A consideration of passages thought to reveal the "preexistence of Christ": Paul's letters to the body of Christ

Note: In this post (and in subsequent posts) I will be examining passages thought by most Christians to be in conflict with the position defended in the previous two-part article:

http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/was-jesus-christ-alive-before-his-life.html

http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/was-jesus-christ-alive-before-his-life_18.html

1 Corinthians 10:1-4

For I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers all were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all are baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed. Now the Rock was Christ.

In a Nutshell: The “rock” that Paul had in view was the rock at Horeb, from which water miraculously flowed for the Israelites in the wilderness. When Paul wrote that this rock “was Christ,” he was using the same sort of figure of speech as that used by Christ when, during the last supper, he said (concerning the bread), “This is my body.” Paul was, in other words, speaking metaphorically here.

Expanded Explanation: In these verses Paul was referring to the desert wanderings of the Israelites after the exodus. The “spiritual food” that they all ate was the manna from heaven that was miraculously provided for them. Corresponding to this “spiritual” (although completely tangible) food is the “spiritual drink” that the Israelites drank from a certain “spiritual rock.” This “spiritual drink” is a reference to the water that miraculously flowed from the rock at Horeb that Moses struck with his staff on two separate occasions (Ex 17:6; Num 20:8-11; Deut. 8:15; Isaiah 48:21).

Thus, when Paul wrote of “the spiritual rock which followed” in 1 Cor. 10:4, he was alluding to the literal rock at Horeb from which water miraculously flowed. This literal rock was said by Paul to be “spiritual” in the same sense that the manna that fell from heaven and the water which flowed from the rock are said to have been “spiritual.” In speaking of the rock as following the Israelites, Paul was likely using a figure of speech called metonymy, with the rock standing for the water that sprang forth from the rock. On this verse, commentator Adam Clarke (who was a Trinitarian and believed in the pre-existence of Christ) remarked as follows:

“How could the rock follow them? It does not appear that the rock ever moved from the place where Moses struck it. But to solve this difficulty, it is said that rock here is put, by metonymy, for the water of the rock; and that this water did follow them through the wilderness. This is more likely; but we have not direct proof of it. The ancient Jews, however, were of this opinion, and state that the streams followed them in all their journeyings, up the mountains, down the valleys, etc.; and that when they came to encamp, the waters formed themselves into cisterns and pools; and that the rulers of the people guided them, by their staves, in rivulets to the different tribes and families. And this is the sense they give to Num. 21:17 : Spring up, O well, etc.”

It should also be noted that Paul doesn’t say the rock provided them with water for their entire journey. While he does say the rock “followed them,” this doesn’t necessarily have to be understood to mean that the water from the rock followed them for their entire journey. Of course, it’s possible that God actually caused streams of water from the rock to miraculously follow the Israelites for the entirety of their journey in the desert. However, the word translated “followed” could also mean “accompanied.” Understood in this way, the water from the rock accompanied them in the sense that they carried it with them in their journey through the wilderness (i.e., in skin-bottles or some other vessels that were used by ancient near eastern people in that day).

In any case, it can be reasonably concluded that Paul understood this rock to have typified Christ, and it was for this reason that he said the rock “was Christ.” The rock at Horeb was not literally Christ; rather, it was like Christ in some way, and can be understood as having represented him. The figure of speech used by Paul is the same as that used by Christ during the last supper when he said of the bread, “This is my body.” Paul was, in other words, speaking metaphorically. Even for those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ, one would think that this would be somewhat obvious (does anyone who holds to the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence really believe that a certain celestial being who would later become incarnated as Christ was disguising himself as a rock in the wilderness?). But then again, I suppose that it should not be all the surprising if some did really believe this. After all, millions of Christians continue to mistakenly believe that when they partake of the “Eucharist” they’re literally consuming Christ’s body.

In what way can the rock at Horeb be considered a “type” of Christ, or to be like Christ in some way? Like the rock at Horeb which was “struck” or “smitten” by Moses for the sake of Israel during her wilderness wanderings (Ex. 17:6), it was prophesied that Christ would also be “struck” or “smitten” for our sakes (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10; Zech. 13:7). And, just as water came forth from the rock at Horeb after it was struck, so we’re told that water (along with blood) came out of Christ’s side when, after dying on the cross, he was pierced by a Roman solider (John 19:34). We also know that, figuratively speaking, Christ’s death resulted in “living water” becoming available to those who believed on him (John 4:10-14; 7:37-38; cf. Rev. 21:6).

2 Corinthians 8:9

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, being rich, because of you He became poor, that you, by His poverty, should be rich.

