I believe scripture
reveals that, from the very beginning of his life, the Lord Jesus Christ has
been a human being, and that his human existence began at the moment of his
supernatural conception in the womb of his mother, Miriam. But why does it
matter whether or not scripture affirms or denies this view concerning Christ?
Why should this subject be considered one of importance, or something that is
worth arguing about?
Insofar as I believe
all scriptural truth is intrinsically valuable (especially that which concerns
Christ), I think that whatever scripture has to say concerning this subject is
important and worth looking into. But the question of whether or not Christ’s
existence began on earth also has weighty implications with regards to other
doctrines and beliefs. For example, the view that Christ pre-existed his life
on earth is essential to Trinitarianism, and (as such) is a view affirmed by
the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and most Protestant
denominations. The pre-existence of Christ could even be considered as one of
the main “pillars” on which the doctrine of the trinity is supported. Were
this pillar to be removed, the doctrine of the trinity would collapse.
The doctrine of the
pre-existence of Christ is also essential to the so-called “Modalist” (or
“Oneness”) view of Christ. Although not as common as the Trinitarian view, this
position is affirmed
by more than 24 million Christians today (although the majority of Christians
holding to this view would identify as “Oneness Pentecostals,” they are not the
only Christians today who hold to a “modalist” view concerning Christ and the
Father). In contrast with Trinitarians (who view Christ as ontologically equal to, yet personally distinct from, the Father and the Holy
Spirit), those who hold to a Modalist/Oneness position see Christ as being
personally and ontologically identical
with the Father and Holy Spirit (with each “person” being understood as a
different “mode,” “aspect” or “manifestation” of one individual divine being).
Despite these and
other differences (which I need not get into here), both of these positions
have one essential belief in common: the view that Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, is (or at least is the manifestation of) an uncreated and eternal being
who pre-existed the beginning of his life on earth. Given the importance that
the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence has to both of these doctrinal systems
within Christianity, it follows that, if the doctrine can be shown to be
unsupported by scripture, then both of these doctrinal systems will be very
much undermined, if not utterly refuted. This, to me, is justification enough
to carefully consider whether or not the doctrine of the pre-existence of
Christ is, in fact, scripturally sound.
Before I begin my defense of what I believe on this subject (which will include examining certain passages that are
commonly thought to reveal or imply a position contrary to what I affirm), I need to
emphasize that not all who believe in the pre-existence of Christ agree with
Trinitarians and Modalists that Christ is an uncreated and eternal
person/being. The Christological view which denies
Christ’s absolute deity but affirms
his pre-existence has historically been known as “Arianism” (named after Arius,
a Christian teacher in the early 4th century A.D.). In contrast with the Trinitarians
of his day, Arius denied that Jesus was uncreated and eternal, or “co-equal”
with the Father. Rather, Arius held that Jesus, the Son, was created by God,
the Father, as the first act of creation, and that God subsequently created
everything else through his Son. This particular belief is most commonly
associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses, but is also held by a number of groups and
individuals who are in no way affiliated with this particular Christian denomination.
Although I do not subscribe to an “Arian”
Christological view, I must emphasize that, unlike Trinitarinism or Modalism, I
believe that this position is fully consistent with the truth of Paul’s
evangel. That is, I believe that one can hold to a full-fledged “Arian” view
concerning Christ while still believing everything that Paul wrote concerning
the evangel of our salvation (for Paul’s evangel is concerned with Christ’s
death for sins and his resurrection, and neither affirms nor denies any sort of
“pre-incarnate” life that Christ may or may not have had). The reason I’m
focusing on what Trinitarians, Modalists and Arians all have in common (i.e.,
the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ) is not because I believe it to be
a worse or more destructive heresy than those doctrinal views that are
distinctive to Trinitarinism or Modalism (for I don’t think that it is). The
reason I’m writing against this view is because, if it turns out to be false,
then it follows that both Trinitarian and Modalist views concerning Christ are
necessarily false as well.
