The "pre-existence of Christ": further prooftexts and final remarks (part 4 of 4)

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-pre-existence-of-christ.html

    2 Corinthians 8:9

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that because of you he became poor, being rich, that you may become rich in that poverty.

Those who believe in pre-existence see a reference to the incarnation of Christ in this passage, in which Jesus took on a human nature. However, it should be obvious that this is a position that must be read into this verse, rather than exegeted out of it. There is zero contextual evidence that this is what Paul is trying to say in this passage; instead, it is fairly clear that he is referring to Jesus’ death in which He sold all that He had -- indeed, His very soul -- in order to buy our salvation (Matt. 20:28 cf. 13:44-46).

    Philippians 2:5-11

Let this mind be in you which [is] also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in a form of God, considered [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking a form of a servant. Having become in a likeness of humanity, and having been found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death (namely, death of a cross). Consequently, God also over-exalted him, and gifted him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of [those] in the heavens and [those] on the earth and [those] under the earth, and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, for a glory of Father God.

Those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ see this passage as contrasting between the “pre-incarnate”, “incarnate”, and “post-incarnate” states of Jesus. However, this is not at all certain in the text. According to the Second Adam interpretation of this passage, a view held by trinitarian and non-trinitarian scholars alike, Paul is only describing Jesus’ earthly life in this passage, speaking about how He chose to remain perfectly obedient to God’s will, unto death, rather than using His power to His own advantage.

    To properly understand this passage, we need to recognize that the first two stanzas of the hymn parallel one another. Each of the stanzas describes the same event, Christ’s emptying or humbling of Himself, but in different words:

[Christ Jesus] existing in a form of God, considered [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking a form of a servant.

Having become in a likeness of humanity, and having been found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death (namely death of a cross).

First, we are told in this passage that Jesus was “existing in a form [μορφη] of God”. The meaning of μορφη is most closely “outward appearance”; the only other time that this word is used in the New Testament is in Mk. 16:12, where we are told that Jesus appeared to two men on the road to Emmaus in a “different μορφη” (clearly referring to His outward appearance, not His inward nature). Likewise, the derivative word μορφωσις describes a false appearance both of the times it is used in the Bible in Romans 2:20 and 2 Timothy 3:5 (where it is said that some false teachers have “a μορφωσιν of godliness, but its power having been denied”).

    To translate εν μορφη θεου as “in very nature God”, as the NIV does, is simply theological editorializing. Rather, the parallelism between the first two stanzas of this Christological hymn shows that Jesus’ being “in a form of God” is the same as His “likeness of humanity”. Therefore, this does not refer to His being ontologically equal to God, but that He, like Adam, is in the “image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27) [1]. Since neither trinitarians nor Arians believe that Jesus was a human being in His “pre-incarnate” state, this cannot be describing anything prior to His life on earth.

    The second section of this poem states that Jesus “considered it not robbery to be equal to God”. Although the exact meaning of this passage is debated, most scholars opt for a paraphrase similar to “He did not consider equality with God as something to be seized”. That is, rather than seizing at ontological equality with God, He chose to be fully obedient to God’s will and be “found in appearance as a man”. 

    The next section describes how Jesus “emptied Himself, taking a form of a servant”. Although most trinitarians, and Arians as well, choose to see this as Jesus literally coming down from heaven and becoming a human, this is a highly unlikely interpretation. Rather, the second stanza clarifies what is meant by this: Jesus “humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death”. Jesus’ emptying of Himself does not refer to some mystical Kenosis by which He took on a ‘human nature’, but refers to His death [2].

    “Consequently”, we are told, “God also over-exalted Him and gifted Him the name above every name”. This in itself shows the self-contradiction of any interpretation that sees a “pre-incarnate glory” in v. 6, because the very reason that Jesus has the name above every name is because of His obedience unto death. He cannot have possessed this over-exalted state at any point before His death and resurrection, and so He cannot have been “in very nature God” prior to His birth (as the NIV insists here).

    Colossians 1:15-17

He is [the] image of the invisible God, [the] firstborn of all creation, because in him was created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, the all things has been created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and the all things has been established in him.

Before getting into the meat of this passage, verse 16 which is purported to describe how Christ created all things in the beginning, a uniquely Arian interpretation must be considered. Some Arians, most notably Jehovah’s Witnesses, have argued that because Jesus is called “firstborn of all creation”, He must have been the very first being created.

    However, the meaning of the term “firstborn” (πρωτοτοκος) in scripture actually only refers to one who has received an inheritance. This can mean a literal firstborn, i.e. one who has been born first, and is therefore the inheritor of the father’s estate. However, it is also used of those who, although not being born first, have yet received the inheritance. Used this way, the term “firstborn” is a claim to pre-eminence rather than pre-existence. Here are some examples of this second meaning found in scripture:

“Thus said Yahweh: ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn.’” (Exod. 4:22)

Was Israel literally the first of the nations of the earth? Was Jacob the first living being ever to be created [3]? Obviously this is not true. However, Israel is the firstborn in the sense that he inherited God’s covenant promises.

I will also make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (Ps. 89:27 NASB)

In this Messianic prophecy, “firstborn” clearly is a term of pre-eminence rather than pre-existence. Jesus’ being the “firstborn” is equivalent with being “the highest of the kings of the earth”, and is a state which God is able to grant, not one which is inherently His by order of creation.

“For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn.” (Jer. 31:9 NASB)

Ephraim was actually the second son of Joseph (Gen. 41:51-52), and so he is firstborn by virtue of inheritance, not by the literal order of birth.

    Thus, being the “firstborn of all creation” does not mean that Jesus was the first being created, but instead refers to His pre-eminence as the inheritor of the creation. To the same effect, the author of Hebrews (1:2) writes that God has appointed the Son as “inheritor of all things”. (This does not get trinitarians off the hook for this verse, however, because for Jesus to have been inheritor of the creation requires Him to have inherited it from someone else, which implies that He is not the original ruler of creation.)

    Now, we have arrived at v. 16, which is considered by both trinitarians and Arians to be stating that Jesus was actually the one who created the universe in the beginning (although they differ as to whether He was the originator of creation, or merely the conduit through which God created all things). According to this verse,

in [Christ] was created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, the all things has been created through him and for him.

First of all, it is important to note what this verse actually says was created in Christ, through Christ, and for Christ. In the beginning, what was created was “the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), but in this verse, what is being created is “all things in the heavens and upon the earth”. This passage, then, is not necessarily describing the original creation of the heavens and the earth, which was accomplished by Yahweh alone apart from Christ (Isa. 44:24; Acts 17:24, 31; Heb. 2:10).

    So, if this verse is not describing the original creation, what is it referring to? We need to look back just a few verses earlier to get some necessary context:

in [Christ] we have the redemption, the forgiveness of the sins. (Col. 1:14)

When Paul says only two verses later that all things were created “in Him”, this is clearly a reference back to his previous statement that our redemption is also “in Him”. Thus, this is not saying that the Genesis creation was originally accomplished by the pre-incarnate Christ, but that all things in the heavens and upon the earth were created anew and find their redemption in Christ. Eventually, the entire creation will be released from its bondage (Rom. 8:21).

