- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Katjo….> you have presented it right, but those who do not understand the truth of GOD'S word will continue to deny it. Jesus did not preexist His berth on earth and is the Firstborn , of all creation into the kingdom of GOD. It's just that simple, not to even mention many scriptures that show GOD (ALONE and by HIMSELF) created every thing that exists in heaven and earth.
peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
Quote (Gene @ Nov. 16 2009,00:54) Katjo….> you have presented it right, but those who do not understand the truth of GOD'S word will continue to deny it. Jesus did not preexist His berth on earth and is the Firstborn , of all creation into the kingdom of GOD. It's just that simple, not to even mention many scriptures that show GOD (ALONE and by HIMSELF) created every thing that exists in heaven and earth. peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
I believe you misunderstand as Katjo appears to be a Trinitarian in that he assumes the words “I Am” translates to Yahweeh as in “before Abraham, God”.The statement is not even grammatically correct but that does not stop those that are biased from making it.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 14 2009,17:13) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 14 2009,00:53) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 14 2009,13:35) Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
——————————————————————————–
Psalm 139:16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
——————————————————————————–
Isaiah 49:1 Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me.
——————————————————————————–
Isaiah 49:5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength),
Does Isaiah 49:1 have anything to do with Matthew 1:21?Matthew 1:21(NIV) reads:
Quote She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
Sure it does, that in the fact that the Father knew all before the womb, all these verse prove that Yahweh knows who is to be born, and what their lives are going to be.
So is seems logical to conclude that Jesus did not have a name until his mother named him as per God's instructions?Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 15 2009,11:59) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 14 2009,17:13) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 14 2009,00:53) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 14 2009,13:35) Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
——————————————————————————–
Psalm 139:16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
——————————————————————————–
Isaiah 49:1 Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me.
——————————————————————————–
Isaiah 49:5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength),
Does Isaiah 49:1 have anything to do with Matthew 1:21?Matthew 1:21(NIV) reads:
Quote She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
Sure it does, that in the fact that the Father knew all before the womb, all these verse prove that Yahweh knows who is to be born, and what their lives are going to be.
So is seems logical to conclude that Jesus did not have a name until his mother named him as per God's instructions?
Absolutly, considering he did not exist until his mother berthed him.Acts 14:11-15
11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living 'Elohim, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.These verses are particularly revealing and illustrate an enormously important fact to consider when studying Scripture.
Why would I say this?
One of THE strongest proofs against the Trinity or deity of Messiah is not what the Scriptures say.
But what they do NOT say.
In fact, what is NOT said in Scripture is probably THE most irrefutable evidence proving Yeshua is NOT 'Elohim.
Let me say this again so that it will sink in.
THE strongest evidence against the deity of Yeshua the Messiah, evidence Trinitarians and counterfeit Messianics hope you fail to notice, is what is NOT said in the Scriptures!
The Tanakh AND the New Testament are literally FULL of things NOT said that prove Yeshua is NOT 'Elohim.
Once the sincere Bible student becomes aware of this fact and doesn't allow Trinitarian and Kabbalistic Messianic false teachers to bully them into “seeing” what is not there, the truth of Yeshua's NOT being 'Elohim becomes blatantly obvious.
This may not even be the best example, and I point out numerous times throughout the New Testament commentary how what Paul or others do NOT say proves Yeshua is NOT 'Elohim.
Ok, note 3 points about the verses quoted above.
1] The citizens of Lystra witnessed miracles at the hand of Paul.
2]After witnessing these miracles they began to exclaim, “The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. ” The New Revised Standard Version better renders the words as, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” They were expressing a “god in the flesh” or “god incarnate” belief. Sound familiar?
2] When Paul and Barnabas witnessed this they became incensed at such a thought, “rent their clothes and ran in among the people,” and begged them to turn from such “vanities.” The “vanity” to which Paul and Barnabas referred was the concept that god can come down in human form, which is exactly what the Traditional Christian Trinity and counterfeit Messianic mystic “Ayn Sof” distortions teach!
The Greek word rendered “vanities” means “worthless”, “profitless”, “useless”, “futile”, “to no purpose”, etc. Paul and Barnabas considered the “god in the flesh” idea expressed by the citizens to be a useless and futile belief!