When did Christ’s life begin?
In Matt 16:13-17, we
read:
Now Jesus, coming into parts of Caesarea Philippi, asked His
disciples, saying, “Who are men saying the Son of Mankind is?” Now they say,
“These, indeed, John the baptist; yet others Elijah; yet others Jeremiah or one
of the prophets.” He is saying to them, “Now you, who are you saying that I
am?” Now answering, Simon Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God.” Now, answering, Jesus said to him, “Happy are you, Simon
Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood does not reveal it to you, but My Father Who is
in the heavens.”
This is a key passage
to our understanding of the identity of both Jesus Christ and God. What did
Peter mean when he declared Jesus to be the “Son of the living God?” To begin
to answer this question we must first identify the “living God” of whom Peter
spoke. In Jeremiah 10:10 we read, “But Yahweh is the
true God; he is the living God and the eonian King.” Here the “living
God” is identified by the prophet Jeremiah as Yahweh, the one God of Israel. He
is also referred to as the “true God” by Christ (John 17:3) and as the “eonian
King” by Paul (1 Tim 1:17). Thus, when Peter identified Jesus as the “Son of
the living God” he was affirming that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh, the one, true
God of Israel. But what does it mean to say that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh?
Clearly it does not mean that Jesus is
Yahweh, the one God of Israel. If Yahweh is Jesus’ Father, then he is
necessarily distinct from Jesus. When Peter called Christ the “Son of God,” he
was expressing his understanding that Christ had been directly fathered by
Yahweh, and thus enjoyed a unique relationship with him.
The Messiah had
consistently been prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures as being a human man – a
created person belonging to Adam’s race – and thus distinct from the one God of
Israel (Gen 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; 49:10; Numbers 24:17-19; Deut. 18:15; 2Sa
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; Dan 7:13; Zech. 6:12-13;
Micah 5:2). The first prophetic reference to Jesus, the Son of God, is to the
“seed of the woman” who would bruise the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). We
thus find that, from the very beginning, Christ’s identity has been tied to his
humanity (being the human “seed” of someone who existed before him). Every
other prophetic reference to Christ is consistent with this fact, and is in no
way suggestive of the idea that the Messiah was already in existence as some
“pre-human” celestial being.
Psalm 110:1 and
Daniel 7:13 are also highly relevant with regards to Jesus’ identity. In Psalm
110:1, we read, “Yahweh said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my
right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here we find God
inviting a person distinct from himself to sit at his “right hand.” While it is
clear that this person would be superior in authority to David (hence David
calls him adoni, or “Lord”), it is equally clear that he is distinguished from
- and in some sense inferior to – Yahweh himself. We also know that this verse
did not begin to be fulfilled until after
Christ’s resurrection and ascension (Acts 2:32-35; Heb. 10:12-13). There was,
in other words, no pre-human, celestial “Jesus” to whom this verse had any
application prior to the beginning of Jesus’ life on earth.
In Daniel 7:13, the
Messiah is described in a prophetic vision as being “one like a son of mankind”
and is distinguished from “the Ancient of Days” (or “Transferrer of Days,” as
the CVOT has it) before whom he is presented, and from whom he receives his
kingdom and authority. This “Transferrer of Days” is portrayed as a single,
personal being (v. 9), and is clearly a title for Yahweh, the God of Daniel and
his people (Dan 9:4, 9, 13). It is Yahweh who is also (and more frequently)
referred to in Daniel as the “Most High” or “the Supreme” (Dan 3:26; 4:2, 17,
24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18, 21; 7:18, 22, 25, 27). In both verses we find that the
Messiah would be a man who, although highly exalted far above all other human
beings and given authority that is second only to Yahweh’s, is not to be
identified with Yahweh himself.
We know that it had
been prophesied long before Peter’s day that the Christ would be fathered by
Yahweh himself. Quoting Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:1, the author of Hebrews wrote in
Heb. 1:5: “For to which of the angels did God ever
say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a
father, and he shall be to me a son’?” If these verses are to be
understood as conveying anything meaningful, there must have been a time before the Messiah was begotten by God
and became God’s Son. But when did God become the Father of Jesus?