    Further evidence that this new creation, and not the original creation, is what Paul had in mind here can be found in 2 Corinthians 5:17-18. This passage is explicitly describing the “new creation”, not the original creation, and yet it uses almost the exact same language that Colossians 1:16 does, which is purported by trinitarians and Arians to describe the original creation. See the following comparison:

So then if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation. The old passed away; lo, the all things has become new! Now the all things [are] out of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ (2 Cor. 5:17-18)

in him was created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, the all things has been created through him and for him. (Col. 1:16)

These contextual clues provide strong evidence that Colossians 1:16, like 2 Corinthians 5:17-18, is referring to the new creation of “all things in the heavens and upon the earth” in Christ, rather than the original Genesis creation of “the heavens and the earth” by Yahweh. Therefore, this in no way proves that Jesus existed consciously prior to His birth or created the universe.

    Hebrews 1:1-2

In many times and in many ways, God long ago having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, upon these last days spoke to us in a Son, whom He established inheritor of all things, and through whom He made the ages.

At first glance, this passage seems not to imply the pre-existence of Christ. In fact, it seems far more conducive to Socinianism than Arianism, because it suggests that the Son has not existed until “these last days” when God chose to speak to us in Him.

    However, the majority of Bible versions variously translate the end of v. 2 as “through whom He created the world”, “the worlds”, or even (most egregiously) “the universe”, which leads many Christians to see this as another prooftext for the belief that Christ created the universe in the beginning. This is simply incorrect, and the product of trinitarian bias; the original Greek there says τους αιωνας, literally “the ages”. Just like how the NIV translated εν μορφη θεου as “in very nature God” in Philippians 2:6, this is simply theological editorializing and should have no place in an accurate translation of scripture.

    But what are the “ages” which God has made through His Son? The most likely conclusion is that this is referring to the oncoming ages during which Jesus will be reigning over the house of Jacob (Lk. 1:33), and during which we will be reigning alongside Him in the heavens (Eph. 2:6-7). (For more on these ages, see my previous posts that discuss this topic, here and here.) Therefore, Hebrews 1:2 does not prove that Jesus pre-existed His birth, or that the universe was created through Him.

    Hebrews 1:10-12

And, “You, in the beginning, Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands. They will be destroyed, but You remain, and all will wear out like a robe, and like a veil You will roll them up, and like a robe they will be changed; but You are the same, and Your years will not fail.”

This is understood by most trinitarians to be referring to the Son, and so they believe that this is another passage that establishes the doctrine that Christ created the universe in the beginning. However, because the grammar shows that v. 10 is beginning a new section of the argument separate from vv. 8-9, it is not necessary to interpret this as referring to the Son. Instead, it almost certainly refers to Yahweh, the Father, who was the original subject of Psalm 102:25-27 which is being quoted here. For more information about this interpretation, see my earlier article where I refuted this as a prooftext for the deity of Christ.

    The fact that this quotation is referring to the Father, and not to Jesus, is fairly obvious from the passage itself. According to the Psalmist, “Your years will not fail”, which is simply an emphatic way of describing God’s inability to die. Because Jesus did die - His “years” did “fail”, for three days - this passage cannot be referring to Jesus. Therefore, this too cannot be considered a prooftext for either the deity or pre-existence of Christ.

    Jude 5

But I wish to remind you, you once having known all [this], that Lord having saved a people out of [the] land of Egypt, afterward destroyed the [ones who] did not believe.

Like Hebrews 1:2, at first glance, this verse does not seem to imply the pre-existence of Christ in any way. However, there is a textual variant at this point which states that it was “Jesus” who saved a people out of Egypt; and furthermore, it is argued, because the previous verse establishes Jesus as “our only Lord”, even if “Lord” is the correct reading in v. 5, it must still be referring to Jesus.

    This second objection can be easily refuted. Because the title “Lord”, or κυριος in Greek, can be used either to describe human lords (adoni), the Lord God (Adonai), or Yahweh (YHWH), Jude could have meant any one of six things here (assuming that “Lord” is the correct reading):

1. Jesus is our only adoni, and adoni saved a people out of Egypt.

2. Jesus is our only adoni, and Adonai saved a people out of Egypt.

3. Jesus is our only adoni, and YHWH saved a people out of Egypt.

4. Jesus is our only Adonai, and adoni saved a people out of Egypt.

5. Jesus is our only Adonai, and Adonai saved a people out of Egypt.

6. Jesus is our only Adonai, and YHWH saved a people out of Egypt.

Since the Messiah is established as an adoni, rather than Adonai, by Ps. 110:1, one of the first three readings must be correct over against the last three. Furthermore, the κυριος in Jude 5 is anarthrous (without the definite article). Since the divine name YHWH is almost always translated with anarthrous κυριος, in contrast to adoni and Adonai which are translated with arthrous κυριος in most cases (see this article), the third reading should be favored:

3. Jesus is our only adoni, and YHWH saved a people out of Egypt.

Thus, if “Lord” is the original reading of Jude 5, it is most likely not saying that Jesus is the one who saved the Israelites out of Egypt, but that Yahweh saved them out of Egypt.

    Furthermore, for Jude to say that Jesus saved a people out of Egypt would be extremely anachronistic, especially in light of the fact that he says that “you once knew all [this]”. The tradition that the pre-incarnate Christ was the angel of Yahweh who saved the Israelites from Egypt is first attested in the second century writings of Justin Martyr [4], so it is highly unlikely that Jude’s first-century audience would have been already familiar with such a tradition [5]. For these reasons, Jude 5 should probably not be considered a prooftext for the pre-existence of Christ.

    Conclusion

Although there are many passages that are used as prooftexts for the supposed “pre-existence of Christ”, most of them can be shown from their context to be describing something else. The gospel of John uses many figures of speech that can only be properly understood in its literary context of ancient Jewish literature (both biblical and extra-biblical). An understanding of wisdom literature and the figure of speech of prolepsis is necessary to properly exegete John 1:18; 8:58; and 17:5. The position of pre-existence must be read into the letters of Paul, and cannot be exegeted out of them.

    Because Jesus was (and is) a human being, and because human beings do not consciously exist prior to their births (as should be obvious), the burden of proof rests squarely on those who do assert that Jesus consciously pre-existed His birth in some form. As I hope to have shown in these last three posts, the scriptural “prooftexts” for the pre-existence of Christ fail to meet this burden of proof.

    In contrast, the scriptural evidence that Jesus did not consciously exist prior to His birth is vast. Not only do we have explicit statements that His conception was the point at which He “began” and was “begotten” (Matt. 1:18-20; Lk. 1:35), but we are also told that Christ was merely foreknown prior to His manifestation in these last days (1 Pet. 1:20), which precludes His actual existence before His birth. There are also many passages which show that Jesus is fundamentally a human being (and not a divine or celestial being), that God created the world by Himself apart from any “pre-incarnate Christ”, and that Jesus was not (and indeed could not have been) glorified at any point prior to His resurrection.

    For these reasons, I believe that Socinianism is much more scriptural than Arianism or any other doctrine which asserts Christ’s pre-existence. Does this take away glory from Christ? Some might say that it does, but I don’t think so. It is far more commendable that Jesus avoided temptation unto sin apart from any knowledge of a heavenly pre-existence, that He was actually tempted in all the same ways that we are today, as the author of Hebrews tells us. And regardless of whether He existed prior to His birth, He still now sits enthroned over the entire creation, having provided a ransom for sins for all; and that alone makes Him truly worthy of worship [6].

