The Pre-Human Existence of Christ Outside the Gospels - Part I

It is often said that John's is the only gospel in which the idea of a personal pre-human existence of Christ could somehow find support. It is claimed that in the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, this idea is absent.

In order to appraise the validity of this claim, we will explore what other books of the New Testament have to say on Christ's pre-human preexistence; by doing so, we will determine if it would be likely or not to find any references in the synoptic gospels to Christ's pre-human existence.

The argument is that if we can find the idea of Christ's pre-human existence present before 70 AD, it would be more plausible to find this idea in the synoptic gospels - and one would even expect then to find it there. It would be helpful to see how other Christians viewed this issue, because that would help us put the synoptic gospels into the 1st century context of Christian thought.

In this first part, we will inspect the writings of Paul. As it will be seen, the pre-human existence of Christ is always assumed, not argued for.

In the writings of Paul

The strongest proof of Christ's pre-human existence can be found in the letter to the Philippians.

Philippians 2:5-8

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man [...]^*

Notice how Christ existed in the form of God before emptying himself of this form, taking the form of a servant, becoming a man.

What does "being made in the likeness of men" mean? Being made translates the same Greek verb that appears in John 1:14, ginomai where John says the Word became flesh. Also, the word translated as "likeliness" is homoioma, and it also means "form" according to BDAG 5296. So this phrase can be rendered as "becoming in the form of men".

Furthermore, there's the last phrase: being found in appearance as a man. The word "appearance" translates the Greek schema, which also means "form" according to BDAG 7204. Also, the Greek text says "as a man", it is phrased this way:

σχήματι [in form] εὑρεθεὶς [being found] ὡς [as] ἄνθρωπος [a man]

So the text literally says: in form being found as a man. Therefore notice how this part of Paul's hymn revolves entirely around the "form". The whole phrase then says:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, becoming in the form of men, and being found in form as a man [...]

Before discussing what being in the form of God means, let us observe that Christ emptied himself. This is contrary to what the theory of no preexistence says, that Christ's pre-human existence is only in the mind/plan of God, not a personal pre-human existence. By saying that Christ emptied himself, Paul shows Christ's own participation in the process, his personal willingness to become a man in order to save humanity. He acted in a voluntary fashion in order to make salvation possible. This is paralleled by the statement that Christ humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death - vs. 8.

This shows his pre-human existence in personal terms; he existed in the form of God, and decided he will empty himself of this form and take the form of a servant, become a man. This also echoes the statement he made when he enters the human world⁰:

Hebrews 10:5-7 Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says, "Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'behold, I am coming (in the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, o God.'"

The fact that becoming a man is a voluntary act of Christ is significant, because most commentators that see no pre-human existence in Philippians 2 ignore this crucial fact. Most of their arguments are rather concentrated on what being in the form of God means.

But the phrase being in the form of God is clear enough, despite efforts to make it mean Christ was in the mind/plan of God. It is a fact that the verse actually doesn't say that. One can reach that conclusion if one starts from the idea that Christ could not personally exist but in the mind of God, making this a circular reasoning.

So what does being in the form of God mean? We can understand what it means if we start by noticing that it is said Christ was also, later, in the form of men¹; which undoubtedly means he was a man ².

If being in the form of men is being a man, being in the form of God is being a god. This idea was common in Hebrew thought - and Paul is a Hebrew of course, being taught by the famous Rabbi Gamaliel. In Hebrew thought, supernatural beings were sometimes referred to as "gods". For example, when the medium of En-Dor tells Saul what she sees, she says:

1 Samuel 28:13 "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."

NASB translates divine being but the Hebrew word used by the medium is Elohim, which means god(s). She is literally saying she sees an elohim, in other words a god, a supernatural being. This particularity of Hebrew thought can be also seen in the Septuagint, where there are at least four instances where the Hebrew translators thought that a certain verse referring to elohim was referring to angels - who of course are supernatural beings. The most well-known instance is Psalm 8:4-5 where NASB says:

What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God [elohim], And You crown him with glory and majesty!

The "English Bible in Basic English" translation says a little lower than the gods, while others like NIV say a little lower than the heavenly beings. Indeed, elohim can be translated as god or gods. The Hebrew translators of the Hebrew Scriptures used the plural, and not only the plural, but translated angels:

"Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour" - Brent's translation of the Septuagint.

They clearly thought that when the psalmist wrote elohim, gods, he referred to angels, therefore viewing angels as gods, because they are supernatural beings, reflecting the power and glory of the Almighty God. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews agrees, quoting the Septuagint:

Hebrews 2:6-7 But one has testified somewhere, saying, "What is man, that You remember him? Or the son of man, that You are concerned about him? You have made him for a little while lower than the angels;

The other instances where the Hebrew idea that angels are gods is reflected, are these:

Psalm 97:7 Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images, Who boast themselves of idols; Worship Him, all you gods [elohim in Hebrew, angels here in the Septuagint].

