Do you think that you pre-existed your conception?
Me neither.
True, there are cultures which pre-suppose this. But most of the human race, including ancient Jews, assumes that getting parented involves getting brought into existence some time between the sexual union and birth. You, the younger human being, exist because of what your parents did. This, I suggest, is the default human assumption. You exist because of them.
Abe and Sarah did what married folk do. Because of this (with some sort of miraculous fertility assist from God) Isaac came to exist. When? Opinions vary as to the exact time, but certainly before birth, and no earlier than union of sperm and egg – that’s what most of us think.
So Matthew and Luke don’t mention any pre-human existence for Jesus. They do assert that he’s the human son of Mary who was “begotten” – seemingly, conceived (as most translations have it) by the power of God. And as Buzzard emphasizes, for this reason, the angel says, the child will be called the Son of God.
What? Isn’t he called that because he has the divine nature, because he is one essence with the Father? Well, that’s not what it says. Would Luke have said it somewhere if he’d believed it? We would think so. So, this is a problem for the theological heirs of the fourth century catholic “fathers”. But it is not, on the face of it, a problem for humanitarian unitarians.
The elephants in the room, of course, are Paul and John 1 – don’t they assert Jesus’ pre-human-existence? And wasn’t there a consistent apostolic message? Some theologians happily jettison this latter assumption, by the way. But as long as we expect the New Testament to be self-consistent, at least on important things, then one wants Matthew and Luke to fit with John and Paul.
Sir Anthony has done plenty of thinking about John and Paul. But we will not settle the dispute between subordinationist and humanitarian unitarians here. I think that the former are justified in thinking that their christology is strictly consistent with the letter of the text. They can say that John and Paul simply teach more than Matthew and Luke, concerning the temporal extent of Jesus’ life, and his being God’s instrument of creation. It would be mighty strange, though, if Matthew and Luke believed in the pre-human existence of Jesus, but tell the back-story in the ways that they do.
Next time – what is a human being anyway?
Print 
PDF
Abel
I think scripture warns against beleiving in any other Jesus than the one it describes. And that is the Messiah, Son of God/son of man who, BY DEFINITION, was and remains a human being. If we don’t have THAT Jesus then you might be in trouble.
Xavier
Good point!
The resason I came to this site (Trinities) was to try to get the ‘person ‘ of Christ right in my mind, I am not too interested in other aspects of doctrine.(e.g. ones millenial views)
This MAN always deflected attention from himself towards The Father – and in all cases The Father is God.
While I maintain an open mind on the subject of Christs pre-existence, I have no doubts about Christs humanity. or that he is the Messiah. There is an abundance of clearly written scripture which supports this view.
I am quite keen to reduce things to a few basics on which good men can agree. ‘Doctrine ‘seems to be at the root of all arguments/division and I have had bitter experience of this!
Best Wishes
Abel
abel
I think Jesus’ teachings make that painfully clear [Luke 12.51]. But if we can’t even understand who this man, Jesus, was [God, god, angel, "being"] then how will we ever understand what he taught?
Thanks, Abel. Actually, I was ashamed of my angry response as soon as I submitted it. So I am once again grateful for the power of the blood of Christ to cleanse from all sin.
I agree with you that the message of the gospel is easy to understand, so long as the New Testament can be trusted. But if it can’t, then Christianity is based on nothing. And yes, I DID pay attention to what you said. In fact, I responded to it.
I, too, would not be negatively affected IF the New Testament did not teach the idea of pre-existence. But it is not difficult to see several passages – not just one, and many that are perfectly clear without any “microanalysis” – which would lead me to believe that Christ did not begin to exist when he was born. In fact, several have already been discussed at length.
So I believe it to be so, even though the contrary would NOT change my appreciation of the gospel. It would just make me wonder how Jesus could make the statements he does, and how his total lordship over all creation (to which his God has appointed him) squares up with the idea of a created being.
Anyway, I apologize for a bad attitude. In my experience, doctrine has LESS to do with people’s disillusionment with Christianity than what they see in those who claim to be Christians.
For example: Dallas Willard is a tri-unitarian. I am not. But his teaching regarding a disciple of Christ is wonderful; and I believe if I consistently/em> lived that way, nobody would leave a congregation on my account, just because of a difference in doctrine.
So I, too, embrace the words of St Francis: ‘go out and preach the gospel, and if necceeasy (sic) use words’.
Marg
Sorry to butt in but I must ask, in lieu of the above, why is it a problem for you to accept that like the 1st CREATED adam, the 2nd adam has been given “lordship over all creation”?
Not ALL creation, Xavier. Not so.
Marg
Sorry you lost me. Perhaps it’s my fault so let me ask again: why do you seem to have a problem with God creating another Adam in order to function as ruler of the age to come?
