Chapter II – Before We Begin… Where Do We Begin?

Part I – Introductory Claims and Foundation

The Purpose of the Question

The issue on the table, at present, concerns us with the question: Did Christ exist before His physical birth? This question is, ultimately, the cause of this study, and man’s ideas from the first two parts have only obscured the text, thrusting false contexts (previously stated) upon us. It is nonetheless a necessary question, for it shapes our understanding of the scope of God’s sacrifice, as well as the nature of the One being sacrificed – i.e. the character of Christ, (Rom. 5:8, Gal. 5:22-23, etc.) in full scope and relation to the revealed plan and purpose of God through His cross (Rom. 3:21-26, 5:9-21, 1 Cor. 15:20-28, Eph. 1:9-11, 21-23, Col. 1:20, etc.)

It would, indeed, further help us contextualize the enemy and our understanding of his agenda. Satan, as we know, has usurped the throne at the head of the universe, and has been invested with this authority from God. It becomes apparent, then, that the answer to the question in the positive would help us greatly in learning the nature of the “disruption of the world,” that is, the nature of one who would relatively enact it. If this is true, then its radical denial among the prevalent schools of thought are understood as the crux of the argument in this wicked eon – to deny Christ’s place at the Head, that He is low and unworthy of the title, as well as God’s method and purpose in demonstrating otherwise.

Does His Birth Deny An Alleged Prior Existence?

In the body of Christ today, those who have pre-supposed beforehand that Christ did not exist before His physical birth, and seek any verse which could assert this belief, will immediately point to Matt. 1:18-23, and Luke 1:30-35, as Socinus did. These two passages assure us of the birth of Christ. One may ask, “Does the documentation of Christ’s birth edify us as to whether He has changed forms or not?”

On its surface, the answer is “yes,” for, as we know from simple experience, men are not said to exist prior to their life on earth, nor could we rationally say that we “changed forms” in order to be born. We have no memory of a prior experience, and, of course, God does not speak of our existence prior to our birth on earth. We say this at the beginning that our opponents understand that we are aware of it. We further express no affiliation with it, and will not be presenting such an irrational assumption as fact, or as something we propose.

If we are considering a change in Christ’s form, we cannot immediately presume that the change of Christ inherently means that we are changed, for we are not remotely like this sinless One. A “body” is not the “brain.” If the manner of Christ’s arrival on earth necessitates a prior state, it would be in line with this fact; He is what we are not, demonstrated by doing what we could never. This is demonstrated best in Rom. 5:12-21, where Christ is contrasted most clearly and certainly with the fleshy, dying Adam – not solely compared to him. Christ’s journey does not concede that we, too, have progressed in the same way, leaving this idea unmerited and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Moreover, when we dive deeper into the text, and relieve ourselves of our “experience,” and instead prefer the documented words of God, Whose experience and power is far greater in scope, we realize that the question is still wanting. See, the question is not, “Was Christ born?” The question is “Did Christ exist before He was born?” It is, of course, irrational to assume that anyone existed before their birth! Any claim, at the outset, that this event is “impossible” or “illogical” must realize that we recognize God as able in all things, and is able to effect all beyond our comprehensions (Eph. 3:20.) I cite examples such as the Red Sea Debacle (for, it is, indeed, impossible for the ocean to stand on its hindquarters and perform a split,) the talking donkey (for, while many asses speak today, it is, indeed, impossible for a donkey to speak,) and the resurrection of one Man from death into life (for it is, indeed, impossible for one to climb out of the grave and casually fly into the sky.)

Our “logical service” (Rom. 12:1-3) should not downplay these events in their miraculous spectacle, but rationalize them in relation to the themes and purpose of the event in question. All of these events, while scientifically impossible, are thematically coherent, and remain relevant to the central Character of the scriptures, being Christ. This justifies their existence, and are thus sensible and believable (and necessarily so, for they are the word of God.) It is not uncommon in holy writ for unnatural things to occur, so if such a passage does exist to affirm Christ’s existence before His physical birth, it must follow that a scientific exploration, while entertaining, would be as speculatory as seeking scientific answers to Christ’s resurrection, or turning water to wine in seconds, or sewing an ear to a head by squishing the two back together. We claim to trust God’s word on any matter, no matter how “impossible” a miraculous event would appear at the outset.

