Page 33 - BV9

"'Judaism has never known anything of a preexistence peculiar to the Messiah antecedent
to his birth as a human being' (Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 128-32, 248, 252). The
dominance of the idea in any Jewish circle whatever cannot seriously be upheld. Judaism
knew nothing of the [literally] preexistent ideal man" (Charles Gore, Belief in Christ,
1923, p. 31).

To claim to "be before Abraham" (John 8:58) does not mean that you remember being alive
before your birth. That is to think like a Greek who believes in the preexistence of souls. In the
Hebrew thought of the New Testament one can "exist" as part of God's Plan as did also the taber-
nacle, the temple, repentance and other major elements of the Divine purpose. Even Moses pre-
existed in that sense, according to a quotation we will introduce later. John the apostle could also
say that Christ was "crucified before the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). This gives
us an enormously valuable clue as to the way the New Testament writers understood
"preexistence."

There are multiple examples of past tenses in the Hebrew Bible which actually refer to fu-
ture events. They are "past" because they describe events fixed in God's counsels and therefore
certain to be realized. Bible readers disregard this very Jewish way of thinking when they leap to
the conclusion that when Jesus said he "had" glory with the Father from the foundation of the world
(John 17:5), he meant that he was alive at that time. Certainly in a western frame of reference the
traditional understanding is reasonable. But can we not do the Messiah the honor of trying to un-
derstand his words in their own Hebrew environment? Should not the Bible be interpreted in the
light of its own context and not in our later creeds?

No Preexistence for Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke

There is a deafening silence about any real preexistence of Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke,
Acts and Peter, and the WHOLE of the Old Testament. Not only do they not hint at a pre-human
Son of God, they contradict the idea by talking of the origin (genesis) of Jesus (Matthew 1:18) and
his begetting as Son (Matthew 1:20) in Mary's womb. This verse is mistranslated in our versions
of the Bible: The text does not refer to conception, but to "begetting" by the Father through the holy
spirit. It is the action of the Father which brings the Son into existence. The Son of God -- the Mes-
siah -- is a supernaturally created person, the Second Adam. Note also in Acts 13:33 the reference
to the "raising up" of Jesus which refers to God's bringing him into being. Verse 34 mentions his
subsequent resurrection. Also note that for Arians and Trinitarians, who think that Jesus was be-
gotten in eternity long before his conception/begetting in Mary, this would be a second begetting.

Justin Martyr is perhaps the first church Father to speak of a begetting of the Son prior to
Genesis (i.e. prior to Creation). But he provides no scriptural support for such an ante-mundane
begetting of the Son. According to the Bible the Son of God was begotten -- as are all human be-
ings -- at the time of his conception in his mother's womb. Justin differs from Matthew by saying
that the Son came "through" Mary. Matthew holds that he came from Mary. This points to the shift
of thinking that has taken place by 150 A.D. -- a shift that provided the seed of the later Trinitarian
formulation.

33