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].
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment