A consideration of passages thought to reveal the "preexistence of Christ": The letter to the Hebrews

Hebrews 1

1 By many portions and many modes, of old, God, speaking to the fathers in the prophets,
2 in the last of these days speaks to us in a Son, Whom He appoints enjoyer of the allotment of all, through Whom He also makes the eons;
3 Who, being the Effulgence of His glory and Emblem of His assumption, besides carrying on all by His powerful declaration, making a cleansing of sins, is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights;
4 becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.

In a Nutshell: The “Son” whom God “appoints enjoyer of the allotment of all,” is, of course the Lord Jesus Christ, and his “Sonship” is inseparable from the fact that he was generated by God in the womb of his mother, Miriam. It is Christ in whom God has been speaking since the beginning of “the last of these days,” and not at any time before. In accord with this fact, “the eons” in view in v. 2 are the eons during which Christ will be reigning after the kingdom of God has been established on the earth. These final eons are elsewhere referred to in Scripture as simply “the eons” (Matt. 6:13; Luke 1:33; Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31; Heb. 13:8; Jude 25) and as “the eons of the eons” (Gal.1:5; Phil.4:20; 1 Tim.1:17; 2Tim.4:18; Heb.13:21; 1 Pet.4:11; 5:11; Rev.1:6, 18; 4:9,10; 5:13,14; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5). Thus, “the eons” that God makes through his Son are the eons that will transpire during the Son’s reign.

Expanded Explanation: Those who believe Christ’s life began prior to his conception usually understand the last part of v. 2 as supporting this fact. The assumption is that “the eons” referred to are not just the eons of the future, but the eons of the past as well. For those who already believe (or are inclined to believe) that scripture clearly reveals that the Son of God pre-existed his conception, it’s not hard to see why they would want to believe that “the eons” in view here include both those eons that are future as well as those which began before Christ was conceived. However, if one is not already convinced of this position (and has reasons to believe that the Son of God has never existed as a non-human being), then it will not seem so obvious that “the eons” that the author had in mind in this passage include those which began before Christ was conceived.

In light of the immediate and larger context, I believe it is reasonable to understand the writer as having had in mind the two glorious eons during which the Son of God will be reigning. As has been argued elsewhere, Jesus is the “Son of God” by virtue of his having been supernaturally generated by God in the womb of his mother (Luke 1:35). Thus, when the writer tells us that it is through the Son that God “makes the eons,” it is most reasonable to infer that the eons in view are those which Jesus Christ, as the Son, will be involved in making. Consider also the fact that, in the introduction to the letter to the Hebrews, the writer is emphasizing what became true after God began “speaking to us in a Son” in “the last of these days.” In other words, the immediate context in which we’re told that God “makes the eons” through the Son is not about what occurred before God began speaking to us in a Son. It’s about what occurred after God began speaking to us in a Son.

Moreover, it’s reasonable (as far as scripturally-informed logic goes) to say that Christ became the one through whom God “makes the eons” after he became “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.” Did any of the messengers – or indeed, any other created celestial being at all - have such great authority as to be the agent through whom God “makes the eons?” No. Not even Christ himself was given “all authority in heaven and on the earth” and graced with “the name that is above every name” until after his death and resurrection (Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:8-11). The Son of God through whom God “makes the eons” is the same Son of God who received this preeminent authority by virtue of his having made “a cleansing of sins” by his sacrificial death, and who (because of his obedient death) is consequently now “seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights.”

Some may be inclined to object that “the eons” spoken of aren’t specifically referred to as future eons, and that the most “natural” way to interpret the expression “the eons” is as a reference to all of the eons. However, this sort of objection fails in light of the simple fact that the two future eons are, in other contexts, referred to as both “the eons of the eons” (Gal.1:5; Phil.4:20; 1 Tim.1:17; 2Tim.4:18; Heb.13:21; 1 Pet.4:11; 5:11; Rev.1:6, 18; 4:9,10; 5:13,14; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5) as well as simply “the eons” (Matt. 6:13; Luke 1:33; Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31; Heb. 13:8; Jude 25). Thus, I see no compelling reason why the reference to “the eons” in Heb. 1:3 can’t be a reference to the future eons of Christ’s reign.

Concerning the last set of verses referenced above (where we read of “the eons”), A.E. Knoch remarks as follows on page 175 of his book All in All:

“That there are eons in the future is clearly shown by Christ’s reign over the house of Jacob for the next two eons (Luke 1:33). It is during these two eons that the results of His suffering and shame and death will reap its rich fruition. They are the eons of blessing in a very notable way – such as could not be the case now and as will hardly be appropriate after the consummation. And this fact it is that blends in blessed harmony with the doxologies which sing of His conquest over sin (Rom. 1:25), His relationship to the eonian nation (Rom. 9:5), the truth that not only all is out of Him and through Him, but will be for Him in these eons (Rom. 11:36), the full realization of the reconciliation (Rom. 16:27), and its ministry by the apostle (2 Cor. 11:31).”

In light of what Knoch wrote above, one cannot object to the fact that the writer of Hebrews doesn’t explicitly tell us that the eons in view in v. 2 are future eons, since the plural “eons” is used elsewhere in Scripture in reference to eons that we can reasonably conclude are future without the writer explicitly having to inform us of this fact (in the same way, the next eon – i.e., that which will begin when Christ returns to earth - is not always referred to as the eon that is “to come,” yet we know from the context that the next eon is in view without having to be explicitly told so). The immediate context in which the plural “eons” is used in these verses informs us that they’re to be understood as the eons that are to come, during which Christ will be reigning until the consummation. And, I believe, the same can be said for Hebrews 1:2. The eons that we’re told God “makes” through his Son are, I submit, the eons during which the Son will be reigning.

Hebrews 1

10 And, Thou, originally, Lord, dost found the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands.
11 They shall perish, yet Thou art continuing, And all, as a cloak, shall be aged,
12 And, as if clothing, wilt Thou be rolling them up. As a cloak also shall they change. Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be defaulting.

13 Now [or “Yet”] to which of the messengers has He declared at any time, “Sit at My right, till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits commissioned for service because of those who are about to be enjoying the allotment of salvation?

In a Nutshell: Verses 10-12 are a quotation of Psalm 102:25-28, and in these verses the Psalmist was addressing God (i.e., Yahweh). The “Lord” being addressed in v. 10 is, in other words, the same person referred to as “He” in v. 13 (i.e., the Father of Jesus). The writer’s point in quoting Psalm 102:25-28 before Psalm 110 (which the writer quotes in v. 13) is to demonstrate that the same transcendent relationship to, and absolute authority over, “the works of [God’s] hands”  (which God is described as having in Psalm 102:25-28) has been given to the Messiah (who, in fulfillment of Psalm 102, now “sits at God’s right,” having been given all authority in heaven and on earth and placed over the works of God’s hands).

Expanded Explanation: This entire passage (i.e., verses 5-14) is a scripture-based defense of the claim made in v. 4 that Jesus, the Son of God, is superior to the messengers of God. The passage also has a certain logical structure, with different verses being linked together to form a distinct argument for the overall position being advanced by the writer of this letter. Below is how I understand the way in which the writer’s scripture-based arguments should be grouped (notice how the first section begins with the word “For” and the last two sections begin with the word “And”):

First Argument Section

5 For to whom of the messengers said He at any time, "My Son art Thou! I, today, have begotten Thee"? And again, "I shall be to Him for a Father And He shall be to Me for a Son"?

6 Now [or “Yet”], whenever He may again be leading the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He is saying: And worship Him, all the messengers of God!