Psalm 138:1 A Psalm of David. I will give You thanks with all my heart; I will sing praises to You before the gods [elohim in Hebrew, angels here in the Septuagint].

Daniel 2:11 "Moreover, the thing which the king demands is difficult, and there is no one else who could declare it to the king except gods [elohim in Hebrew, angels here in the Septuagint], whose dwelling place is not with mortal flesh."

Interestingly enough in the case of Daniel 2:11, it is indeed the angels who explain the meaning of Daniel's visions - see 7:16, 23; 8:16; 9:23; 10:12, 14, 21.

It is a well-established fact that the Bible of the first century Christians was the Septuagint ³. Thus Paul was familiar with the light in which the Septuagint presents supernatural beings - as gods. According to this ancient Hebrew way of thinking then, Jesus as a supernatural being can be called a god, being in the form of a god, inasmuch as he can be called later a man, being in the form of a man. As a side note, when the Greek text says Christ existed in the form of God, there's no capital G for "God" in the Greek manuscripts; all manuscripts were written in all capital letters or in all lower case letters. So the text says EXISTED IN THE FORM OF GOD and existed in the form of god. Furthermore, this phrase can be also translated

existed in the form of a god

since the Greek definite article ("the" in English) is missing from the Greek text, and unlike English, which has an indefinite article (a word, an apple) there's no indefinite article in Koine Greek, the language of the NT; the text says

en morphe theou huparchon (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)

The Greek definite article is missing from before theou, "god". Frequently, nouns without the definite article are translated "a thing" like in the case of Luke 5:36 where Jesus tells them a parable. Also, there are many places where somebody refers to something of God, where the definite article is present before theou - like Ephesians 5:6: he orge tou theou, the wrath of (the) God.

So if a Greek writer wanted to say "form of a god", he would have wrote exactly what Paul did, without inserting the Greek definite article before "god".

There are many places where virtually the same construction appears, but with an additional definite article:

en + a noun in dative (like morphe, "form"),
+ a definite article in the genitive (tou for example, "the"),
+ a noun in the genitive (like theou - "of (a) god"). That is, like:

en morphe tou theou

An instance would be Genesis 3:19, where the Septuagint says: en hidroti tou prosopou - "in the sweat of the face [of you]".

Or Genesis 23:9, en merei tou argou - "in the part of the land [of you]", etc. This is to show that if Paul would have wanted to make god in Philippians 2:6 to be definite, God, and not a god, which is indefinite, he could have easily added the definite article before "god": en morphe tou theou huparchon. So the translation

being in the form of a god

is legal and in agreement with the grammatical rules of Greek. In fact, it is probable that Paul wrote not that Christ was:

being made in the likeness of men

but:

being made in the likeness of a man

Not men, in the plural, but a man. Why? The oldest manuscript that contains this letter of Paul, P⁴⁶, reads man, in the singular, not men⁴, just as the preceding god and servant are in the singular, as is the phrase after, "found in appearance as a man". Other than P⁴⁶, some Syriac, Coptic and Vulgate manuscripts, Origen, Cyprian, Hillary and Ambrose, read man in the singular⁵.

So if it is man and not men, the parallelism with god and servant is preserved. Christ was in the form of a god, but emptied himself of this form, and came to be in the form of a man, of a servant.

The idea that Christ willingly renounced the high position he held prior to becoming a man, to became a slave - because the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve (Mt. 20:28) - is repeated by Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:9.

2 Corinthians 8:9

2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.

When was Jesus rich before he willingly became poor? Was Jesus the carpenter⁶ ever rich after he was born through Mary? He once said "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" - Mt. 8:6.

The fact that he was rich before, but became poor for our sakes, is related to another of Jesus' statements, that he had glory with his Father before the founding of the world - John 17:5.

1 Corinthians 15:47

1 Corinthians 15:47-49 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

The theory of no preexistence says that Christ's existence as a person started on earth; but here Paul contrasts the point of personal origin of Adam and Christ. Adam is from the earth, and he indeed started his existence as a person on earth; but Christ is not from earth, that is, he did not start existing as a person on earth. He is from heaven.

The counter-argument is that Christ is from heaven in the sense that he existed in the mind/plan of God, who is in heaven. But Adam existed as well in God's mind/plan before he was created on earth. He could not exist in God's plan after he was created on earth. So Adam too is from heaven. In fact all of us are from heaven. But Adam being from heaven renders Paul's argument useless.

A similar idea of Christ's origin as a person can be found in Romans 10:6-7.

The Letter to Romans

Romans 10:6-8 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "Do not say in your heart, 'who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down), or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" -- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching

Paul's argument is based on Deuteronomy 30:

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

Romans 10:6 is sometimes understood to say that people lacking a solid faith would like to go to heaven where Jesus is now, in order to fortify their faith. But why would they then want to bring Jesus down?