This argument, that something would be “logically impossible,” or inherently erroneous because it doesn’t immediately jive with our physical reality, should be reserved for arguments demonstrative of God’s purpose or plan (i.e. “God said He is the Saviour of all mankind, ergo it is impossible that He does not save all mankind,”) because it solely operates within the truth of the word, and does not deny that God is intellectually capable of doing something, but is actively choosing not to do something. The counsel of His will, His intention, is insurmountable (Eph. 1:11,) and thus, it would be impossible for something to accord outside of it. By no other measure do we need to consider “impossibility” with the God Who can call what is not as though it were (Rom. 4:17.) If it is thematically coherent, and relevant to Christ, (and, of course, if God were to directly state the impossibility in the affirmative in the text,) then it is not “impossible” for an event to occur, for God can make it so.

As such, we cannot safely say that a document concerning Christ’s birth inherently denies any prior shape that an all-powerful and purposeful God could make. We are by no means claiming that God “randomly” enacts impossible actions for fun, or without purpose, and to claim that we are directly denies a grasp of the point made above, and slanders our position prior to the presentation of evidence, revealing a bias. We are simply saying that Christ’s birth does not inherently deny the idea that He existed in a different form if God provides a thematic and necessary reason for the impossible act (as He demonstrates with Abraham, in closing off his wife’s womb until she was too old to conceive – Rom. 4:17-25. The impossible was made possible to demonstrate God’s ability to confound our logic.) To settle an answer to the question, we must either find a verse, or concede that there is no verse, which speaks of or demonstrates Him acting or speaking prior to His birth.

On the other hand, we cannot just start proof-texting all willy-nilly. Some in the body of Christ who do believe that Christ existed prior to His birth will call attention to a few verses in John, including John 1:14, 6:63, 8:58, and more. Others dive into Hebrews, or cite the Old Testament scriptures. However true they may be, these are not safe places to squat, or operate in, for the purposes of this argument. What we need to apprehend, prior to attempting to answer the inquiry, is our platform – our home base, from which we operate.

So, how do we figure this out?

Finding His Voice

To get to the bottom of this truth, it is imperative that we first apprehend the basics of our evangel. Such a question concerning Christ’s nature cannot be asked or answered apart from recognizing the purpose of Christ to God. This knowledge will, as it has in the past, help us delineate between the truth and the lie.

To figure out our home base, we must discern which writer will provide us with the character of Christ, in full scope and relation to the revealed plan and purpose of God, and heed their words on this subject first and foremost.

This bars the Old Testament from being our home base, for Jesus is referenced, primarily, as the Messiah of the Jewish nation. This views Christ from a distance – One to be respected from His allotted throne. He is not viewed in a personal sense, close and familial. Even within the four accounts, Jesus intentionally remains a mystery even to those closest to Him (Luke 9:45, 18:31-34, John 6:32-35, etc.)

The four accounts themselves are the complement of the Old Testament, fulfilling Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17,) and concerns Christ directly in relation to His chosen people (Matt. 15:24, Mark.) These reveal Him in relation to the kingdom and its blessings for Israel. These strictly consider Christ, then, with a primary view of His terrestrial glory. This, of course, taints the jury concerning characteristics of the celestial, spiritual realm. We also, consequently, receive very limited information concerning the purpose and plan of God from a celestial perspective, that we fail to grasp His most intimate affairs yet to come.  

Our home base, then, on this question, cannot be the four accounts – nor can it be Peter, or James, or Jude. All of these different letters are for the Jewish nation (1 Pet. 1:1, Jam. 1:1, Jude 1:1,) which leads us into the same predicament. It is certainly not the Hebraist writer, either, for the letter is literally, “to the Hebrews.”

We are not the Jewish nation.