Second Argument Section

7 And, indeed, to the messengers He is saying, "Who is making His messengers blasts, And His ministers a flame of fire."
8 Yet to the Son: "Thy throne, O God, is for the eon of the eon, And a scepter of rectitude is the scepter of Thy kingdom.
9 Thou lovest righteousness and hatest injustice; Therefore Thou art anointed by God, Thy God, with the oil of exultation beyond Thy partners."

Third Argument Section

10 And, Thou, originally, Lord, dost found the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands.
11 They shall perish, yet Thou art continuing, And all, as a cloak, shall be aged,
12 And, as if clothing, wilt Thou be rolling them up. As a cloak also shall they change. Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be defaulting.

13 Now [or “Yet”] to which of the messengers has He declared at any time, “Sit at My right, till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits commissioned for service because of those who are about to be enjoying the allotment of salvation?

(It should be noted that v. 14 can be understood as a conclusion to all three sections/units, and not just the conclusion of the last.)

A few things may be said in defense of this understanding of the structure of the passage. First, the writer used the word “for” (gar) to introduce his first scripture-based argument (found in verses 5-6), and then used the word “and” (kai) to introduce his second argument (found in verses 7-9). Moreover, when the writer of Hebrews contrasted a verse or passage with another, he used the word de (which, in the CLNT, is translated as two different words in Hebrews 1: “now” in verses 6 and 13, and “yet” in v. 8).

Moreover, when the writer quoted an additional Old Testament verse to support the same point being made by the verse previously quoted, he linked the verses with the word “again” (palin) rather than the word “and” (kai) alone (Heb. 1:5; for other examples of this use of palin, see Heb. 2:13, 4:5, 10:30; cf. Romans 15:9-12). Thus, had the author intended his quotation of Psalm 102 in verses 10-12 to be understood as another example from the Old Testament of how Christ is superior to the angels, he would’ve most likely used palin (“again”) or kai palin (“and again”), and not merely kai (“and”) alone. It can therefore be inferred that, by using kai alone in v. 10 (rather than using palin or kai palin), the writer is beginning a new argument (which, again, means that verses 10-12 are linked with verse 13). We should not, therefore, understand verses 10-12 as making the same sort of point, and as serving the same purpose, as verses 8-9. It’s most reasonable to understand v. 10 as the beginning of a new argument (an argument which includes v. 13 as well).

But what purpose do verses 10-12 serve in the writer’s argument? In order to answer this question, we first need to identify the person being addressed in these verses. Verses 10-12 are a quotation of Psalm 102:25-28:

Beforetime You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish, yet You shall stand. All of them shall decay like a cloak; Like clothing, You shall change them, and they shall pass by. Yet You remain the same, And Your years shall not come to end.

This Psalm is actually the fourth Psalm quoted in Hebrews 1. The last Psalm that was quoted by the writer of Hebrews is Psalm 45, and (unlike Psalm 102, as we’ll see below), this Psalm is clearly “Messianic” in its focus and theme. In Psalm 45:6-7, the Psalmist was clearly addressing and referring to the future Messiah (which likely would’ve been the opinion of the original recipients of the letter to the Hebrews, and accounts for the author’s use of it). The person of elevated status being prophetically referred to in this Psalm was clearly not Yahweh himself, for he is distinguished from Yahweh (who, we’re told, is the God who would be anointing this future ruler “with the oil of exultation beyond his partners”).

In contrast with Psalm 45:6-7, there is no good, contextually-informed reason to believe that the person being addressed in Psalm 102:25-28 is anyone other than Yahweh himself, and it’s highly unlikely that the original recipients of the letter to the Hebrews would’ve understood it in any other way. That the person being addressed throughout the entirety of this Psalm is Yahweh himself seems clear from even a cursory reading of Psalm 102 (see Psalm 102:1-2 and 12-24). Unlike in Psalm 45:6-7, there is no indication that the author of Psalm 102 understood himself to have been addressing someone other than the one God of Israel, or that he believed himself to have been referring to the future Messiah or Son of God. From verse one it’s evident that the Psalmist believed himself to be addressing his prayer to Yahweh, and he clearly believed himself to be addressing the same divine being in verses 25-27.

Moreover, it should be noted that the words “Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be defaulting” (v. 12) is simply a way of emphasizing God’s inability to die. The fact that God’s “years shall not be defaulting” (or “shall not come to end”) simply means God cannot die (and note that this was something the Psalmist considered to be true of the person he was addressing when he wrote Psalm 102). In fact, one proponent of the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ has, on several occasions, referenced this very verse from Psalm 102 as scriptural proof of the fact that God cannot die.[1] Since this verse refers to the inherent immortality that God has always had (including when Psalm 102 was written), it cannot be understood as a reference to Christ. For, after being alive on the earth for approximately 33 years, Christ died and remained dead for three days. In other words, Christ’s “years defaulted.” God, on the other hand, has always been immortal; it was just as true when Psalm 102 was written as it is today that his years “shall not come to end.”

It should also be noted that, if Psalm 102:25-28 has the original creation of the heavens and the earth in view (as I believe that it does), then there is scriptural evidence that undermines the view that anyone other than Yahweh (God, the Father) was involved in this event. We’ve already looked at this evidence in an earlier article, so the reader is encouraged to read what was said there for a fuller defense of this point. In Isaiah 44:24, we read, “Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am Yahweh, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself…” In the article referred to, I noted that, if Yahweh had wanted to communicate the fact that he created everything directly and without anyone else’s involvement, there would’ve been no clearer and more succinct way of doing so than is stated in the this verse. It is evident that only one person was speaking these words, and the words “alone” and “by myself” rule out any sort of intermediary agent used by the person speaking to accomplish the creation of the heavens and the earth. If the one speaking is to be understood as Yahweh himself, then he created everything without the involvement or aid of a “pre-existent Jesus Christ.” If it was Jesus Christ speaking, then he created everything without the involvement or aid of his God and Father. Since the latter is clearly impossible, then we must understand God, the Father, to have been the sole creator of the heavens and the earth.

That the “Lord” being addressed in Psalm 102:25 is Yahweh, the God of Jesus Christ (rather than Jesus, his Son), is not only evident from the context of Psalm 102, but it is also evident from how the “He” of verse 13 points back to the “Lord” who is in view in the previous verses:

10 And, Thou, originally, Lord, dost found the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands.
11 They shall perish, yet Thou art continuing, And all, as a cloak, shall be aged,

12 And, as if clothing, wilt Thou be rolling them up. As a cloak also shall they change. Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be defaulting.

13 Now to which of the messengers has He declared at any time, “Sit at My right, till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet”?

The nearest antecedent of the personal pronoun “He” in v. 13 is the “Lord” referred to previously in verses 10-12. Thus, the pronoun “he” should be understood as referring back to the person referred to in these verses as “Lord” and “Thou.” Since the “He” of v. 13 is the Father (at whose right hand Christ is sitting), we can understand the same divine person to be in view in verses 10-12.

This is further evidenced from Hebrews 2:6-8, where the writer quotes from another Psalm:

6 Yet somewhere someone certifies, saying, "What is man, that Thou art mindful of him, Or a son of mankind, that Thou art visiting him?
7 Thou makest him some bit inferior to messengers, With glory and honor Thou wreathest him, And dost place him over the works of Thy hands.
8 All dost Thou subject underneath his feet."