The fact that the going up to bring Christ down does not refer to his present location is showed by verse 7. Who will descend into the abyss, to bring Christ up from the dead? Is Jesus now dead, in the abyss?

It seems that these men's intention was a different one. They wanted to bring Christ down on the earth and they wanted to bring Christ up from the dead (see Mt 12:40) In order for their faith to be stronger, they would have liked to have been eyewitnesses to Jesus' earthly ministry, and to his appearance and ministry after his resurrection. If this is what Paul has in mind, then he is certainly thinking that Jesus came down from heaven, just as he said it in 1 Corinthians 15:47.

Even if this is so, some would argue that Jesus coming down from heaven does not mean he was a person first, in heaven, and then came down; James 1:17 is quoted in support:

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

For example wisdom - mentioned by James in verse 5 - is also from God, and being a perfect gift of God, it can be said that it comes down from heaven, from the Father of lights (see James 3:15). But no one would think that wisdom is a person just because it comes down from God. Indeed, no one would think that, but mainly because we already know that the wisdom God gives to his people is not a person. It is never, ever, said about humans that they came down from heaven. God gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, but of none of them it is said even once that they came down from heaven.

Another verse from Romans:

Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh

Granted, God sending someone does not automatically mean this someone existed before in other form. God has also sent prophets to Israel, and they did not preexist. But the question is, of what prophet is it said he was sent in the likeliness of sinful flesh? Why does Paul find this information valuable enough to mention it, if in his mind, the son of God cannot exist in any other form but in the flesh? Wouldn't this make this information redundant? Yes it would, because all humans are flesh.

But if Jesus existed as a powerful spirit before being sent by God, it make sense to mention the fact that God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, in the likeness of humans. This son became flesh (John 1:14); this son came to be (be-came) in the form of men - Philippians 2:7, see above. This is an extraordinary fact, a miracle of God, that was done by God in order for Jesus to be an offering for sin, to condemn sin in the flesh.

In conclusion, the explicit mention of Christ not just being sent, like the other men of God were, but being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, points to the fact that Christ was in a different "likeness" before he was sent.

The same situation can be found in Galatians 4:4.

Galatians 4:4

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law

Again we can see how Paul ties Christ being sent by God, with the nature he was sent in, a human nature. Is it necessary in the case of previous servants whom God sent, to mention they were born of a woman, born under the Law? No of course not, that would have been self-understood in the case of every Jew.

What Paul says about the son being born of a woman and under the law is not redundant, but very significant if Paul knew the Son of God existed in a non-human form before his coming, existed without being under the Mosaic Law. By explicitly mentioning that the son God sent was born of a woman and under the law, the writer shows that in the case of Christ, these two characteristics are highly significant, unlike the case of all other men God has sent to his people, in whose case there was nothing extraordinary that they were born under the law, of a woman. It was necessary for this son to come this way in order to be able to redeem those who are born of a woman and under the law.

1 Timothy 3:16

1 Timothy 3:16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

The word translated as revealed here is the Greek phaneroo. According to BDAG, this verb has means:

to cause to become visible, reveal, expose publicly, show or reveal oneself

So no wonder that when used in connection with persons, it always implies their preexistence. Here are some examples:

John 1:31 "I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."

John the Baptist says he came came baptizing in water in order for Jesus to be manifested to Israel. And that happened indeed, when Jesus was baptized, John revealed the fact that Jesus is the Messiah: "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (vs. 29). There's no question that when Jesus was revealed as the Messiah at John's baptism, he already preexisted.

Another use of this verb:

John 21:1 After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He manifested Himself in this way.

Jesus was manifested/revealed/appeared to the disciples after he was resurrected. Obviously, he already existed before that.

John 21:14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.

Same idea. Here are other uses of this verb, outside the gospels:

2 Corinthians 5:10-11 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ [...] Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.

Ephesians 5:13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.

Colossians 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

1 Peter 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

1 John 2:28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

It is obvious then, that when Paul says Christ was manifested in flesh, he viewed him as having existed before in a non-fleshly state.

1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we exist through Him.⁷.

Paul admits that the world has different so-called gods and lords, but in fact there is only one God and only one Lord, the Father and Christ. He supports his statement by referring to the creation of all things. Only the real God can be the source of all things, they are all from Him, and only the real Lord can be the one through whom all these things were made, so the other gods and lords are false because of this.

The appeal to creation to make a point of Yahweh being the only real God was used before Paul by God himself in Isaiah:

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone

But this verse is also commonly used to raise an objection to Jesus being an agent through whom God created all things. Trinitarians use it to argue that Jesus is the Almighty God because it is said here that no one was with with God when He created all things, and Unitarian adopters of the no preexistence theory use it to argue that Jesus could not be an agent in the creation of all things for the same reason, being said here that no one was with with God when He created all things.