It is not so much that these letters do not provide us truth on this matter, of course; they do, and we will weigh all available evidence in this series from the circumcision writings. But while they are our source, they are not our home base. They are written for our benefit, but our grasp of them can only be relational, not foundational, as they are not expressly written for us.

As such, these passages, while beneficial for our growth, priming us for the spiritual information that we seek by providing types and signs in the physical realm, simply do not provide us with the revealed intention of God, or the full scope of His Channel, Christ.

Alas! What are we to do? Who could we turn to for the highest spiritual unfoldings ever penned? Using process of elimination, the only other prominent writer in the New Testament is Paul, whose letters are nestled snugly in the center of the Greek work. Unlike the four accounts, Peter, and James, Paul’s letters are the only documents in all of scripture with addresses beyond the Hebrews’ doorstep. Romans, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Colosse, Thessalonica… there may have been Jewish recipients, sure, but these letters were to any who read them, full of spiritual grace (Rom. 1:13, 16, 3:21-26, Eph. 1:1, etc.)

As such, Paul’s contextualization of any and every doctrine that we can consider from the Old Testament take precedent. Of course, Paul does not speak on every issue, but if he is the right source, then we must first scan his letters to ensure that anything Paul says on this matter, first and foremost, is heeded.

Defending the Platform We Stand On

Oftentimes, in studies like this, Paul is given a lesser seat at the table, and Old Testament prophecy takes center stage. He is hardly considered by any, and is oft-times dismissed as a lesser prophet, no greater than the previous, and certainly not more critical than Jesus Himself, a few books prior. However, long-time fans of God’s word have realized that Paul’s letters often either abrogate or re-contextualize these passages in relation to the nations’ allotment, and cannot be appropriately dismissed for a right interpretation of scripture, for Paul completes the word of God (Col. 1:26,) as the body completes the Christ (Eph. 1:22-23.)

The more we carefully study the word of God, the more we find that God, instead of pointing the modern-day reader toward the four accounts, speaks rather blatantly in favor of Paul, pushing us to prioritize his letters. In Rom. 11:13, Paul says, “I am the apostle of the nations.” This stands in direct contrast to our false English versions, which would say that Paul is “only” an apostle. He is highlighted here as the apostle that all nations should be hearing! He, Paul, is the source of our spiritual vitality in our modern day.

We may briefly cover two examples to demonstrate this point. In the Old Testament, God clarifies that He is Israel’s God, the One God, and operates through no other nation. It is not until Paul sends his new message to the nations that this shift in scope can be felt and seen (Rom. 3:29, 11:11.)

Another example concerns God’s instruction concerning law. In Exodus, all the way through John, God is requesting that His chosen people do the entirety of the law, that they may be justified. However, when we reach Paul’s letters, Paul reveals to us the purpose of the law (Rom. 3:20, 5:20,) and that, in reality, we are no longer under law.

On its surface, these examples from Paul seem contradictory to previous revelation, and borderline blasphemous, with how many verses in the Old Testament seemingly indicate otherwise. Yet keeping in mind God’s scope of revelation, which is always progressive, and not regressive, we are convicted by these verses to proclaim the truths which Paul presents. When we pay attention to Paul’s verbiage, we realize that, though we are not under law (Rom. 6:14,) and although those that are under law are under a curse (Gal. 3:10-12,) neither of these facts deny the prior revelations concerning the law itself, that it is holy, and just, and good (Rom. 7:7-25.) Indeed, it is man who is vain, and unjust, and wrong (Rom. 1:18-3:20,) which is why remaining under the law curses us – we are unable to live up to its precepts.

Proof is Best Directly Stated

Paul is the primary apostle, then, whom we should be paying attention to today. As such, we will not be treading the path of the modern expositor, who wishes to dismiss the one whom God appointed to us directly. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by taking the road less travelled, and we thank God that He gives us measures of His faith, courage, and ability, and then walks it through us, for His glory. Paul’s words, at God’s order, serves as our perch, where we can stand prominently in relation to the rest of the text and observe the little pieces and parts therein. As he writes in 2 Cor. 11:5-6–

For I am reckoning to be deficient in nothing pertaining to the paramount apostles. Yet even if I am plain in expression, nevertheless I am not in knowledge, but in everything being made manifest in all for you.