______________________________

[1] Jesus is also in a more specific sense the “image of the invisible God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15), in that He perfectly reveals the Father as the ultimate representative agent of God (Jn. 1:18; 12:45; 14:9), but that is not what is being referred to in this passage. Rather, this is speaking of the general sense in which all humans are made in the “image of God”.

[2] Some also see a reference to Isaiah 53 in the phrase “took the form of a servant”. That is, Jesus, in emptying Himself, took the form of the Suffering Servant who was crushed for our iniquities (thereby fulfilling that prophecy).

[3] Interestingly, we find exactly that interpretation in an ancient Jewish work of literature called the Prayer of Joseph, in which Jacob makes the surprising claim that “I am the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life” (1:3).

[4] To be clear, Justin Martyr did not believe that Jesus was Yahweh. However, he did believe that Jesus was the angel of Yahweh who appeared to Abraham and Moses. See the following excerpt from his Dialogue with Trypho:

it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob... he who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth. (Dialogue with Trypho 60)

[5] Notwithstanding 1 Corinthians 10:4. This passage is considered by some trinitarians as asserting that Christ was the rock which the Israelites drank from in the wilderness:

For [the Israelites] were drinking out of [the] spiritual rock following [them]; now the rock was the Christ.

However, Paul is clearly presenting the rock as a type of Christ, not as Christ Himself (in fact, he goes on to write in v. 6 that “these things have become types to us”). Do trinitarians really believe that Christ incarnated Himself as a rock before becoming a human, and was struck by Moses? Obviously, He did not. The rock was merely a type of Christ, who is the source of living water (Jn. 4:14), just as the manna in the wilderness was also a type of Christ’s flesh (Jn. 6:31-32).

[6] “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals, because You were slain, and You purchased to God by your blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth... To [He who] is sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb, the blessing and the honor and the glory and the dominion, for the ages of the ages.” (Rev. 5:9-10, 13)

The "pre-existence of Christ": predestination and the gospel of John (part 3 of 4)

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-pre-existence-of-christ-prologue-of.html

     Predestination in Jewish thought

Two of the most important prooftexts for the supposed pre-incarnate existence of Christ are John 8:58 and John 17:5. It would not be wrong to say that the case for pre-existence rests largely on these two verses, along with the prologue of John 1 (which was dealt with in my last post). However, before discussing the interpretation of these verses, some background information about the Jewish conception of predestination is necessary.

    In ancient Jewish thought, things that have been predestined by God - especially things integral to His plan, like Israel and the Messiah - were considered to have figuratively existed with God in heaven since before the beginning of creation. Consider the following excerpt from the Babylonian Talmud, written around the time of Jesus or just afterward:

Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of Messiah... The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. (Pesachim 54a:8, 11)

We see from this passage that, in the mind of the ancient Jews, the most important aspects of God’s plan, like the Torah, the Garden of Eden, and the name of the Messiah, actually existed prior to the creation of the world. Although they did not literally exist prior to their creation (which would be logically impossible), they did exist in the plan of God, and by this figure of speech (prolepsis) could actually be considered as existing alongside God in heaven prior to creation.

    This exact same idea appears again in the Bereishit Rabbah, a rabbinic commentary on Genesis written circa AD 400:

In the way of the world, a king of flesh and blood who builds a castle does not do so from his own knowledge, but rather from the knowledge of an architect, and the architect does not build it from his own knowledge, but rather he has scrolls and books in order to know how to make rooms and doorways. So too Hashem [God] gazed into the Torah and created the world. (Bereishit Rabbah 1:1)

Six things preceded the creation of the world; some of them were created and some of them were decided to be created. The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created... The patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah were decided to be created. (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4)

According to this commentary, six things existed prior to the creation of the world, and yet four of them (the patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of Messiah) were only decided to be created at that point. In this way, God, like an architect, creates according to the plans that He made before the creation of the world. This again shows the Jewish figure of speech by which those things that are predestined by God can be said to exist with God in heaven, even prior to the foundation of the world.

    Furthermore, even people, like the patriarchs and Messiah, were said in ancient Jewish literature to have pre-existed with God in heaven (although the Jews did not literally believe that anyone consciously pre-existed their birth):

“Abraham and Isaac were created before any work [of God]. But I, Jacob... am the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life... I had descended to earth and I had tabernacled among men and I had been called by the name of Jacob.” (Prayer of Joseph 1:2-4)

The Jews who wrote this pseudepigraphical Prayer of Joseph (written around the time of Christ) did not believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob literally existed before the creation of the world, or that Jacob physically descended from heaven and “tabernacled” among men. How could they, since the Bible so clearly states that they were born like any other human?

    And yet, they had no difficulty writing that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob existed with God before anything was created, nor that Jacob descended from heaven and tabernacled among men, which is exactly what is written of Jesus in the gospel of John (1:14; 3:13; etc.) This is another example of prolepsis, the figure of speech that was often used in ancient Jewish literature to describe things that were pre-eminent in God’s predestined plan. But if these things were said about the patriarchs, who we correctly understand not to have existed consciously prior to their births, why should we take such figures of speech literally when applied to Jesus?

    This is not limited to a single work of Jewish literature, either; this figure of speech is applied to both people and objects, in literature both before and after the time of Christ. See the following examples:

And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name before the Ancient of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits... And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore. (1 Enoch 48:2-3, 6; 2nd c. BC)

“number her [Asenath] with Your people whom You chose before all things were made” (Joseph and Asenath 8:9; 2nd c. BC)

Accordingly He [God] designed and devised me [Moses], and He prepared me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant. (Assumption of Moses 1:13-14; 1st c. BC)

And Yahweh said to me: “This city [Jerusalem] will be delivered up for a time, and the people will be chastened for a time, and the world will not be forgotten... it... was already prepared from the moment that I decided to create Paradise. And I showed it to Adam before he sinned... After these things I showed it to My servant Abraham... And again I showed it also to Moses... Behold, now it is preserved with Me - as also Paradise.” (2 Baruch 4:1-5; 2nd c. AD)

Throughout this intertestamental and rabbinic Jewish literature, we see the same motif of proleptic or “ideal” pre-existence pop up over and over again. The patriarchs, the Messiah, the people of Israel, Moses, and the city of Jerusalem are all considered to have existed with God, in His foreknowledge, before even the foundation of the world. Of course, they did not believe that these people and places actually existed prior to their creation; but through this figure of speech, they could be said to have existed together with God long before they were actually formed.

    Some critics of this idea argue that, because these examples are all from extra-biblical literature, they cannot be applied to the gospel of John. They say that the Jews of that time period had many odd, unbiblical ideas that are not applicable to the Bible itself. However, this ignores the fact that the exact same thing occurs all throughout the Bible. Across both the Old and New Testaments, people, objects, and events are said to have existed in God’s foreknowledge long before they were actually made and came to pass. Consider the following passages:

“Have you not heard? Long ago I did it; from ancient times I formed it. Now I have brought it about, that you would turn fortified cities into ruined heaps.” (2 Kings 19:25)

In this passage, God is speaking about the defeat of the Assyrians by the Judean king, Hezekiah. And yet, He actually says that “long ago I did it, from ancient times I formed it“. In some sense, because His plan was so certain to come to pass, it could be said that God has already done it in eternity past, even though it was only coming about at that time. This is extremely similar to what we saw in Jewish literature, that God’s predestined plans can in some way be considered to have already come to pass, even if they have not yet been enacted.

“Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” (Rev. 4:11 NASB)

The significance of this passage is easy to miss. The twenty-four elders before the throne praise God, for “because of [His] will [all things] existed, and were created”. That is, all things existed in His will before they were created.

“Then the King will say to the [ones] on his right hand, ‘Come, those blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from [the] foundation of [the] world.’” (Matt. 25:34)

The kingdom of God, though it will not be manifested until the second coming of Christ, has in some sense been prepared since the foundation of the world. This is extremely similar to how Jerusalem was described in 2 Baruch (see above), as something that was prepared already before creation (and shown to a select few, like Adam, Abraham, and Moses) but only built up as the capital of Israel in the time of David.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jer. 1:5 YLT)

Jeremiah existed in some sense prior to His conception and birth, and was known by God at that time. This is highly similar to the pre-existence of persons seen in the Prayer of Joseph and Joseph and Asenath, in which the patriarchs and the people of Israel were said to have been created already in the foreknowledge of God prior to the foundation of the world.

He [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him, in love. (Eph. 1:4 NASB)

[God] did save us, and did call with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, that was given to us in Christ Jesus, before the times of the ages (2 Tim. 1:9 YLT)

God chose us and bestowed His grace upon us before the foundation of the world, before the times of the ages, even though we (obviously) did not physically exist at that time.

    These passages show that all of the elements of prolepsis found in ancient Jewish literature are also found in the Bible itself. People, objects, and events are considered to exist in the foreknowledge of God, and figuratively said to exist alongside God in heaven, even before they are created. Furthermore, just as in Jewish literature, this same idea is applied to the Messiah, Jesus, in the New Testament.

[Messiah was] foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you (1 Pet. 1:20 YLT)

the Lamb [was] slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8 YLT)

1 Peter 1:20 could not be any clearer; the Messiah, Jesus, was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but only manifested in these last times. Since things that are foreknown (lit. “pre-known”) cannot exist at the time that they are foreknown (otherwise they wouldn’t be foreknown), this is a major point in favor of Socinianism. Jesus cannot have literally existed before He was manifested in these last times, since He was foreknown at that time, which makes it impossible that He could have consciously pre-existed His own conception and birth.

    If we are to properly exegete the supposed prooftexts for “pre-existence” in the gospel of John, we need to keep this idea of the figure of speech of prolepsis in mind. People whom we know did not pre-exist their births (like the patriarchs and Moses) are said through this figure of speech to have existed since before the foundation of the world and to have descended from heaven, which is exactly what is said of Jesus in the gospel of John. It is highly inconsistent to interpret these figures of speech literally in the case of Jesus, and figuratively when used to describe other people.

    “Before Abraham was, I am”

John 8:58 is, along with John 1:1 and 17:5, one of the most commonly used prooftexts for both the deity and pre-existence of Christ.

“Abraham, your father, was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.” The Jews, therefore, said unto him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and Abraham hast thou seen?” Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I say to you, before Abraham was — I am.” They took up, therefore, stones that they may cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:56-59)

First of all, it is important to recognize that the typical translation of this passage, “before Abraham was I am”, is actually incorrect and misleading. The combination of the present tense verb (“am”) with a past tense time indicator (“before Abraham was”) indicates that this verb should be translated as a progressive present or present of past action. This same type of construct appears elsewhere in the New Testament:

“Lo, so many years [past time indicator] I do serve thee [present tense verb]” (Lk. 15:29)

“So long a time [past time indicator] I am with you [present tense verb]” (Jn. 14:9)

“from the beginning [past time indicator] ye are with me [present tense verb]” (Jn. 15:27)

from the beginning [past time indicator] the devil doth sin [present tense verb] (1 Jn. 3:8)

In each of these cases, a past time indicator is combined with a present tense verb, and the vast majority of Bible versions translate them accordingly in the perfect tense (see the links above for a survey of translations of each verse).

    John 8:58 is, grammatically, exactly the same as each of these verses. Therefore, this should also be translated in the perfect tense, as a progressive present: “before Abraham was, I have been”. But if this is the case, then why have the majority of versions translated this verse in the present tense? Since grammatical considerations do not show this passage to be any different than the others quoted above, the differing translation of this specific passage must be theologically motivated, likely arising from a misguided attempt to strengthen the tenuous connection with Exodus 3:14 [1].

    Furthermore, throughout his gospel account, John establishes εγω ειμι not as a claim to divinity, but as a Messianic claim. When the Samaritan woman remarks that she has heard that the Messiah is coming, Jesus responds, “εγω ειμι”, meaning “I am [the Messiah]” (Jn. 4:25-26). Jesus tells the Jews that, unless they believe that “εγω ειμι”, they will die in their sins (Jn. 8:24); since we are told elsewhere that the message by which they are saved is that “Jesus is the Messiah” (Jn. 20:31), this again is not a claim to deity, but the implied statement is “I am [the Messiah]”. Jesus again states, “εγω ειμι”, where the implied predicate is clearly “Son of Man”, also a Messianic title (Jn. 8:28 cf. Mk. 14:62). In response to a Messianic prophecy, Jesus claims, “εγω ειμι”, meaning “I am [the One prophesied]” (Jn. 13:18-19).

    Therefore, when Jesus states that “before Abraham was, εγω ειμι“, we should understand Him as meaning that “I have been [the Messiah] before Abraham was born”. This also explains why the Jews immediately got up to stone Him; claiming to be the Messiah without backing up one’s claim in front of a tribunal was considered to be a capital offense under ancient Jewish law [2]. But what, exactly, did Jesus mean by “I have been [the Messiah] before Abraham was born”? Was it a blatant claim to pre-existence, as trinitarians and Arians believe, or something more subtle?

    First of all, we need to dispense with the idea that Jesus was saying in v. 56 that Abraham had literally seen Him. According to Hebrews 11:39, neither Abraham nor any of the other Old Testament patriarchs and heroes actually saw the Christ:

And all these [incl. Abraham], having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised [the Messiah]. (NASB)

However, although Abraham did not see Jesus in actuality, he did see Him as a prophetic promise from God (Gen. 22:18 cf. Rom. 4:18; Gal. 3:16). This is extremely similar to the way that 2 Baruch (quoted above) describes the way that the patriarchs saw the city of Jerusalem before it was actually built:

And Yahweh said to me: “This city [Jerusalem] will be delivered up for a time, and the people will be chastened for a time, and the world will not be forgotten... it... was already prepared from the moment that I decided to create Paradise. And I showed it to Adam before he sinned... After these things I showed it to My servant Abraham... And again I showed it also to Moses... Behold, now it is preserved with Me - as also Paradise.” (2 Baruch 4:1-5)

Abraham saw his promised descendant, the Christ, in the same way that 2 Baruch states that Abraham was shown the promised city of Jerusalem; not as an actual reality, but as a prophetic promise. Thus, when Jesus said that “Abraham, your father... saw [My day] and did rejoice”, He was speaking figuratively, not saying that Abraham literally saw Him (which, again, would contradict Heb. 11:39).

    To properly understand the rest of this passage, it is necessary to recognize the “misunderstanding motif” that appears all throughout the gospel of John. This motif consists of three steps:

1. Jesus says something literally, which He means figuratively.

2. The Jews purposely misinterpret His words in the most literal way possible, to ridicule Him.

3. Jesus (or John) provides the correct, figurative interpretation of His words.

Here are some examples of this motif in the gospel of John:

1. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

2. “This temple was built in forty-six years, and in three days you will raise it up?”