In a Nutshell: When Paul wrote of Christ’s becoming “poor” so that the saints in Corinth to whom he wrote “should be rich,” he had in view Christ’s sacrificial death on mankind’s behalf. Christ’s death – an essential element of Paul’s evangel - was the “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” of which the saints to whom Paul wrote already had knowledge (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

Expanded Explanation: Some who believe in the preexistence of Christ assume that the words “being rich” imply a pre-existent state, and that Christ’s becoming “poor” should be understood as referring to his “incarnation” (since Christ was, of course, born into a state of poverty). However, this is not the only (nor, I believe, the best) way of understanding Paul’s words here. The saints to whom Paul wrote weren’t made “rich” simply by virtue of Christ’s being conceived and born into this world (which is what the “preexistence” interpretation of this verse would entail). Rather, their becoming “rich” (which, of course, was not a reference to whatever material wealth they may or may not have had) was the result of Christ’s death for their sins.

To be “rich” is to be in possession of something that is of great value, and for someone who is rich to subsequently become “poor” (as Paul said happened to Christ) is for them to give away, or be deprived of, that which belonged to them, which was of such great value. So what was it that Christ gave away which was of such great value, and which (by giving it up) made him “poor,” and placed him in a state of “poverty?” I believe Christ himself answered this question for us in Matthew 20:26-28:

“But whosoever may be wanting to become great among you, let him be your servant, and whoever may be wanting to be foremost among you, let him be your slave, even as the Son of Mankind came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give His soul a ransom for many.”

That which Christ gave up – and which was of such great intrinsic value that it could be given as a “ransom for many” (and indeed for “all mankind,” as Paul would later write in 1 Tim. 2:6) – was his very “soul,” or self (the word “soul” is often used in Scripture in reference to one’s entire being, or self, considered as the subject of sentience/consciousness). For our sakes, Christ gave all that he had to give – his very self - as a sacrifice to God. And for three days, the One who had previously enjoyed unbroken communion with his God and Father was lifeless and in a state of utter destitution.

The same idea found in Matthew 20:28 was, I believe, expressed by Christ in parable form elsewhere:

Matthew 13

44 "Like is the kingdom of the heavens to a treasure hidden in the field, finding which, a man hides it, and, in his joy, is going away, and is selling all, whatever he has, and is buying that field.
45 "Again, like is the kingdom of the heavens to a man, a merchant, seeking ideal pearls.
46 Now, finding one very precious pearl, he comes away, having disposed of all whatever he had, and buys it.

Concerning these parables, A.E. Knoch wrote, “In order to possess Himself of the treasures, the Son of Mankind gives His all and purchases the world. He has overpaid its price by His blood.” Knoch went on to remark that Christ – who he interprets as being the “merchant” of the parable - “gave up all His riches to purchase [the very precious pearl] for Himself.” Christ truly “disposed of all whatever he had” when, in obedience to God, he laid down his own “soul” (his own sentient self, or being) – something which Peter elsewhere affirmed as “precious” (1 Pet. 1:19; 2:7).

Philippians 2:5-8

5 For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also,
6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
7 nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity,
8 and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name,
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean,
11 and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.

In a Nutshell: In verses 6-8, Paul had in view the “disposition” which was in Christ during his lifetime on earth, and the humble and obedient manner in which he chose to live in relation to God during this time (which culminated in his obedient death on the cross). Rather than using his God-given power and authority in a way that elevated himself above the rest of humanity (and above all the various evils that are common to humanity, including death itself), he “took the form of a slave” and conducted himself in a way that reflected humanity’s complete dependency on God. 

Expanded Explanation: Strangely enough, those who hold to the view that Christ pre-existed as a human before his conception point to this passage as supporting the view that Christ pre-existed his conception. But if this were the case – and if verses 7 and 8 are to be understood as meaning that Christ became a human when he was conceived - then it would mean that a human who pre-existed his conception subsequently became human by virtue of being conceived as one. But this, of course, is absurd. However, I submit that Paul did not have in view the “pre-existence” of Christ (whether as a “human” or otherwise) in these verses at all. Rather, I believe that what Paul had in mind here was Christ’s earthly ministry – a ministry which began when Christ was baptized and anointed with the Spirit of God (Luke 3:21-22), and which later culminated in his “becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

In v. 6, Paul wrote that Christ is “inherently in the form of God.” This need not be understood as having any reference at all to a pre-existent and “pre-incarnate” state that Christ was supposedly in before he was generated in the womb of his mother, Miriam. Being “inherently in the form of God” is something that was true of Christ during his earthly ministry, and agrees with what Christ himself declared concerning himself (i.e., that to be seeing and beholding him was to be seeing and beholding the Father; John 12:45; 14:9). Christ was just as much the “image of the invisible God” while on earth as he is now, in heaven (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4). There is, consequently, no need to look back beyond the beginning of Christ’s lifetime on earth to a supposed pre-existent state in heaven in order to understand what Paul wrote concerning Christ’s “being inherently in the form of God.”

