Chapter 6

"THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD" ⁽⁵⁵⁾

The 'pre-existence' of Jesus'

In this chapter so far we have first considered Jesus as the Messiah, the long promised and long awaited Deliverer of the Jewish race and the Saviour of the whole world. Then in Section 2 the Scriptural teaching about the nature of Jesus was considered. He was unique in that he was both Son of God and Son of man, the latter giving him a physical nature identical to the rest of mankind. He experienced temptation, but never sinned by giving way to it. Section 3 reviewed the early Christian teaching on Jesus as the Son of God, a term which to them was synonymous with 'Messiah'. During his earthly ministry Jesus repeatedly alluded to his dependent role and subordination to his Father. We then examined passages that Trinitarians take to demonstrate the equality of Jesus with his Father and the belief that Jesus, the second person of an eternal trinity, assumed human form. It was shown that none of the passages would have conveyed such a meaning to the earliest Christians to whom the writings were addressed. Most of the alleged 'proofs' of the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation are in reality nothing of the sort. It is true that reading them with such doctrines already in mind it is possible to find support for some aspects of the Trinity; but that is very different from saying that such passages deliberately set out to teach that doctrine, or even reflect the writer's belief of the doctrine. In all cases the incarnation and the Trinity must be read into the words rather than derived from them. What is consistently lacking are scriptural passages that teach the Trinity in words which are incapable of any other meaning.

PRE-EXISTENCE IN WHAT SENSE?

But despite the many references to the subordinate role of Jesus there still remain some passages that appear to refer to his eternal pre-existence with God in heaven, even ascribing the creation of the world to him. This section will examine the question of Christ's pre-existence, and the final section will look at his creative work. Do these passages fulfil the criterion of being of themselves unambiguous statements of Christ's personal pre-existence, or do they only appear to teach it if the reader is already preconditioned to read such ideas into them?

One thing is sure: the personal pre-existence of Christ is fundamental to the doctrine of the Trinity. If the concept is doubtful the whole basis of the traditional view of God is put in jeopardy. It is undeniable that a few passages, almost all in the gospel of John, use language that suggests that Christ existed in heaven before his earthly ministry. But what needs to be determined is whether that pre-existence was as a person or as an idea or plan in the mind of God.

OLD TESTAMENT ALLUSIONS

In predicting the coming of the Messiah the Old Testament gives no hint that the promised Saviour was already in existence. In almost every case the future tense is used:

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him" (Deuteronomy 18:18).

"I will raise up your son ... I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (2 Samuel 7:12,14). "His name will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God ..." (Isaiah 9:6).

In each case the Messiah is seen as a person yet to be born, not a being already existing in heaven who later would assume human form. This is true even when describing the relationship that would exist between God and His promised Son:

"He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth" (Psalm 89:26-27).

It is difficult to reconcile these statements with the concept that the Son was already in heaven as the co-equal of God.

"WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM EVERLASTING"

The well-known passage that identifies Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah is frequently quoted in support of the pre-existence of Jesus:

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2, AV).

It is alleged that the final phrase indicates the eternal pre-existence of Jesus. But did the prophet really intend that? There are three significant words here: the Hebrew mikedem which is expressed as 'old', olahm which is rendered 'everlasting', and motsaah which in the plural is translated 'goings forth'. The first of these, mikedem is from kedem, a common word meaning 'old, afore, before in time or in location, past, aforetime' and is often translated as 'ancient times'. Olahm is basically an indefinite period of time, and is derived from alam 'to conceal'. It is frequently translated 'ever' or 'everlasting' but also as 'old' and 'ancient times'. Neither of the two latter terms necessarily conveys the idea of eternity. Isaiah uses both of these words in a passage that directs Israel to remember their past history clearly something that did not stretch back into infinite time:

"Remember this and consider, ... remember the former things of old (olahm); for I am God, and there is no other, ... declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times (mikedem) things not yet done" (Isaiah 46:8-10).

Similarly both words are used in describing the events of the Exodus, where to translate them so as to mean 'from eternity' would obviously be inappropriate:

"Awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in days of old (kedem), the generations of long ago (olahm)" (Isaiah 51:9).

Thus mikedem and olahm in scriptural usage do not necessarily indicate an eternal past.

Those who use this passage to support the trinity assume the third word under discussion, the AV "goings forth", to mean Christ's eternal activity in heaven prior to his incarnation. But the word motsaah is a word that simply means 'to proceed from'. Here are some of the ways it is translated:

'spring of water' (2 Kings2:21),

'the ground put forth grass' (Job 38:27)

'that which came out of my lips' (Jeremiah 17:16).

Of particular interest is the use of the word to describe the son of Abraham who, God said, was to 'come forth (motsaah) out of thine own bowels' (Genesis 15:4, AV), implying birth or physical descent from a forefather. Here we have the clue to the meaning of Micah's words. The Messiah was to come as the 'seed of the woman', as the 'seed of Abraham' and as the 'son of David' a series of descendants or 'comings forth' that would lead to His appearing. And this purpose had been foretold by God from 'ancient times', even at the very beginning in Eden. These 'comings forth' (i.e. a series of descendants) had certainly been from earliest times, as Christ's genealogies in the gospel records demonstrate. It may be significant that in the Micah passage motsaah is in the feminine form of the noun, indicating the female origin of the Messiah, the 'seed of the woman'. Thus it was absolutely true to say of him 'His goings forth have been from old, from everlasting'; or as the RSV more accurately puts it 'whose origin is from old, from ancient days'. It is just another way of saying that his ancestry extended back to Adam via David and Abraham. By no rules of biblical interpretation can the personal pre-existence of the Messiah be legitimately read into the passage.

