The Origins of Jesus Christ -- Part 1

Home

The Origins of Jesus Christ
PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST: PART 1

PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION
Years of careful thought based on biblical revelation (especially since 1968), examination of major theological arguments (Trinitarianism, Process Theology, Arianism, Binitarianism), writing and teaching (for teachers learn by teaching), have come together in this paper. Nevertheless, this is a very small part in the vast subject matter of Scripture. Please consider John’s comment in the last verse of his Gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did (and said, revealed, explained, implied), which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written (Jn 21:25 Updated NASB).

The world’s greatest problem is that it doesn’t know the GOD of the Bible. The world responds to many gods, many christs, and the god of this world (Rev 12:9; 1Jn 5:19; Jn 12:31; 1Cor 8:5-6). Because the world does not know the LORD of hosts nor the Son of God, the world is confused about good and evil (Ps 2). The consequence of this gross ignorance and universal deception is that all of civilization’s systems clash against the principles of the Almighty and conform to the destructive anti-principles of the god of this world. This relatively brief paper helps to verify these claims directly and implicitly.

Throughout history there have been and still are arguments amongst theologians about the nature and origin of the Redeemer and Messiah (Rev 5:1-6; Ps 95:3; 96:4; 97:7,9; Prov 30:4). Pre-Christian history has much to say on the relationship of the God of gods and His messianic Son (i). Church history reveals that the most brutal persecutions were attempts to crush any who resisted the dogma of the establishment Church about the nature of God and His Christ (see Pss 2:1-12; 8:1-9; 45:1-17) (ii). All history is leading to universally multiple crises where the Son of God and the god of this world violently clash (Rev 20:1-10). The saints know this for they have the Spirit of Truth. The prophet Daniel in 7:14,25-27; 11:32-33; 12:1-12 reveals this.

PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD
Renowned scholar and catholic, Raymond E. Brown, says that God’s Son, a pre-existent Being in Heaven, came into the world in the flesh. This incarnate Son was foreshadowed in the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Brown expresses these thoughts in the context of John 1: “A divine being (God’s Word [1:1,14], who is also the light [1:5,9] and God’s only Son [1:14,18]) comes into the world and becomes flesh” (An Introduction to the New Testament [New York: ABRL/Doubleday, 1997], p 337). “The background to this poetic description (i.e., Jn 1:1-18) of the descent of the Word into the world and the eventual return of the Son to the Father’s side (1:18) lies in the OT picture of personified Wisdom” (p 338. We’ll look at Prov 8:22-36 later). Similarly, in An Introduction to New Testament Christology [New York: Paulist Press, 1994], Brown says that “certain NT passages indicate that early Christians believed God’s Son to have had a prehistory before that career” (p 133). James D.G. Dunn, theologian and scholar, insists this is not so. Brown also says that Christ’s pre-existence “is clear from [Jn] 17:5 where the Johannine Jesus speaks literally and consciously of having had a glorified existence with the Father before the world began (see also 16:28; 3:13; 5:19; 8:26, 28)” (pp 133-141, esp. 137).

Dunn in Christology in the Making gives exhaustive arguments on the premise that the grander ideas of the NT have their basis in Platonic cosmology, dualism, and Philo’s ideas ([London: SCM Press, 1989], pp 52-53; 123-125). He presupposes that the dogma of the Trinity is inherent in the NT. Scriptures used in this paper show Christ was pre-existent before His incarnation. Dunn thinks otherwise but does discuss John’s belief in Christ’s pre-existence (pp 29, 244-247, 250). There are modern scholars who broadly support his arguments and others who disagree, but most express belief in the Trinity whose presumptuous formulation was made in the fourth century, as Brown admits—despite his understanding that the NT speaks of Christ’s pre-existence (Christology, p vi). It is not logically possible (except on the basis of false assumption) to espouse Christ’s pre-existence from trinitarian dogma (see LaCugna, God For Us [Harper: San Francisco, 1993], pp 213-4). This paper’s intent is to show the biblical revelation of the nature and meaning of Christ’s pre-existence.

Oscar Cullman’s The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1973) is closer to Brown than Dunn but falls into vagueness that is the result of Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideology that underpin trinitarianism’s philosophical speculations. The dogma of the Trinity is based on hellenistic philosophy with misapplications of Scripture used to support suppositions. Earlier papers provide more proofs for this.

The three scholars mentioned are fairly representative of the approaches used in interpreting Christology.