First, and foremost, consider what Paul and Barnabas did NOT say.
Since the citizens were claiming “god” can take human form, why didn't the apostles explain how they were correct but that the “god in the flesh” was Yeshua and not them?
Notice there is NOTHING SAID AT ALL that would even hint that the concept of “gods in human form” was acceptable to Paul and Barnabas!
Yet, if Trinitarians and counterfeit Messianics are correct, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a concept.
Do you see Paul or Barnabas agreeing with the Trinitarians?
I certainly don't.
Is there something here that would suggest Paul and Barnabas considered the “god in the flesh” concept even remotely acceptable?
NO!
There is not even a hint.
This is an example of how what is NOT said provides strong evidence against the concept of a “god in the flesh” Messiah.
Paul's and Barnabas' silence in the face of a chance to clarify this issue to those ripe for acceptance of the concept should not be missed.
This episode also provides good evidence of the pagan origins of the Trinity since those that so readily accepted such a revolting concept were involved in the pagan religions of the Roman empire, the same pagan religions and same empire from which the Trinity “mystery” originated.
Additionally, since the counterfeit Messianic movement is Traditional Christianity dressed in Jewish garments, this is also the origins of the distorted Messianic “mystic Trinity”.
Some might argue that Paul's and Barnabas' revulsion was limited to the specific references to pagan gods; however, if this were true, Paul and Barnabas missed a golden opportunity to preach the Christian Trinity and Christianized Messianic “god in the flesh” versions of the idea the citizens were expressing.
They could have explained to the citizens that they were correct in their idea but that instead of Jupiter and Mercurius the true god was the one that had manifested Himself “in the human form” of Yeshua.
But they did not do so.
They did NOT say anything in support of the false “god in the flesh” concept; thus, providing evidence, one of countless examples, of how what was NOT said proves what IS said by the majority of Christian and Messianic leaders is incorrect.
In fact, the actions of the apostles reveal utter revulsion at the notion God can take “human form” and live as a man!
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 16 2009,02:15) Hi CON,
Is birth the beginning of life?
Conception is the beginning of human life. That is why is called “conception”Entry for “conceive” at thefreedictionary.com on November 15, 2009 reads:
Quote 5. To begin or originate in a specific way: a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,16:47) Hi CON,
You this scientific idea be applied over what scripture says?
It doesn't take science to understand the egg must be fertilized to grow, whether by mans doing or Yahwehs.If you think Yeshua existed before Mary's conception what was he?
You might as well call yourself a trinitarian.
Hi CON,
Interesting reaction to a simple question.There are many unexplained things Jesus said about himself that make us consider these things.
His origins, however different, do not make him any more or less than an ordinary man do they?
One thing is sure: the personal pre-existence of the Messiah 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 the Messiah 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 'Elohim and His promised Son:
“He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my 'Elohim, 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 'Elohim.
“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 Yeshua.
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 'Elohim, 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 the Messiah'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, 'Elohim 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 'Elohim 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 the Messiah'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.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,16:59) Hi CON,
Interesting reaction to a simple question.There are many unexplained things Jesus said about himself that make us consider these things.
His origins, however different, do not make him any more or less than an ordinary man do they?
What is unexplained?Ordinary with the exception of his divine mission to live a sin free life and die upon the cross for all those who come to him.
Hi Con,
His ability to remain sinfree was that his real Father was with him.[Acts 10, Heb12 ]The reason for so doing was to prove the truth of the Law and to make him a suitable vessel for the Spirit of God [2Tim2]
The first begotten, the first fruits from above, we now can follow him by rebirth of water and the Spirit.
THE CONCEPTION, BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS
Turning to the record of the Messiah's birth there is a similar silence about his personal pre-existence.
Gabriel announced the impending event in the terms of 'Elohim's Old Testament promises:
“You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Yeshua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord 'Elohim 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 'Elohim” (verse 35).
There was clearly not even a hint in the angel's message that Yeshua already existed, and that the babe was to be 'Elohim 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 'Elohim 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 'Elohim'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 Yeshua grew up he “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with 'Elohim and man” (Luke 2:52).