THE CONCEPTION, BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS

Turning to the record of Christ's birth there is a similar silence about his personal pre-existence. Gabriel announced the impending event in the terms of God's Old Testament promises:

"You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:31-33).

In view of her unmarried state Mary asked for information as to how this would happen, and was told:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (verse 35).

There was clearly not even a hint in the angel's message that Jesus already existed, and that the babe was to be God coming in human form. Why was this information withheld if it were true? Mary, no doubt because of her godly disposition and outstanding character, had been chosen by God to be the vehicle for the birth of His Son. Would He have concealed any relevant information from her concerning her child? Yet in outlining the Son's work, there is not the slightest intimation that he was already existing as God's co-equal in heaven. Instead the future tense is still used as it was in the Old Testament he will be called the Son of the Most High, etc.

As Jesus grew up he "increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52). This statement presents a difficulty for those who believe Jesus had a personal pre-existence. It prompts the question as to what he brought with him when he descended from heaven to earth and assumed human nature. Did he divest himself of all the wisdom and knowledge inherently associated with his divinity and start with a clean slate? Did he so completely relinquish all his perfect attributes that he had to build again from scratch a character that enabled him to re-establish himself in God's favour? The Trinitarians in effect must assume that he did. Yet without irreverence we can surely ask if it were possible for a divine being, one who knows all things and is perfect in every sense, to ever 'forget' everything about his divinity and start again the process of learning and character building?

This dilemma is increased by the generally accepted view that Christ did not relinquish any aspect of his deity when he became man:

"When the Word 'became flesh' His deity was not abandoned, or reduced, or contracted, nor did He cease to exercise the divine functions which had been His before. It is He, we are told, who sustains the creation in ordered existence, and who gives and upholds all life, and these functions were certainly not in abeyance during His time on earth. ... The New Testament stresses that the Son's deity was not reduced through the incarnation". ⁽⁵⁶⁾

If this is true how did Jesus 'increase in wisdom and in favour with God' if all the time he had never relinquished a divinity that possessed these attributes to perfection?

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS

The same problem arises with Christ's temptation, both in the specific series of temptations in the wilderness and in his whole life. We read that he 'in every respect has been tempted as we are' (Hebrews 4:15). If Jesus had indeed a personal pre-existence in heaven before his birth to Mary, any recollection of his previous life would have rendered his temptation almost futile. A perfect mind cannot be tempted with evil. A mind that 'knows all things from the beginning' could have foreseen the result of the conflict so as to make it no conflict at all. But could Jesus, as pre-existent and omniscient God the Son have blanked out from his mind all the divine thoughts and feelings that had been his from eternity? We have already seen that Trinitarians believe that Jesus did have a recollection of a life in heaven. Indeed according to their view of John 17:5 Jesus could recall the glory he had shared with God before the world was made. So why should he not recall the other aspects of his divinity? Yet if that were so how did he increase in wisdom, and why did he need to learn to overcome the 'temptations common to man'(1 Corinthians 10:13) and so be pleasing and obedient to his heavenly Father?

Jesus continued to learn obedience right to the end of his earthly ministry. A most revealing passage in Hebrews reads:

"Although he were a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:8).

Again the question must be faced. If Jesus was pre-existent God with an infinite life of perfection behind him how could he 'learn obedience' and as a result of this be 'made perfect'. At what point did the perfect member of the eternal trinity become less than perfect? What form did that deficiency take? These are legitimate questions that Trinitarians seldom, if ever, address.

It is continually alleged that the uniqueness of the Christian message lies in the fact that God became man for the salvation of the human race. It is said that only by this incarnation could man's redemption be achieved. Yet the clear scriptural teaching, as was shown particularly in section 2 of the present chapter and will be emphasised again in a later section, is that Jesus was a man whose physical nature was identical in every respect to ours. And we can now add that this included the need to develop mind and character by a process of normal growth. It is reasonable therefore to query even the relevance of a previous existence. Why is it that the eternal almighty God should deem it necessary to reveal Himself as a man, that is, to become incarnate? How did it help the redemption process? A previous existence in heaven seems in no way an aid to or a preparation for the work he had to do on earth. On the other hand if it is said that it was only through being God that he could triumph in the way that he did, then his personal achievement seems greatly lessened, for God can do anything.

"HE CALLS THINGS THAT ARE NOT AS THOUGH THEY ARE"

The key to understanding the biblical sense in which Jesus pre-existed is the foreknowledge of God. His control of future events is so absolute that nothing can prevent His decisions coming into effect. Once He has decided anything it is as good as done:

"I work and who can hinder it?" (Isaiah 43:13).

"I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose ... I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it." (Isaiah 46:9-11).

Because of the impossibility of His plans failing God often speaks of future events as if they had actually happened. This is important to keep in mind. Paul says that God:

"Calls things that are not as though they were". (Romans 4:17, NIV).

There are several Scriptural examples of this that are very relevant to this study. For example, when God commissioned Jeremiah to be a prophet He said to him:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5).

Here is an example of a man being 'known' by God long before he was born. In this sense it could be said that Jeremiah 'pre-existed' obviously not as a person but in God's mind and purpose. This is not the only example. All those who are finally redeemed by Jesus have been 'known' to God since before the creation. This point is made many times:

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined (Gk pro-orizo, to 'mark out in advance') to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29).

"Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). "God chose you from the beginning" (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

"Who saved us and called us with a holy calling ... which he gave us in Christ ages ago" (2 Timothy 1:9).

Note carefully the language used by Paul in these passages. The believers were 'foreknown' and 'chosen in Christ' before the creation of the world. None would deduce from this that the believers had a personal existence from eternity. Rather that they existed in the mind and purpose of God and because His purpose is inflexible they could be regarded as real although they had not yet come into existence. Why then should not the reference to Christ's pre-existence be taken in the same way? Dunn, himself a Trinitarian, has a significant comment on how the early Christians would have understood the Ephesians passage quoted above:

"Here too it is the divine choice or election which was made 'before the foundation of the world' the pre-determination of Christ as redeemer and of those who would be redeemed in and through Christ. We may speak of an ideal pre-existence at this point, but of real pre-existence of Christ or of believers once again there is no thought". ⁽⁵⁷⁾

Here the distinction is made between the idea of Christ's redemptive work ('ideal pre-existence') and the actual reality of his existence ('real pre-existence'). The first truly was there from the beginning, and the second patently was not.

In confirmation of this we turn to an important statement about Christ made by Peter:

"He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:20).

The word translated 'destined' literally means 'to know beforehand'. It is the word from which we get our word prognosis meaning known in advance, usually used by doctors in predict-ing the course of an illness. On the basis of his foreknowledge the doctor can offer a good or bad prognosis about the outcome of the disease. Thus in this passage Peter is telling us that Jesus was known in advance by God in the sense that His plan for him was predetermined; and then at the appropriate time Jesus was born. Clearly there was no thought in Peter's mind that Jesus had personally existed before he was born. Confirmation of this view is found in the opening salutation of this epistle, where Peter describes his readers in identical words:

"Chosen and destined by God the Father" (1 Peter 1:2).

None take this to mean the believers' personal previous existence.

God's foreknowledge of his purpose in Christ is often likened to an architect's mental picture of a new building. Long before any construction work has started he 'sees' the edifice in his mind's eye. Every detail is planned and recorded so that he knows exactly how the completed building will appear. He could speak of its magnificence and splendour when in fact it did not yet exist. It was in prospect, not in reality. God too has a plan for a house that has not yet been built. Not a literal building but an edifice composed of the redeemed. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ And the corner stone of this building is Jesus. With an insight greater than any human architect, God can visualise this building in all its glory, and because He is so sure that it will be constructed He can speak of it as already done. It is in this way that it can be said that Jesus had glory with God in the beginning, and that the redeemed were chosen and 'marked out' before the foundation of the world.

THE SON OF MAN'S DESCENT FROM HEAVEN

With these comments about the general Scriptural teaching concerning the sense in which Christ pre-existed we come to the passages, exclusive to the gospel record of John, which seem to suggest Christ's personal pre-existence in heaven. In addition to the classic understanding of the Logos in the prologue (1:1-18), which will be considered later, there are the following passages:

1. "He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man" (John 3:13).

2. "He who comes from above is above all" (John 3:31)

3. "He whom God has sent" (John 3:34).

4. "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world. ... I am the bread of life" (John 6:33-35).

5. "I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me" (John 6:38).

6. "What if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?" (John 6:62).

7. "I am from above" (John 8:23).

8. "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42).

9. "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58).

10. "I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father" (John 16:28).

11. "Father, glorify me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made" (John 17:5).

The fact that all these allusions to Christ coming down from heaven are found only in the gospel record of John should make us pause. Did the other gospel writers know of the pre-existence of Christ but did not mention it? It certainly could be said that their silence suggests they did not believe and teach it. Or could it be that John had a distinctive way of looking at the words of Jesus that bids us look beneath their apparent meaning?

LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE?

There is no doubt that many of Christ's sayings recorded by John were not intended to be taken literally, although sometimes his hearers did just that. When Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be "born anew", he first took a literal interpretation" How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (John 3:3-4)and had to be led gently by Jesus to see rebirth as a spiritual process. When Jesus described himself as the "bread from heaven" that a believer had to "eat" (6:50,51), so that "out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water" (7:38) no one would ever think of taking the words at their face value. Jesus himself acknowledged this on one occasion when he said to his disciples "I have said this to you in figures" (John 16:25).

We use figurative speech today almost without thinking about it. We know that a 'heaven-sent gift' has not literally come down from heaven, but expresses the belief that it has been supplied by divine providence. We suggest that many of the references to Christ's descent from heaven were intended to be understood in the same way. For example, the conversation with the Jews (no. 4 in the above list) about the bread of life is a reference to the God-provided manna that fed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:31-33). Everybody understood the sense in which manna came down from heaven not literally dropping from the throne of God, but being God-provided. Why should not the parallel allusion to Jesus descending from heaven be taken in a similar way? Jesus came down from heaven in the sense that he was provided by God to be the source of life for the world. The actual body of Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb, and thus was 'from God'. Other references make it clear that the body of Jesus came from God in this sense:

"Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me.... Then I said, Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God ... And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:5,7,10).

References 1,2,5,7,8, can be viewed in a similar way. In addition it should be noted in (1) that it was the Son of Man that came down an unexpected expression if a pre-existent deity was intended; for none suggest that Jesus pre-existed as a man.

In references (6) and (10) Jesus couples his coming from God with his ascent to heaven after the resurrection. The way in which he came down has already been established: not a mature figure descending, but a body gradually developed by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. But the way in which he ascended is clearly described in the Gospels and Acts. It was with a body and by a bodily ascent that he 'left the world and went to the Father' (Mark 16.19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9-11). Does not this mixture of meaning suggest that we should not press the words too literally?