In Matt 1:18-21 we
read:
Now Jesus Christ's birth [Greek: gennēsis] was thus: At the espousal
of His mother, Mary, to Joseph, ere their coming together, she was found pregnant by holy spirit. Now Joseph, her husband,
being just and not willing to hold her up to infamy, intended covertly to
dismiss her. Now at his brooding over these things, lo! a messenger of the Lord
appeared to him in a trance, saying, “Joseph, son of David, you may not be
afraid to accept Miriam, your wife, for
that which is being generated [gennaō] in her is of holy spirit. Now she shall be bringing forth a Son, and you
shall be calling His name Jesus, for He shall be saving His people from their
sins.”
And in Luke 1:31-35,
we read:
“And lo! you shall be conceiving and be pregnant and be
bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus. He shall be
great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be
giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house
of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation.” Yet
Miriam said to the messenger, “How shall this be, since I know not a man?” And
answering, the messenger said to her, “Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and
the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore [i.e., as a result of
which] also
the holy One Who is being generated [gennaō] shall be called the Son of God.”
The Greek word translated
“generated” in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (gennaō) simply means “become.” However, the exact idea that the writer or speaker
intended to communicate by means of it depended on its usage. When the word was
used in reference to what a child’s father was understood as being responsible
for, it meant “to generate” or “beget” (see, for example, all the “begetting”
that is referred in Matt. 1:2-16). On the other hand, when the word was used in
reference to what a child’s mother was understood as being responsible for, it
meant “to bear” or “give birth to” (for this latter usage, see, for example,
Luke 1:13 and 1:57). Since, in the passages quoted above, the one who is
responsible for the gennaō of Jesus is clearly God, the Father, the
word is rightly translated “generated.”
This is a key point
to keep in mind. For, in contrast with when a woman “bears” or gives birth to a
child, when a man “generates” or “begets” a child it involves the bringing into
existence of a human person that previously did not exist. With the exception
of Mormons and those who believe in reincarnation, no one imagines that, before
Isaac was begotten by Abraham or Jacob was begotten by Isaac (Matt. 1:2), these
two human beings were already alive and in existence somewhere. No, we rightly
understand the “begetting” (or generating) of Isaac by Abraham and of Jacob by
Isaac to have involved their being brought into existence by means of their
fathers. And in the two passages quoted above, we’re being told that Jesus was
“generated” – i.e., brought into existence - by God himself (thus making God -
rather than Joseph - Jesus’ actual father).
A straight-forward
understanding of what we’re being told in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 will, I
believe, lead one to the logical conclusion that the “generating” of Jesus
within his mother Miriam involved the coming into existence of someone who did
not previously exist. Moreover, it is clear from Luke 1:35 that Jesus’ being
the holy “Son of God” is directly tied to (being the result of) his being
supernaturally generated by the direct power of God. That is, Jesus Christ is
the “Son of God” because he was
directly “generated” within Miriam by the unseen power
of God. This fact is crucial to understanding Christ’s identity as the Son of
God. Simply put, there was no Son of God (and thus no
Father-Son relationship between God and Jesus) until after Jesus was
“generated” in the womb of his mother by God. The assertion of uninspired Roman
Catholic and Protestant creeds notwithstanding, there is no suggestion in
Scripture that Jesus was “begotten by the Father before all ages,” or that he
pre-existed as the Son of God (let alone as “God the Son”) before the time he
was “being generated” by God within the
womb of his mother.