But what did Paul mean by Christ’s “emptying himself” and “taking the form of a slave?” Although Christ inherently had great privileges and rights due to his status as the Son of God (as John says, this status entailed his being “equal to God,” in the sense of being able to do certain things that God – but no one else – had the authority to do), Christ relinquished whatever privileges/rights he had during his ministry, and (as Paul says) took “the form of a slave” and came to be “in the likeness of humanity.” He didn’t “pillage” to be “equal with God” – i.e., he didn’t take advantage of his status and seek to elevate himself over other human beings and “lord it over them” (as Christ himself said that the political “chiefs of the nations” were doing in his day; see Matt. 20:25). Paul was not referring to an immortal, celestial spirit-being transforming himself into a mortal, flesh-and-blood human; rather, Paul had in mind the “disposition” that Christ had during his mortal lifetime, and which was most fully manifested when he became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (v. 5, 8).

Clearly, Christ’s “taking the form of a slave” didn’t have anything to do with a pre-existent spirit-being becoming “incarnated as a slave” (from a pre-existent non-slave state?). In the same way, Christ’s “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” had nothing to do with Christ’s “becoming human” (in fact, it is reasonable to understand Paul’s words in v. 7 as an example of parallelism, in which the same basic idea is being conveyed in two different ways for the sake of emphasis). The words “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” are not about a non-human being who, at some point, came to have the “likeness” of a human. Rather, these words are about a human being who, despite being unique and in certain ways unlike every other human (being the “Son of the living God”), chose to live and act in such a way that gave him the “likeness” of the rest of humanity (i.e., humanity in general). Rather than using his God-given power and authority in a way that elevated himself above the rest of humanity (and above all the various evils that are common to humanity, including death itself), he “took the form of a slave” in relation to God, and conducted himself in a way that reflected humanity’s complete dependency on God – even to the point of death.

Thus, what Paul was emphasizing was simply the manner in which Christ conducted himself on earth in relation to God (which was as a humble human being rather than an exalted divine being). Christ lived in full recognition of his humanity and his dependency on God. He didn’t use his unique status as God’s only begotten Son to his own selfish advantage, or seek to elevate himself above the rest of humanity. As Christ told his disciples in Matthew 20:28, he “came, not to be served, but to serve.” Christ’s “emptying himself” and his “coming to be in the likeness of humanity” thus should be understood to mean that Christ lived in a way that manifested and demonstrated that which is common to all humans – i.e., utter dependency on God - rather than doing for himself (and for his own benefit and advantage) what no human being could naturally do.

Similarly, when Paul wrote that Christ was “found in fashion as a human,” he wasn’t suggesting that Christ once existed as something other than a human; rather, he meant that, since Christ was a human, he was able to “empty himself”/“humble himself” to the point of being “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” That is, the fact of Christ’s being “found in fashion as a human” is what made it possible for him to die. And Christ’s mortality as a human is what allowed his decision to “empty himself” to find expression in the act of perfect obedience to God that resulted in his death.

Consider another example that reflects the fact of Christ’s “emptying himself.” Right after the start of his ministry, Satan tried to get Christ to do things that would prove himself to be the Son of God (“If you are God’s Son…”), and to thus use his unique status (his “equality with God”) to his own advantage. But what did Christ do? He did only what a human being entirely dependent on God could do, rather than as one who was “equal with God” (and who, given this status, could’ve easily used his God-given authority and power to turn rocks into bread, or perform some other self-serving miraculous feat). That is, Christ “emptied himself” by not doing what he (being God’s Son) could’ve done, and - after quoting Scripture - simply continued being very hungry.

Or consider Matthew 26:53, where Christ declared (while being arrested), “Are you supposing that I am not able to entreat My Father, and at present He will station by My side more than twelve legions of messengers?” In other words, Christ – being the Son of God - had the inherent authority to do what no other human being could’ve done in such circumstances. But (as he had done since the beginning of his ministry) Christ “emptied himself,” and (rather than take advantage of his being “equal with God”) acted in such a way that emphasized his humanity and dependency on God (“coming to be in the likeness of humanity”). But the ULTIMATE expression of Christ’s “emptying himself” was, of course, when he humbled himself by becoming “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Colossians 1:15-18

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 a Nutshell: Everything that Paul wrote of as being true of “the Son of [God’s] love” in the above verses should be understood as being true of Christ as the Son of God (and especially true of Christ since he was “designated Son of God with power” when he was roused from among the dead by God). Paul was, in other words, emphasizing the preeminence that Christ presently enjoys as the vivified and ascended “Son of [God’s] love.” The “creating” that Paul had in view in v. 16 is not a reference to the event described in Genesis 1; rather, it refers to something that was presently occurring/ongoing when Paul wrote – namely, the upholding and preserving of creation by virtue of Christ's authoritative declaration that it be so (cf. Heb. 1:3). Although everything in the universe has its ultimate origin in God (who originally brought everything into existence), everything in the universe remains or “stands” created by virtue of Christ’s God-given authority.

