pillaging to be equal with his God and Father.

Indeed, this is what Christ is, and this was indeed His disposition. Now, what happens next?

The word translated “form” in v. 6 denotes “outward appearance.” In support of this understanding, we read in 2 Timothy 3:5 of certain people who would be “having a form of devoutness, yet denying its power” (that is, they would have an outward appearance of devoutness). Paul was thus affirming that Christ inherently has the “outward appearance” of the Father. But what, exactly, does this mean?

Gold star. The question at the end feels a little unnecessary, though. It means what it says.

Answer: When Paul referred to Christ as “being inherently in the form of God,” he was simply affirming the truth that Christ is “the Image of the invisible God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; cf. Heb. 1:3).

Well, for the most part. The Greek elements of the term “Image” in Colossians 1:15 is “SIMULATE,” which is, Christ imitates, simulates, represents God (1 Cor. 11:1, Eph. 5:1.) As for the form, it follows:  every time you see Yahweh in the Old Testament, the form of Yahweh, the outward appearance, is Christ. Why is this complicated?

…this is a fact about Christ that was just as true during his earthly ministry as it is now. In John 12:44-45 we read the following:

Now Jesus cries and said, “He who is believing in Me is not believing in Me, but in Him Who sends Me. And he who is beholding Me is beholding Him Who sends Me.”

This is ridiculous. You absolutely know that there’s a difference between the voice Abraham hears, and the Image that Isaiah sees, and the Image Micaiah sees, and the Image Moses sees, and the Hand that is seen in Daniel, and more, and the flesh of Christ. The form of God is absolutely not the form of man, which clarifies a distinction here in the way Christ is “SIMULATE”-ing God. If you're going to tell me with a straight face that the man, Jesus Christ, with blood running through His veins, is somehow in the form of God, then you are claiming that flesh and blood is in the form of God, which is false, untrue, and God calls that claim "stupid" in Rom. 1:22-24.

Since the Father is “the invisible God,” Christ was essentially claiming to be the image of the invisible God in these verses.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if God’s Image appeared before this? Oh, It doesn’t? Hmm. Guess I must be imagining the Old Testament or somethin’.

With regard to Paul’s use of the word translated “inherently” (huparchō), it should be noted that Peter used the same word when he declared that David was “inherently a prophet” (Acts 2:30; see also Acts 21:20 and Rom. 4:19 for other examples of this word being used). Just as David was “inherently a prophet” during his life on earth, so Christ is inherently the representative of his God and Father (and thus “in the form of God”).

Right. So, according to Aaron and co, He’s not in the form of man (the outward appearance of man) until He gets arrested. Then He’s in the form of man. Finally. About time! This is actually interesting, because one of your favorite fans, Aaron, named Jason, likes to say that Christ is only man and only ever is man, which completely denies that He is ever inherently in the form of God. Wonder how those two views jive, if at all. Sounds kind of… “discordant.” No, stop it! I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing at the doctrine. I hope you, Aaron, being intelligent, learn to wander away from it, because it’s dumb (Rom. 1:22.)

As far as Christ’s being “equal to God,” this was also true of Christ during his life on earth, and was based on his unique status as the Son of God (see John 5:18).

Okay! Let’s see John 5:18!

Therefore, then, the Jews sought to kill Him, for He not only annulled the sabbath, but said His own Father also is God, making Himself equal to God.

Great! God never said He “ceases being equal to God” in emptying Himself! It is the form that is equal to God (hence why the text says, “being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God.”) These two phrases are connected. His emptying Himself shows that only His “self,” or “personality,” or whatever you want to call it, remains. Again, mixing the circumcision evangel into a celestial revelation is foolhardy.

That being said, you can study out the verse, John 5:18, above, and go, “oh, sweet! He can be equal with God!” which can shut the mouth of anyone sitting there acting like we’re “robbing God of glory” when we say, the Image of God exists before His physical birth. Paul, your apostle, literally clarifies that this is not robbery.

Moving on to Paul’s words in Phil. 2:7, we read that Christ “…nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity.” We know that the expression “empties Himself” is not to be understood literally, for Christ did not literally “empty himself.” Strong’s defines the word translated “empties” (kenoō) as, “to make empty, that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.”

Well, it kind of could be taken literally, as in, “The inherent form of God has been abased, neutralized, made void, in Christ’s ‘taking the form of a slave.’” Again, simple sentence, doesn’t need addition, and is perfect the way it is.

As noted earlier, the term “form” refers to “outward appearance.” But when, exactly, did Christ take the outward appearance of a slave?

So, let’s do this crazy thing and stick to Paul’s letters. Here’s Romans 1:1–

Paul, a slave…

And again, Rom. 6:16–

Are you not aware that to whom you are presenting yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slaves you are, whom you are obeying, whether of Sin for death, or of Obedience for righteousness?

And again, Rom. 6:18–

Being freed from Sin, you are enslaved to Righteousness.

And again, Rom. 6:20–

For when you were slaves of Sin, you were free as to Righteousness.

Here’s Rom. 8:21–

…the creation itself, also, shall be freed from the slavery of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Man is slave. Sounds simple enough to me! What does Aaron say concerning it?

So does a human zygote or embryo have the form, or outward appearance, of a slave? No.

Yiiiiiiikes.