But why ignore the context? The context speaks about false gods, the gods the Jews adopted from their surrounding neighbors and the ones they were making from wood, idols. None of these false gods were with Yahweh at creation! He says "there is no God besides Me" in verse 6, but despite this, God says that the Messiah is a god himself (Isaiah 9:6), and that the unjust judges of Israel are gods themselves (Ps. 82:6, John 10:34-35). It is clear then what God says in 44:24: none of the false gods that the Jews and nations worship were with Him at creation, they are all false gods.

Paul repeats the idea that it is Jesus Christ through whom God created all things, in Colossians 1:16.

Colossians 1:16 For by Him [the Son] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Paul therefore is firmly convinced that it was through Christ Jesus that God created all things. He firmly believed Christ had a personal existence way before he became human in the first century to fulfill the act of redemption of the human kind. He existed before everything else was created, and served as an agent through whom God created everything, be they visible or invisible things.

Consequently, Paul believes this son of God was involved in the life of God's people even before coming on earth as a human in the first century, as it can be seen two chapters later in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 10:4

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

Several explanations have been proposed for how could Christ be the spiritual rock that followed the Jews through the wilderness. Some argue that the rock symbolized Christ, not that Christ in person gave them to drink water.

The Jews going through the sea, and under the cloud (which holds water) , amounted to them being baptized in a spiritual way. They ate a spiritual food because the mana was given to them miraculously. They drank a spiritual drink because the water was miraculously made to come out of the rock (Numbers 20:11).

What is Paul trying to say? He warns the Corinthians not to feel that because they were baptized and were fed spiritually by Christ now, they could do anything, even indulge in immorality and idol worshiping. As an example he presents the ancient people of God, who were baptized at the same time in the same sea and under the same cloud, ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink which was given by the same Christ who is now with the Corinthians; but despite that, "with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness".

Who gave them miraculously water in the wilderness? Christ did, not the literal rock itself; he made the rock to give water, and Christ was accompanying them in the wilderness. They had Christ with them, and still, with many of them God was not pleased, and laid them low in the wilderness.

So if Christ is not the one accompanying them in the wilderness, catering to their needs, Paul's argument doesn't really work. What Paul says is that Christ was with the Jews and they fell from God's favor. This has to serve the Corinthians as an example (verse 6). Today Christ is with the Corinthians, and they better watch what they're doing - they should not be idolaters (verse 7) and they should not act immorally, because thousands of God's people died because of this (verse 8), despite Christ being with them. They should not test Christ - verse 9:

Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents.

But who is the Lord they tried? Jesus is frequently referred to as the Lord because God made Jesus Lord (Acts 2:36). Taking into account that Paul just said Christ was accompanying the Jews through the wilderness, is he intending to say they tried Christ, the Lord, in the wilderness?

It is interesting to note that many translations say in verse 9 "Lord", but also many say here "Christ". What gives?

Several ancient manuscripts have different readings here - see NA27. The following read Lord here:

• Codex Sinaiticus (IV A.D.)


• Codex Vaticanus B (IV A.D.)


• Codex Ephraemi C (V A.D.)


• Codex Porphyrianus P (IX A.D.)


• and several other late minuscules like number 33 (IX A.D.)


• 104 (1087 A.D.), etc.

Others read God: Codex Alexandrinus (V A.D.), minuscule number 81 (1044 A.D.) and a few others.

Others read Christ:

• P⁴⁶ (around 200 A.D., the oldest extant manuscript containg letters of Paul)
• Codex Claromontanus D (VI A.D.)


• Codex Augiensis F (IX A.D.)


• Codex Boernerianus G (IX A.D.)


• Codex Athous Lavrensis (VIII/IX A.D.)


• and other late minuscules like number 1739 (X A.D.)


• 1881 (XIV A.D.), etc


• the M group ⁸


• the Old Latin (IV A.D.) and the Vulgate (VI A.D.)


• the Syriac version (V A.D.)


• the Coptic version (IV/V A.D.)


• Iraeneus - latin translation (395 A.D.)


• Origen as quoted in the margin of manuscript 1739 (X A.D.).

NA27, the eclectic Greek text which many translations follow, chose the Christ reading in this verse. Here's the NA27 committee's motivation:

The reading that best explains the origin of the others is Christ, attested by the oldest Greek Manuscript (P⁴⁶) as well as by a wide diversity of early patristic and versional witnesses (Iraeneus in Gaul, Ephraem in Edessa, Clement in Alexandria, Origen in Palestine, as well as by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac, Sahidic and Bohairic). The difficulty of explaining how the ancient Israelites in the wilderness could have tempted Christ prompted some copyist to substitute either the ambiguous Lord or the unobjectionable God. Pauls reference to Christ here is analogous to that in verse 4. - A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, 2nd Ed., Bruce Metzger.