Some small groups claim absolute co-equality and co-eternality in a supposedly binitarian godhead. From this presupposition one may infer that there are two supremely superior gods who would still be vying, being absolutely equal in all divine qualities, for the finest expression of love for mankind to die as the Lamb of God. That’s an obvious absurdity.

THE GOD AND FATHER OF JESUS CHRIST—AND TRUE RELATIONSHIPS
Let’s look at the simplicity of many NT Scriptures which declare that Jesus Christ is the pre-existent Son of God and therefore raise the inequality questions. Jesus’ prayer to His Father on the last night of His apostolic ministry includes:

Jn 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Christ is here speaking to the Father and says of the Father that He is “the only true God.” What was Jesus thinking this means?

Jn 17:25-26 records the end of Jesus’ prayer on the night before His crucifixion:

“O righteous Father! The world has not known You (And who in the world knows the Father and the Son?), but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me (i.e., the apostolic view is that Christ had a pre-existence before His incarnation). 26 I have declared to them Your Name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

In John 20:17, after Jesus’ resurrection from the grave, He said to Mary,

“Don’t cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God’ ”

Later the disciples did touch Him (Mt 28:9). How did Mary view God as her God and Father? And how did she understand that Jesus Christ had the same God and Father? Please also consider the prophetic symbolism in the wave-sheaf offering on the Sunday morning during the Feast of Unleavened Bread; 1Cor 15:23; Lev 23:9-14. Christ is our Bread of Life.

How are we begotten children of our God and Father? How was Christ the only-begotten Son of His God and Father? The answers reveal parallels of relationship: Son of God the Father; children of God the Father.

Rom 15:6 has Paul saying to the Church, on the matter of prayer and worship, “that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Paul’s epistles are overwhelming in their use of this relational description.

Eph 1:1-3 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.

Eph 1:17 [May] the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.

Trinitarian speculative philosophy doesn’t allow for the real relationship expression, the Son has a God and Father, because it says that Jesus Christ is God. The fact is that Jesus Christ is called Elohim, but English has no adequate word for the Hebrew. Elohim is a plural word, which biblically speaks of the Father, His Son, the angelic realm, and even the demons (see articles, e.g., TWOT, 93; TDOT, 1.242-261, el; 1.267-284, elohim; V.500-521, YHWH).

Col 1:1-3 continues with the apostolic definitions:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.

How did Paul perceive the fact that Jesus has a God and Father? Was it as Paul understood his own relationship to his God and Father? Paul believed that he had been known by His God and Father before he was conceived (see Gal 1:15; cp. Eph 1:4-6; Rom 8:28-30; also see Is 49:1,5; Jer 1:5; Ps 139:13-16).

2Th 1:1-2 speaks similarly: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nearly every epistle of Paul begins this way. There is not a hint of trinitarianism in these characteristic NT expressions of Christ and the apostle Paul, nor is there any implication of co-equality. Some falsely believe that Phil 2:6-11 speaks of co-equality in the Godhead.

Heb 1:1-2 begins with the same understanding: God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things (i.e., this is an act of elevation), and God the Father has also through Him made the universe.

This implies pre-existence for the Son who was later sent into the world through the incarnation as the only-begotten God of all the divine beings in Heaven (the NT Greek has monogenes theos; see Endnote, Jn 1:18).

Other variants of this expression with essentially the same meaning are:

• 1Jn 4:9, literally, the Son of His, the only-begotten, ton huion autou ton monogene;
• in Heb 11:17, where Isaac, born after Ishmael, is figuratively understood as foreshadowing Jesus, we read, the only-begotten, ton monogene;
• in Jn 3:16, the Son, the only-begotten, ton huion ton monogene;
• Jn 1:14, the only-begotten, os monogenous;
• Jn 3:18, the only-begotten Son of God, tou monogenous huiou theou.

The apostle Peter believed as Paul did:

1Pet 1:2-3 [You saints are the] elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Each of us, as children of God, has an origin by natural birth from our father and mother. If we have the Spirit of God then we are begotten again and are children of God in a higher sense, i.e., foreknown for salvation as firstfruits (Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:3-6).

The epistles of John, written about 85AD, also express this consistent apostolic belief. I say this because many speak and write as if the OT and NT have doctrinal inconsistencies. The problem is due to lack of spiritual discernment and trust in God’s Word (1Cor 2:6-14).