"SENT FROM GOD"

Other passages, (3) (5), speak of Jesus being sent from God. Do these imply a pre-existence in heaven? By no means. John Baptist is described in similar terms: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John" (John 1:6). In this passage the original words translated from God literally mean from beside God; but this emphatic term has never been used to suggest that John had an eternal pre-existence in heaven. It would therefore be inconsistent to use similar passages relating to Jesus to assert his pre-existence.

"BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM"

The reference to Abraham (9) is another key passage for Trinitarians, although, as with the majority of such passages, the doctrine has to be read into it rather than deduced from it. It is claimed that when Jesus said to the Jews "Before Abraham was (Gk. came into being), I am" he was stating that (a) he existed in Abraham's day, and (b) he could apply to himself the personal name of God revealed in Exodus.

It is not disputed that Jesus had some kind of existence before Abraham was born, but was it a personal existence, or one in the mind and purpose of God? The early Christian view was stated by Peter in the passage already considered in detail above (p. 229):

"He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:20).

The word translated 'destined' means known beforehand, and from what has already been considered about the promises relating to the coming Messiah it is quite clear that God had marked out beforehand with absolute precision the mission he would accomplish. Thus it is true that before Abraham was born Christ 'was' in the sense that he was envisaged as the one through whom God and estranged man would become reconciled. A glance at the context of the words shows that this was in Christ's mind. The Jews were claiming the privileges of descent from Abraham, whilst Jesus replied that if they were his children they would do what Abraham did (John 8:39). And one of the things Abraham did, in contrast to his unbelieving descendants, was that he 'rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad' (v.56), whereas the Jews who actually were living in the 'day' of Christ did not recognise it. We are specifically told in what sense Abraham saw Christ's day. It was in prospect, as an expression of his faith in the coming of Abraham's seed:

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed"

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many; but, referring to one, And to your offspring, which is Christ" (Galatians 3:8,16).

We are told that Abraham, on receipt of this promise that he would be the father of the Messiah "believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Through this belief Abraham foresaw the coming day of Christ. He foresaw his death and resurrection after the pattern of his own offering of Isaac, and he foresaw the world-wide blessings that would come from that act. But it was all in prospect: Abraham did not believe that his future son was already in existence in heaven. And this too is what Jesus was saying in his reply to the Jews. He re-affirms the fact that he was 'present' in the plan of God even before the time of Abraham. He could say this without any suggestion of his personal pre-existence.

The second claim, that Christ apparently applied to himself the divine name I AM, is not as straightforward as appears at first sight. Despite the bias of many translations, there is no textual justification at all for the capital letters. The words I am are simply the usual translation of the present tense of the verb 'to be' (Gk. ego eimi). In similar grammatical constructions to the phrase under consideration the translators have added 'he' after the 'I am' to give the sense. For example, the identical phrase was used by the healed blind man to identify himself (John 9.9), translated "I am the man". If this translation is consistently applied to Christ's use of the phrase any trinitarian inference disappears. Thus on a rare occasion when Jesus volunteered that he was the Messiah he used an identical construction (ego eimi, translated 'I am he') without any hint of pre-existence:

"The woman said to him, I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things. Jesus said to her, I who speak to you am he" (literally "I am he speaking to you". John 4:25-26).

Similarly in two other passages in John 8, just prior to where Jesus made the alleged I AM statement, the translators have rendered ego eimi as 'I am he", with no suggestion that it represents a personal name:

"You will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he" (v24).

"When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he" (v28. Other similar examples in John 18:5,8; Luke 22:70).

By stating "I am he" in these three passages Jesus is obviously identifying himself as the Messiah and saying that belief of this fact is essential. If the translators had been consistent they would also have translated John 8:58 as "Before Abraham was, I am he", and no one would have thought it a reference to the divine name. Jesus was not suggesting that he was God, but claiming that he was the Messiah to whose day Abraham looked forward in faith and hope.

But even if this is not admitted, there is no proof that by the use of 'I am' Jesus is claiming to be 'very God'. In fact 'I am' is almost certainly a defective translation of the name of God announced in Exodus:

"Moses said to God ... If ... they ask me, What is his name? what shall I say to them? God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And he said, Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you" Exodus 3:13-14).

It has already been shown ⁽⁵⁹⁾ that this name is really in the future tense 'I WILL BE', and that it can be seen as a statement of God's intention to become manifested in 'mighty ones' of whom Jesus is the first. But if the divine name is 'I WILL BE' it will readily be seen that the whole point of the supposed connection with the 'I AM' of John is lost.

"THE GLORY WHICH I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS MADE"

Here is yet another passage (11) that at first sight appears to suggest that Jesus had a personal existence with God from the beginning. But as with so many sayings of Jesus recorded by John, we need to establish if that is what he really meant. Every time we read 'glory' should we refer it exclusively to literal glory and radiance? This prayer of Christ to his Father as recorded in John 17 contains several references to 'glory', and it is important to have a consistent view of them:

"Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee" (v1)

"And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made" (v5).

"All mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them" (V10).

"The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one" (v22).

"Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world" (v24).

The first thing to notice from these words of Christ is that the glory was something received by Jesus and later by the disciples. It was not an inherent possession. God glorifies the Son (v1), and 'gives' glory to him' (vv22,24). Only if Jesus was subordinate to God could he have received glory from Him (using 'glory' in the usual sense of the word). "It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior" (Hebrews 7:7).