So it is indeed possible that Paul wrote that the Jews tempted Christ in the wilderness. This should not be so surprising, since God told the Jews at the beginning of their journey:

Exodus 23:20-23 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him. But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them.

According to HALOT 5198, the Hebrew word translated as angel literally means "messenger". Notice how this messenger was to be obeyed by the Jews, they should not rebel against him but obey his voice, because he will not pardon their transgression. It is easy to see that this messenger was a representative of Yahweh himself. He says "obey his voice and do all that I say"; so they were to obey the messenger's voice and do all that Yahweh, through this messenger, says. This messenger's person represented Yahweh himself and was His mouthpiece, His spokesperson. Incidentally or not, John says about Jesus the he was the Word.

It is probably this angel who says the following, before Exodus 23:20-23:

Exodus 3:7-8 The LORD said, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings. So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.

Verse 2 makes it clear that the speaker is "the angel of the LORD". The angel was not Yahweh himself, but was representing him, just as in the case of the angel who God says in Exodus 23:20-23 that will clear the way to the promised land for the Israelites. This angel is again presented in Exodus 14 as being involved in the liberation of the Jews from the Egyptian empire:

Exodus 14:19-21 The angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them. So it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel; and there was the cloud along with the darkness, yet it gave light at night. Thus the one did not come near the other all night. Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided.

For more information on this, see the section "Liberation from Egypt" in the The Divine Messiah and Ancient Jewish Monotheism article.

Conclusion

In conclusion, like Simon Gathercole says in his book, Paul employs Christ's preexistence in a number of different contexts, perhaps as early as 48-49 A.D. He puts Christ at the creation of all things, way before he came to earth. He also puts him in the wilderness with the ancient Jews. He says he gave up his godly form to take a human form, he thus was "rich" but became "poor" for our sakes.

One would feel probably the need to ask, why aren't all these Paulian aspects mentioned in the Gospels? One of the gospel writers, John - who has Jesus saying many things and involved in many events the synoptic Gospels lack - said that Jesus told his disciples that

John 16:12-13 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth;

And the Spirit came after his ascension to heaven (Acts 2). John himself also says at the end of his gospel:

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Returning to Paul, the most striking aspect of this is that he does not argue that Christ had a pre-human existence, he always assumes it. He always uses Christ's preexistence as a base on which he will build a conclusion, an exhortation. That shows that his audience held the same belief, that Christ existed as a person before becoming a human, otherwise none of his arguments would have worked.

It is widely acknowledged that Paul had a great influence on primitive Christianity, so it would be difficult to think that this idea of Christ's preexistence was not also held more widely than some think. Paul's coworkers and his churches must have shared with Paul the same belief. Is Mark of Philemon 1:24, 2 Ti 4:11 and Col 4:10 the one who wrote the Gospel? As Gathercole says in his book (p. 42), much of the 20th century scholarship was dominated by the view that Mark and Paul were entirely independent.

Recently, however, Joel Marcus has commented that "now the tide appears to be shifting, and several scholars have recently contended that Mark should be situated in the Pauline sphere of activity" - J. Marcus, "Mark - Interpreter of Paul", NTS 46.4 (2000), 473-87 (474)

Of course, the association of Paul with Luke is well-known. After all, Luke writes frequently in Acts about "we" ⁹. One would then expect to find references to Christ's pre-human existence in the Gospels as well.

---

^* NASB introduces an "and" between "bond-servant" and "being made", but there's no "and" in the Greek text - see NA27. Also, NASB omits an "and" between "likeness of men" and "being found" - idem. I've restored these in the above translation.<sup>(back)

0</sup> NASB renders in vs. 7 I have come instead of I am coming; nevertheless, the verb heko used here is in the present tense.<sup>(back)

1</sup> Actually, the oldest manuscript that contains this letter of Paul, P⁴⁶, reads not men but man, in singular. <sup>(back)

2</sup> As others note - like Simon Gathercole, The Preexistent Son, page 25, ftn - the Greek morphe, form in English, refers not to form in contrast to reality, but as a reflection of reality. <sup>(back)

3</sup> See The Biblical Canon - Lee Martin McDonald, p. 115, 122.<sup>(back)

4</sup> See also Philippians, A Greek Student's Intermediate Reader, Jerry L. Sumney, p. 47.<sup>(back)

5</sup> See NA27 and A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, 2nd ed., Metzger, p. 545<sup>(back)

6</sup> Mark 6:3.<sup>(back)

7</sup> NASB chooses to translate "Jesus Christ by whom are all things" instead of "trough whom are all things". The Greek dia with an object in genitive mainly means through. Other translations render this in 1 Co 8:6 as through, not by - like NIV, New American Bible, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, etc. The same construction is found in the last part of this same verse, where NASB renders "we exist through Him".<sup>(back)