1Jn 1:1-3 We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—2 this Life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us (see Jn 5:26)—3 we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

And that being true, what then are the relationship results? What happens to those who refuse to acknowledge and fellowship with those whom God loves?

Do we note the implications that the relationship between the Son of God and the Father is akin to the relationship the children of God have to their GOD and Father? It is the Power of God, the gift by the Spirit of God, that gives us the wondrous spiritual experiences of love and fellowship with the children of God and with the Father and with His Son. Those whom the Father loves we, as children of God, love, and all the sheep of GOD are shepherded by the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:1-18). Again I ask: What happens to those who refuse to acknowledge and fellowship with those whom God loves?

1Jn 3:1 expresses this biblical love as: Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore, the world does not know us, because it does not know Him (also see Jn 15:18-19; 16:1-3).

Religious establishments reject the entity relationship of Father and messianic Son. Some replace it with mystically ecstatic and divine sexual union as relational experience (see LaCugna, pp 350-56; Jewett, God, Creation, & Revelation [Eerdmans, 1991], pp 238-44). Hence they cannot recognize those who live by this real and biblical relationship, whose foundations are not in the high-fog-index abstractions and perversities of ancient Greek philosophy and the mysticism of such as Plotinus (ca. 205-270; LaCugna, pp 92-3).

The last book of the Bible speaks of the end result of the growing godly relationship.

Rev 1:6 [Jesus] has made us (prophetically speaking) into a kingdom of priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The priests of GOD are to experience the highest level of intimacy with Him and His Son.

Rev 3:12 adds: He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the Temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the Name of My God and the Name of the City of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new Name.

In this last book of the NT, written about 95AD, Jesus Christ speaks of Himself as having a God and Father in the New Jerusalem. That fatherhood is more than the physical birth of the Saviour through the incarnation and resurrection.

It is not extraordinary therefore, in view of the confusions about the nature of God and His Christ, that Psalm 2 prophesies that the hypocritically religious want to break the understanding of the relationship and fellowship of the Father and His only-begotten Son, the Lamb of God, the Father’s Firstfruits (1Cor 15:23).

Ps 2:1-3 Why do the nations conspire, and the people plot a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the (religious) rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed (His Messiah), saying, 3 “Let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us” (for they prefer relationships founded in blinding sand winds, unrealities, figments of vain romance and speculative imagination).

The Pharisees, Sadducees, the Sanhedrin murdered Jesus for the reason given in Ps 2. This is what the apostolic church understood, as is given in Acts 4:23-27.

Acts 4:23-27 When Peter and John had been released from arrest by the Sanhedrin they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24 So when the church members heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD and against His Christ.’ 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together.”

From before His resurrection to His sitting at the right hand of His Father the subordination of Christ is biblically clear. Prayer and ultimate worship are to the Father (Mt 5:6,9; Rev 4:1-5:7). The whole Plan of Salvation is finally delivered to the Father (1Cor 15:24,28). With the fall of the argument for absolute co-equality falls the argument for co-eternality. Without co-equality there arises the question of Jesus’ origin. And without co-eternality the question of origin has to be addressed from Scripture and not from supposedly esoteric speculation.

The first epistle of John speaks of the Christian and anti-christian responses to this knowledge.

1Jn 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ (that only the Saviour is the Messiah)? He is antichrist who denies (the individuality of) the Father and the Son (for the Father appointed Him as such; Heb 1:9; Ps 45:6-7; Heb 2:7-8). 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Biblically, the Father and Son are separate entities, not co-equal and not co-eternal, as we shall see more and more. I’m not aware of any professing Christians who deny the Father and Son. But there are many who deny that the Father and Son are separate entities and that the only-begotten God (Jn 1:18) (iii), as a pre-existent being at the Throne of God the Father, was chosen as the Lamb of God.

1Jn 4:15 adds: Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

How does God live in us? What are the evidences of the Life of God in us? And how is Jesus the Son of God? There’s such disparate variety of gods and beliefs among many!

1Jn 5:5 adds to the subject of the Father-Son relationship and its outcome: Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Multiple millions believe “Jesus is the Son of God”—few overcome the world as Christ reveals. We need to see the elements of how Jesus is the Son of His God and Father. Christ has said that He does the Will of His Father and He continues to do it. Christ is the Messenger of the Father and chief executive of His Will. May I ask: What happens to children who are misguided or misinformed about the nature of their relationship with their father or mother or both? Yes, the children may admit, “This is my father!”, “This is my mother!”, but what happens to them if their thinking about their parents is wrong? True relationships and understanding cannot develop except through the godly perspectives of truth.