Sorry, Xavier. My point in #6 was that Adam was NOT given lordship over ALL creation. Check it out and see. But the Son of God WAS. Even the angels were commanded to worship him.
What’s more, his lordship is eternal as well as absolute, which Adam’s was not.
That is why I have a small problem thinking of Jesus as merely a man.
As for the comparison between Jesus and Adam, I can only repeat what has already been pointed out:
Adam was CREATED. We are told that 6 times in Genesis and once in the NT. But we are NEVER told that Jesus was created. Instead, we are told that, unlike the first man, the second man was the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47).
If you believe that the Bible is unreliable, none of that will mean anything to you. But it means something to me. It is part of the cumulative evidence that Jesus is, and always was, the only-begotten Son of the living God.
It fits the evidence of John 1:10 and John 8:57.
It fits the saying of Jesus recorded in all three of the synoptics, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall in no wise pass away.” That is something no other human could say.
It fits the evidence of Hebrews 1:2 and 1 Cor. 8:6 and Colossians 1.
Granted, you may object that all these passages are meant to be figurative and not literal; but that leaves in jeopardy ALL the words of the NT. Who gets to decide what is literal and what is figurative? Was the resurrection of Jesus figurative? Some people think so. I don’t.
ON THE OTHER HAND, what Jesus wants is loving, loyal, obedient disciples. We may not all understand abstract things the same way, but obedience to his commands is necessary if we are to be called disciples of the Messiah. What group we belong to is not the deciding factor.
The one thing I react to strongly is the idea that anyone who does not agree with some particular theory – trinitarian or otherwise – is not a Christian.
Marg
First, I wasnt talking about eternal but simply your point about “lordship” which was given to the 1st Adam (Gen 2.26-28).
Second, there is nothing MERE about the 2nd Adam. What your spouting, knowingly or not, is the age old straw man trini argument.
But tell us in what way is Jesus the 2nd Adam then if he was not a creation like the 1st?
In the first place, Xavier, what you said was “lordship over all creation”. My point was that Adam was NOT!! given “lordship over ALL CREATION”.
The eternal character of Christ’s lordship is an added factor in my problem with Christ being a mere CREATED being, which he is NEVER said to be.
In the second place, as has already been pointed out, he is NOT called “the second Adam”.
Marg
Your repeating yourself. Jesus is not a MERE anything just like the first adam was not a MERE human being…they were both sinless, first-time creations by God.
It is really troubling how people continue to deny this in light of the real humanity Jesus is said to CURRENTLY have up in heaven, where he has been allowed to sit next to the Almighty Himself and from which he will be sent to judge the living and the dead [Acts 17.31].
You are simply IGNORING the arguments you can’t answer, Xavier.
Christ’s real humanity has never been in question. But you can’t handle the DIFFERENCES between Adam and Christ, so you keep repeating what you cannot prove. And – just in case you missed them – I will repeat what you have neither acknowledged nor refuted:
NO passage says that Jesus was CREATED.
Jesus is NOT called the “second Adam”.
But Jaco is right. Unless something new can be added to the discussion, future repetition is useless, and should be ignored. On BOTH sides.
Marg
Every time you assign a LITERAL per-human existence to Jesus you question his humanity.
According to the angel Gabriel the Son was created via God’s spirit (Luke 1.35).
Paul REFERS to Jesus as the 2nd Adam. Please carefully read the scriptures I have continually cited.
Thank you.
The word in Luke 1:35 is not “created”. That has been dealt with by at least two people who know more Greek than I do, so I will leave it at that.
You did not give a reference for this. That’s because there isn’t one. But I suspect you know that already.
Just for emphasis: Paul did NOT!!! refer to Christ as “the second Adam”.
However, he DID refer to him as the LAST Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). His lordship is eternal, so there will not be another Adam, exercising lordship.
But then, in v. 47, Paul said:
He is the second man – the first of a whole new race of men who will be spiritual, as he is (v. 48).
And now, unless something new (and valid) is introduced, I am leaving this thread.
Marg
So Jesus is the second man but not 2nd adam?
You know there’s an old saying Marg, facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, inclinations or passions they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
adios
Hi!
I recently spoke to a very “Godly’ man who worships at our church.
He was very much a ‘closed book’ and shuns theological debate.
When I was persistent with him he said bluntly
” Literalism is illusory and leads to tyranny
Doctrine is man-made and at the core of all division
All we can do is live as God would have us live – with Christ as our exemplar”
Not much more to say!
Every Blessing
John
John
Should’ve asked your friend if he believed what he was saying was “Doctrine” to him.