Notice the expression “The works of Thy hands” in v. 7. This same expression was used in the author’s quotation of Psalm 102:25 (“And the heavens are the works of Thy hands”). Even apart from what has already been said, it would be reasonable to believe that the person being referred to with the possessive pronoun “Thy” in Heb. 2:7 is identical with the person being referred to as “Thy” in Heb. 1:10-12. Since the expression “the works of Thy hands” in Heb. 2:6-8 refers to the works of God, the Father, consistency would demand that the same expression used in Heb. 1:10 (“The works of Thy hands”) also refers to the works of God, the Father. It is God’s “hands” that are in view in both verses, and it is difficult to believe that any Jewish reader of this letter would’ve thought that Jesus, the Son of God, was being referred to here.

Having provided evidence that the person being addressed in Psalm 102:25-27 (and in the quotation of this Psalm in Heb. 1:10-12) is none other than God (i.e., Yahweh, the Father), let’s return to the question asked earlier: What purpose does Psalm 102:25-28 serve in the writer’s argument? Psalm 102:25-28 is a passage that emphasizes God’s transcendent relationship to, and absolute authority over, the “works of [his] hands” (i.e., the heavens and the earth). Let’s look at it again:

And, Thou, originally, Lord, dost found the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands. They shall perish, yet Thou art continuing, And all, as a cloak, shall be aged, And, as if clothing, wilt Thou be rolling them up. As a cloak also shall they change. Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be defaulting.

Notice that we’re not only told that God is the one who created the heavens and the earth, but that he’s the one who will be “rolling them up” and changing them at some future time. In other words, the idea being conveyed here (perhaps more so in this passage than in any other passage of scripture) is that God is absolutely sovereign over the universe. He created the heavens and the earth, and when he decides it’s time, he will replace the heavens and the earth. 

Keeping this point in mind, let’s now consider Psalm 110:1, which is quoted by the writer of Hebrews in v. 13. In contrast with Psalm 102, Psalm 110 is clearly a Messianic prophecy revealing that God would give some person distinct from himself (i.e., the Messiah) his authority. “Now [or “Yet”] to which of the messengers has He declared at any time, “Sit at My right, till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet”?” For Christ to be invited to sit at God’s “right” (or “right hand”) means for him to be given that authority which formerly belonged exclusively to God – i.e., all authority in heaven and on the earth.

Thus, the pairing of Psalm 102 with Psalm 110 conveys the following idea: The same transcendent relationship to, and absolute authority over, “the works of [God’s] hands” that God is described as having in Psalm 102:25-28 has, according to Psalm 110, been given to the Messiah. This, then, is the connection between the writer’s use of Psalm 102 and Psalm 110. Together, these verses constitute what is perhaps the most powerful argument that the writer of the letter to the Hebrews makes for Christ’s superiority over the messengers. The quotation of Psalm 102:25-28 right before Psalm 110:1 is the author’s “one-two punch,” so to speak.

To make this point as clear as possible, consider again Hebrews 2:8-8 (which we quoted earlier). Christ is the representative/ideal “man” and “son of mankind” who is destined to fulfill (and has already begun to fulfill) the words of the Psalm quoted in these verses. It is under the feet of the “Man, Christ Jesus” that God will eventually “subject all” (1 Cor. 15:24-28), and it is the “Man, Christ Jesus” whom God has already placed over “the works of [his] hands.” This took place when, in accord with Psalm 110:1, God gave Christ “all authority in heaven and on the earth” and sat Christ at his “right hand.” Thus, keeping in mind the fact that Psalm 102:25-28 emphasizes God’s transcendent relationship to, and absolute authority over, “the works of his hands,” we can conclude that, by quoting these verses just before quoting Psalm 110:1, the writer of Hebrews was simply setting the stage to deliver a final, knock-down argument in defense of the truth that Christ is superior to the messengers of God.

Hebrews 10:5-7

5 Wherefore, entering into the world, He is saying, Sacrifice and approach present Thou dost not will, Yet a body dost Thou adapt to Me.
6 In ascent approaches and those concerning sin Thou dost not delight.
7 Then said I, "Lo! I am arriving-In the summary of the scroll it is written concerning Me-To do Thy will, O God."

In a Nutshell: Christ entered into the world (in the sense referred to in v. 5) when he was dispatched into the world by God, and the sense in which Christ was dispatched into the world by God is found in John 17:18 (where we’re told that Christ dispatched his disciples into the world just as he was dispatched into the world by God). In other words, the “entering into the world” by Christ referred to in Heb. 10:5 took place at the beginning of his public ministry. It is at this time that Christ declared the words quoted above.

Expanded Explanation: Some – but not all - who believe that Christ pre-existed his conception understand this passage as supporting their position. It’s believed that, when we’re told that Christ was “entering into the world,” this involved a pre-human being being “incarnated” as a human, and being provided a human body. However, I don’t think the language of this passage commits us to a view that essentially involves a pre-existent, celestial spirit-being declaring the words quoted above while being transformed into a human zygote. I believe that everything said here is perfectly consistent with the view that Christ’s life began when he was conceived in his mother’s womb.

First, it should be noted that the words “entering the world” don’t necessarily involve being conceived. In John 17:4 and 16 we read that Christ’s disciples were “not of the world” in the same sense that Christ is said to have been “not of the world.” And then, in v. 18, Christ declared the following concerning his disciples: “According as Thou dost dispatch Me into the world, I also dispatch them into the world.” In other words, Christ’s disciples – who, like Christ, were “not of the world” – were dispatched into the world in the sense in which Christ was dispatched into the world by his Father. Of course, none of this language used by Christ implies or presupposes that Christ’s disciples pre-existed their conception.

Thus, in whatever sense we are to understand how Christ dispatched his disciples into the world, it is in this sense that we are to understand how Christ was dispatched into the world by his Father. The former involved Christ’s (adult) disciples being dispatched into the world in order to do the public ministry to which they had been called and appointed (and their being dispatched into the world by Christ would’ve involved their “entering into the world” to  begin their ministry). This, then, is how we should understand Christ’s being “dispatched into the world” by his Father. In other words, Christ’s being “dispatched into the world” (which resulted in his “entering into the world”) referred to the time at which he commenced the work on earth to which his Father appointed him, and which culminated in his sacrificial death on the cross.

It is, therefore, at the start of Christ’s public ministry that he is said to have declared the following words of Psalm 40: “Sacrifice and approach present Thou dost not will, Yet a body dost Thou adapt to Me.” Christ declared these words in full recognition of the fact that the body which God had “adapted” to him (i.e., when he was being formed in his mother’s womb; cf. Psalm 139:13-15) would eventually be sacrificed in an act of perfect obedience to his Father (Heb. 10:10).

---

[1] For example, concerning the use of the word “eonian” in Romans 16:26, Martin Zender writes: “This verse isn’t trying to tell anyone that God lives forever. Everyone already knows God lives forever. Psalm 102:27 testified long ago that, ‘His years shall have no end.’ It’s old news.” (ZWTF, Vol. 1, Issue 14, pg. 3)

When Did Christ's Life Begin? A Response to Some Miscellaneous Objections + Further Remarks on Colossians 1:15-17 and the Preeminence and Authority of Christ

Before I begin sharing my understanding of certain passages from the letter to the Hebrews that are commonly thought to be inconsistent with the position I’ve been defending concerning when Christ’s life began (which will be the subject of my next article), I want to first address a few objections I’ve received from other believers on the subject of Christ’s preexistence. After this, I want to share a few more thoughts on Col. 1:15-17 and the related subject of Christ’s authority and preeminence.

Response to Miscellaneous Objections

Objections will appear in red.

Should the view that Christ was not the oldest created being in existence when he was conceived be considered “wrong until proven right”?