8</sup> Manuscripts of the Byzantine Imperial text, plus Codex Monsquensis K (IX A.D.), Codex Angelicus L (IX A.D.) and others - see The Text of the NT by Kurt and Barbara Aland p. 249 for what M comprises.<sup>(back)

9</sup> Acts 16:10-16; 20:6-8, 13-15; 21:1-17; 27:1-8, 15-18, 27-29; 28:1,10-16.^(back)

"You are My Son, Today I have begotten You" Fulfilled

Acts 13:32-33 states that the promise to the ancient Hebrews was fulfilled as it is written in Psalm 2:7; this is what it says:

Acts 13:32-33 And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.'

But the time of this promise's fulfillment is controversial. Here are the three competing views on the time this promise was fulfilled (or on the event that fulfilled this promise):

Promise Fulfilled at the Birth of Jesus

Some argue that the promise made to the ancient Jews was fulfilled at the birth of Jesus, since the Psalm says clearly that Jesus became at a certain date the son of God. When Luke writes that an angel appeared to Mary announcing the birth of Jesus, it has the angel saying that Jesus will be called "the Son of the Most High":

Luke 1:30-32 The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;

The birth of Jesus allowed all the messianic prophecies to be later fulfilled in him. But what about the fact that Paul says that "today I have begotten you" has been fulfilled by God by "raising up Jesus"?

It is pointed out that this language does not always indicate resurrection, as it may appear at first sight. This expression is used in other places without the meaning of resurrecting somebody from the dead. One example would be verse 22:

Acts 13:22 After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all My will.'

Indeed, this verse does not say that God resurrected David. The Greek word translated as "raised up" is anistemi, and according to BDAG it not only means "to raise up by bringing back to life", but also "to cause to appear for a role or function". Another verse that employs this meaning - and refers to Jesus - is Acts 3:22:

Acts 3:22 Moses said, 'the Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to him you shall give heed to everything He says to you'.

The problem with this interpretation is that just because "raising up" may not always mean "resurrection", it does not follow that it means birth. Acts 13:22 does not say that David was born to be king of the Jews, but that God brought him on the scene with the purpose of him being king to them. This happened not when he was born, but when he was anointed by Samuel. That corresponds indeed to the meaning of "to cause to appear for a role or function".

Similarly, Acts 3:22 says about Jesus that God will raise up "a prophet". Was he a prophet in the real sense of the word the moment he was born? Did he prophesy anything as a new born? He became a prophet after his baptism at the age of 30, when God's spirit descended on him.

Another instance of this verb being used in this way is Acts 5:36:

Acts 5:36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.

It is clear that Gamaliel does not talk here about Theudas' birth.

As it is obvious, BDAG says anistemi also means resurrection, "to raise up by bringing back to life". Examples of this usage can be found all over the NT. Here is one:

Acts 2:31-32 [David] looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.

So another problem with the idea of birth as the time of the fulfillment is that the context speaks of Jesus being killed and resurrected, therefore making anistemi mean resurrection highly probable:

Acts 13:28-37 And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed.

When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people.

And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.'

As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.'

Therefore He also says in another Psalm, 'You will not allow Your holy one to undergo decay.' For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.

For how can 'You are my son; today I have begotten you" be fulfilled at resurrection, please see Begetting at Resurrection.

Promise Fulfilled When Jesus is Brought on the Scene by God

Others argue that the meaning of "raise up" in Acts 13:33 is not the resurrection one, but "to cause to appear for a role or function", another meaning of anistemi. According to this interpretation, the fulfillment of the promise encompasses the fulfillment of every messianic prophecy - the birth, the preaching, the healing, the death and the resurrection.

It is argued that the larger context of Acts 13 is pointing to the identity of Jesus as being the Messiah, but this does not explain how exactly "You are my son; today I have begotten you" is being fulfilled in Jesus being brought on the scene by God, if this doesn't mean his birth.

While Paul says in verse 22 that David was "raised up" by God, therefore being brought on Israel's scene, Paul does not say next that Jesus was "raised up" by God being brought on Israel's scene. He instead says:

Acts 13:23 From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus

When Paul wants to convey the idea that Jesus was brought on the scene of Israel as a savior, he chooses to say exactly that: "brought", probably because he does not want create confusion between "raised up" in the sense of being brought on the scene and "raised up" from the dead. In regard to David he can use "raised up" in the sense of being brought on the scene for there can be no confusion here with David's resurrection, everybody knows David was not resurrected.