THE SON OF MAN
The Son of Man is a title Jesus Christ uses of himself which appears over 80 times in the NT.

Rev 1:1 says that Revelation was given by the Father to the Son, who gave it to an angel, who gave it to John, who has given it to us. There is blessing to those who read and hear (v 3). We’re told that those who are Christ’s are made by Him into a Kingdom of priests for the God and Father of Jesus Christ (v 6). The resurrected Jesus Christ is the High Priest of His God and Father (Heb 5:5-11; 6:20; 7:20-26; 8:1-2). Rev 1 prepares us for the messages to the seven churches of Asia, types of the entire church throughout history. Verse 13, part of a series of rich symbols, says:

Rev 1:13 In the midst of the seven golden lampstands (figures of the purged churches which are a light to the world) [there was] One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band—in the Assembly of God in Heaven (see Heb 12:22-23; Rev 4:1-11; 19:1-6).

Rev 2:18 is the only reference to the title “Son of God” in this last NT book. There is, however, one other reference to “the Son of Man”. Rev 14 describes the Israel of God as the 144,000 who follow the Lamb of God, who are the redeemed, and the firstfruits of God in the first resurrection. The messages of three angels (14:6,8,9) are referred to, the curses upon those who worship the Beast are given, and then the Coming is described.

Rev 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.

Dan 7:13-14 and Acts 7:56 speak of the Son of Man seen in vision. But the reaction of the Hellenized religious leaders to such revelation was hatred and murder (Acts 7:57-58). For as Christ had said earlier, they did not know God nor the Scriptures (Mk 12:24; Jn 7:28; 8:19,42,55; 15:21). They persisted in accusing Jesus of claiming to be God or equal to God, whereas He persisted in claiming, “I am the Son of God” (e.g., Jn 5:18; 10:31-38). Their presuppositional ideas had poisoned their thinking and those ideas they were determined to drink until death (Mt 23:31-36). False religious ideas breed false hopes, impure culture and biblically incongruent behaviour. Western civilization’s Christianity is a crucible for its own irreversible decay (see Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity [Eerdmans, 1986]; Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church [New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1981]; Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990]).

The Bible is consistent in what it says about the Son of (the) Man (huios tou anthropou; e.g., Mt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23). The Man is symbolic of the Father in whose image humanity was created. The Lamb of God, the Son of the Man, the perfect reflection of the Almighty Father, the Man, became the Redeemer of mankind. The topics that follow are likewise consistent and coherent with one another.

ANGEL OF THE LORD
Though I’ve spoken about the Angel of the LORD over the past few years I’ve not as yet written a paper on that subject. There are many sources that address this topic quite well, but which generally do not draw clear conclusions. I’ll quote and paraphrase from The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament [TDOT] (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Volume VIII, pp 317-325, covers the titles, mal’ak YHWH (Messenger or Angel of the LORD) and mal’ak elohim (Messenger or Angel of God), which are used 66 times, along with mal’ak habberit (Angel/Messenger of the Covenant, which is Christ) from Mal 3:1, and mal’ak panav from Is 63:9, Angel of the Presence. The Angel, or the Messenger is used 24 times and is understood as a shortened form of Messenger of God/theLORD (p 317). The OT has at least 92 times where Angel or Messenger of the LORD is understood (e.g., Hos 13:3-4; Gen 32:24-30).

The TDOT comments, “He is not only a messenger delivering God’s words, but is also a minister or agent authorized to perform them [for Christ is the Messenger of His God sent to deliver all His Father has told Him]. Thus he is sent by God to go before Abraham’s servant (Gen. 24:7,40), to go before Israel (Ex. 23:20,23; 32:2,34), to deliver them (Nu. 20:16), and to lead them into the land of Canaan (Ex 23:20; cf. Mal 3:1), where God’s angel will clear the way before him by punishing sinners …. The angel protects the Israelites at the Reed Sea (Ex 14:19), resists Balaam (Nu. 22:22), helps Elijah (1 K. 19:7), and smites the foes of Israel (2 K. 19:35 par. Isa. 37:36). … According to Zec. 12:8, at the restoration of Israel the house of David will be compared with the angel of Yahweh” (pp 317-8).