“More people believe that Christ preexisted his conception than don’t. This is not only the case today but has been the case throughout “church history.” Thus, the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ should be our starting point when we approach scripture to determine what it teaches. It’s the “undisputed champion” that must be considered the “default winner” until one can bring a scripture-based, knock-down argument against it.”

If majority acceptance and tradition are to be understood as determining which doctrines we should assume to be correct when we approach scripture (at least, unless we’re given compelling reasons to believe otherwise), then the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ is, without a doubt, the “undisputed champion” in comparison to the position I’ve been defending (but, of course, Goliath was considered the “undisputed champion” in his day, and we all know how that turned out). Despite the fact that the position to which I hold is not a popular or well-respected one, I believe it is more than capable of “holding its own” against the more commonly-accepted view.

With regards to the subject of when Christ’s existence began, the prophetic narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures concerning the identity of the Messiah and the simple, straight-forward account of Jesus’ origin in the Greek Scriptures should, I believe, be our true starting point. And when we let this be our starting point, I believe it will be difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that Christ’s existence began when he was supernaturally conceived in his mother’s womb, and that Christ – the “last Adam” - has never been (nor was ever prophetically spoken of as being) anything other than a human being. In other words – and contrary to the preexistence view - Christ was not the oldest created person in existence when he was conceived in the womb of his mother. On his seventh birthday, our Lord turned seven years old. And when he was around the age of thirty-three, our Lord committed his spirit to God, breathed his last, and died.

The belief that the life of a human being – even one supernaturally generated – does not begin until they’ve been conceived is one of the most natural and reasonable beliefs to which one can hold. Believing that Jesus’ life began when he was conceived in his mother’s womb is not something that one should be expected to reject or doubt until one can be 100% certain that the rest of scripture is consistent with it. Even apart from what I see as the scriptural evidence for this position, the belief that Jesus’ life began at conception is, I submit, a reasonable starting point when we’re thinking about the question of Jesus’ origin. And if this is, in fact, the case, then it is actually those who deny that Jesus’ life began when he was conceived in his mother’s womb from whom one should demand compelling, “knock-down evidence” (apart from which, the position that Christ’s life began at conception should be seen as the most natural and reasonable one to take).

So, is there any such compelling “knock-down evidence” for the view that Christ’s life began long before he was actually generated by God in his mother’s womb, and that he was, in fact, the oldest created person in existence when he was conceived? After having examined all of the primary proof-texts that are thought by proponents of the “preexistence” view to provide the sort of compelling evidence needed to overturn what I consider to be a completely reasonable and natural position to take, I’ve found each and every one of the “proof-texts” to be completely consistent with the view that Christ is, and always has been, a human being whose life began at conception. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that, despite my attempt to demonstrate that every “proof-text” for the preexistence view is, in fact, consistent with my own view, I could be wrong about how I think one or more of these passages should be understood. However, it should be noted that, even if my own understanding of a certain verse or passage is mistaken, it doesn’t mean the verse or passage necessarily supports the preexistence view rather than my own overall position. To say otherwise would be like saying that the doctrine of the trinity must be true just because an opponent of this doctrine has misunderstood one of the passages thought to support it.

Does the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ honor and elevate Christ more than the alternative view?

“Why do you not see how glorious and wonderful it is that our heavenly father begot his precious son in heaven billions of years ago? This view elevates and honors Christ more than the view which says his life began in the womb of his mother, and that he has never been anything other than a human being.”

Ironically, this same sort of argument is made by Trinitarians and Modalists against those holding to a “unitarian” view of God and Christ (including the “Arian” view) all the time. It is said that any view which denies that Christ is “fully God” and does not affirm that he is an uncreated, eternal being is less honoring to Christ (and less glorious and praiseworthy) than one that affirms his “absolute deity.” But of course, this simply isn’t the case. The view that most honors and glorifies Christ is whatever view that is actually affirmed by scripture.

Given this fact, I can’t say that I see the view that Christ was begotten “in heaven billions of years ago” as more “glorious and wonderful” than the one to which I hold, simply because I don’t see it as being taught in scripture. I believe our heavenly Father begot his Son when he was supernaturally conceived in the womb of his mother. This, to me, is a more glorious and wonderful truth simply because I believe it’s scriptural. As I’ve argued in my first post on this subject, the very title “Son of God” is inseparably tied to the fact that Jesus was supernaturally generated by God in the womb of his mother, thus making God his Father. The scriptural view is that Christ was begotten on earth (twice, if you count his resurrection), not “in heaven billions of years ago.”

If anything, it is the view which affirms that Christ has never been anything other than a human which I believe makes far more of Christ’s faith than the view which implies that he spent billions of years in heaven in the very presence of God before being “incarnated” as a human on earth. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that Christ's faith in God was actually GREATER than it would've been had he originally existed in heaven in the very presence of God for billions of years.

According to the view which I believe to be most scriptural, Christ had no memory – and couldn’t have had any memory – of having once existed in heaven in the presence of God as a glorious, spiritual being among other celestial beings. The only life he knew while on earth was the life into which he was born and in which he grew up. The memory of previously existing as a glorious spiritual being dwelling in the presence of God among other celestial beings was just as foreign to him as it is to us. Before he committed his spirit to God and breathed his last on the cross, he had no memory or experiential knowledge whatsoever of what it was like to be anything other than a mortal human being – a being who had seen other mortals die and (with only a few miraculous exceptions) remain dead. And even more than this, it doesn’t seem like Christ had any more knowledge of what would happen to him after he died than is provided in the scriptures. It was in these somber and sobering circumstances that Christ - in full obedience to his God and Father - took that last step into the darkness and into the "shadow of death." And the only thing that enabled him to take this final step of obedience was his faith in God, and the expectation that was based on the faith that he had.

When we contrast the doctrine of Christ's preexistence in heaven with the view which affirms that Christ's existence began as a human on a sin-and-death ravaged earth during this “present wicked eon,” it seems to me that the latter view makes far, far more of Christ’s faith than the former.

More on the Word of God in John 1:1-5

“I agree that God’s “word” is something that can be personified (just like God’s wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8). However, I don’t see how the “word” referred to in John 1:1-5 can be interpreted as “merely” that which God spoke whenever he declared or commanded something. For one thing, we’re told that life and light were “in” this word. How can that be said of a spoken word? Also, Jesus is explicitly called “the Word of God” in Rev. 19:13.”

The Greek word translated “word” in John 1:1 and elsewhere (logos) is simply the spoken declaration by which a complete thought is expressed, or the manifestation of a thought through speech. In Gen. 1:2 we're told the Spirit of God was vibrating over the surface of the waters, with no indication that God was speaking anything yet. Then, in v. 3, we're told that God began to speak ("And God said..."). This is repeated throughout the remainder of chapter one. Each command that God spoke (and which resulted in what we read of throughout Gen. 1:3-24) is, therefore, an example God's word. It was not a person distinct from God, but something God said to express what he was thinking.

The most natural and straightforward interpretation of John 1:1-5 would, therefore, be to understand the “word” referred to as that which God literally spoke whenever he is described as speaking in Scripture (including in Genesis 1:3). Again, this is the literal meaning of the word “word” (logos), and all of the examples I provided of the “word” of Yahweh in the Old Testament are examples of something (i.e., a command or message) being spoken/declared by God. Even the “word of Yahweh” that we’re told came to Abraham in a vision (Gen. 15:1-4) was a spoken message declared to Abraham, and which was heard by Abraham during the vision (with the voice that Abraham heard being either the voice of Yahweh himself or a celestial messenger speaking on Yahweh’s behalf). But the “word of Yahweh” referred to in this verse was not literally identical with whoever it was directly speaking to Abraham in the vision; rather, the “word of Yahweh” was the message that was declared to Abraham and heard by him in the vision.