But does the 'glory' refer only to the physical glory of God who "dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Timothy 6:16), and is it this glory only which is shared from eternity by a second person of the trinity? Clearly not, is the answer to both these questions. For that glory had already been manifested to the Jews (John 1:14) and by the time of Jesus' prayer had already been given to the disciples (v.22). And no one would suggest that they displayed the Father's physical glory.

In what sense then was Jesus the glory of God even before the creation? We need to understand the way in which John uses the word glory. In many New Testament passages the 'glory of God' refers not primarily to physical glory but describes the whole of God's redemptive purpose manifested in Jesus. Although Jesus outwardly was an ordinary man, by his character and mission people saw him as different; they "beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14). What glory did they behold? When he did the miracle at Cana it "manifested his glory" (2:11) and when Lazarus died and so gave Jesus the opportunity to raise him from the dead, it was "for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it" (11.4). When he was about to perform that miracle Jesus said to the sorrowing sisters "Did I not tell you that if you believe you would see the glory of God?" (11.40). In a similar sense the death of Christ himself was an expression of God's glory, for in anticipation of it Jesus said "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee" (John 17:1). His resurrection was a further exhibition of the glory of God, for as Paul says, he was raised from the dead "by the glory of the Father" (Romans 6:4). So the same writer could describe his message as "the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:4) and say that the process of believing the gospel is God shining "in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (v6).

Thus the glory of God is the gospel the power and character of God revealed in all that Jesus does for man's salvation. It describes the process by which Jesus will bring "many sons to glory" (Hebrews 2:10), even those whom he has "prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9:23). Now this purpose of God, as has been so frequently remarked in this section, has been devised and known by God since the beginning. Jesus was to be the pivot of this gospel plan, and therefore he had glory in the beginning in a prospective sense rather than literally. When his disciples believed on Jesus they too partook of this 'glory of God' "The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them" (John 17:22).

So when Jesus prayed that he might now experience the glory which he had with God from the beginning, he was not asserting his pre-existence but asking that God's original purpose with him might now be completed.

But possession of this spiritual and as yet intangible glory leads on to sharing the physical glory of God. Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus as a "light from heaven brighter than the sun" (Acts 26:13), and to John on Patmos as "the sun shining in full strength" (Revelation 1:16). Likewise Christ's promise to the righteous is that they too will "shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43).

THE PROLOGUE TO JOHN'S GOSPEL

We now come to the passage above all which Trinitarians claim teaches the pre-existence of Jesus from eternity and supports unquestionably the concept of the incarnation: "In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God;

all things were made through him,

and without him was not anything made that was made.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth;

We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1.1-3,14).

From this passage Trinitarians deduce the following about Jesus:

1. The Word was Jesus in person

2. He personally existed from the beginning.

3. He was God, i.e. the second person of the Trinity.

4. He was the creator of all things, confirming that he was

God existing from the beginning.

5. He came down to earth to be clothed in human flesh.

It is important to bear at least two points in mind as this passage is considered. First, it needs to be viewed from the standpoint of the first century Christian, untrammelled as he was with all the later arguments and discussions that were based upon these verses. By the fourth century, after seemingly interminable conferences and thousands of closely reasoned manuscripts, a whole edifice of doctrine had been built upon these few words. But what would first century people make of them?

Secondly, John must not be interpreted in such a way as to disagree with or contradict the rest of the New Testament writers. There are some who maintain that whilst (as we have already seen) the earliest Christian writers had no place for the pre-existence of Christ or the incarnation, these ideas were even then being formulated in the early church and toward the end of the first century were expressed by John. To this view the present writers cannot subscribe. The Christian message was "once for all (time) delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) and any subsequent variations were examples of the false doctrine that the apostles predicted would develop in their midst. ⁽⁶⁰⁾ Development in Christian belief certainly did occur towards the end of the first century and during the two centuries that followed, but this was at the expense of the purity of the original message and was roundly condemned and combated by the apostles and their immediate successors. In the writings of the New Testament the apostles speak with an original single voice. If, as we believe, and the church today claims to believe, all the New Testament writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, to guide them into "all truth" (John 16:13), then the message must be unanimous. One inspired writer cannot be interpreted so as to contradict another.

Thus in view of the absence of proof of the doctrine of the trinity in the rest of the New Testament John's introduction needs to be examined very closely before accepting that it is a departure from the then universally held belief in the unity of God and the subordination of His Son.

THE 'WORD' OR 'LOGOS'

For an understanding of this passage the meaning of the Greek Logos, translated 'Word', is crucial. It was the Logos that was with God in the beginning, indeed, was God. And it was this Logos that became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ.

Logos is a flexible word with a range of meanings. It has given rise to several of our everyday words. It is often combined with another term to mean 'words' or 'a treatise' about a particular subject. For example 'biology', the study of living things, literally means "words about life" (Greek bios = life and logos = word). We use the word 'logic' to describe the reasoning process. And 'word' and 'reason' are the primary meanings of the word as defined by a standard Greek lexicon ⁽⁶¹⁾ which contains the following entry for Logos:

I. The word by which the inward thought is expressed: also

II. The inward thought or reason itself.

"Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ" (Hebrews 6:1).

"Jesus said to them, I will ask you a question" (Mark 11:29).

"For here the saying holds true ..." (John 4:37).

"What is this conversation which you are holding with each other ..." (Luke 24:17).

"In the first book, O Theophilus ..." (Acts 1:1).

"You have neither part nor lot in this matter" (Acts 8:21).

"If it were a matter of wrong ... reason would that I should bear with you" (Acts 18:14, AV).