Zech 12:8 In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the LORD before them (and they will stand courageously in the evil day; Eph 6:13; Dan 11:32-33).

This Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament recognizes that in all these theophanies (i.e., manifestations of a divine being, an Elohim) the same entity is active on behalf of His God.

“In some passages it is no longer possible to distinguish God from his mal’ak in interactions with human beings. … Several examples can illustrate this. In Gen. 16:7-14, Yahweh hears the cry of Hagar and sends the mal’ak YHWH to communicate with her directly. After the angel has communicated with her, she calls the name of Yahweh: “You are the God [elohim] who sees me!” She then cries: “I have seen God [elohim]” .. Yet the actual intercessor with Hagar is the angel of Yahweh, not Yahweh himself” (p 318).

Though scholars recognize who is described in these theophanies, they are generally reluctant to extrapolate further, for they must then contradict the dogma of the Trinity which cannot accommodate pre-existent entities. Since most theologians’ GOD is Idea, Thought, Universal Intelligence, Universal Soul, an imagined Hypostasis, fanciful notions of relationship have to be created by men of enormity of intelligence (e.g., Plato, Philo, Plotinus, the Cappadocians).

The TDOT discusses Abraham and Isaac in Gen 22 and their contact with the elohim and mal’ak YHWH which appear as names for the same entity; Jacob was told by Yahweh/mal’ak elohim to leave Laban (Gen 31:1-16); and there are additional examples (Jgs. 2:1,4; 13:2-25); Ex 3 has the mal’ak YHWH appearing in the burning bush (pp 319-20).

“Ex. 23, 33 shed additional light on the divine manifestation in Ex. 3. Ex 23:20-22a read: “I am sending an angel in front of you to guard you [1Cor 10:4 identifies this Guide as Jesus Christ] … listen to his voice … for my name is in him. But if you completely obey him and do all that I say”…. The importance of this passage for the interpretation of Ex. 3 is twofold. The mal’ak YHWH is so closely associated with Yahweh that Yahweh’s name is in him. When Moses speaks with God, he obeys the voice of the mal’ak. Thus the mal’ak YHWH is the intermediary between God and human beings [and from the NT we know the intermediary is Jesus Christ—Jesus has pre-existence in the OT]. When God speaks, he speaks through the angel bearing his name [i.e., bearing God’s various titles]. When a person hears God’s commands through his mediator, he is to comply fully, for the message of the mal’ak is Yahweh’s message. … He [the mal’ak YHWH] approaches the person with the authority, commission, and name of Yahweh” (p 321).

According to theologian Herbert Junker, “‘the angel of Yahweh’ [is] the companion and bearer of Yahweh’s glory, reveals to human beings through his appearance Yahweh’s own presence [hence Christ is the Face of God; Gen 32:28-30; Is 63:9; Jn 14:9; 6:46], though Yahweh himself remains mysteriously invisible” (p 321). GOD is invisible and no one has seen Him as the Son of God has been seen on numerous occasions in OT and NT times, as recorded in Scripture (Jn 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1Tim 6:16; 1Jn 4:12).

It’s obvious that what these OT references say fits what we hear Christ say of himself in the NT and what other faithful declare in the Scriptures. Son of God, Son of Man, Angel of the LORD are synonymous names and titles for Jesus Christ who was known as such by the patriarchs and prophets (Ex 23:21). There is not a different God for OT saints as compared to NT saints, as is implicit in Heb 11. Nor is there a different Mediator nor a different Messiah for OT and NT saints. It is the same Father and the same intermediary the Father has sent and will send again.

The Son of GOD & the ALMIGHTY GOD & the Philosophy of Government
The relationship of the Son of God to His God and Father is a crucial OT and NT doctrinal theme that affects all relationship matters—in the Divine Realm (Rev 4,5,6), between God and man (1Pet 2:4-10), between people (1Jn 4:6,8,16-21), among nations (Ps 2:1-3; Zech 14:16-21), and determines the philosophy of government (consider Ps 2:10-12; Dan 7:13-14,18; 11:32-33). The foundation of the philosophy of godly government is built on the dynamics of the God-defined relationship between the ruler and the ruled. God the Father is the ultimate ruler, as Christ admits (1Cor 15:24,28). The High Priest of God—who will be sent as King of kings by His Lord and Father and GOD—will gather the saints, who have endured in the Faith, into a royal priesthood and nation, the Israel of God. Distortion of this biblical truth results in distortion of the principles of relationships and therefore results in ungodly church government.