3. He was speaking of the temple of His body. (2:19-21)

1. “If anyone may not be born again, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”

2. “How is a man able to be born, being old? Can he enter into his mother’s womb a second time?”

3. “One must be born of water and of spirit.” (3:3-5)

1. “I am the bread that came down out of the heaven.”

2. “Do we not know His father and mother? How can He say, I have come down out of the heaven?”

3. “The Father sent Me.” (6:41-44)

1. “I and the Father are one.”

2. “You, being a man, make yourself God!”

3. “Is it not having been written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?” (10:30-34)

You may be able to figure out where I am going with this. The same motif of misunderstanding that appears throughout the gospel of John is clearly present in John 8:56-58:

1. “Abraham, your father... saw [My day] and did rejoice.”

2. “You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?”

3. “Truly, truly, I say to you, I have been [the Messiah] before Abraham was born.”

Since we know from Hebrews 11:39 that Abraham did not literally see Jesus, but merely saw Him as a prophetic promise, Jesus’ first statement - that Abraham saw His day - must be a figurative statement. Thus, the Jews’ ridicule in v. 57 must be understood as the second step of the misunderstanding motif, in which the Jews interpret Jesus’ words literally and ridicule Him for it. However, if this is true, then v. 58 must be the third step of the motif, where the figurative meaning is explained. But how could this be, if (as trinitarians and Arians read this passage) it is saying that Jesus did literally exist before Abraham?

    The answer is that Jesus was claiming a sort of pre-existence by saying that, “I have been [the Messiah] before Abraham was born”. But He was not saying that He physically, literally existed together with God before Abraham existed; rather, in line with the Jewish idea of notional pre-existence as described above, He was saying that He had existed as the Messiah in God’s foreknowledge prior to Abraham’s birth. See the following examples of Messianic “pre-existence” in ancient Jewish thought:

The name of Messiah was created before the world was created... The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. (Pesachim 54a:8)

Six things preceded the creation of the world... the name of the Messiah [was] decided to be created. (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4)

[God] will reveal His Messiah whose name is spoken from the beginning (Targum on Zechariah 4:7)

And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name before the Ancient of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits... And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore. (1 Enoch 48:2-3, 6)

[Messiah was] foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you (1 Pet. 1:20 YLT)

This idea, that the Messiah existed in the foreknowledge of God before His birth, even appears in the Bible itself as shown in 1 Peter 1:20. Therefore, when Jesus claimed to have existed as the Messiah prior to Abraham, His audience - full of Pharisees who, presumably, were very familiar with the intertestamental literature - would have understood Him to be saying that he existed in God’s foreknowledge.

    A paraphrase of what Jesus meant in this passage might be, “even before Abraham was, I have been, in God’s plan, the Messiah (and so when Abraham saw his promised seed, he was seeing Me)”. Rather than taking this passage to mean that Jesus literally existed before Abraham, we should understand it as His original audience would have. They (being familiar with the Jewish literature that speaks of Messiah having figuratively existed before the sun) would have known that He was speaking of His existence in God’s foreknowledge, not of a physical existence with God in heaven, causing them to try to stone Him for His Messianic claims [3].

    “The glory that I had before the world was”

The final prooftext for the “pre-existence of Christ” in the gospel of John is found in John 17:5. Here is that passage in question:

“And now You, Father, glorify me together with Yourself, with the glory that I was having with You before the being of the world” [4]

Trinitarians and Arians see this verse as absolute proof that Jesus consciously pre-existed His birth in some form, and existed before the creation of the world. But is this really warranted by this verse, or is there another interpretation that doesn’t contradict the large body of evidence that Jesus did not pre-exist His birth?

    As a matter of fact, there is significant contextual evidence that this statement in John 17:5 should be understood proleptically. Jesus is not referring to a glory that He literally had together with God before the creation of the world, but a glory that was predestined even before the world began, in line with the Jewish figure of speech of prolepsis described above. It is impossible that Jesus could have had any glory prior to His resurrection, because as noted in the first article of this series, the very reason that Jesus even has glory at the present time is because of His death and resurrection:

“Was it not behoving the Christ these things to suffer, and to enter into his glory?” (Lk. 24:26 YLT)

For because of this Christ both died and rose again, and lived again, that both of dead and of living he may be Lord. (Rom. 14:9 YLT)

[Jesus] humbled himself, having become obedient unto death (namely, death of a cross). Consequently, God also over-exalted him, and gifted him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of [those] in the heavens and [those] on the earth and [those] under the earth, and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, for a glory of Father God. (Php. 2:8-11)

Jesus — because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour [was] crowned (Heb. 2:9 YLT)

Paul writes that the very reason that Jesus died and rose again is that He might be Lord of the dead and the living. The obvious implication of this is that Jesus cannot have been the Lord of the dead and the living prior to His death and resurrection. The exact same thing is implied in the rest of the verses quoted above, which say that Christ’s glory is directly the result of His obedience unto death and subsequent resurrection. In accordance with this fact, John writes elsewhere in his gospel account that Jesus had not yet been glorified at the time of His earthly ministry (John 7:39), which precludes His having possessed glory at any time prior to His life on earth.

    But if Jesus did not have any glory prior to His life on earth, as required by these passages, what could He have meant by “the glory that I was having with [the Father] before the being of the world”? The only possible conclusion that doesn’t contradict any other passage of scripture is that He meant this proleptically, referring to the glory that was predestined to Him before the world was created. In the same way that we were chosen and given grace before times of the ages (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9), while we (obviously) did not yet consciously exist, and in the way that the Lamb has been slain since the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) though He did not die until the crucifixion, so also Jesus’ being given glory before the being of the world does not require His having consciously existed at that time.

    Furthermore, Jesus’ prayer to the Father in John 17 is absolutely riddled with prolepsis, which provides even more contextual evidence that Jn. 17:5 is to be understood proleptically. In v. 4, Jesus talks about how He has accomplished His work on earth, even though this work was not completed until His crucifixion (Jn. 19:30). In vv. 11-12, He speaks as though He is no longer in the world, even though He would not ascend to the heaven until over forty days later. Later on, in vv. 22 and 24, Jesus speaks of “the glory which You have been giving me [5]“, even though the entire prayer is a request for God to give Him that glory. He also says in v. 22, “I have been giving them [disciples] the glory”, even though believers will not be glorified until the second coming of Christ (Col. 3:4).

    Because of the massive amount of prolepsis in this passage, especially connected with the idea of “glory” and “glorifying”, there is no reason to interpret v. 5 as referring to a literal pre-existence in glory when other passages clearly contradict that idea. Instead, Jesus was speaking of the glory that He would receive upon His resurrection, which had been predestined to Him by God since even before the world was created.

Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-pre-existence-of-christ-further.html

______________________________

[1] Contrary to popular opinion, there is zero similarity between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. The Greek title of God according to Exodus 3:14 (LXX) is Ο ΩΝ (“the Being”), not εγω ειμι. Furthermore, a better translation of the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 (on both grammatical and contextual grounds) is not “I am who I am”, but “I will be who I will be”, which makes the connection with the εγω ειμι of John 8:58 even more untenable.

[2] Although trinitarians often claim otherwise, the historical evidence clearly proves that it was. When Jesus was on trial, the only charge brought against Him was His claim to be the Messiah (Matt. 26:63-64; Mk. 14:61-62; Lk. 22:67-70), which was considered enough to crucify Him. An interesting, albeit almost certainly untrue, historical tradition has it that the rabbi Bar Kokhba was killed for claiming to be the Messiah without being able to back up his claim (see this article).