Hi Xavier
The point he was trying to make is that man-made constructs are divisive and that Christ was telling us about a way of life that is pleasing to God.
All other things whether it be our millenial views, or pre-existence views pale into insignificance..
What’s worse, man-made structures are divisive – and used to instill fear in people. Just look at all the division, fear, hatred on the “Christian’ web-sites. Is this pleasing to God?
Doctrine in a sense becomes ‘the Law’… so where there is much doctrine there is little love, and where there is much love there is little doctrine.
At least that’s my experience.
Every Blessing
John
John
Can we first agree Jesus was a man? Albeit a “perfected” one, of course.
Can we also agree that he brought a Law all of his own as well? Albeit a God-inspired one of course.
Can we also agree that “Doctrine” extends to the ethical/moral Christian teachings? That in a way have been and continue to be hijacked by so-called “atheists” and secularists.
Our “experience” is that current human imperfection cannot bring about true change. Can we agree on that?
Hi Xavier
(i) Christs humanity – absolutely
(ii) Christ told us that He came to fulfil the law… and that salvation was by Gods good grace.
Gods’ grace and favour is given to those who live as He would wish us to live
(iii) Doctrine is mans attempt to merge moral precepts with ones interpretation of the scriptures.
The problem is that there are many possible permutations and as a result many outcomes.
The problem is that doctrine is at the root of all division – and this division must displease God immensely.
Several authors have suggested that ‘certainty’ tends to make us mortals behave in a way which is the
antithesis of Christs way -hence the dangerous fundamentalism which exists in this world.
(iv) Christ has taught us that Gods Holy Spirit , which dwells within us, can be called upon to help us
to overcome our human imperfections.
Every Blessing
John
John
Great, sounds like its all doctrine to me. ; )
Xavier
Maybe – but it is scripture stripped down to a few essentials.
Very few good men will disagree with what I have written .
Desideratus Erasmus postulated ” Get consensus by defining as little as possible, then bring out the potentially divisive issues and discuss them one by one – but always in a spirit of brotherly love.
If you cannot get agreement, put them aside till more knowledgible and wiser men are around, then try again…but always in a spirit of brotherly love.
I was brought up in an ‘exclusive’ sect – maybe that’s why I strive to be as ‘inclusive’ as possible.
The striving for certainty is accompanied by a lot of fear -and as Christ said repeatedly “Fear not”!
Blessings
John
John
Yes, Jesus taught many doctrines including that of love.
Hi, I believe there is a case for Christ’s pre-human existence in the account at Matthew 22:41-6. There Jesus cleverly used Psalm 110:1. In verse 45 Jesus asks: “If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?””
Jesus’ argument appears to be either that he has a pre-human existence, or that the Christ does not come from David and he was exposing their error.
However, Matthew’s gospel stresses that Jesus is the son of David and therefore has the genealogical prerequisite to be the Christ! Matthew uses the phrase “son of David” nine times, more than the other gospels (Mark has it two times and Luke three times, John, zero). In fact, Matthew’s messianic genealogy with its formula of three fourteen generations only works if you count David twice!
Thus, it seems rather obvious (to me at least) that Matthew used Jesus’ argument to implicitly teach that Jesus had a pre-human existence, since he stressed more than the other gospels that the Christ comes from David.
JimSpace
How about that he has been made David’s superior i.e., his “lord Messiah”?
JimSpace (November 15, 2012 at 10:47 am) wrote:
Contrary to a common misinterpretation, Jesus is NOT telling the Pharisees that, as the Psalmist is presenting David referring in prophetic vision to the future Messiah as “my lord”, then the Messiah must be God! Those who mistakenly affirm this should learn something about the original Hebrew text of Psalm 110:1, cited at Matthew 22:44:
So, to infer from the phrase, “Here is the LORD’s proclamation to my lord”, that the (first) “LORD” and the (second) “lord” are equal, and therefore, as the “LORD” is YHWH God, also “my lord” is YHWH God is NOT ONLY not supported by the Hebrew text, BUT simply WRONG.
By referring to the Messiah as ‘adoni, “my lord”, King David was recognizing that the future Messiah (who would be his descendant, without by this implying that he would be from his “sperma”) would have been superior to himself.
In conclusion, Matthew 22:41-46 certainly is a teaching and a direct challenge to the misconceptions of the Pharisees. Jesus was saying to the Pharisees how obtuse was their “literalistic” understanding of the Messiah as “seedof David”.
Oh BTW, we know from Matthew’s Gospel that “While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:18), so Joseph was ONLY the “putative” (viz. presumed) father of Jesus.
Matthew’s Genealogy (Matt 1:1-17) is obviously NOT an attestation of Jesus’ literal Davidic descent.