And again, in 2 Cor. 12:11–

I ought to be commended by you, for I am not deficient in anything pertaining to the paramount apostles, even if I am nothing.

Paul’s revelations are completely in line with previous revelation. This is because Paul, unlike every other apostle, is not solely revealing the “kingdom” of God, as the other writers are (Matt. 4:23,) but contextualizing the kingdom of God by revealing the purpose of God, which is the most intimate secret in our time today. As Paul himself writes in 1 Cor. 4:1–

Let a man be reckoning with [me and Apollos] – as deputies of Christ, and administrators of God’s secrets.

Indeed, it was (still is) Paul’s place to reveal God’s secrets (Greek: musterion, “CLOSE-KEEP.”) Most of these secrets, admittedly, could not be revealed without the setup of the Old Testament, and the first five books of the New Testament. This is demonstrated as early as Rom. 11:25, where Paul speaks of the secret duration of Israel’s callousness–

For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering.

As we can see, a secret duration in which Israel is left callous until the entirety of the body of Christ has been called out, is evident in Paul’s letters. This was previously unknown to the world – a potential (Lev. 26) but until then unknown callousness on Israel’s part. Of course, one cannot remain callous to righteousness and be righteous at the same time! This secret highlights that there is a lengthened period of time prior to this kingdom’s beginning on earth, the reason for it, and the indication of its completion.

Secrets, Sure – But What About the Character of Christ?

In the same letter, Paul uses this term to describe the evangel: a secret hushed in times eonian (Rom. 16:25.) The evangel, up until that point, had been kept close to God’s chest, so to speak. He revealed them at the time of Paul’s writing (Rom. 16:26.)

This secret, hushed in times eonian, reveals to us the character of Christ (Rom. 5-8.) By providing this information, Paul becomes a prime candidate to reveal to us whether or not Christ existed before His physical birth, and whether any of the implications of modern theological positions float. The only other point we need to be sure of, before seeking Paul’s letters for his answer to this question, is whether or not he provides us with the plan and purpose of God.

God’s Plan, In Brief

Sure enough, Paul shares with us, in the first letter written directly to the modern-day believer in the Bible (Ephesians,) the secret of God’s will is fully expounded upon at its beginning, in chapter 1:9-11. Paul writes–

[God is] making known to us the secret of His will (in accord with His delight, which He purposed in [Christ]) to have an administration of the complement of the eras, to head up all in the Christ – both that in the heavens and that on the earth – in Him in Whom our lot was cast also, being designated beforehand according to the purpose of the One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will, that we should be the laud of His glory, who are pre-expectant in the Christ.

We will return to these verses later, but for now I wish to call attention to the little fact that this verse fulfills our second requirement as well; Paul, here, reveals the will of God and His secret – the will that God says that He shall do (Is. 46:10, 1 Tim. 2:4.) Though all may not be in agreement on the verse above, none can deny that its explicit statements are quite… explicit. Paul is, plainly, revealing the will of God, and God does not fail (Num. 23:19, Deut. 31:8.)

Okay, But How Do We Know Paul’s Letters Contain the Highest Spiritual Revelations?

Good question! To answer this question, I recommend the YouTube video “RE 346 Scripture Only Mentions the Earth’s Perspective, UNTIL…” by RevaGo Channel, where teacher Peter Meye demonstrates the contrast between the earthly perspective of the circumcision writings with the celestial perspective of the Pauline epistles. I will give a shortened answer here, but you can watch the video by clicking here.

In Genesis 1:1, God inspires,

In a beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.

This establishes two spheres – a plural heavens (how many is not specified, which in Hebrew typically means 2,) and a singular earth. The heavens are listed first – emphasizing their higher place (cf Is. 66:1.) Verse 2 begins with,

As for the earth…

The earth becomes the focal point, the perspective for the scriptures, and very rarely are we given insight into the celestial landscape. The only mentions of celestial matters in the Old Testament are directly in relation to the earth (practically demonstrated by the creation of the sun, moon and stars in Genesis 1, which are said to be specially designed for “appointed times and seasons” on the earth.)