So the fact that Paul already talked about Jesus being brought on the scene in verse 23 would make verse 33 redundant if it also means that Jesus was brought on the scene. Likewise, verse 33 is again made redundant if the fulfillment of the promise means fulfillment of the messianic prophecies as a whole, because Paul already mentioned the fulfillment of messianic prophecies in verses 27 to 29:

Acts 13:27-29 For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him. And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.

Furthermore, as pointed out above, the immediate context of Acts 13:33 is specifically the resurrection of Jesus, beginning with verse 30, this topic of resurrection continuing well after verse 33, up until verse 37. Therefore it would be more likely that Paul, by mentioning the raising up of Jesus, stays on the subject of resurrecting Jesus from the dead and does not deviate from it.

Promise Fulfilled by God Raising Up Jesus From the Dead

Still others argue that the promise made by God was fulfilled by Jesus being raised up from the dead, not merely "raised up" by being brought on the scene. In favor of this it is argued that the immediate context is the resurrection of Jesus, verse 33 being in the middle of this topic - see above.

It is argued that without the resurrection of Jesus, all God's promises to Israel are in vain, there is no salvation, as Paul said:

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. […] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (1 Corinthians 15:13-14 ,17-18)

It is the resurrection of Jesus that makes valid all other promises God made. Without it, not one stands. It is the fulfillment of the resurrection promise (made in Psalm 16:10 and Isaiah 53:10-12) that renders all the other promises made by God as relevant.

It is indeed only the last in a chain of promises related to the Messiah's earthly course, that fulfilled the promise of God. If the "promise" Paul mentions in Acts 13:33 is in fact all the promises of God viewed as a whole, it would be beneficial to see just what "fulfillment" means when applied to something that is comprised of many events, a chain or succession of events.

Fulfillment of a Chain of Events

The Greek word translated as "fulfilled" is ekpleroo (ἐκπληρόω); it is in fact a composite verb, composed of the words: ek + pleroo. Ek means "out" and pleroo means "to make full, fill (full)", so together they literally mean "to out-fulfill" something. BDAG says it means "to fulfill". It also says that another closely related meaning is "to bring to completion".

In the NT it only appears in Acts 13:33. Most of the time, the NT simply says pleroo, without the preceding ek, when it wants to say something is fulfilled, or is filled full. From the way this word is used by the NT and the Septuagint in relation to a chain of events/days/elements, one can determine when exactly the fulfillment of these actually occurs.

Take for example the fulfillment of a number of days, as it appears in the Septuagint (Brenton's translation):

Genesis 29:21 And Jacob said to Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her.

As verse 18 shows, Jacob had to serve Laban seven years, that is 2520 days, in order to marry his daughter Rachel. When were the 2520 days fulfilled? On the first day? The event that marked the fulfillment of these days was the passing of the last day, the 2520^th one. Another example:

Genesis 50:2-3 And Joseph commanded his servants the embalmers to embalm his father; and the embalmers embalmed Israel. And they fulfilled forty days for him, for so are the days of embalming numbered;

Again, the fulfillment of the 40 days was accomplished by the passing of the 40^th day. Just as the last drop of water fills full a glass of water, without this last day, the desired period of time is not fulfilled. The pouring of the last drop of water fills the glass. Of course, each single day before the last one came to pass, they all happened. But the period of time - all the days viewed as a whole - was fulfilled only and only, by the passing of the last day.

Other examples of a period of time being fulfilled can be found at Leviticus 12:4; 25:29, etc...

Another use for this word:

Luke 7:1 When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum.

The translation of pleroo in this case reminds us that BDAG said ekpleroo also means "to bring to completion". Keeping in mind that we start with the assumption that the promise of Acts 13:33 is composed of all the promises of God mentioned in diferent prophecies, let us note that Jesus' discourse was composed of multiple statements. His discourse was brought to completion only by its last statement; the event that brought his discourse to completion was Jesus expressing the last statement in this string of statements. It's not that the previous statements were not expressed by him, it's that his discourse was completed (fulfilled) by the final statement.

Another example of pleroo usage:

John 3:29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. So this joy of mine has been made full.

As verse 26 shows, John the Baptist's joy was made full by the fact that Jesus was baptizing and people were coming to him. It's not that John had no joy in Jesus before Jesus started baptizing, but this joy was made full (filled full, fulfilled) only with the start of Jesus baptizing. Therefore the event that made his joy full was Jesus baptizing and people coming to him.

The same idea is expressed by other verses, which use the same pleroo:

Philippians 2:2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

2 John 1:12 Though I have many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that your joy may be made full.

Paul's joy towards the Philippians was only to be made complete - fulfilled - by them being united; the joy of the recipients of John's letter was to be made full - fulfilled - only by John visiting them in person. It's not that the joy of these two subjects was inexistent, that they didn't have joy, they did have it, but their joy would be only fulfilled by a last missing ingredient.