Expanded Explanation: Notice that, in v. 15, Paul says that Christ IS (present tense) “Firstborn of every creature.” Although the title “Firstborn of every creature” is commonly understood by those holding to the “pre-existence” doctrine to mean that Christ was created by God before every other created thing, this interpretation is not warranted by the facts concerning the meaning of the term “firstborn” (it should also be pointed out that, when understood literally, the term could not even be appropriately ascribed to a “pre-existent” being if his existence began long before he was ever actually “born”).

In Scripture, “firstborn” (prototokos) is a legal term that refers to one on whom a privileged status is conferred, or to whom a major inheritance is given. Although the term is undoubtedly derived from the ancient custom of conferring special privileges or an inheritance on the legal firstborn in a family, it should be noted that this did not necessarily mean that one was born first in time (a well-known example in Scripture of someone failing to receive their legal birthright despite being born first is Esau). Based on this custom, the word came to be used in reference to anyone to whom a preeminent rank or special privileges had been given.

For example, the word prototokos appears in the LXX translation of Exodus 4:22 where God referred to Israel as his “firstborn son.” The word also appears in Jeremiah 31:9 in reference to Ephraim (which is significant, since Ephraim’s brother Manasseh was actually born before him). In both of these examples, the term “firstborn” has to do with one’s being “first” (i.e., preeminent) in rank and privilege rather than being first in time.

Consider also Psalm 89:26-29: “He, he shall call out to Me, You are my Father, My El and the Rock of my salvation. Indeed, I, I shall make him the firstborn, the uppermost of the kings of the earth. For the eon shall I keep My benignity upon him, and My covenant with him is faithful. I will establish his seed for the future, and his throne as the days of the heavens.” Here, again, the title “firstborn” clearly involves a person being given a preeminent status or rank. Thus, when we find Christ being referred to as the “Firstborn,” we need not understand Paul to have been saying that the man, Jesus Christ, existed before his conception and was the first being ever created by God. Instead, the title “Firstborn of every creature” is a title that was bestowed upon the man, Jesus Christ, when he was roused by God from among the dead and given all authority in heaven and on earth. That is, the title refers to Christ’s present, preeminent status as Lord of all, and to his having been appointed “enjoyer of the allotment of all” (which is a status and privilege that Christ received after his death and resurrection, and not before).

The conferring of this exalted status on Christ by God is something that had been prophesied long ago; see, for example, Psalm 89:27 and Hebrews 1:5-6 (verse 6 should be read in light of Heb. 2:5). When Paul referred to Christ as the “firstborn from among the dead” a few verses later, he was revealing when Christ became the “firstborn” - i.e., when he was roused from among the dead by God. It is AFTER Christ became “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” that God “highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name...” (Phil. 2:8-9). It is in his risen and vivified (not “pre-existent”) state that Christ “enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they [the messengers]” (Heb. 1:3-4). In the same way, it was when Christ was roused from among the dead that he became what he now is: the “Firstborn of every creature.”

But what about verse 16? In the last installment, it was shown that Christ, Paul and God himself all affirmed that the universe was created by God alone, with no indication that God was accompanied by anyone, or used any intermediary to accomplish his creative work. However, those who affirm the pre-existence of Christ believe that this verse proves that everything God created was created through, or by means of, Christ (which would, in their view, provide conclusive evidence that Christ was alive before the creation of the universe). 

There are several points that can be made in response t this interpretation of Col. 1:16. First, it needs to be kept in mind while reading verse 16 that the one in, through and for whom everything in view is said to be created is Christ Jesus, who (in v. 13) is called the “Son of [the Father's] love.” But as argued earlier, scripture is clear that “the Son” did not personally exist as such until he was begotten by God. We know that it had been prophesied that the Christ would be fathered by Yahweh himself; quoting Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:1, the author of Hebrews wrote: “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’?” (Hebrews 1:5) As noted earlier, this “begetting” of the Son (i.e., when God became the father of Jesus) did not take place before creation, but rather when Christ was “generated” in Miriam’s womb (Luke 1:31-35; Matt. 1:20-21).

Second, what did Paul have in view when he said that all is created in, through and for Christ, both in the heavens and on the earth? After I came to reject the Christian doctrine of the “triune God,” my understanding of Paul’s words here was as follows: God originally created everything with his Son in mind, as the ultimate reason and explanation for God’s creative act. Paul, I believed, was simply affirming that creation was the expression of the eonian purpose of God, within which Christ (foreknown by God at the time of creation) was destined to play the central role as the agent through whom God’s eonian purpose would be accomplished and God would become “all in all.”

