The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ

[Guest]

Uhhhh ... Derek. If Jesus has always been in existence, but He was not the Son of God before His birth or conception, then what was He previously? Was He the Father Himself before He became the Son? If so, then did the Father divide into TWO Individuals when Jesus was begotten or born? Or was He the divine WORD (or REASON) of the Father ---- a characteristic of the Father? But that would not be a Person. Or did the Person of Jesus come into existence at His conception or birth?

[Guest]

Uhhhh ... Derek. If Jesus has always been in existence, but He was not the Son of God before His birth or conception, then what was He previously? Was He the Father Himself before He became the Son? If so, then did the Father divide into TWO Individuals when Jesus was begotten or born? Or was He the divine WORD (or REASON) of the Father ---- a characteristic of the Father? But that would not be a Person. Or did the Person of Jesus come into existence at His conception or birth?

I must agree with Derek completely. The personage of the Godhead is a manmade term, I believe but not sure. In reality God is a Spirit and is not of flesh and blood, that is until He came and experienced all things as a man in the flesh. Now, for our sake, and forevermore Christ Jesus is in the likeness of man (in His glorified body now however, as we soon will be) but still and for eternally is God.

If we all understood these things perfectly because God revealed them to us, then we wouldn't debate, but God in His soverign knowledge has choosen us to believe in faith and not in intellect. In intellect we struggle to see and know the whole picture of the Deity, but in faith by Spirit and Truth we know only in part. My belief is that this is God's way in drawing us to Himself and requires the weakness in us to show the greatness in Him.

[Guest]

Allyn, I'm not sure that you do agree with Derek completely.

I'll know when Derek responds to my questions.

Your statements indicate that you subcribe to the "Oneness of view of God", which seems to be a form of modalism, although a UPC preacher friend of mine denies it.

I had previously thought that Derek was Trinitarian, but his statement that Christ did not pre-exist as the Son is, in fact, the Oneness view. So I must await further explanation from him.

By the way, my questions did not necessarily imply disagreement with Derek, but a desire to more fully understand his views.

[Guest]

However, I voted "something else" since I think that His being "The Son" is a reference to His incarnation. I don't believe that Jesus has always been "the Son".

I wondered what you would make of the following passage, Derek.

Serve Yahweh with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, For his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all they that take refuge in him. Psalm 2:11-12

The following translations have "Kiss the Son":

AV, Darby, ESV, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, NIV, RWebster.

The NASB has "Do homage to the Son."

Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho and the other Jews, said that this was a reference to Jesus, the Son of God.

However, the Greek Septuagint translates it something like this:

Hang onto discipline lest the Lord be angry and you should be destroyed from the righteous way when His wrath shall be suddenly kindled. Blessed are they who are persuaded by Him.

You may want to take it that way.

[_Rick_C]

Greetings,

After I get out of debt, go back to college, get a Ph.D. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, a Th.D. in Church History, and do my doctoral thesis on:
"The Godhead: From Ancient Times Till Now"....

I'll be back to vote,
Rick

P.S. Allyn, Good Study tho, Bro!

[Guest]

Uhhhh ... Derek. If Jesus has always been in existence, but He was not the Son of God before His birth or conception, then what was He previously? Was He the Father Himself before He became the Son? If so, then did the Father divide into TWO Individuals when Jesus was begotten or born? Or was He the divine WORD (or REASON) of the Father ---- a characteristic of the Father? But that would not be a Person. Or did the Person of Jesus come into existence at His conception or birth?

He was Jesus. He was the Word. No He was not the Father. The Father did not "divide" in any way that I'm aware of.

I think that the person Jesus, has always existed. He was just never called the Son until the incarnation, that I'm aware of (I'm going to look into the verse you quoted later, so I may be wrong). We've kind of been down this road and back again (and down again, and back again). :-)

Why does He have to be the Son, in His pre-existent state in order for His pre-existence to make sense? Must one be a Son to pre-exist?

The bible says He will be called the Son of God because God overshadowed Mary, causing her to conceive. He didn't have a human father, therefore God was His father. (see Lk 1:35).

I had previously thought that Derek was Trinitarian, but his statement that Christ did not pre-exist as the Son is, in fact, the Oneness view. So I must await further explanation from him.

You of all people should know I'm a Trinitarian Paidion! I didn't say that He didn't pre-exist, only that He was not called the Son. That is not what Oneness folks believe. Did you not read where I said "I don't think His "oneness" with the Father precludes Him being a separate person."

Modalists do not believe that Jesus was a separate person, but rather that He was a "mode" of God's being. He was the Father, and then became the Son. This is not what I believe.

God bless,

[Guest]

I wondered what you would make of the following passage, Derek.

Serve Yahweh with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, For his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all they that take refuge in him. Psalm 2:11-12

I believe that this entire Psalm is Messianic. It is quoted in the New Testament and applied to Christ, so I could hardly deny that. However, it was written by David (Acts 4:25), and was about David. It applies typologically to Christ. It is a prophecy about Him. I don't think that it is meant to explain in any way His pre-existent state, but is rather about His reigning over the earth as the Christ (at a time yet future, as of it's writing).

So I think that the Son in this Psalm is David, but applies typologically to Jesus.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This verse is not about the begetting of Jesus before time, but is rather about the ressurection.

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho and the other Jews, said that this was a reference to Jesus, the Son of God.

I would agree with this interpretation, but in a different way, I suppose. In it's immediate context, I think it's about David, but prophetically, it applies to Christ.