But in what sense can it be said that life (which is said to be “the light of men”) was “in” God’s word? Well, we know that, during Christ’s earthly ministry, the “word of God” came through Christ (John 14:24; 17:6, 8, 14). That is, when he spoke to people, it was as if God himself were speaking to them. And significantly, we’re told that the very declarations that Chris spoke were “spirit and life” (John 6:63). If one can make sense of the statement that Jesus’ declarations were “spirit and life,” one shouldn’t have much difficulty making sense of the idea that “life” as well as “light” (i.e., truth, or knowledge) was “in” God’s word (which is implied in places such as Psalm 119:105, where we’re told that God’s word is “a lamp to my feet and light to my path”). Christ also said that God’s word “is truth” (John 17:17), which - given the figurative meaning of “light” - was equivalent to saying that God’s word was “light.” Again, if one can make sense of this statement by Christ, then one shouldn’t have much difficulty in understanding how “life” and “light” could be said to be “in” God’s word.

As far as Jesus’ being called the “Word of God” in Rev. 19:13, this is a title applied to the Man, Jesus Christ. It is nowhere said to be the title of a person who came into existence billions of years ago and (after existing for billions of years as a celestial spirit-being) was eventually transformed into a human. Jesus was not the “word” that existed in the beginning, but rather is what the word of God became when it “became flesh” and “tabernacled among us” (John 1:14). The logos of God - the spoken declaration by which God expresses his thoughts to his creatures - “became flesh” in the sense that it came to find its full expression and manifestation in a human being. Since this time, Jesus could appropriately be referred to as the “Word of God.” Through his words and actions, Christ – like the literal “word of Yahweh” that we read about in the Hebrew Scriptures - made known God’s thoughts and heart in a way that cannot be said of any other created being.

Further Remarks on Christ's Words in John 6

“It is clear that what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6 cannot be interpreted literally (Roman Catholic beliefs notwithstanding). This was clearly a figure of speech. But I don’t see how the same can be said about Jesus’ ‘descent from heaven’ language in this chapter. Why not just take these words literally here?” 

As argued in my earlier article in which this language from John 6 is examined, I understand Christ’s “descent from heaven” language as being an example of the same sort of figurative imagery as found in James 1:16 and 3:15, 17. As I remarked in the article, these verses from James do not mean that the good things in our lives literally descend from heaven (much less that they undergo some kind of mystical, supernatural transformation before we receive them). What James meant is clear enough: God is the author and source of the good things in our lives (including the wisdom by which the saints should live). And just as God is the direct source of “all good giving and every perfect gratuity,” so God was the direct source of the ultimate blessing – i.e., the Son whom he supernaturally generated in the womb of Miriam (Luke 1:34-35).

Even aside from the arguments I made in the original two-part article I wrote in defense of what I believe concerning when Christ’s life began, there is good reason to understand Jesus’ “descent from heaven” language as being the same sort of figurative imagery found in James. As I pointed out in my explanation of John 6, if one wants to take Jesus’ words about descending from heaven literally, they should also (to be consistent) believe that it was Jesus in his mortal, fleshly body that descended from heaven, since that’s what Christ identified the “Bread from heaven” as (see John 6:51, 58). If those holding to the doctrine of Jesus’ pre-existence don’t believe that Jesus descended from heaven with a mortal, flesh-and-blood body, then perhaps they should reconsider their view that Jesus’ words in John 6 support the doctrine of Jesus’ preexistence.

“But in John 6:46, Jesus said that only he had seen God literally. I just don’t see how this can mean anything other than that Jesus existed in heaven before his conception.”

The word “literally” wasn’t used by Jesus in John 6:46. The fact is that the word translated “seen” in John 6:46 (horaō) can, in some contexts, be understood to mean something other than “to see with the eyes.” The word can also mean to have knowledge, understanding or realization of something. A similar idiom is used by English-speakers as well, such as when one says “I see” instead of “I understand” (and I’m sure it will not have escaped the reader’s notice that I intentionally used this alternate, figurative usage of “see” in the very wording of the objection itself).

For example, in 3 John 11 we read, “Beloved, do not be imitating the evil, but the good. He who is doing good is of God. He who is doing evil has not seen God.” Clearly, no one among the saints to whom John wrote had literally seen God with their eyes (1 John 4:12). What John meant here was that those who were “doing evil” (which, in the context, meant doing what someone – i.e., Diotrephes - was doing within the ecclesia) had an ignorance of God (compare these words with Paul’s similar rebuke in 1 Cor. 15:34, in which he said that certain people within the ecclesia in Corinth had “an ignorance of God”).

In John 14:7-9, the words “see” and “know” are even used interchangeably to convey the same basic idea: If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And henceforth you know Him and have seen Him." Philip is saying to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us." Jesus is saying to him, "So much time I am with you, and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, 'Show us the Father'?

When Christ said “and henceforth you know him and have seen him,” he was using two different words to convey the same idea for the sake of emphasis (cf. 1 John 3:6). Had the disciples literally seen the Father with their own eyes? No. But as a result of the approximately three-year period of time they’d spent with Jesus during his earthly ministry, they had come to know the Father better, and – in this sense - can thus can be said to have seen him.

As far as John 6:46 goes, the sense in which Jesus alone had seen the Father is that the Father had revealed himself more clearly to Jesus than to anyone else, such that Jesus alone had come to truly know the Father in the greatest possible sense. And because Jesus alone had been given this intimate knowledge of who God is, he could then unfold the Father to others (John 1:18), so that when they “saw” (i.e., acquired knowledge of) Jesus they “saw” (acquired knowledge of) the Father.

Further Remarks on Colossians 1:15-17

Here, again, is Colossians 1:13-20 (I’ve placed in bold the verses I’ll be focusing on):

13 “[God, the Father] rescues us out of the jurisdiction of Darkness, and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
14 in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins,
15 Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature,
16 for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him,
17 and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.
18 And He is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first,
19 for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell,
20 and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.

In my original explanation of these verses, I pointed out that, according to New Testament Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, Paul’s use of the verb translated as “is created” in the CLNT (ktizō ) expresses the idea of everything’s remaining created, or standing created, in and through Christ. That is, in Col. 1:16, Paul was conveying the simple truth that God is presently maintaining all in its created state by means of his Son, Jesus Christ. In this sense, it expresses a similar (if not identical) idea as that found in Heb. 1:3, where we’re told that Christ is “carrying on all by His powerful declaration.”

In chapter eight of his book The Minister and His Greek New Testament (page 101), A.T. Robertson further explained why the word translated “is created” (ktizō ) should be understood in this way (emphasis mine): “In summary fashion Paul employs the constative aorist indicative (passive) for the work of creation [i.e., in the first part of Col. 1:16]. Then he resumes the subject and repeats what he has said, but with the present perfect (passive) tense: “All things have been created (stand in the state of creation) through him and unto him.” Notice how Robertson expresses the meaning of the second use of the verb ktizō  by Paul in v. 16 as, “stand in the state of creation.” Robertson then goes on to say, ”But Paul is not quite done with the supremacy of Christ in creation. He adds: “And in him all things consist” (1:17) or “stand together” (another present perfect indicative).”