From this usage it can be seen that there are two ideas contained in the word logos: the unexpressed thought in the mind, and the thought expressed in speech.

'LOGOS' IN FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

It is fortunate for our understanding of this word that we have the writings of Philo, a Jew who was contemporary with the early Christians. We learn from him that the logos, and especially the divine logos, was the subject of much discussion throughout the non-Christian world of the first century. He refers extensively to it in his writings and so we can gain the sense in which it was used in apostolic times. In one passage Philo writes:

"... 'logos' has two aspects, one resembling a spring, the other its outflow; 'logos' in the understanding resembles a spring, and is called 'reason', while utterance by mouth and tongue is like its outflow, and is called 'speech' (Migr. 70-85).

But, as this analogy suggests, the two meanings can merge into each other and the distinction between thought and speech can become blurred. Thus a comprehensive definition of logos is thought coming to expression in speech.

Philo also shows that the idea of the logos was developed further to include not only expression of thoughts by speech but by action as well. He expresses the idea that all created things were originally in the mind of God only, and this logos or plan was then put into effect by His creative acts. Because man (unaided by revelation) can see God only in a limited sense by viewing creation, the logos makes up the deficiency by describing what man can know of God. He uses another analogy from nature:

".. to use Philo's favourite sun and light symbolism, the Logos is to God as the corona is to the sun, the sun's halo which man can look upon when he cannot look directly on the sun itself. That is not to say that the logos is God as such, any more than the corona is the sun as such, but the Logos is that alone which may be seen of God" ⁽⁶²⁾

The same writer goes on to summarise Philo's understanding (and therefore probably the first century Jewish understanding) of the Logos:

"God is unknowable by man, except in a small degree by the creation, but the Logos expresses God's ideas to man. There is no idea of personality attached to the Logos." "The Logos seems to be nothing more for Philo than God himself in his approach to man, God himself insofar as he may be known by man" ⁽⁶³⁾

'LOGOS' AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

Philo was a Jew with an inevitably strict adherence to the monotheism of God and a devout belief in the Jewish scriptures, our Old Testament. It is far from surprising therefore that his views on the Logos, together with those of his Jewish contemporaries, are clearly based on that authority. There the Word of God is continually used to describe the inspired prophetic utterances by which God's thoughts were conveyed to His people. "The word of the Lord came unto me" is the almost standard introduction to the prophets' messages. The Word of God is also frequently equated not only with God's thoughts and speech, but also with the acts that follow from them. So we find that His creative acts, His control of creation, His purpose in creation, and His declaration of that purpose to man are all attributed to the Word. It is significant that in many of these instances when the Hebrew was translated into Greek Logos was used as the equivalent to word.

Thus it was the Word or Logos, the plan of God in action, that was instrumental in creation: 

"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth". "For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth." (Psalm 33:6,9).

The same Word controls the elements:

"He sends forth his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly. He casts forth his ice like morsels; who can stand before his cold? He sends forth his word and melts them; he makes his wind to blow, and the waters flow" (Psalm 147:15,17-18).

Isaiah expresses the relationship between the Word of God and His plan for the earth:

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).

The Word, then, is the thoughts and purpose of God in action, either by direct revelation through His prophets or in creating and maintaining the earth to achieve that purpose. Although at first sight it might be thought that the references above give the idea of a separate existence for the Word, closer examination shows that personality is in no way suggested; it is only an idiom of speech that speaks of the Word being sent or doing something.

THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND THE WISDOM OF GOD

Alongside the use of Word in the Old Testament to describe God's activity in creation or revelation are two other equivalent words: Spirit and Wisdom. These too are described as being the agents of creation. The Spirit is another term for the power of God, the 'power of the Most High' as it is called in Luke 1:35. In the Genesis record of the creation it was "the Spirit of God" that moved over the face of the waters, and then God's Word brought things into being:

"Darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light" (Genesis 1:2-3).

This equivalence of Word and Spirit is seen in many instances. Whilst the psalmist could say "by the word of the Lord the heavens were made" (33:6), another psalm says "When thou sendest forth thy Spirit they are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground" (104:30). So the Spirit of God and the Word of God are often alternative terms.

The same can be said of the Wisdom of God. It was also termed the instrument of creation: "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth" (Proverbs 3:19). And this same Wisdom (or Spirit or Word) is personified in Proverbs and shown to be God's agent of creation. In Greek and Hebrew the words for wisdom are feminine, and so in personification is represented as a woman (on the other hand logos is masculine, hence the NT pronoun 'he'):

"Does not wisdom call, does not understanding raise her voice? ... I, wisdom, dwell in prudence ...

The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. ...

When he established the heavens, I was there .. when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

then I was beside him, like a master workman,

and I was daily his delight,

rejoicing before him always,

rejoicing in his inhabited world, and delighting in the sons of men" (Proverbs 8:1,12,22f).

The language here is clearly personification, a figure of speech in which an abstract idea is given the attributes of a person. None would suggest that there was a female deity called Wisdom who was formed by God in the beginning and who then created the world. It is important not to confuse personification with personalisation.

Barclay, one of the most respected Greek scholars of our generation, sums up the first century relationship of logos, Word and Spirit in Jewish thought that formed the background to John's use of logos in his gospel:

"First, God's Word is not only speech; it is power. Second, it is impossible to separate the ideas of Word and Wisdom; and it was God's Wisdom which created and permeated the world which God made". ⁽⁶⁴⁾

To sum up so far. We have seen that the Word of God or Logos is a term used in scripture and by Jewish writers living in the first century to describe the thoughts and plan of God being put into action. It was applied to the original acts of creation and also to the redemptive purpose God has with the earth. The Logos through the ministry of the prophets supplied the essential understanding of God that was not available simply from perusal of his creative acts. The term is used alternatively with Spirit and Wisdom, and in no case is there a suggestion that any of these had a separate personality, i.e. were an actual person.