In Mt 4:9-10 (see also Lk 4:5-8), during the 40-day fast and temptations of Christ, Satan said to Jesus, “All these things (the kingdoms/governments of the world) I will give You (for the Devil is still the god of this world, the deceiver of nations and mankind; 2Cor 4:4; 1Jn 5:19; Rev 12:9), if You will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Dt 6:13; 13:4).

Christ’s view, as expressed here, is that He pointed Satan toward worship of God the Father. If Christ were “true God and true man,” then Satan should have been asked to drop on his knees and worship Christ.

The Gospel of John persistently speaks of the subordination of Jesus Christ to His Father—true for then, now, and forever.

Jn 6:40 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

What do we believe? What do we do with what we believe? The answers to such questions will be thoroughly tested in trials of purging until the end (see Dan 11:32-33; 2Thess 2:9-12).

Jn 6:44-46 adds: No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day (What is the evidence we each have for being drawn to God?). 45 It is written in the prophets (see Is 54:13; Mic 4:2; 1Cor 2:10-15), ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’

If we are each taught by God by the Spirit of Truth why is there is so much disagreement and why are there so many gospels? Why is there little if any success in resolving differences?

Therefore everyone who has heard (Who has ears to hear?) and learned from the Father comes to Me.

If we are all brought to Christ and walk as He walked, why are there so many paths the various self-appointed apostles, prophets, christs and their disciples walk?

46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.

There are a few biblical accounts that tell us some saints have seen the Father in visions (e.g., Dan 7:9-14; Acts 7:56). None have seen the Father as they have seen the Angel of the LORD (e.g., Josh 5:13-15; Gen 32: 22-30; Hos 12:4).

In Jn 8:14-16 Jesus answered and said to them (i.e., the hellenized religious leaders who did not know God nor the Scriptures), “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I came from and where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one (i.e., according to the flesh). 16 And yet if I do judge (which He does in righteousness), My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me (i.e., at one with the Father in spirit, in truth, in purpose, in will).

The sending of Christ was by the Father. The first coming was by means of the divesting of the Son’s divine power and birth by the virgin Mary through incarnation by the power of Christ’s Father. The going back to Heaven was by resurrection from the dead and ascension to the right hand of His God and Father (Rev 3:21). The second Coming will be because the Father will send His Son (Mt 24:36; Mk 13:32). These processes deny co-equality. Without co-equality, and hence implicit non-co-eternality, one searches for biblical answers to the questions of origin and beginning. Those who claim co-equality do so on the basis of dogma, not biblical proof; and they do so on the basis of ideology founded on non-biblical philosophy, e.g., Neo-Platonism, as reflected in Augustine and other founders of human philosophy and self-conjured mysticism by the power of the gods of this world (Dt 32:15-8,36-38; Ps 96:4-5; Is 36:18-20).

Jn 8:28-29 deals with the end result of the denial by religious leaders of the truth about the nature of Jesus: Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He (but still deny Him in their hypocrisy), and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. 29 He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.”

So often realization of what is true is after the event and often too late. Suppression of truth and revelation is symptomatic of those who hate the God of Scripture (Rom 1:18; 8:7; 2Tim 3:13; 2Pet 2:1-3). Persecution by the religious establishment and use of deadly force are characteristics of history, and are expressed in connivance with civil and military authorities to suppress and even exterminate those who live and teach the Truth and who experience the Love and Life of God and His Messiah (see Gen 4:6-9; Mt 23:33-36; Rev 6:9; 17:6).

Paul agrees with John and Peter:

Rom 1:1-3,7 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the Gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures (e.g., Gal 3:8), 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The prophets of the OT knew the NT Jesus, Paul tells us. However, the Jewish religious leaders in Paul’s day did not know Him.

Let’s note this wonderful parallelism: The foreknown heavenly Son was incarnated, resurrected and was given higher status (Heb 1:5-14; 2:5-15). Christians, born in the flesh, predestined as sons of God (Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:3-12), will attain to a higher status as the children of God in the first and better resurrection (Rev 20:5-6; Heb 11:35).

Acts 2:36 confirms this from the mouth of the apostle Peter: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ (i.e., there was a process of promotion, as Hebrews 1 and 2 explain).

2Cor 1:1-3 also shows the consistency of the NT in the relationship of Son and Father, between the children of God, the Son and the Father: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the Will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.