[3] Although this interpretation may seem like a stretch to modern readers, that is only because we don’t have the benefit of living in the culture in which the Bible was written. To us, saying that somebody “existed before any work of God” would also seem to be a blatant claim to pre-existence, and yet this is exactly what was written in the Prayer of Joseph (1:2) about Abraham and Isaac, whom we know did not pre-exist their births. Pre-existence, in the ancient Jewish mindset, was all about predestination and foreknowledge, and had nothing to do with whether one actually existed consciously prior to one’s birth.

[4] Although this translation, “before the being of the world”, might seem awkward, it is the literal translation of the Greek and has the same essential meaning as the usual translation, “before the world existed”.

[5] Perfect tense, indicating a past ongoing action.

The "pre-existence of Christ": the prologue of John 1 and other Johannine prooftexts (part 2 of 4)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-pre-existence-of-christ-biblical.html

     Understanding the prologue of the gospel of John

One of the most common prooftexts for both the deity and pre-existence of Christ is found in the prologue of John 1. The argument largely centers around four specific verses in this passage:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was what God was. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being that has come into being... And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw his glory, glory as of an only-begotten from a Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-3, 14)

Those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ interpret this passage by making “Jesus” numerically equivalent with “the word” (that is, interpreting it as though Jesus has always been a conscious being, one and the same as “the word”).

    However, as I argued in a previous post, the correct interpretation of this passage is not that the Word is a conscious being (the “pre-incarnate Christ”), but that the word of God refers to the impersonal divine word and wisdom which was embodied in Christ. This interpretation flows naturally from the literary background of Jewish “wisdom literature” in which it was written. It also finds precedent in the Old Testament, in the personifications of the impersonal aspects of God’s literal wisdom and utterances, not referring to any conscious person alongside Him (e.g. Ps. 33:6-9; Prov. 8:22-30; Isa. 55:11, etc.)

    This interpretation has been challenged on the grounds that the Bible should not be interpreted using extra-biblical works like the Jewish “wisdom literature” of this time. First of all, it is important to recognize that wisdom literature is not solely extra-biblical; the exact same themes and motifs appear in the Psalms and Proverbs, as I will show, and so this interpretation can be derived from the Bible alone. But even if this wisdom literature were only from extra-biblical sources, the clear and obvious parallels between wisdom literature and John 1 show that his audience would have perfectly understood him to be referring not to any conscious, pre-existent Christ, but to the impersonal wisdom of God by which He created all things.

    For the rest of this section, I will demonstrate that this must be what John had in mind, by showing the obvious parallels between wisdom literature (both biblical and extra-biblical) and John 1 (taking the prologue verse by verse). These parallels are largely taken from this presentation by Dale Tuggy.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was what God was. This one was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

He sends His command to the earth; His word runs very swiftly. (Ps. 147:15 NASB)

“The Lord created me [wisdom] at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. From eternity I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. When there were no ocean depths, I was born, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was born; while He had not yet made the earth and the fields, nor the first dust of the world.

“When He established the heavens, I was there; when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, when He made firm the skies above, when the springs of the deep became fixed, when He set a boundary for the sea so that the water would not violate His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth; then I was beside Him, as a master workman; and I was His delight daily, rejoicing always before Him.” (Prov. 8:22-30 NASB)

All wisdom is from the Lord, and with Him it remains forever... Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity... “I [wisdom] came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist.” (Sirach 1:1, 4, 24:3)

For while gentle silence enveloped all things, and night in its swift course was now half gone, Your all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword of your authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death, and touched heaven while standing on the earth. (Wisdom 18:14-16)

In these passages from both the Old Testament and intertestamental wisdom literature, the wisdom of God (which is clearly a personification of an aspect, as it is paralleled with “prudent understanding”) is considered interchangeable with the “word of God” (which is also clearly a personification of an aspect, as His word is paralleled with the “His command”). God’s wisdom, just as His word, came forth as the breath from His mouth (Sir. 24:3 cf. Ps. 33:6).

    And yet, in all of these passages, the same thing that is said of the Word in John 1:1 could easily be said of the impersonal divine wisdom and word in the Old Testament and wisdom literature. So far, John has not introduced anything that would have seemed odd to his original readers if they were familiar with this style of Jewish literature, or even if they were simply familiar with the Old Testament. They would have understood this to be referring to the personification of the impersonal attribute of wisdom.

All things came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:3)

By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their lights. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He puts the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood firm. (Ps. 33:6-9 NASB)

Yahweh founded the earth by wisdom, He established the heavens by understanding. By His knowledge the ocean depths were burst open, and the clouds drip with dew. (Prov. 3:19-20 NASB)

It is His [God’s] knowledge that brought all into existence and his plans that guide all things, and nothing happens without him. (DSS 1QS 11:11)

“I [Solomon] learned both what is secret and what is manifest, for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.” (Wisdom 7:21-22)

“O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by Your word, and by Your wisdom have formed humankind to have dominion over the creatures You have made” (Wisdom 9:1-2)

In the beginning and in great wisdom, God created and finished the heavens and the earth. (Targum Neofiti 1:1)

Again, we find that John 1:3 would not be surprising to any Jew familiar with wisdom literature. Both the Old Testament and intertestamental Jewish literature present God’s word (a personification of an aspect, as it is paralleled with “breath of His mouth”) and wisdom (also a personification, as it is paralleled with “understanding” and “knowledge”) as the creator of all things, since God used His wisdom to form every thing that was created.

     Thus, so far, John has not presented anything that anyone familiar with the Old Testament and Jewish literature - which would likely make up most of his intended audience - would have been confused or shocked by. He is not saying that the “pre-incarnate Christ” was the one who created all things, but saying that all things were created by God’s impersonal word and wisdom, as his audience would have understood. This in no way contradicts the many passages presented in my previous post that show that God created the world apart from Jesus (who did not yet exist).

In it was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. (John 1:4-5)

“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. I have sworn and I will confirm it, that I will keep Your righteous judgments. I am exceedingly afflicted; give me life, Yahweh, according to Your word.” (Ps. 119:105-107 NASB)

“For one who finds me [wisdom] finds life, and obtains favor from Yahweh.” (Prov. 8:35 NASB)

Whoever loves her [wisdom] loves life, and those who seek her from early morning are filled with joy. (Sirach 4:12)

For she [wisdom] is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. (Wisdom 7:26)

She [wisdom] is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever. All who hold her fast will live, and those who forsake her will die. Turn, O Jacob, and take her; walk toward the shining of her light. (Baruch 4:1-2)

The characterization of God’s word and wisdom as “life” and “light” is certainly not without precedent in the Old Testament and Jewish literature. This motif appears all throughout the biblical and extra-biblical wisdom literature. Again, it is clear that an impersonal aspect is being referred to, because the “word” or “wisdom” in these passages is repeatedly paralleled with the book of the Law (which was considered to be the ultimate expression of wisdom). Jesus, being the ultimate embodiment of the divine word and wisdom, is likewise the source of light and life (John 8:12; 11:25). Therefore, this is also something that John’s audience should have been very familiar with - he is not introducing anything new here.