While I still think it is true that God created everything with Christ in view as the centre of his eonian purpose, I no longer believe this to be what Paul was intending to convey in these verses. As I was reading these verses in the Concordant Literal New Testament one day, I noticed something interesting that, as far as I know, is not present in other translations. Whereas most Bible translations have translated verse 16 in such a way that the creation event in view appears to be something that took place in the past, the relevant portions of verse 16 are both translated in the CLNT as follows: “...for in Him IS all created...” and “...all IS created through Him and for Him...” “Is” created, not “was” created. Why did Knoch choose the present “is created” here rather than the past “was created?”

I knew this translational difference in Knoch’s version couldn’t be attributed to theological bias on Knoch’s part, since Knoch was an adamant believer in Christ’s personal pre-existence, and understood him to be the agent through whom God created all things at the beginning of the creation. Why, then, didn’t Knoch simply use the past tense to reflect this belief, if the text allowed for it? While doing some further study to understand why A.E. Knoch chose “is” to translate this verse rather than “was,” I discovered that, in the last part of v. 16, Paul was using what's called the “perfect passive indicative” of the Greek verb ktizō (to create). According to Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, Paul’s use of this particular tense conveys the idea of everything’s “standing created” or “remaining created.”

Thus, it seems that what Paul was actually intending to convey here is that all things in heaven and on earth stand (or remain) created “through” and “for” Christ. This understanding is consistent with what we read in Hebrews 1:3, where it’s said that Christ is “carrying on [or “upholding”] all by His powerful declaration.” In other words, the authority that God gave Christ when he made him “Lord of all” after rousing him from among the dead means that the universe “stands/remains created” by virtue of Christ's authoritative declaration that it be so. Although everything in the universe has its ultimate origin in God (who originally brought everything into existence), everything in the universe remains created and continues to exist by virtue of Christ’s God-given authority.

Paul expressed the same idea in 1 Corinthians 8:6, where he wrote “…for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.” Notice the use of the present tense here. All that is “out of” God is said to be (presently) “through” Christ. Ever since God gave Christ all authority in heaven and on earth, everything created by God is remaining in its created state by means of Christ, who is “carrying on all by His powerful declaration.” In the first part of Col. 1:16, we read that “in Him [Christ] is all created.” Here, Paul is using the “constative aorist passive indicative” of ktizō. The aorist tense “presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence.” This tense basically describes an action as a bare fact. Since we know that Paul had in mind everything’s “remaining created” through and for Christ in the last part of v. 16, we can understand him to have had this same event in mind in the earlier part of v. 16, viewed “as a whole” and as a “bare fact.”[1]

Finally, in verses 17-18, we read: “and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him. 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, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, 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.”

Notice, again, the present tense used: “IS before all,” not “WAS before all.” Paul was not talking about something that was true of Christ at some point in eons past (i.e., prior to the creation referred to in Genesis 1:1). Rather, what Paul had in view was something that was true of Christ, the Son of God, at the time he was writing (and which remains true of him now). It was something that was true of the roused and vivified Son of God as the roused and vivified Son of God (and not as some pre-existent, pre-Son of God being). Christ “is (presently) before all, and all has (presently) its cohesion in Him.”

The Greek word translated “before” in v. 17 is the word pro, and can refer to time, place or position. Although those believing in the pre-existence of Christ tend to understand Paul’s use of “before” here to be in regards to time, Paul’s use of the present tense (“is”) suggests otherwise; had Paul intended pro to mean “before” in regards to time, then the past tense “was” would’ve more clearly (both grammatically and otherwise) conveyed such an idea.[2] So what, then, did Paul mean here?

In this context, the central idea is clearly that of Christ’s preeminence (even those who believe that the pre-existence of Christ is being revealed in these verses would have to concede that the “theme” of these verses is that of Christ’s preeminence, and that the main purpose of what Paul wrote in Col. 1:15-20 was to affirm and support this truth). In light of this fact, it is noteworthy that the word translated “before” in Col. 1:17 (pro) can mean “in a higher or more important position than.” This is also the case with the English word “before” (see, for example, the third definition provided by Merriam-Webster, along with the example provided). It should also be note that the exact same expression “before all” (pro pantōn) used by Paul in Col. 1:17 was used two other times by two other inspired writers to convey just this idea.

In both James 5:12 and 1 Peter 4:8, the expression pro pantōn (“before all”) conveys the idea of something’s being of greater importance than something else, rather than of something’s being chronologically prior to something else. In James 5:12, James was emphasizing what he considered to be the greater importance of not swearing, and letting your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no” (and in this regard, he was simply taking seriously the words of his Lord; see Christ’s words in Matthew 5:34-37). And in 1 Peter 4:8, Peter was emphasizing the greater importance of “having earnest love among yourselves.” Again, in neither of these verses does “before all” (pro pantōn) convey the idea of something’s being chronologically prior to something else. Instead, the idea is that of something’s having greater importance than something else (which is why most translations translate the words pro pantōn as “above all” or “above all things” in these verses). And I submit that the same idea was being expressed when Paul used the same expression in Col. 1:17. That is, Paul was simply saying that Christ is (again, not “was”) in a higher and more important position than all. The idea being expressed is that of preeminence in rank, not pre-existence.