It is not until we reach Paul’s letters that God’s goal with the celestials are revealed! It is only when we read Paul’s letters that we can take this special view outside of the earth – where we can look at operations from God’s perspective instead of man’s perspective.

This further contextualizes the question for us; since Paul matches our requirements, and speaks of celestial observations of God, then it follows that an affirmative answer would not deny the “birth of Christ,” for the “birth of Christ” undeniably occurred, from the earthly perspective of the circumcision evangel.

But Why Would We Prioritize One over the Other? Isn’t it all Inspired?

This great contrast between Pauline subject material and the rest of the New Testament is definitively juxtaposed twice in Paul’s letters. First, in Rom. 15:8-9, Paul says,

Christ has become the Servant of the Circumcision, for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the patriarchal promises. Yet the nations are to glorify God for His mercy.

Paul later says in 15:15-16,

Yet more daringly do I write to you, in part, as prompting you, because of the grace being given to me from God, for me to be the minister of Christ Jesus into the nations, acting as a priest for the evangel of God, that the approach present of the nations may be becoming well received…

Here, we see a practical demonstration of the contrast between the circumcision evangel taught by Jesus, and the uncircumcision evangel taught by Paul. The circumcision evangel, by Jesus, was taught to confirm the patriarchal promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob back in Genesis. This is the narrative thrust of the Old Testament, and, as I said earlier, finds its consummation in Jesus’ ministry, which does confirm the patriarchal promises (Matt. 3:2, 4:23, 5:17.)

Yet Paul’s ministry is designed to beget the glorification of God (Eph. 1:6, 12.) The goal of the two ministries are entirely different (one is to confirm promises, while the other enables God to receive the nations’ approach present (being the Christ that they sacrificed.)

This is made more apparent in another major juxtaposition, found in Galatians 2:7-9–

But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also into the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet [James and Cephas and John] for the circumcision.

This is a mouthful, but the thought is plain. Paul is not merely to the uncircumcision, as poor translations claim. His message is that of the uncircumcision – outside of the patriarchal promises of the Hebrews! It is not that the nations are brought to equality under Israel’s evangel (as many suppose,) but that all in Paul’s evangel are joint enjoyers of an allotment, apart from fleshy distinction (Eph. 3:1-7.)

The evangel brought about by Peter is fundamentally fleshy in scope (hence its happy name, circumcision.) It by no means exceeds the physical reality which binds us, and all of his revelations relate to the circumcision’s kingdom (notice that the first Jewish letter aside from Paul’s which finally details Christ’s celestial glory is the letter to the Hebrews, intentionally placed after Paul’s letters.) In contrast, Paul’s message is designed to step away from the physical rites of Messiah – away from His kingship as Seed of David (Matt. 1:1-16, Rom. 1:3, 15:8,) to spiritual considerations and truths from a faith-based perspective (Rom. 1:11-12, 3:21-26, 6:1-11, 2 Cor. 5:7, 14-17, Eph. 1:3, and many more.)

Peter demonstrates this well when advocating for Paul, in 2 Pet. 3:15-16–

And be deeming the patience of our Lord salvation, according as our beloved brother Paul also writes to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to apprehend, which the unlearned and unstable are twisting, as the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction.

Peter, in direct contrast to Paul’s claim back in 2 Cor. 12:5-6, says that it is extremely difficult to apprehend some of Paul’s wisdom. While Paul is not deficient in the circumcision evangel, Peter is deficient in the uncircumcision evangel. While one who stands firmly in Peter’s evangel will undoubtedly struggle with the new information revealed by Paul, there is no such discrepancy from Paul’s letters, further enhancing their appeal for answer hunters. The reason why this is the case is not far from us: Peter’s ministry considers Christ according to the flesh (1 Pet. 4:1, 2 Pet. 1:4,) while Paul explicitly claims that we need not consider Christ according to the flesh, but in relation to the new humanity, in accord with spirit, and all of the facts which go with it (2 Cor. 5:14-17.)