Notice that the
generating of Jesus within Miriam is attributed solely to the activity of
Jesus’ God and Father. In Matthew’s account we read that Miriam ”was
found pregnant by holy spirit”
and that he who was ”being generated in her is of holy spirit.” Similarly, in Luke’s account, we read
that Miriam was told by Gabriel, “Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power
of the Most High shall be overshadowing you.” There is absolutely nothing said in these accounts or
elsewhere about a pre-existent Christ - human or otherwise - entering into
Miriam and being transformed into an (embryonic) human person. When Gabriel
told Miriam that “holy spirit” would be “coming on [her],” the celestial messenger wasn’t
referring to anything personally distinct from God himself (who, we’re by
Christ in John 4:24, “is Spirit”). The “holy
spirit” referred to in each of the verses quoted above is God’s own spirit
(i.e., his unseen, personal essence), and the “power” referred to in Luke 1:35
is God’s own power. God’s power and his holy spirit are inseparable; no matter
how subtle or inconspicuous the activity of God’s spirit may seem, it is always
an expression of his divine power.[1]
There is,
consequently, no indication that a pre-existent human person was either
actively or passively involved in Jesus’
being generated by God within the womb of his mother (something which should
come as no surprise to the reader, given the fact that for someone to be
“generated” by their father - including the human person who received the name
“Jesus” and the title “Christ” – is for them to be brought into existence).
Miriam, of course, passively contributed to the generation of Christ by
providing the egg that God supernaturally fertilized (as well as the womb in
which Christ came into being), but the only other person who we’re told was
involved in Christ’s being generated was God himself.
It should also be
noted that the same word translated “generated” in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 (gennao) is translated “begotten” in Acts
13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. In each of these verses, it is the resurrection of
Jesus - rather than his conception - that is in view; thus, the gennao
of Jesus by God
referred to here most likely refers to Jesus’ resurrection. If this is the
case, then this usage of gennao provides further evidence that, when used in reference to that
for which a father is responsible, the word involves the child’s being brought
into existence. For, as those who understand the nature of death will know,
Christ ceased to exist when he died. That is, for three days
and nights, Jesus did not exist, and was utterly dependent on his God and
Father to bring him back into existence by resurrecting him. It is because
Christ’s resurrection was an event that involved God’s bringing Christ back
into existence that the “begetting” imagery was used. Christ’s resurrection was
essentially the second time that the Son was brought into existence by the
Father. Although Jesus did not become the Son of God for the first time when he
was resurrected, it was at this time that he was “designated
the Son of God with power“ (Rom.
1:4).
As a summary of this
section, consider the following argument:
1. The person who was
given the name “Jesus” and the title “Christ” is said to have been “generated”
(gennao) by God.
2. When referring to
an event for which the father of a child was understood as responsible, the
word translated “generated” or “begotten” in scripture (gennao) is to be understood as involving a person’s being brought
into existence.
3. The person who was
given the name “Jesus” and the title “Christ” was first brought into existence
by God within the womb of his mother, Miriam, and after he died was
subsequently brought back into existence by God when he was roused from among
the dead.
With regards to the
question of whether or not Christ was alive before his conception, the burden
of proof is, I believe, on those who would disagree with the conclusion of this
argument. That Jesus’ existence began within the womb of his mother should be
the “default” position that is affirmed by the believer unless it can be shown that scripture clearly and unambiguously reveals otherwise. In order to refute
the above argument, compelling evidence from scripture must be provided that
proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus’ life began at some point prior
to when he was generated by God within his mother’s womb. If this can’t be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the most reasonable position to take is
that Jesus’ existence began when he was generated by his Father.
Part Two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/was-jesus-christ-alive-before-his-life_18.html
Part Two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/was-jesus-christ-alive-before-his-life_18.html
[1] The words “holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most
High shall be overshadowing you” are most likely an example of the
figure of speech known as “synonymous parallelism.” According to this figure of
speech, the same basic/general idea is repeated by using two different words or
expressions for the sake of emphasis (for some other examples of this figure of
speech, see Job 4:17; 8:11, 15; 27:3-4; 34:14; Psalm 1:5;
19:1-2; 24:1-2; 38:1; 119:105; Prov. 3:1; Isaiah 42:5).
Good work Aaron.
ReplyDelete