This meaning of “before all” in Col. 1:17 is, I believe, confirmed by what Paul wrote just two verses later. In v. 19 Paul wrote that Christ is “…Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first…” The word translated “first” here is prōteuō [be-BEFORE-most]. According to Strong’s, the word means “to be first (in rank or influence).” Greek scholar Bill Mounce defines it as meaning “to be first, to hold the first rank, or highest dignity, have the preeminence, be chief” (https://billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/proteuo). Clearly, Christ’s “becoming first” has nothing to do with the idea of his having preexisted as the first being created by God. Rather, the word has to do with Christ’s preeminence in rank, which is a status he received when he became “Firstborn from among the dead.” It was so that Christ could “in all be becoming first” that he was roused and vivified by God. Since this event took place, Christ has been - and remains - “first” and “before all.”

Next: Objections Considered (Part Two): http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-consideration-of-passages-thought-to_18.html

---

[1] It should be noted that, even if Paul had in view in v. 16 the original creation event, when everything actually came into existence (as described in Genesis 1), it would still not require Christ’s personal preexistence at this time. This is because everything’s being created is said to be “in Christ” (rather than “through Christ,” as in v. 17). The expression “in Christ” appears in scripture only in Paul’s letters, and can be understood as referring to the status of one who is, or who will be, in a relationship with Christ that involves being blessed through and with him; believers, for example, are said to have been chosen “in Christ” before the disruption of the world, meaning that we were chosen to be in a certain relationship with Christ, through which we would enjoy our future eonian allotment among the celestials. Thus, even if Paul had the original creation event in view in v. 16, at most he need only be understood as saying that, when God created everything in heaven and on earth, he created it with a view towards its ultimately being blessed through and with Christ.

[2] Even if pro were to be understood as meaning “before” with regards to time, then the context would still have to inform us as to what, exactly, Paul meant. And Paul’s use of the present tense would, as already noted, suggest that the word “before” refers to something that was true of Christ at the time he wrote (rather than something that was true of Christ before creation). Paul went on to refer to Christ as the one in whom “the entire complement delights to dwell” (Col. 1:19), and then referred to the future reconciliation of all to God through Christ (Col. 1:20). At this future time, God will be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), which means that what is true of Christ now will be true of all later, at the consummation. For now, however, God can be considered “all in Christ” (for, again, it is in Christ that “the entire complement delights to dwell”). Thus, if Paul meant “before” with regards to time, then we can understand him to have had in mind what was true of Christ alone when he wrote, but which will be true of everyone else later. 

Was Jesus Christ alive before his life on earth began? (Part Two)

Christ Foreknown by God

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.” Now consider 1 Peter 1:20, where 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 us, the fact that God foreknew Christ before the disruption of the world presupposes that Christ didn’t exist before the disruption of the world. Just like his sacrificial death (Rev. 13:8), the only sense in which Christ could be said to have existed before the disruption of the world (or at any point prior to his conception) was in God’s foreknowledge.

We also know from Hebrews 1:1 that it is “in the last of these days” that God “speaks to us in a Son” (as opposed to other “portions and modes” before the “last of these days”). The Son has not always been the means (or even “a” means) through which God has spoken to humanity. The Son is simply the most recent (and the ultimate/final) agent through whom God has chosen to speak and make himself known to his creation. The “last of these days” does not refer to any time prior to when Christ was “generated” by his God and Father. This means that any celestial being speaking on behalf of Yahweh at any time prior to when Christ was generated by God (and which some Christians have claimed or suggested was the “pre-incarnate Christ” speaking to people) was, necessarily, not the Son of God. The only time that Jesus, the Son of God appears in the Hebrew Scriptures is in prophecy, or in some sort of vision of the future (e.g., Daniel 7:13-14).

Critical to Jesus’ identity, then, is the fact that he is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” This, again, has to do with Jesus’ identity since the time of his conception. The titles “Christ” and “Son of the Living God” are the titles of one who was generated in the womb of a human mother and who is a fully human being. Until Jesus was generated by God, there was no person in existence named “Jesus” who also had (or would be given) the title of “Christ” and the designation “Son of the living God.” Prior to Jesus’ conception, there was no person in existence who could validly claim either of these designations. The Lord Jesus Christ in whom we believe did not personally exist before his conception in his mother’s womb. And to know and believe in Christ in accord with the truth of Paul’s evangel, we must know him according to his post-conception identity.