This is the essential setting of the prologue of John's gospel record. Any interpretation of the prologue must be incorrect if it fails to acknowledge this background and attempts to impose on John's words a meaning that his original readers probably would not have readily understood. To divorce the prologue from its Old Testament roots, let alone its New Testament contemporaries, is to set off on the wrong path to its understanding.

THE 'WORD' OF JOHN'S PROLOGUE

It is into this background of Old Testament teaching on the Word of God, and the first century Jewish understanding of it based on those sacred writings, that the prologue to John's gospel fits neatly into place:

"In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God;

All things were made through him, and

without him was not anything made that was made"

(John 1:1-3)

We can see how John draws on all the Old Testament teaching we have just considered. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8 (see above) as saying that she was in the beginning, that she was with God, and that she was His instrument in creation. The Word of God created the heavens (Psalm 33:6), so did the Spirit as described in Job 26:13. The language clearly is of figure and metaphor, of personification, not actual personality. And John is saying exactly the same of the Logos or Word. No Jewish reader brought up on the writings of the prophets would have deduced from John's introduction that he was alluding to a person who had existed with God from all time. They would see it instead as a continuation of the imagery by which the Word or Wisdom or the Spirit those manifestations of God which are inseparable from Him are described as putting God's intentions into effect.

Bearing in mind the meaning of Logos as the thoughts and intentions of God translated into action, we can see that what John is saying is that from the beginning God had a plan a plan that was as inseparable from Him as is a thought from the person thinking it thus, 'the Word was God'. That plan necessitated the creation of the world, and so it could be said, in line with the language of the Old Testament, that the Logos was the original creative force.

To some readers of the English translations the use of the pronoun 'he' in referring to the Logos indicates that a person is intended. But this is only a quirk of translation. Along with some modern languages ancient Greek and Hebrew had masculine or feminine nouns, with the pronoun being literally 'he' or 'she' respectively. In the majority of cases these pronouns are translated by the neuter 'it'. When Tyndale translated the passage in 1525 he used "it" rather than "he", but the translators of the AV did not follow him in this respect, as was their usual custom (about 90% of the AV is Tyndale's translation). ⁽⁶⁵⁾ It is understandable that translators with a trinitarian bias should have taken the opportunity to render the pronoun as 'he' in the case of the masculine Word of John 1 and of the Comforter or Counsellor in John 14, but there is clearly no such intention in the original language. On this Dunn says of what he terms the 'poem' of the John 1 prologue:

".. we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Logos as 'he' throughout the poem. But if we translated logos as 'God's utterance' instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the Logos in vv1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being" ⁽⁶⁶⁾

"THE WORD BECAME FLESH"

Until the time of Jesus the word of God had been revealed through God's prophets. But this was essentially an intermittent activity. The prophets were often raised up to meet an express need at the time and each concentrated on God's message of guidance or reproof, whilst at the same time looking to the future and giving glimpses of the overall plan of God with mankind. In this sense their ministry was fragmentary and partial. In none of the prophets could it be said that the word became flesh, but was rather manifested through flesh.

But in Jesus the Word became flesh God's plan materialised in all its fulness. Originally His plan to create a race of mighty beings in whom He could be perfectly manifested ⁽⁶⁷⁾ had only been an idea, a concept in his mind. Then He put the first stages of this plan into action by creating the world and everything in it. But his plan necessitated a redeemer to come in the likeness of humanity. So the Plan, the Word, became flesh in the person of Jesus. 

Jesus is the very centre of God's plan for the earth. All God's intentions come to a focus in him. There was no question with him of a partial manifestation of God's word as had occurred through the prophets, but Jesus became a complete manifestation of his Father's thoughts and intentions: the "Logos became flesh". Note the use of 'became' Jesus was not the word from the beginning in the sense that he pre-existed as a person, but he was the 'word made flesh'. He was God's Plan coming into action. He was the complete expression of all the saving attributes of the Father "full of grace and truth".

Looked at in this way the way of the first century Jew or Gentile to whom John was writing there was no hint of the personal pre-existence of Jesus, no suggestion that he was Very God clothed in human flesh. The simplest and most straightforward view of Jesus that such a reader would gain from this introduction was that Jesus was the realisation of God's plan for the earth. He would see that Christ's being the Word made flesh is no reason for suggesting his personal divinity any more than it would be correct to say that the prophets were God because the Logos was revealed through them. This understanding of the Word made Flesh becomes all the more acceptable because it is completely in harmony with the rest of the early Apostolic writings about Jesus. The greatest apparent anomaly is removed and all the apostles are seen to speak with one voice. It was only later, when influences outside of original Christianity began to obtrude that John 1:1-18 began to be taken as evidence of the personal pre-existence of the Messiah and the incarnation.