In other words, according to Robertson (and as evidenced by the tenses used by Paul), Paul had the same basic idea in mind in v. 16 as he did in v. 17. According to Robertson, Paul used the “present perfect indicative” for the words he used in both verses 16 and 17. Verse 17 can, therefore, be understood as clarifying for his readers what sort of “creating” Paul believed Christ was/is responsible for in v. 16. That Robertson understood the word sunestēken [translated as “has its cohesion” in the CLNT] in v. 17 as conveying the same basic idea as ektistai” [“is created” in the CLNT] is clear from what he wrote in his commentary. Commenting on Col. 1:17, Robertson noted that the word sunestēken [“has its cohesion”] “repeats the statements in Col. 1:16, especially that in the form ektistai” [“is created”].

Again, this is all from a Greek scholar who had no theological bias against the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence (since he believed this doctrine himself). What Robertson had to say concerning the Greek tenses and their meaning in the above quotes is, to me, compelling evidence that Paul had in mind all of creation’s “standing in the state of creation” or “remaining in a created state” in Col. 1:16-17. Even if one does not see this grammatical evidence as a “knock-down argument” against the pre-existence interpretation of verse 16, one must admit that what Paul wrote in these verses is CONSISTENT with the view that Christ’s life began when he was generated in the womb of his mother by God, and that everything Paul wrote in Col. 1:13-20 can be understood as involving the preeminent status and work of Christ since the time of his death and resurrection.

The Preeminence and Authority of Christ

Further support for this understanding of Col. 1:16-17 is found in the fact that, until Christ died in perfect obedience to God and was subsequently roused in glory by his Father, Christ didn’t have the absolute authority over all creation that enabled (and enables) him to do what Paul describes him as doing in Col. 1:16-17. Consider the following: In Hebrews 1:4 we’re told that Christ became “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent NAME than they.” The “allotment of a more excellent name” refers to a superior and preeminent position and rank. But when did this take place? When did Christ begin enjoying “the allotment of a more excellent name than they?” Was it before Christ’s death and resurrection, or after? Answer: The writer of Hebrews apparently believed that it was after Christ’s death and resurrection that he received this elevated, preeminent position (see Heb. 2:5-9). In perfect harmony with this fact, we find in Phil. 2:8-11 that it was only after Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” that God “highly [exalted] him, and [graced him] with the NAME that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.”

Did any of the messengers – or indeed, any other created celestial being at all - have such great authority as to be the agent in and through whom everything in the heavens and on the earth “is created?” No. Christ himself wasn’t even given “all authority in heaven and on the earth” until after his death and resurrection (Matt. 28:18). This being the case, it is simply not logical (as far as scripturally-informed logic goes) in saying that Christ was the one through whom God created everything in the heavens and on the earth BEFORE Christ was “highly exalted” by God, graced with “the name that is above every name,” and given “all authority in heaven and on the earth.” The Son of God through whom all “is created” is the same Son of God who received this preeminent authority and complete superiority over all creation by virtue of having made “a cleansing of sins” by his sacrificial death, and who (because of his obedient death) is consequently now “seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights.”

There are several ways in which this argument could be more formally and succinctly expressed. Here’s just one example:

1. In order for any created being to be able to do what Christ is described by Paul as doing in Col. 1:16-17 (i.e., be the one in and through whom everything in heaven and on earth “is created” and “has its cohesion”), he would need to have the same supreme authority and preeminent position/rank as that referred to in Matt. 28:18 and Phil. 2:8-11.

2. Christ didn’t receive the supreme authority and preeminent position/rank referred to in Matt. 28:18 and Phil. 2:8-11 until after his death and resurrection.

3. What Paul wrote concerning Christ in Col. 1:16-17 is not something that could’ve been true of Christ until after his death and resurrection.

4. (Conclusion) Col. 1:16-17 pertains exclusively to Christ in his risen and glorified state.

Moreover (and as noted in the article previously referred to), the title “Firstborn of every creature” means that Christ is preeminent in rank and privilege in relation to “every creature,” while “Firstborn from among the dead” means that Christ is preeminent in rank and privilege in relation to those who have died. Even if Christ had been the first being created by God, it was Christ’s obedient, sacrificial death on the cross that made him worthy of the preeminent rank and privilege that is being expressed by these titles. Simply being created first wouldn’t have entitled our Lord to the glory and honor he received because of his obedient death. Both of these titles came to be applicable to Christ after he was resurrected by his Father and highly exalted by him, gracing him with “the name that is above every name.” It was when Jesus was roused and vivified by his Father (and not eons before he was generated) that he became “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.”

In light of the above, let’s now briefly consider Revelation 5. In this chapter, we read that God gave his Son a sealed scroll that “no one in heaven, nor yet on earth, nor yet underneath the earth” was worthy or able to open, or even “to look at.” In contrast with every other created being in the universe, Christ alone is said to be worthy to open the scroll and look at it. Why? By virtue of what, exactly, is Christ so much worthier than every other creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth such that he - and no other created being – is able to open the scroll and look at it? Is it because (as those who affirm the doctrine of Christ’s preexistence believe) Christ was the first creature created by God, and the one through whom God created everything else? Not according to what we read in this particular passage (however, it’s worth noting that, in Rev. 4:11, we read that God is “worthy…to get glory and honor and power” by virtue of the fact that it is by his will that all things “were, and are created” - and notice the interesting distinction made between everything’s having been created by God, and everything being, or remaining, created by God).

Again, I ask: By virtue of what, exactly, is Christ so much worthier than every other creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth that he - and no other created being – is said to be able to open the scroll and look at it? I submit that we can answer this question in a completely satisfactory way without having to bring (or rather, force) the doctrine of Christ’s “preexistence” into the equation at all. In fact, I believe that to attempt to account for Christ’s supreme worthiness – even in part – by appealing to the idea that he was the first creature created by God (or that he was the agent through whom God created everything else) is only a distraction from the true basis of Christ’s exalted status and worthiness in relation to the rest of creation. The fact that Christ - a sinless human being who was supernaturally generated by God - died on behalf of all in perfect obedience to God is the true basis of the worthiness that enables him to be the one who opens the scroll:

And one of the elders is saying to me, “Do not lament! Lo! He conquers! The Lion out of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, is to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals!” And I perceived, in the center of the throne and of the four animals, and in the center of the elders, a Lambkin standing, as though slain…And when It took the scroll, the four animals and the twenty-four elders fall before the Lambkin, each having a lyre, and golden bowls brimming with incenses, which are the prayers of the saints. And they are singing a new song, saying, “Worthy art Thou to be taking the scroll and to open its seals, For Thou wast slain and dost buy us for God by Thy blood.” Revelation 5:5-9

To argue (as some who hold to the preexistence of Christ have argued) that, after his death and resurrection, Christ was simply restored to the same elevated, preeminent position that he is thought to have had before he was “incarnated” is, I believe, to lose sight of (and, to a certain extent, to fail to appreciate) the full magnitude and significance of Christ’s death, and what Christ accomplished through it. It is Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross that fully accounts for his supreme worthiness in relation to the rest of creation that we read about in the above passage. And insofar as this is the case, the doctrine of Christ’s “preexistence” simply becomes a distraction from the truth of the all-sufficiency of Christ’s death.

A consideration of passages thought to reveal the "preexistence of Christ": John's Account, Part Three

John 8:58

53 Not you are greater than our father Abraham who died! And the prophets died. Whom are you making yourself to be?"
54 Jesus answered, "If I should ever be glorifying Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father Who is glorifying Me, of Whom you are saying that He is your God.
55 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.
56 Abraham, your father, exults that he may become acquainted with My day, and he was acquainted with it and rejoiced."
57 The Jews, then, said to Him, "You have not as yet lived fifty years, and you have seen Abraham!"
58 Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am.”
59 They pick up stones, then, that they should be casting them at Him. Yet Jesus was hid and came out of the sanctuary. And passing through the midst of them, He went and thus passed by.