God the Sole Creator of the Heavens and the Earth

Paul was very clear in his teaching concerning who, exactly, was responsible for bringing everything into existence. To the men of Athens Paul declared: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is He worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything...Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all, by raising him from the dead” (Ac. 17: 24, 25, 30, 31).

Paul made no mention of anyone other than God as having been involved in the creation of “the world and everything in it.” Rather, Paul credited God (the Father) alone as the one responsible for the creation of everything. The “man,” Jesus (whom Paul said God had ordained), is not said to have had anything to do with it. Similarly, Christ himself appears to have been completely unaware that anyone other than God, the Father, had anything to do with the creation of the universe. Whenever Christ referred to the creation event recorded in Genesis, he gave God—whom he referred to in the third person—full credit for it (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; 13:19).

Those who hold to the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ typically deny that God, the Father, was the one who directly created the universe. Rather, they believe that, after directly creating Jesus, God then created everything “through” Jesus, with God using Jesus as an intermediary agent in his creative work (I will be considering those verses thought to support this view later on). I assume that those who believe that God created everything through the pre-incarnate Jesus believe that Jesus created everything through the exercise of his will in some way. Thus, according to this view, it was Jesus – and not God – whose will directly brought everything into existence. Regardless of how Jesus is thought to have created everything, those who believe God created everything through Jesus must believe that God was not directly or immediately responsible for bringing anything into existence (with the only exception being the creation of Jesus himself).

The problem with this view is that it seems to be contradicted by what God himself has declared concerning his involvement in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Consider, for example, the following verses where we read of Yahweh speaking of himself as having brought the universe into existence by the direct use of his power:

Isaiah 45:12

“I (Yahweh) made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.”

Isaiah 48:13

“My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.”

Isaiah 66:1-2

Thus says Yahweh: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be,” declares Yahweh.

The idea being conveyed through the words “my hands,” “my hand” and “my right hand” is simply that God created everything by his own power and authority (cf. Jer. 10:12-13). Moreover, the same divine being whose “hands” are said to have created everything (which, again, refers to God’s authority and power) is elsewhere said to have created the heavens by simply speaking/declaring them into existence:

Psalm 33:6, 9

“By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host...For he [Yahweh] spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm…”

Notice how the words “by the breath of his mouth” qualify the words, “by the word of Yahweh.” The Psalmist was not talking about a person distinct from Yahweh himself being involved in the creation of the heavens and all their hosts. This is, of course, in perfect harmony with what we’re told in the original Genesis account: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...and God said...” (Gen. 1:1, 3). The words “and God said” are repeated ten times in chapter one. As is clear from Psalm 33:6 (and elsewhere), the one who brought the universe into existence by his declaration/command was Yahweh alone. Moreover, the person speaking in Gen. 3:15 is the same divine person described as speaking in chapter one, and yet he referred to the “seed” of the woman – i.e., Jesus, the Messiah - as a person distinct from himself (“he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel”).

But what about the plural “us” found in Genesis 1:26-27, 3:22 and 11:7? Some see the word “us” as a “veiled reference” to either a multi-personal God (consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) or to God and a pre-existent Son (who was either directly or indirectly involved in the creation of humanity and the confusing of humanity’s language at Babel). However, I don’t think that either Moses or the original readers of this book understood the “us” to imply either a multi-personal God or a pre-existent Son of God.

A more likely interpretation of these verses is that God was speaking to, and on behalf of, the celestial members of his heavenly court. This is the view found in the NIV Study Bible as well as in the NET Bible (http://bible.org/netbible/), both of which affirm the pre-existence of Christ. In the NET Bible notes under Genesis 1:26 we read,

In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isaiah 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isaiah 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

The Hebrew people were not only monotheists in the most natural and straightforward sense of the word (believing that God was a single individual or person), they also believed that Yahweh, the one God, dwelled in heaven with a countless multitude of created, personal beings that served and worshipped him (see, for example, Job 1:6-12; Psalm 82; 89:5-7; 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isaiah 6:1-8). Consequently, it is natural to understand these verses as a reference to the participation and involvement of these celestial beings in God’s work in some way. To insert either a multi-personal God or a pre-existent Jesus into the words “us” is simply unwarranted.[1]

Lest there remain any doubt as to who, exactly, was involved in creating the heavens and the earth (and who is said to have spoken everything into existence in Genesis 1), the following verse should clear up any misunderstanding:

Isaiah 44:24

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…”

If Yahweh had wanted to communicate the fact that he created everything directly and without anyone else’s involvement, I’m not sure what more he could have said to more clearly express this fact than is stated in the above 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 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.

Christ a “pre-existent man?”

There are some who believe that Christ not only existed before he was generated by God, but that he pre-existed his conception as a human being. However, I think that a straightforward, face-value reading of scripture will naturally lead one to the conclusion that Adam – and not any being who pre-existed Adam - was the first human created by God, and the first of only two human beings (the other being Christ) who came into existence without the involvement of a human father.