As if to drive this point home, when presenting new truth in relation to Christ’s character and God’s purpose, Paul cannot cite from the Old Testament (notice how few OT verse citations are present in Romans 5-8, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians…) If there were no new revelations for Paul to give, then Israel would have no reason to be jealous of the nations’ stated blessings (Rom. 11:11,) and the whole story would fall flat on its face. Yet Israel’s setting aside is a necessary prerequisite to Paul’s evangel (Rom. 11:11.) Sure, the circumcision recognized that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” (Luke 3:7,) but it was not until Paul unveiled the method to God’s madness (Rom. 3:21-8:30, 11:11, 1 Cor. 15:20-28, Eph. 1:9-11, 18-23, etc.) that God’s previous claims could be considered sensibly.

So! How does all of this help us answer our question? By taking the time to establish our theological foundation, we are able to demonstrate where we are coming from in all. We are operating first and foremost in the evangel of Paul, and recognizing all prior revelation from this lens. No one in Christ could honestly/rationally object to this method, for the very method of our salvation, proposed in Romans, enables us to apprehend a slew of new information which has clearly re-contextualized our understanding of Old Testament claims and passages (noted by Paul’s citations given in ways which do not align with their older context, yet fit his arguments.)

Paul’s letters, then, are the modern day believer’s doctrinal “dais” to stand on today. Paul’s evangel is the key, and the rest of the text is the code. When we magnify any prior revelation in light of Paul’s evangel, we learn how God abrogates and amends the text (see mini-series (still in the works): “A Complete Study of Paul’s Use of the Hebrew Scriptures,”) and how Paul’s evangel serves as the proper complement of Hebrew revelation. We are taking the firm stance that Paul’s evangel is at the center of our understanding, and the rest of the text will only further highlight/complement Paul’s revelations, making sense of prior parts of the scriptures.

Fine, But This Doesn’t Even Matter, Because it’s not Contingent on My Salvation!

Well! Surely we don’t want to go to such lengths as this to avoid Holy Writ? Or are you ignorant to the fact that all scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16?) There are many, many topics concerning scripture which are not a “matter of salvation,” and yet God spends a wealth of time, specially in Paul’s letters, revealing types for us to learn of the entire work of God – including that which can only be understood upon obtaining salvation!

The first chapters in the New Testament which speak of the Gentile’s salvation today can be found in Romans 3-8. By receiving the justification doctrine, or the “gratuity of righteousness,” of Rom. 3:21-4:25, and the conciliation doctrine, or the “superabundance of grace,” of Rom. 5:1-8:30, one is reigning in life through Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:17.) If these were the only passages that “mattered,” then the Bible would only be approximately 30 pages long.

We may do well to ask, “What is the point of salvation?” Or, even, “What is the point of the Bible?” If our disposition is that we may discard 95% of the text, simply because some topics are more difficult to apprehend than others, then the authority of the Bible itself is not dwelling in the heart of the individual who claims this dismissal. The salvation is designed to draw us in to more bountiful truths – accessing to the depths of our Lord’s heart! To disregard any truths that we may now apprehend through salvation, the eyes of our heart having been enlightened, is a slap in the face to every chapter which follows Romans 8.

The heart of this argument, of the “difference between salvation issue and non-salvation issue,” is one of maturity. Paul provides us with a great thought on this matter, in Ephesians 4:11-14, that–

[God] gives these, indeed, as apostles, yet these as prophets, yet these as evangelists, yet these as pastors and teachers, toward the adjusting of the saints for the work of dispensing, for the upbuilding of the body of Christ,

unto the end that we should all attain to the unity of the faith AND of the realization of the son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the complement of the Christ, that we may by no means still be minors, surging hither and thither and being carried about by every wind of teaching, by human sleight, by craftiness with a view to the systematizing of the deception.