This statement presents a difficulty for those who believe Yeshua 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 'Elohim'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 Yeshua 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”.
If this is true how did Yeshua 'increase in wisdom and in favour with 'Elohim' if all the time he had never relinquished a divinity that possessed these attributes to perfection?
THE TEMPTATION OF YESHUA
The same problem arises with the Messiah'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 Yeshua 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 Yeshua, as pre-existent and omniscient 'Elohim 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 Yeshua did have a recollection of a life in heaven.
Indeed according to their view of John 17:5 Yeshua could recall the glory he had shared with Yeshua 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?
Yeshua 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 Yeshua was pre-existent 'Elohim 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 'Elohim 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 Yeshua 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 'Elohim 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 'Elohim that he could triumph in the way that he did, then his personal achievement seems greatly lessened, for 'Elohim can do anything.
Hi CON,
God has no equal and Jesus never attempted to to try to claim such.[Phil2]
There are many gods and many lords but for us One God, the Father.[1Cor8]Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 16 2009,12:17) THE CONCEPTION, BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS Turning to the record of the Messiah's birth there is a similar silence about his personal pre-existence.
Gabriel announced the impending event in the terms of 'Elohim's Old Testament promises:
“You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Yeshua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord 'Elohim 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 'Elohim” (verse 35).
There was clearly not even a hint in the angel's message that Yeshua already existed, and that the babe was to be 'Elohim 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 'Elohim 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 'Elohim'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 Yeshua grew up he “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with 'Elohim and man” (Luke 2:52).
This statement presents a difficulty for those who believe Yeshua 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 'Elohim'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 Yeshua 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”.
If this is true how did Yeshua 'increase in wisdom and in favour with 'Elohim' if all the time he had never relinquished a divinity that possessed these attributes to perfection?
There are other Scriptures that talk about th preexisting of Jesus.
Rev. 3:14
Col. 1:15-17
And by Jesus own words He said this in
John 17:5 ” And now O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
He was there in Heaven with the Father as a Spirit being, were He returned. God send His only begotten Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that through Him we might be saveth. So where did God send Him from?
Peace and Love Irene“HE CALLS THINGS THAT ARE NOT AS THOUGH THEY ARE”
The key to understanding the biblical sense in which Yeshua pre-existed is the foreknowledge of 'Elohim.
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 'Elohim, 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 'Elohim often speaks of future events as if they had actually happened.
This is important to keep in mind. Paul says that 'Elohim:
“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 'Elohim 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 'Elohim long before he was born.
In this sense it could be said that Jeremiah 'pre-existed' obviously not as a person but in 'Elohim's mind and purpose.
This is not the only example.
All those who are finally redeemed by Yeshua have been 'known' to 'Elohim 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).
“'Elohim chose you from the beginning” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).
“Who saved us and called us with a holy calling … which he gave us in the Messiah ages ago” (2 Timothy 1:9).
Note carefully the language used by Paul in these passages.
The believers were 'foreknown' and 'chosen in the Messiah' 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 'Elohim 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 the Messiah'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 the Messiah as redeemer and of those who would be redeemed in and through the Messiah.
We may speak of an ideal pre-existence at this point, but of real pre-existence of the Messiah or of believers once again there is no thought”.
Here the distinction is made between the idea of the Messiah'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 the Messiah 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 predicting 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 Yeshua was known in advance by 'Elohim in the sense that His plan for him was predetermined; and then at the appropriate time Yeshua was born.
Clearly there was no thought in Peter's mind that Yeshua 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 'Elohim the Father” (1 Peter 1:2).
None take this to mean the believers' personal previous existence.
'Elohim's foreknowledge of his purpose in the Messiah 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.
'Elohim too has a plan for a house that has not yet been built.
Not a literal building but an edifice composed of the redeemed.
And the corner stone of this building is Yeshua.
With an insight greater than any human architect, 'Elohim 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 Yeshua had glory with 'Elohim 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 the Messiah pre-existed we come to the passages, exclusive to the gospel record of John, which seem to suggest the Messiah'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 'Elohim has sent” (John 3:34).
4. “For the bread of 'Elohim 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 'Elohim” (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 the Messiah 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 the Messiah 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 Yeshua that bids us look beneath their apparent meaning?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