The Genesis narrative seems clear that mankind/humanity – i.e., the “kind” of created being which was miraculously generated by God in Miriam’s womb - did not actually begin to exist until the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:5-7; 5:1-2). Whatever existed prior to the creation of Adam – whether celestial or terrestrial – cannot be categorized as the same kind of creature that God made when he created Adam. And Paul seemed to confirm this natural, straightforward reading of Genesis when, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, he twice referred to Adam as the “first man”:

If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, “became a living soul:” the last Adam a vivifying Spirit. But not first the spiritual, but the soulish, thereupon the spiritual. The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven.

One proponent of the view that Christ pre-existed as a man (who is a friend of mine and a believer) asked the following question in an email correspondence: “Concerning Adam, might we consider him to be the first human of the earth variety?” We could, of course, theoretically consider any number of things, and the less that is revealed in scripture concerning a particular subject, the more one can speculate about it (which means that those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ have more than enough “room” for speculation and conjecture). I think a better question than that asked by my friend would be, “Was there any other ‘variety’ of human in existence before Adam?” And when we ask this question, Scripture does not give us so much as a whisper in response. Rather, all we get from Scripture in response to this question is sustained silence.

Considering Adam to have been the “first human of the earth variety” would be like considering him to have been the “first human of the living variety,” or the “first human of the conscious variety!” Again, Paul simply referred to Adam as “the first man,” without any implication whatsoever that there was, at the time of his creation, some other man already in existence (e.g., some celestial “man” who was not “soulish” or “soilish”/“out of the earth”). Had Paul wanted to convey the idea that there was no other man in existence before Adam, I can’t think of a clearer and more succinct way of conveying this truth than with the words, “the first man, Adam.”

Moreover, Paul explicitly wrote in this same passage that the “spiritual” is NOT first, but rather than soulish. And since, in the context, Paul links “spiritual” with “celestial” and “soulish” with “soilish” - they are, for Paul, intimately connected rather than separable – we could make a similar statement concerning man using this second pair of contrastive words – i.e., “But not first the celestial, but the soilish, thereupon the celestial.” This simple fact completely undermines the idea that Christ preexisted as a glorified, spiritual and celestial “man” (a “man” biologically unrelated to “the first man, Adam,” until his “generation” in Miriam’s womb) who, nearly 4,000 years after the creation of Adam, came to bear the soilish image of the “first man” before returning to the spiritual and celestial state he supposedly enjoyed long before the “first man” was ever created.

It has been suggested by some who believe that Christ pre-existed as a human that Christ was the “original” man of whom Adam was merely a “copy.” However, in light of what scripture reveals, I think it’s safer to speak of Christ as being the “second man” rather than the “original man.” Adam, the “first man,” was the first and earliest “model” (definitely in need of a major “upgrade,” but still perfect for the “job” for which he was created). Christ, on the other hand, is the second/last/final version of man. Christ is not the “original man” but rather the perfected man. He is what man was always ultimately intended by God to be, and the one through whom this intention will be realized for all humanity.

Understood in this way, while it would certainly be true to say that Adam was created by God with Christ – the “second man” and “last Adam” - in mind (i.e., as the one who will completely undo what Adam did and bring the human race – and the entire universe - to perfection), it would not be true to say that “Adam was a copy of Christ.” A copy, of course, is “a thing made to be similar or identical to another,” and to copy means “to make a similar or identical version of; reproduce.” Instead of reading about Adam being “a copy of Christ,” we read of Adam being a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14). This implies that the antitype (Christ) didn’t actually exist yet.

We also read of Christ partaking of the same “flesh and blood” in which all humanity is presently participating (Heb. 2:14) and of his being “made LIKE the brethren,” “in all things.” Such wording seems to imply the exact opposite of the view that Adam and his flesh-and-blood descendants were “modeled after” a celestial, spiritual Man, or made into a similar version of such a being; rather, these words imply that Christ “copied” (i.e., he was made into a similar version) of Adam and his flesh-and-blood descendants. And after “copying” the original man and his descendants, Christ then became (after being vivified by God) the final, perfected version of Man. It was after Christ was vivified and glorified that he then became the “original” from which future “copies” will be made:

“Now we are aware that God is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are called according to the purpose that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.” Romans 8:28-30

Next: Objections Considered (Part One): http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-consideration-of-passages-thought-to.html

---

[1] In Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, we read: “The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8)” (A.B. Davidson, "God," Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205).

Similarly, Gordon Wehham’s Word Commentary on Genesis (p. 27) remarks as follows: “From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa. 6:8). From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ, Christians have traditionally seen this verse as foreshadowing the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.”

Was Jesus Christ alive before his life on earth began? (Part One)

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

---

[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).