Let's suppose that it is strictly about Jesus, and is not about David at all. I still don't see why it would apply in the time that it's written. It is clearly about the reign of the Messiah (in a future time, as of the writing). That's how it's applied in the NT.

God bless,

[Guest]

Thanks, Derek. From what you have written, I think I can safely affirm that Allyn does not "agree with you completely."

As for myself, although I don't see things the same way, I let your beliefs stand without comment, except for the following, which I cannot leave unchallenged:

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This verse is not about the begetting of Jesus before time, but is rather about the ressurection.

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

How can the ressurection be the time the Father begat the Son? Do you think the many phrases about Jesus being "the only-begotten Son" are all references to His resurrection?

Let's examine Acts 13:33 more carefully in the context, especially in the context of verse 34:

... And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." As to his raising him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, "I will give you the holy promises made to David." Therefore he has also said in another psalm, "You will not let your Holy One experience corruption." Acts 13:32-35 NRSV

The Greek word for "again" (palin) does not occur anywhere in the text.
True the prefix "ana" which is used here in "anistāmi" ("raise" or "raise up") sometimes means "again", but more often means "up". Even today, we sometimes refer to a leader raising up a certain person. We mean that the leader puts that person into action. God put His Son into action by begetting Him at the beginning of time (not "before time", a self-contradictory expression).

Notice in verse 34, Luke does speak of Christ's resurrection. But it is laid out as a different proposition from that in verse 33. Verse 33 speaks of His having been begotten, but verse 34 begins, "As to Him [God] raising Him [Christ] from the dead..." and then goes on to present a different set of scriptures to back up the resurrection.

Verse 33 speaks of God having begotten Jesus, raising Him up to bring Him into action in order to fulfill what God promised to the early Hebrews ("our ancestors").

Verse 34 speaks of the ressurection of Jesus as a fulfilment of God's promises to David, and of David's prayer, "You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption."

A few words with the Greek prefix "ana" (I chose these randomly):

anatolā A rising up of the sun and stars

anablepō To receive sight (lit. "to look up")

anapauō Refresh (lit. "to cease again")

anaplāroō To fill again

anabainō To ascend (lit. "to step up")

anapherō To offer up (lit. "to bear up")

anaginōskō To acknowledge (lit. to "perceive again")

[Guest]

Paidion, you are affirming something about me that in know resembles me. Derek says this:

Modalists do not believe that Jesus was a separate person, but rather that He was a "mode" of God's being. He was the Father, and then became the Son. This is not what I believe.

I am in agreement with Derek, so what is it you think I am believing that would not agree with Derek? In your way of thinking, it seems, you cannot come to the appreciation that God is Spirit comprised of 3, in total, personages but still only one God. Can I explain how this works in consideration of the Holy Spirit and Christ the Son? No, not with human eyes and only partly with my spiritual eyes. I am not afraid to take Gods greatness and personages by faith. Simply put, God shows Himself to us with explanations that a human can accept, even though many do not accept the explanation.

[Guest]

How can the ressurection be the time the Father begat the Son? Do you think the many phrases about Jesus being "the only-begotten Son" are all references to His resurrection?

No, I don't. I think that they are primarilly about the incarnation. At least two other times a similar expression is used in reference to the resurrection (Col 1:18; Rev. 1:5), so it doesn't always mean what you take it to mean either. In this context I think that it is about the resurrection.

This fits the flow of thought from Psalm 2 as well.

Vs. 1-3 were fulfilled in that "Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together..." againt Jesus (Acts 4:25). Already long after the beginning of time.

They were not successful, because when they did this, God raised Jesus from the dead. Therefore He sat in the heavens and "laughed", etc..

All of this is previous to the verse in question, which would be strange if "this day" is "when time began".

He goes on to put "My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain." A reference to the ascension to the right hand of the Father, where Christ reigns over His church.

It is "that day" that He says "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You" and the rest of the Psalm goes on from there. Post-resurrection. (or at least post-incarnation).

God put His Son into action by begetting Him at the beginning of time...

Aside from the "begetting Him at the beginning of time" stuff, I could see how you get "putting into action" from "raised". The word is used that way. (Acts 2:30; Luke 1:69). I can also see your point about the flow of thought in Acts 13.

If Acts 13:33 were not about the resurrection, I would see it as being about the incarnation. When did He "raise up" or "put Jesus into action" in the sense that the "promises made to the Fathers" (vs. 32) were fulfilled? The incarnation.

Luk 1:68 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
Luk 1:69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of David His servant--
Luk 1:70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old--
Luk 1:71 Salvation FROM OUR ENEMIES, And FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US;
Luk 1:72 To show mercy toward our fathers, And to remember His holy covenant,
Luk 1:73 The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,

Here it is said that Jesus was "raised up" in reference to His imminent coming. It is there that the "promises made to the fathers" were fulfilled.

I could take it either way. Your point about the flow of thought in Acts, and the fact that "raised" sometimes means "put into action" are strong ones though. That being the case, I don't see how that would prove that Jesus was "begotten at the beginning of time", as opposed to the incarnation.

Can you show any scriptures that teach that God "begat Jesus at the beginning of time"? I am not aware of any. Psalm 2 does not use the phrase "at the beginning of time", nor would that fit the time frame from that passage (only the resurrection or incarnation do).

The fact that the incarnate Son is said to be begotten, is not proof of your assertion that this happened at the beginning of time. It fits just as easily with my view as yours.

God bless,