In a Nutshell: Rather than claiming to have been alive before Abraham was (as the unbelieving Jews erroneously interpreted him as claiming), Jesus was enigmatically alluding to the fact that he was the promised “seed” spoken of by God in Gen. 3:15. The divine promise of a future “seed” was, of course, made long before Abraham “came into being,” and before Abraham “became acquainted with” Christ’s “day” (which is something that occurred when Abraham believed God’s promise to him concerning his future “seed,” in whom all the nations will be blessed). Christ was, in other words, implying that he was the promised Messiah - and thus superior to Abraham - rather than claiming to have been alive before Abraham.

Expanded Explanation: For those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the words translated as “I am” (egō eimi) in v. 58 are viewed as implying that, before Abraham existed, Jesus pre-existed as either Yahweh himself or as a celestial being who served as Yahweh’s representative. However, the expression “egō eimi” was simply a common way of designating oneself; it did not mean one was claiming to be Yahweh or Yahweh’s representative. The very same Greek expression is used in the next chapter by the man Jesus healed of blindness. There, we read that this man kept telling the people, “I am he” (egō eimi), in response to his being questioned (John 9:9). Although this man’s response could just as legitimately be translated “I am” as Jesus’ words in chapter 8, no one thinks this man was claiming to be Yahweh, or even to have been Yahweh’s representative.

The Greek phrase translated in John 8:58 as “I am” occurs many other times in the Greek Scriptures, and is often translated as “I am he” or something equivalent in meaning (for “I am he,” see Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8; for “It is I,” see Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). Translating egō eimi as “I am” (rather than as “I am he”) in John 8:58 seems to have more to do with the translator having a “theological axe to grind” than anything else, since “I am he” would be both a grammatically valid translation as well as more consistent with how the expression is normally translated.

Moreover, in order for Christ to have been referring to himself as “Yahweh” in John 8:58, he would need to have used different words than he did. The Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 (Lexham LXX Interlinear) reads as follows:

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν,
— said — God to Moses, I am the (One) (who) exists.",

καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ
And (then) he said, "Thus you will say to the sons of Israel,

Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
`The (One) (who) exists has sent me to you.’".

So the Greek translation of God’s title was ho ōn (ὁ ὤν) rather than egō eimi (Ἐγώ εἰμι).

And God said to Moses, “I AM (egō eimi) THE BEING (ho ōn).” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘THE BEING (ho ōn) has sent me to you’” (Ex 3:14, LXX). But in John 8:58, Christ does not refer to himself as ho ōn (“the being”). Rather, he said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you: before Abraham came into being, I am (he) (egō eimi).” There’s a big difference between merely saying “egō eimi” and “egō eimi ho ōn.” The Greek expression egō eimi is, by itself, not the divine name of God in Greek (which, again, is egō eimi ho ōn), nor is it the shortened version of the name (which is ho ōn). In the LXX, God never used the words egō eimi alone as a means of self-designation. The title ho ōn - either by itself or immediately following egō eimi - was how God identified himself.

Moreover, we can clearly see that the Jews didn’t consider the words “I am (he)” to be the name of God because they weren’t bothered by Jesus using it earlier in the chapter (John 8:24, 28). It definitely wasn’t a reaction to Jesus saying “egō eimi” or else they would have attempted to kill him at verse 24. In this verse, Jesus told the unbelieving Jews, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he (egō eimi) you will die in your sins.” In response to this the unbelieving Jews asked, “Who are you?” Jesus then replied, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” And what had he been telling them? Answer: that he was the one sent from God, and the one to whom the Scriptures bore witness. In chapter 5, Christ told the Jews, “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eonian life; and it is they that bear witness about me...” (v. 39). Similarly, in John 5:46-47 he told them, ”If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

So who was Christ claiming to be in John 8:58? As is evident from John 8:24-25, the exact meaning of what is being said when someone declared “egō eimi” is not necessarily inherent in the expression, but in many cases needs to be supplied by the listener or reader. That is, when someone used the Greek expression “egō eimi,” the listener (or reader) had to “fill in the blank” in order to understand the exact claim that was being made. There was clearly something being implied that Jesus did not directly state when he declared “egō eimi” (“I am he”) in v. 58. The exact claim that Jesus was making here must be inferred by the listener/reader – and, I submit, this is done by taking into account Jesus’ words in verse 56.

In v. 56, we read that Jesus told the unbelieving Jews, “Abraham, your father, exults that he may become acquainted with My day, and he was acquainted with it and rejoiced.” How did Abraham “see” (or become “acquainted with”) the day of Christ? As is clear from what is said in Hebrews 11:8-19 (cf. v. 39), we can conclude that Abraham didn’t see/become acquainted with Christ’s “day” as a fulfilled reality. Instead, Abraham became acquainted with this “day” by faith in God’s promise concerning his (Abraham’s) future “seed.”

In Gen. Gen. 22:18 God promised Abraham, “Your seed shall take over the gateway of its enemies and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves in your seed, inasmuch as you have hearkened to My voice” (see also Gen. 12:4, Gen. 26:4 and Gen. 28:14). God’s promise to Abraham concerning his “seed” was a promise concerning Christ himself, who is the seed of Abraham in whom all the kindreds of the earth will be blessed (Acts 3:25-26; Gal. 3:16). Abraham believed God’s promises to him concerning his future seed and, in that sense, Abraham “saw” or became acquainted with Christ’s “day” (i.e., the time period when the promises made to Abraham concerning his seed began to be fulfilled).

In light of John 8:56 (off of which Jesus is clearly building in v. 58), it is evident that the implication in Jesus’ words in v. 58 is the Messianic claim to be the one who had been promised by God before Abraham was born. Significantly, Gen. 22:18 is not the first time Moses wrote concerning Christ. Nor is Gen. 22:18 the first time that Christ was prophetically referred to as the “seed” of someone. The first Messianic promise in scripture (recorded by Moses) is found in Gen 3:15. In this verse we read of a promised “seed” who, despite being injured by the serpent, would deal it a mortal blow: “And I shall set enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed. He shall hurt you in the head, and you shall hurt Him in the heel.”

Putting it all together, that which was implied in Christ’s words in verse 58 (when he said “I am he”) may be understood as follows: “Before Abraham came into being, I am he (who was promised/spoken of by God).” This makes Jesus’ claim one of pre-eminence and not literal pre-existence (keep in mind that, just a few verses before, the Jews had said to Jesus, “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?”). By claiming to be the promised “seed” or offspring foretold by God even before Abraham existed (Gen 3:15), Jesus was claiming to be greater than Abraham (a fact which was inconceivable to the unbelieving Jews, since they did not believe he was who he claimed to be; v. 53). And though Christ was and is superior to Abraham, we have no more reason to think that he literally existed before the patriarch was born than we have reason to believe that Abraham literally “saw” the Messiah’s “day” nearly 2,000 years before Jesus was born (John 8:56).

While the unbelieving Jews rightfully understood Jesus to be making a Messianic claim (which is why they sought to kill him at this time, and is also the basis of the charges that would later be brought against him during his trial), they mistook his words to be an absurd claim to be literally older than Abraham. This is yet another example of the unbelieving Jews completely misunderstanding what Jesus was saying (just like how Jesus’ words were misunderstood when he said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” and “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”). However, Jesus was no more claiming to be older than Abraham than he was claiming that Abraham literally saw his “day” thousands of years before he was born. He was claiming to be the same “seed” promised to Abraham, but who was promised by God before Abraham came to be.

John 17:5

"And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had before the world is with Thee."

In a Nutshell: When Christ prayed that the Father would glorify him, he was referring to the post-resurrection glory that he received because of his sacrificial death. The sense in which Christ had this glory “before the world [was] with [the Father]” is the same sense in which Christ was “slain from the disruption of the world” (Rev. 13:8) and believers were given grace in Christ Jesus “before times eonian” (2 Tim. 1:9). It was, in other words, in God’s foreknowledge that Christ possessed his post-resurrection glory. That which was foreknown by God to take place and central to his redemptive purpose could be spoken of as having occurred long before actually taking place.  

Expanded Explanation: In reading this verse, we first need to ask, “What was the glory that Christ was expecting to receive at some future time, when he prayed this prayer to his Father?” By answering this question, I believe we will be able to come to a more accurate understanding of this verse.

We know that there was a glory that Christ had and manifested when performing miracles during his earthly ministry (John 2:11; cf. 11:4), as well as a glory that he received at the time of his transformation on the mount (Matt. 17:1-2; 2 Pet. 1:16-17). However, we also know that there is a sense in which Christ had not yet been glorified: “Now this he said about the spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). Later, we learn that the future glorification which Christ underwent was inseparably connected with his death on the cross, and was fully realized in his resurrection (John 12:6, 23; Luke 24:26; 1 Pet. 1:11, 21).

Hebrews 2:9 is especially relevant here. There, we read, “Yet we are observing Jesus, Who has been made some bit inferior to messengers (because of the suffering of death, wreathed with GLORY and HONOR), so that in the grace of God, He should be tasting death for the sake of everyone.”

It was “because of the suffering of death” that Christ was “wreathed with glory and honor.” The glory and honor that Christ received by virtue of his obedient death on the cross was not a glory and honor that he had, or could’ve had, beforehand (at least, not in any fully realized sense). This glory and honor was given to him by God “BECAUSE” of the suffering of death.

Paul described the glory and honor conferred onto Christ by God in Philippians 2:8-11. There, we read that Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Paul went on to declare, “Wherefore also [i.e., for this reason also], God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.”

Do those who believe in the preexistence of our Lord also believe that, from the beginning of his existence, Christ had a “name that is above every name?” How could this be, when this elevated status and honor was given to Christ BECAUSE Christ was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross?” It’s impossible that this particular glory could’ve been given to Christ and enjoyed by him in any realized sense at any time prior to his death and resurrection. And yet, this is the very glory that Christ entered into after he was roused from among the dead by his God and Father. I hope the reader can now see the error of believing that, in John 17:5, Christ was referring to a glory he personally and consciously enjoyed in a pre-existent state. For the glory that Christ was expecting to receive (and to which he was referring in John 17:5) was a glory that would be given to him by God because of his obedient death. No other created being had been given (nor ever WILL be given) this glory and honor.

So what did Christ mean when he said that this was a glory which he “had before the world is with Thee?” The answer is simple, and (unfortunately) shows how even highly intelligent students of scripture who are “in the grip of a theory” can completely miss the obvious because of a commitment to their own doctrinal presuppositions. In Ephesians 1:4 Paul declared that the saints in the body of Christ were chosen in Christ “before the disruption of the world.” Similarly, we read in 2 Timothy 1:9 that God’s grace was “given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian…” Did we personally and consciously exist at the time that we were “chosen,” and at the time that God’s grace was “given to us?” Of course not. The only sense in which we existed in order to be “chosen before the disruption of the world” and in order to be given “grace before times eonian” was in God’s foreknowledge, as a key part of his redemptive plan for the universe. God foreknew those in the body of Christ “before the disruption of the world” and “before times eonian,” and thus it can be said that we were chosen in Christ and given grace at this time.

In Romans 8:29 we read that those in the body of Christ were foreknown by God and designated beforehand. The saints in the body of Christ didn’t exist when they were foreknown by God; had they existed, they wouldn’t have been “foreknown” by God. They would’ve simply been “known.” Given this fact, consistency demands that the same be said concerning Christ in light of what we read in 1 Peter 1:20. There, we’re told that Christ was “foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet manifested in the last times because of you…” (1 Peter 1:20). Had Christ personally existed before the disruption of the world, he wouldn't have been “foreknown” by God at this time. He would have simply been known. As is the case with the saints in the body of Christ, the fact that God foreknew Christ before the disruption of the world presupposes that Christ didn’t actually exist before the disruption of the world.

In response to my sharing my understanding of John 17:5 in a private email correspondence with another believer (who is a proponent of the pre-existence view), he responded with the following rhetorical question: “What sort of glory could a mere concept have before the world was?” In response to this objection, I remarked that if such an objection was really valid, perhaps we should ask Paul in heaven, “How could concepts be chosen in Christ before the disruption of the world?” Or, “What sort of grace could concepts be given in Christ Jesus before times eonian?” My response to this objection also involved quoting Rev. 13:8 from the Concordant Literal New Testament (which the questioner had quoted approvingly on several occasions): “And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping [the wild beast], everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world.”

If the objector had no trouble believing that Christ had been “slain from the disruption of the world,” then he should have had no trouble believing that Christ could have been glorified with God before the world was. Not surprisingly, my friend did not follow up with any further objections after this. I can only assume that he realized that, in whatever sense one could say that Christ was “slain from the disruption of the world,” one could also affirm that Christ had been glorified before the world was. And, of course, the only sense in which Christ could be said to have been slain before the disruption of the world was in God’s foreknowledge, as the central figure in his redemptive plan. And in the same way, it was in God’s foreknowledge that Christ was glorified before the world was. Since Christ was “foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world,” it follows that Christ’s being glorified after his death was also part of God’s foreknowledge. 

Further support for this understanding of John 17:5 is that Christ went on to say in John 17:22, “And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One…” Notice here that the same glory that Christ prayed that God would give him is spoken of as if he already possessed it. And not only that, but this glory is spoken of as if it had already been given to his disciples (and from verses 20-21 we know that the disciples of which Christ was speaking included those who weren’t even alive yet!). And in v. 24, Christ prayed, “Father, those whom Thou hast given Me, I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me, that they may be beholding My glory which Thou hast given Me, for Thou lovest Me before the disruption of the world.”

Was Christ literally in a future time and place when he spoke these words, and expressing the desire that his disciples could be there too to see him in a glorified state that was present to him but still future to them? Was Christ confused during his prayer? Not at all; this was simply a figurative way of speaking. In both cases, something that is certain to happen and central to God’s plan (and which had “already occurred” in God’s foreknowledge) is spoken of as if it had already taken place. In v. 5 Christ spoke as if he had been glorified before the world existed, and in v. 24 he spoke as if his glorification (and his being present at the location of his glorification) was a present reality, at the time of his prayer (“…where I am, they also may be with me”). This was simply a figurative way of speaking that emphasized how certain Christ’s glorification was, and how central it was, and has always been, to God’s plan. Things that are certain to exist or take place, and which are central to God's plan, are sometimes spoken of in scripture as if they already exist, or have already been accomplished. When we keep this in mind, Jesus’ words are easily harmonized with the fact that his existence as God's Son began at the time of his conception. Jesus was glorified before the world existed in God's divine foreknowledge, as the center of God’s redemptive plan.