Nor would it be true to say that human beings in a general sense – whether they’re pre-born, children or adults – have “the form of a slave.”

I’m sorry, it wouldn’t?? I must be imagining the whole “slave to death” thing.  Amazingly, Aaron does attempt to refute some of the scripture verses! Let’s do this. I said, in relation to Aaron’s interpretation of Phil. 2:5-6, that “[his] idea limits this verse, that He is inherently in the form of God, to His earthly ministry. It’s implying the idea that one could, indeed, follow the law, if they just tried hard enough! It defeats the idea that God dispatches His Son into the world (John 3:17,) and instead imparts the idea that Jesus, as a man, rises above the rest by being picked at His ministry.” Aaron replies:

The word translated “dispatched” in John 3:17 (apostellō) means, “send officially, with authority for the execution of some task.” In John 1:6, John used the same word in reference to John the Baptist’s having been “sent from God.” The idea of Jesus’ being sent (or dispatched) by God into the world is clarified by Jesus’ own words in John 17:18. There, we read (CLNT), “According as Thou dost dispatch Me into the world, I also dispatch them into the world.” Based on this verse, the sense in which Christ “sent” or “dispatched” his disciples into the world is the same sense in which God “sent” or “dispatched” his Son into the world.

Hi! So, like I’ve said before (in the articles Aaron never got to,) the verse that answers this conundrum is John 15:19, two chapters before Jesus’ statement in John 17:

If you [My disciples] were of the world, the world would be fond of its own. Now, seeing that you are not of the world, but I choose you out of the world, therefore the world is hating you.

Here it’s clear that the disciples are chosen out of the world. They were of the world, until they were chosen out of it. By the time you reach John 17, this should be understood. Thought I’d mention this now, because I don’t need some reply from this guy two years later going, “Oh you ignored this.”

Now, talking about Romans 1:1, 6:18, 6:20, I said, “As Paul recognizes that humanity is ‘enslaved,’ that being a human is, naturally, being enslaved to the spiritual, as he himself writes in Romans 1:1, and elaborates on in Romans 6, it makes sense that, in Paul’s celestial (Christ Jesus) discussion of our Lord, ‘taking the form of a slave’ is to, literally, take the form of a man. Paul follows up with, ‘coming to be in the likeness of humanity.’ Strangely enough, this seems like the correct rendering of the passage.”

Aaron replied:

I'm not sure what, exactly, GK means when he claims that “being a human is, naturally, being enslaved to the spiritual.”

Romans 6:18-20. Don’t play dumb, please. I cited myself in the quote.

In Rom. 1:1, Paul referred to himself as “a slave of Christ Jesus.” I think it goes without saying that Paul wouldn’t have considered every human being “a slave of Christ Jesus.”

Right, and if you’re not a slave of Christ Jesus, you’re a slave of Sin, so it’s one or the other. Either way, you = slave. I’m not here to trick you, my guy. Romans is clear – man, terrestrial, enslaved to celestial, per Rom. 6:15-23. Is God not clear enough for you..?

The problem with this claim, however, is that spiritual celestial beings themselves are slaves of those who are of greater authority and higher rank.

This doesn’t make the view problematic in the slightest; humans are in view in Philippians 2:7. How do I know this? Because Paul clarifies what kind of slave he’s referring to:

Nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself…

Anyway, here’s Aaron mixing the relative and the absolute:

If being a slave to Sin or to Obedience makes one “a slave to the spiritual,” then one could say that, by virtue of being either obedient to God or sinful, every created, intelligent being – whether human or celestial – is either a slave to Sin or to Obedience. Even Christ himself could be considered a slave of God (who is the God, and thus Lord, of Christ) in the sense that those of whom Christ is Lord could be considered slaves of Christ.

And, sure. Ultimately this is true of every created thing. But the passages simply aren’t dwelling on that right now, because the revelations in Romans and Philippians here are relative in scope, speaking of the time period in the eons, so we’re not considering the absolute truth that God is operating all in all right now.

And not only this, but if – in accord with GK’s view – Christ pre-existed his life on earth, then he would’ve been just as much a slave of Obedience (and thus enslaved to God) before his life on earth as he was during his life on earth.

Well, let’s be clear. There is no point in all of history that Christ is ever disobedient to God’s will (John 5:19, 2 Cor. 5:21.) But the Philippians passage doesn’t say, “becoming obedient to God,” does it? It says “becoming obedient unto death,” which was God’s will (Is. 53:9-10.)

Yeah, let’s wrap this one up. I can’t believe we’re questioning this! What if I presented my logical arguments backwards?

1)    I go home

2)    I purchase bananas

3)    I pick up bananas

4)    I go to the store

You guys would look at me like I’m an idiot! And yet, this idea is completely accepted as something Paul is doing. It makes God sound ridiculous, and again, all this talk that Aaron has made about “I’m importing this view into the text” reveals his own hypocrisy (Rom. 2:1-4,) as Christ’s obedience to the death of the cross is not brought into view until the end of verse 8, and yet both Aaron and Clyde import it all over 5-7. God, Aaron, this is not “an advancement,” this is regression, and it is the case here, unfortunately. It is far, far easier to accept what the text itself says, which is not convoluted, concordant with the rest of Scripture, and far more sensible without mixing the two evangels. Please, saints, be careful (1 Tim. 4:1-2.)

(to be concluded)

- GerudoKing