    The next section of John’s prologue, vv. 6 - 8, is only concerned with John the Baptist, and neither does v. 9 introduce anything new (it merely reiterates the established fact that the word is the true light). We will therefore skip ahead to v. 10:

It [the word] was in the world, and the world came into being through it, and yet the world did not know it. (John 1:10)

“Because I [wisdom] called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; and you neglected all my advice and did not want my rebuke” (Prov. 1:22-24 NASB)

“Alone I [wisdom] compassed the vault of heaven and traversed the depths of the abyss. Over waves of the sea, over all the earth, and over every people and nation I have held sway.” (Sirach 24:5-6)

She [wisdom] reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well. (Wisdom 8:1)

The theme of wisdom being “in the world” and being rejected by the world is also a common motif in wisdom literature, both biblical and extra-biblical. And, as noted already, the theme of wisdom creating the world is also a common motif. Thus, John still has not introduced anything that would be incompatible with the “word” referring to the impersonal divine word and wisdom, nor anything that his audience should have been unfamiliar with.

It came to its own, and its own people did not accept it. (John 1:11)

Trinitarians and those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ often point to this verse as proof that the “word” cannot be an impersonal aspect, but a conscious being. Surely, they say, this must refer to the rejection of Jesus by the Israelites, and therefore the word in the previous verses must also refer to Jesus. However, again, we find a theme in wisdom literature of Wisdom coming to its own people (Israel) with limited success:

Then the Creator of all things gave me [wisdom] a command, and my Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance”... In the holy tent I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion. (Sirach 24:8)

He [God] found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to his servant Jacob and to Israel, whom He loved. Afterward she appeared on earth and lived with humankind. She is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever. (Baruch 3:36-4:1)

[Our fathers in Egypt] had no faith in His word... they did not listen to the voice of Yahweh (Ps. 105:24-25 LXX)

Wisdom went forth to dwell among the sons of men, but she obtained not a habitation. Wisdom returned to her place, and seated herself in the midst of the angels. (1 Enoch 42:2)

In intertestamental Jewish thought, and even in the Old Testament, the giving of the Law is considered to be the “coming of God’s word” or “coming of God’s wisdom”, and because most of the Israelites throughout the Old Testament rejected the Law, it was said that they rejected God’s word. This is how John’s statement in John 1:11 would have been understood by his audience, not referring to Jesus’ coming, but referring to the coming and rejection of the divine word and wisdom (via the Law).

But as many as received it, to them it gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in its name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

“He [a righteous man] professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord... and boasts that God is his father.” (Wisdom 2:13, 16)

In every generation she [wisdom] passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom. (Wisdom 7:27)

Blessed shall be the man who trusts in the name of the word of the Lord. (Targum Jerusalem on Genesis 40:23)

John’s statement that, by receiving the word and believing on its name, one can become a child of God also finds precedent in Jewish wisdom literature. This can be clearly seen in the Wisdom of Solomon which states that those who have the knowledge [wisdom] of God call themselves children of Yahweh, as quoted above. Therefore, nothing new has been introduced by John in this passage; this would have been understood by his audience as yet another reference to wisdom literature.

    Finally, we have arrived at v. 14, “the word became flesh”. This is considered by many Christian scholars to be the point at which John diverges from the wisdom tradition of his time, in order to demonstrate that Jesus is numerically identical with the word and wisdom, and has always been. But is this really what John meant? As a matter of fact, the idea of wisdom manifesting itself in human beings also finds precedent in the literature of the intertestamental period. Consider the following passages from Philo’s Life of Moses:

Perhaps, since Moses was also destined to be the lawgiver of his nation, he was himself long previously, through the providence of God, a living and reasonable law (Life of Moses I.162)

The king [Moses] is at once a living law, and the law is a just king (Life of Moses II.4)

Since the “word”, “wisdom”, and “law” were considered interchangeable in wisdom literature (for example, see Baruch 4:1; Sirach 24; Wisdom 9:1-2), Philo’s statement that Moses himself was a living law is extremely similar to John’s statement that Jesus is the word of God (John 1:14; Rev. 19:13). Obviously, Philo did not believe that Moses existed consciously prior to his own birth, and yet he had no problem stating that Moses existed “long previously” as a “living and reasonable law”.

    The same idea appears in the book of Sirach, and even in the Bible itself. Many scholars have noted that the book of Sirach appears to present the high priest Simon of Cyrene as the incarnation of Wisdom herself, by describing him with the exact same attributes as Wisdom (Sirach 50:8-12 cf. 24:12-17). Likewise, in the book of Proverbs, the ideal wife in chapter 31 is given the same attributes as Wisdom of chapter 8, and most commentators have recognized that Solomon meant to present her as the embodiment or ‘incarnation’ of Wisdom: “and Wisdom became flesh”.

    Since, based on the clear and obvious parallels between John 1:1-13 and wisdom literature, we know that John was writing this with the themes and motifs of wisdom literature in mind, we should regard v. 14 in the same way [1]. John did not mean to say that the word of God had always been Jesus, which would contradict the scriptures that present the word and wisdom as an impersonal attribute; rather, he meant to say that, in Jesus, the word and wisdom of God is perfectly embodied.

    This view of John 1:14 is supported by the rest of scripture, as we are elsewhere told that Jesus has become the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24, 30) and that Jesus fulfills the Torah (Matt. 5:17). Since, as noted already, both the “wisdom” and “Torah” were used interchangeably with the “word” in wisdom literature, the logical conclusion is that Jesus has also become the embodiment or manifestation of the word of God. This does not mean that Jesus pre-existed His birth, or that He has always been numerically identical with the Word.

    But if John did not mean to demonstrate Christ’s “pre-existence” in this passage, what was the purpose of writing the prologue of the gospel of John? Well, it has been understood for a long time now that this prologue has a chiastic structure, which I believe shows what the intended meaning of John’s prologue is:

A. The word has an intimate relationship with the Father (vv. 1-3)

B. The word is the life and the light (vv. 4-5)

C. John the Baptist testifies about the word (vv. 6-8)

D. The word coming into the world, embodied in the Law (vv. 10-11)

E. Those who believe in the word become children of God (vv. 12-13)

D’. The word coming into the world, embodied in Jesus (v. 14)

C’. John the Baptist testifies about Jesus (v. 15)

B’. Jesus full of grace and truth (vv. 16-17)

A’. Jesus has an intimate relationship with the Father (v. 18)

From this structure, we can determine what John meant by writing his prologue. His point is not that Jesus is God, or even that Jesus existed prior to His birth. Rather, he is paralleling Jesus and the word/wisdom, showing that Jesus now has the exact same attributes that the word/wisdom had prior to Jesus, and therefore He is the ultimate and perfect embodiment of the word/wisdom [2]. And the central point of his prologue has nothing to do with the supposed deity or pre-existence of Christ, but is about how those who trust in God’s word, which now has been perfectly manifested in Jesus, may become children of God.

    In summary, the clear and extensive parallels between John’s prologue and wisdom literature (both biblical and extra-biblical) demonstrate that he was not trying to present the Word as the divine “pre-incarnate Christ”, contrary to the prevailing trinitarian and Arian interpretations, but presenting Jesus as the ultimate embodiment of God’s wisdom. This passage does not prove the pre-existence of Christ. In fact, it is far more conducive to Socinianism than Arianism, as it shows that something changed at the birth of Jesus in the way that God’s wisdom interacts with the world (which would not be as momentous if Jesus had always existed as the revealer of God, as in v. 18).