Barclay confirms this understanding in passages in which he expounds John's use of logos without giving it the trinitarian slant that for centuries has been attached to its meaning:

"Logos has two meanings, which no one English word can express. Logos means word, and Logos means mind. A word is the expression of thought. Therefore Jesus is the expression of the thought of God. Or to take the other meaning, in Jesus we see the mind of God ... In Jesus the mind of God becomes a person". ⁽⁶⁸⁾

"In Greek logos means two things it means word and it means reason ... The Logos of God, the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world .... He (John) said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you will see what the mind and thought of God are like" ⁽⁶⁹⁾

"By calling Jesus the logos, John said two things about Jesus. (a) Jesus is the creating power of God come to men. He does not only speak the word of knowledge; he is the word of power. He did not come so much to say things to us, as to do things for us. (b) Jesus is the incarnate mind of God. We might well translate John's words, 'The mind of God became a man'. A word is always 'the expression of a thought' and Jesus is the perfect expression of God's thoughts for men.

He then makes a plea that the present writers heartily endorse:

We should do well to rediscover and to preach again Jesus Christ as the logos, the Word of God" ⁽⁷⁰⁾

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

It might be felt that whilst the above explanation might be understood by, say, an educated Jewish Christian of the educational stamp of Philo and well versed in the concept of the divine Logos, Spirit and Wisdom as revealed in the Old Testament, to the average reader the idea might have been well above his head. So it is legitimate to ask if there is an even simpler way of expressing the thoughts contained in the prologue to John's gospel record.

It seems to the present writers that few if any of the expositors of John's prologue have ever sat down and asked the question "Why did John write it?" A prologue by definition is a preface to the main work, an introduction that sets the scene for what follows. It seems never to have been asked how John's prologue serves this purpose. One way to answer this question might be to discover any special feature that is common to both the prologue and the rest of the gospel. And such a feature is easy to find. If there is one characteristic of John's gospel above all others it is that it records the words of Jesus. Whilst the other gospel writers record the actions and many of the sayings and addresses of Jesus, John is unique in concentrating on the words of Jesus rather than the record of his life.

A glance through the gospel will readily demonstrate this. Chapter three records Christ's conversation with Nicodemus, and chapter four his dialogue with the woman of Samaria. Chapter five is devoted to a discussion about sabbath breaking that led on to Jesus explaining the source of his authority. Chapter six records the miracle of feeding the 5000 as a prelude to a long discourse on the true bread from heaven. Chapters seven and eight record Christ's words to the Jews in the Temple. Chapter nine describes the interchange between him and the Jewish leaders after the miracle of giving sight to the blind man. Chapter ten contains his parable of the shepherd and his sheep. And chapters thirteen to seventeen detail his conversation with his disciples and his prayer to God immediately before his arrest. Clearly John's emphasis throughout his gospel is on the words of Jesus.

And in those discourses Jesus emphasises that it is the words that he speaks that are important:

"He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life" (5:24).

"If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples" (8:31).

"He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (12:48).

"I have given them thy word" (17:14).

And these words are not Christ's own, they are God's words: 

"The word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me" (John 14:24).

Can it be merely a coincidence therefore that the Prologue to this record of Christ's sayings is itself about the word of God. It must be reasonable to expect that the use of word in the prologue should be similar to its use in the body of the work.

If we then look again at the prologue as if through the eyes of an early reader we can see John's train of thought that made it a suitable introduction to what followed? Moulton in his "Modern Reader's Bible", which lays out the text according to its literary form, divides the prologue into three sections:

There is a simple connection between these three. In (I) is the statement that God from the beginning has had a plan or purpose or word inseparable from Him. It is a plan to make mortal men and women the eternal sons and daughters of God (verse 12). But because (III) man cannot learn from God direct there needed to be a means of 'declaring' the plan to man. This had been accomplished partially by the prophets of old (verse 17) but now especially in the work of His Son, the 'Word made flesh' (II). Having explained by this preamble the reason for Christ's coming, and ended it by the statement that Jesus declared God to man, he then proceeds in the rest of the book to record in detail those very words of God that are essential for man to know and act upon.

Thus the prologue to John's gospel can be seen to be similar to the introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews:

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Hebrews 1:1-3).

Again the topic is the words of God, spoken first through prophets and then by his Son. And as in John, Christ is here shown to be a reflection of the glory of God, and His purpose through him the prime reason for the creation.

SUMMARY

In this section we have noted that, apart from a few occasions in the rest of Scripture which are easily explained, the great majority of the passages used to support the idea of Christ's personal pre-existence occur in the gospel record of John. When these are examined in the light of other scriptures, and in comparison with John's use of similar language to describe other situations that clearly have no implication of pre-existence, no support for the personal pre-existence of Jesus can be found. The prologue to John's gospel record was examined in detail, in the light of first century understanding of the logos, and the conclusion reached that to the original Christians the 'logos becoming flesh' was a way of saying that God's power and wisdom, and His long standing-intentions for man's redemption, were now being manifested in the person of Jesus. No personal pre-existence of the Saviour is demanded by the text or was envisaged by the writer.

Section 5: Jesus the Lamb of God

REFERENCES

55. Matthew 16:16

56. "New Bible Dictionary". Pub. IVF

57. Op. cit. p.235, Italics ours

58. Ephesians 2:19-22; Hebrews 3:2-6 etc.

59. p. 46

60. For the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity see ch.8

61. Liddell and Scott

62. Dunn, Op. cit. p.227

63. Ibid, p.228

64. "New Testament Words", p.186. J. Ziesler has a similar association of the three in his The Jesus Question. Pub. Lutterworth Press (1980).

65. See The Gothic and Anglosaxon Gospels with the versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale: J. Bosworth. Pub. John Russell Smith, London, 1865.

66. Op. cit. p.243

67. See ch. 4

68. Barclay New Testament Translation, p.191

69. Barclay: Gospel of John p.xxii

70. Op. cit. p.188