The inequality of Father and Son and their relationship are revealed in

1Cor 3:23 And you (who are the children of God begotten by the Holy Spirit) are Christ’s (i.e., brethren, friends, servants), and Christ is God’s (Son, Lamb, Creator, only-begotten God, Apostle and Servant, Messiah and High Priest).

Christ’s future eternal messianic role denies co-equality:

1Cor 15:24,28 Then comes the end, when He delivers the Kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This inequality of power and authority is pervasive in the NT, as 1Tim 2:5 also illustrates:

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

Allusions in the name “the Man” refer to the Son being the Son of the Man, i.e., the Son of the One who is the omnipotent Father in whose image mankind has been created—who are to become children of God in the resurrection, as revealed in Christ’s resurrection (Rom 6:5; Phil 3:10-11). To be the Mediator, the Son of God had to give up His divinity in Heaven for some thirty years, die and have no awareness for three days, faithfully trust in His Father to never leave Him nor forsake Him in the whole process of incarnation and redemption (Phil 2:6-11). The Son of promise in Heaven gave up His divinity for a time and was born in the poverty of the flesh (2Cor 8:9). What are we asked to give up? Come out of the world (2Cor 6:17-18; Rev 18:4)!

We must conclude therefore, that to argue against Christ’s pre-existence to His incarnation is contrary to Scripture. Part 2 adds further proof as the question of origin is examined.

ENDNOTES
(i) e.g., Mircea Eliade, Gods, Goddesses and Myths of Creation [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1974], pp 22, 100-101; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis [Chicago: UCP, 1963], pp 18-24; and his Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels [Chicago: UCP, 1975], Tablet 1; W.F.Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity [New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1957], pp 378-380, 395-399.

(ii) e.g., Fernand Hayward, The Inquisition [New York: Alba House, 1966]; Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity [Pelican, 1988]; see index for persecution, Inquisition, heresies; Samuel Laeuchli, The Serpent and the Dove [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966], pp 186-187; W.L. Wakefield, A.P. Evans, translators, Heresies of the High Middle Ages [New York: Columbia University Press, 1991], pp 1-2.

(iii) JOHN 1:18—ITS TEXTUAL ACCURACY
Metzger’s Textual Commentary (UBS, 2nd Ed, 1994) gives monogenes theos a {B} rating, while Wikgren expresses the dissenting view that it should be a {D} rating. The Gk NT (UBS, 3rd Ed, 1983) has the Alexandrinus (Vth c.) as the oldest support for monogenes huios, whereas Papyri 66 and 75, and Sinaiticus (all older than A) have monogenes theos. The ANF, Vol 1, p 491 (Eerdmans, 1985) has a footnote saying that Irenaeus (c.120 - 202), in quoting Jn 1:18, used monogenes theos [See Against Heresies, Bk III.xx.6,11; & xi.6]. Clement of Alexandria (c.153 - 217), in The Stromata (Bk V.xii; ANF, Vol II, p 463), has monogenes theos. Ignatius’ [c.30 - 107] epistle to the Philadelphians (ch. vi) has “the only-begotten God.”

The ANF translator to The Constitutions of the Apostles [written c.340 - 360], M. B. Riddle, has a footnote to Bk vii.xliii (p 477) which says that “this change [from theos to huios] was made in the interests of orthodoxy; for the expression ‘only-begotten God’ has become common with the Arians.” Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture admits this (p 78): “The variant reading of the Alexandrian tradition, which substitutes “God” for “Son,” represents an orthodox corruption of the text in which the complete deity of Christ is affirmed: “the unique God [(o) monogenes theos] who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.” Ehrman’s arguments for are not convincing.

With the NIV’s ‘God the One and Only’ one sees a preference for monogenes theos, but a diversionary interpretation is given because of presumed trinitarian ideology.

The NASB follows UBS text, whereas NJPS, NRSV, and NEB texts do not. Some scholars will probably continue to argue about this and continue to allude to Jn 3:16,18 and I Jn 4:9 as support. Of five modern versions (NASB, NAB, NIV, NRSV, & Amplified) only the NASB text has ‘the only begotten God,’ with the Amplified having ‘the only unique Son, or the only begotten God.’ Leon Morris in his revised (NIC, 1995) commentary says: “It seems we should accept as the correct reading “only begotten God” since this “reading seems to have better attestation and transcriptional probability on its side” (p 100).

Original