Brief breakdown: you see the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers of verse 11? We always like to stress their differences, and they are notable and beautiful; but what of their similarities? All five are interrelated, providing information concerning the Christ. It is all about the news that these ones are providing! The apostle leads, the prophet unveils, the evangelist proclaims, the pastor consoles, and the teacher relays/informs. This has everything to do with th dispensation of spiritual wisdom and knowledge in truth!

It doesn’t end there. No distinction is given between matters “of salvation” and matters “not of salvation.” God uses truth, not “certain truths,” to adjust the saints, for the work of dispensing this truth, and to upbuild the body of Christ. What is better than 10 pages of characterization of Christ? Fifteen hundred pages of characterization of Christ!

The two goals are as we observed at the beginning of the article. The plan and purpose of God, presented in the attainment of the unity of the faith, and the character of Christ, presented in the realization of the Son of God. Paul’s goal is not to save “so that you’re in,” but to save “so that you attain to the unity of the faith and the realization of the Son of God, for your upbuilding in grace, and therefore His glory.” In other words, this verse strictly highlights the contrast between the minor and the mature man – one is focused solely on matters of salvation (the benefit of self,) while the other is focused on the impact that salvation has had (realization of the One saving.) We will return to this thought repeatedly throughout the remainder of this study, expanding on it as scripture permits.

But No One Can Know the Absolute Truths! Everyone Can Be Wrong!

Well, sure. In that sense, everything could be wrong, and we could all have evolved from primordial apes, or we are descendants from another universe, or a bunch of gaslighting, confused pieces of dirt.

This is a philosophical position not rooted in scripture, called “nihilism.” As this deals with unbelief completely, we will not dwell on it much further here. Suffice it to say, the people in Christ who often (counter-intuitively) proclaim such a statement, are typically conflating the Greek evidence with interpretive reasonings of the English versions. The thought is that, if the wool has been pulled over our eyes, then we should always remain skeptical to revealed truth.

This is “doubt” – not belief.

We are to believe the words of God – not continually doubt them. If it’s in English? Sure! Doubt them! As we will see in our future Greek study, even the CLV fails to properly capture the thought of the Greek on occasion, leading to obscurities which become far clearer with the inflections on each Greek word, which resolves any English discrepancy, and saves us much time when trying to understand “which” interpretation is best.

As such: we, of our own works, cannot know absolute truth, of course. There is only One Who does know all absolute truth, and that is God. However, instead of keeping the absolute perspective to Himself, God graciously provided us with Paul’s evangel – which breaks down for us the absolute truths of God, on the basis of our justification, conciliation, sanctification, new walk, and our spirit of sonship, per Rom. 3-8 (see Chapter 15.) We may not perceive absolute truths, but it is false to say that no man can know them, for God would not have written His book otherwise.

Are we saying we’re “right all the time?” No; we’re saying God is right all the time, and even if we do not fully understand His reasoning for doing something, we would be remiss to reproach the living God, as if His grammar needed work. We will not be adding or subtracting from the Greek text, and as such, God’s word will be presented properly, first and foremost.

Paul is our Foundation… And Our Ship (I’m Losing Track of My Metaphors Already)

The foundation for the question has been laid. Assuming Paul answers the question, “Did Christ exist before His physical birth?” in the affirmative, the only way he can give us a satisfactory explanation to such a radical thought is by explaining how this information aligns with God’s express goals. Does this tell us anything of value about the character of Christ? And, how would this contribute to the plan and purpose of God? Conversely, if the answer is provided in the negative, then the only way he can give us a satisfactory explanation for the nay-sayers is by explaining how Christ’s theoretical prior existence harms the character of Christ, or hinders the plan and purpose of God.

Paul is our apostle – our primary source of information. Thus, in the next article, we will finally zone in on the doctrinal truths within our present secret economy, within the Ephesian, Philippian, and Colossian letters, to focus on what Paul (and thus, God) would have the modern-day reader believe on this matter. With Paul’s letters for our sail, our ship, unlike “Paganism,” will be able to weather the Old Testament seas with ease.

So? What is Paul’s answer?

- GerudoKing