    Other prooftexts for pre-existence in the gospel of John

The other two main prooftexts for pre-existence, John 8:58 and 17:5, are beyond the purview of this post. I will deal with them in my next post, when I discuss the Jewish concept of predestination as it relates to those passages. However, there are still other “prooftexts” in the gospel of John that are often brought up in debate about the pre-existence of Christ, and I will deal with each of these in turn.

John testified about him [Jesus] and called out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who is coming after me has become before me, because he was before me.’” (John 1:15)

According to this passage, John testified that Jesus had become before him (i.e., become his superior) because He was before him. But what could this mean? Does it necessarily mean that Jesus existed before him [3], or could it mean something else?

    As a matter of fact, the word πρωτoς, translated here as “before”, can either mean before in time or before in status. This verse could just as easily be translated, “He who coming after me has become before me because He was my superior”. In fact, if what John meant is that Jesus existed before him, this statement would make little sense; why would Jesus’ current status above John be related to when He came into existence? Therefore, this passage does not prove the pre-existence of Christ, and it is impossible to derive such a doctrine from this verse unless one already has some preconceived notion about Jesus having existed long prior to John.

No one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. (John 3:13 NASB)

Is this passage saying that Jesus literally, physically descended from heaven? This is how most trinitarians and Arians interpret this verse. However, there is no reason to interpret this verse with such wooden literalness as they do. This language of “descending from heaven” is common in scripture, and simply refers to any good thing that comes from God:

Every good giving, and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the lights (Jas. 1:17)

Since, as demonstrated in the last post of this series, Jesus’ being “sent from God” and being “not of this world” simply refers to His being commissioned by God at the beginning of His ministry (John 17:16-18), His statement that He descended from heaven should be understood no differently.

    In Matthew 21:25, Jesus asks the Pharisees, “from where was the baptism of John - of heaven or of men?” If the baptism of John were “of heaven”, this would simply mean that his authority to baptize came from God, not literally that he or those whom he baptized came down out of heaven. Likewise, Jesus having “descended from heaven” simply means that He has been commissioned and given authority by God.

“for the bread of God is that which is coming down out of the heaven, and giving life to the world.” (John 6:33)

“I have come down out of the heaven, not that I may do my will, but the will of Him who sent me.” (v. 38)

“this is the bread that out of the heaven is coming down, that any one may eat of it, and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of the heaven; if any one may eat of this bread he shall live — to the age; and the bread also that I will give is my flesh, that I will give for the life of the world.” (v. 50-51)

“this is the bread that came down out of the heaven; not as your fathers did eat the manna, and died; he who is eating this bread shall live — to the age.” (v. 58)

Five times in chapter 6 of the gospel of John, Jesus describes Himself as the “bread that came down out of the heaven”. Like in John 3:13, both trinitarians and Arians take this to mean that Jesus literally came down out of heaven, as proof of the “pre-existence of Christ”.

    However, if we take Jesus’ words at face value as saying that the “bread” came down from heaven, we would have to conclude that Jesus bodily descended from heaven in the flesh, since Jesus says that the bread is His flesh in v. 51. Since no one believes that Jesus physically came down from heaven already in a body (except perhaps Docetists), we should instead recognize that Jesus is using a figure of speech here. As He said in John 17:16-18,

“Of the world they [Jesus’ disciples] are not, as I of the world am not... as Thou didst send me to the world, I also did send them to the world”

Jesus’ disciples are not of the world, and were sent into the world, in the same way that Jesus is not of the world and was sent into the world. Since the disciples were not sent from a heavenly pre-existence to be incarnated on earth, there is no reason to believe from figurative statements like the above that Jesus had a heavenly pre-existence either.

Many of his disciples having heard, said, “This word is hard; who is able to hear it?” And Jesus having known in himself that his disciples are murmuring about this, said to them, “Doth this stumble you? If then ye may behold the Son of Man going up where he was before? The spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:60-63)

Trinitarians and Arians believe that Jesus, when He said that the Son of Man would go up where He was before, is referring to His ascension into heaven (which would mean that He had been in heaven before). However, the context shows that Jesus was not referring to His ascent into heaven, but to His death and resurrection.

    First of all, we need to ask what Jesus’ disciples thought was a “hard saying”. Were they referring to Christ’s supposed descent from heaven? This is very doubtful, because the disciples would have understood this to be a figurative statement, as it is used as such all throughout the Bible (Ps. 78:23-25; Mal. 3:10; Jas. 1:17; 3:15-17), and they would have known that Jesus did not physically descend from heaven in the flesh (which is what He would have been saying if taken literally, as noted above). Were they referring to His statement that they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood (vv. 53-56)? This is possible, but also unlikely, as if that was their complaint, Jesus’ response about “going up [into their mouth?] where He was before” would be hardly intelligible.

    The only other “hard saying” in the vicinity of this passage, which Jesus’ disciples would have objected to, is that Jesus would be giving His flesh (i.e., dying) for the world (v. 51). Elsewhere, Jesus’ statements that He would die were highly controversial and even caused Peter to rebuke Him in one instance (Matt. 16:21-23; John 12:34 cf. 1 Cor. 1:23). But if this saying - that Jesus would die - is what caused His disciples to stumble, then we should interpret v. 62 not as saying that Jesus would ascend to heaven where He was before, but that He would ascend from death to life where He was before [4].

    This also makes sense of why Jesus goes on to talk about the spirit and life. If Jesus were referring to His ascension to heaven, this would make little sense and would seem to be a random tangent. But if Jesus was referring to His death and resurrection, then He would simply be continuing the discussion of resurrection, and how He will be given life (resurrected) by spirit, just as His disciples will be if they continue to follow Him. Therefore, since the context shows that John 6:62 is referring to Jesus’ death and resurrection, rather than His ascension to heaven, this cannot be considered a prooftext for Jesus’ supposed heavenly pre-existence.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-pre-existence-of-christ.html

______________________________

[1] Dr. Dustin Smith writes,

Proverbs 31:10-31 argues for the embodiment of Lady Wisdom in obedient and wise women, using a dozen textual connections to earlier references to the personification of God’s wise interaction with the world.

The Book of Sirach (180 BC) likewise depicts an actual human (i.e., Simon the High Priest) as the embodiment of Lady Wisdom with no less than eight textual connections. Sirach shows demonstrable influence from Proverb’s theology.

Therefore, to say that Jesus is “the enfleshment of the Logos” is nothing new or unique in Jewish theology, since other humans have been depicted as the enfleshment of Wisdom. The connection is closer once we recognize that Logos and Wisdom were near synonyms (cf. esp. Wisdom 9:1-2).

[2] You may note that this is exactly what Sirach does to demonstrate that the high priest is the embodiment of wisdom, and what Solomon does in Proverbs to show that the ideal wife is the embodiment of wisdom. John is no different, as he is trying to prove that Jesus is the embodiment of the word/wisdom by showing that He has the same attributes as the word/wisdom.

[3] Which would seem to be contradicted by the gospel account of Luke, which states that Jesus was begotten, or given existence, after John was (Lk. 1:24, 35).

[4] The same Greek word, αναβαινω, is used to describe resurrection in Job 7:9 (LXX; in the MT, the Hebrew equivalent alah is used). Therefore, whether one interprets this word as referring to Jesus’ ascension to heaven or resurrection is entirely based on the context. Grammatically, it could be taken either way.