Therefore, if we are to accept the idea that the promise of Acts 13:33 is composed of multiple messianic promises of God in regard to Jesus' earthly course, mentioned in different prophecies, it is clear enough that when it is said about such a composite structure of elements that it is fulfilled, there's always one last event that fulfills it. In the case of this promise, it is the resurrection.

All promises fulfilled or a certain promise fulfilled?

What if the assumption that the promise of Acts 13:33 is composed of multiple messianic promises of God in regard to Jesus' earthly course, is an incorrect one? What if Paul refers to a certain promise? As an example here's what Matthew once said:

Matthew 12:16-21 and [Jesus] warned them not to tell who He was. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets [...] and in his name the gentiles will hope".

After Jesus heals a man in the synagogue, many follow him and they are healed too; they are warned by Jesus "not to tell who He was". And this warning is presented as the fulfillment of many messianic activities listed from verse 18 to 21. But this warning does not fulfill all those elements: it does not fulfill the identity of the one chosen by God to be the Messiah, nor God's soul being pleased with him, neither Him putting his spirit on Jesus, nor the proclaiming of justice to the gentiles, neither that in Jesus' name the gentiles will hope.

What this warning fulfills though is only a small part of these things: he will not cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets, in other words, he will not loudly advertise himself as the Messiah. Matthew doesn't in fact want to say that all those messianic activities were fulfilled with this occasion, but just a certain part of them. Is this also true in the case of what Paul says in Acts 13:33? Is Paul referring only to the promise of Messiah's resurrection?

First, let's acknowledge that Paul focuses on Jesus as being the Savior, and the salvation he brings:

Acts 13:23,26 "From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, [...] Brethren, sons of Abraham's family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent.

Then in the next verse Paul mentions that those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers fulfilled certain utterances of the prophets by condemning him to death. The next two verses say that in fact all that was written concerning Jesus was carried out by these people just before him being taken down from the cross, so this includes his death as well.

So Paul, after mentioning salvation, focuses on the prophecies that predicted the events surrounding his death: the disciples forsaking him, him being beaten and suffering, being put to death and despite that, living afterwards; Isaiah 53 records all this:

• Forsaken by his disciples: "He was despised and forsaken of men [...] All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him." - vs. 3 and 6.
• Captured violently and condemned in a trial: "By oppression and judgment He was taken away" - vs. 8
• Suffered beatings: "The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. [...] He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth" - vs. 5,7
  
• Killed: "pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; [...] cut off out of the land of the living [...] the Lord was pleased To crush Him [...] He poured out Himself to death" - vs. 5,8,10,12
• After death, before resurrection: "His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death [...] was numbered with the transgressors" - vs. 9,12
• Resurrected: "He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. [...] He will see it and be satisfied [...] I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death" - vs. 10-12.
  

Notice then how Paul is not focused specifically on Jesus' identity as the Messiah; he mentions no prophecies Jesus fulfilled during his ministry that would identify him as the Messiah, but only the ones (vs. 27,29) which have all strictly to do with events surrounding his death and his resurrection; then he goes on speaking of his death, resurrection and the effects of these (the salvation), spending a total of 13 verses on this focus (vs. 27-39).

So what does this prophecy of Isaiah have in common with the fact that Jesus is Savior, with the salvation mentioned previously? The same prophecy mentions this salvation:

He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities [...] The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed [...] the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him [...] He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due [...] He rendered Himself as a guilt offering [...] My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. [...] He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors" - vs 5,6,8,10-12

Compare these with these statements:

Jesus “released us from our sins by His blood” (Revelation 1:5). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses“.

This is the promise Paul is focused on, the salvation. Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled this promise. As a conclusion to all this talk about his death and resurrection, Paul draws the final conclusion:

Acts 13:38-39 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

In other words, Paul's whole exposition served the role of proclaiming to these Jews the message of salvation from sin and death, the promise of this salvation proclaimed to the ancient Jews by Isaiah being fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

According to this line of reasoning, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you" was fulfilled at resurrection, a conclusion strongly supported by the context this statement is found in. For how can this Psalm 2:7 be fulfilled at resurrection, please see Begetting at Resurrection.

Begetting at Resurrection?

The issue of Jesus' begetting is at the center of the preexistence controversy. When was Jesus begotten by God? Was this son of God begotten once or more than once, and what does that say about the idea that Jesus had a personal existence before he became human?

Unitarian unbelievers in Jesus' pre-human existence believe, as the Bible teaches, that those who died do not exist anymore. Death indeed interrupts someone's existence (as opposed to what mainstream Christendom believes), and resurrection then is the reversal of this state: those who died are being given life again, they are brought into existence.

The same Unitarians believe begetting is the process when a parent gives life to his offspring, brings it into existence. But for some reason, some of them do not believe what happens at resurrection is a begetting, despite the process being the same.

But when the only child of a parent dies, how many children does the parent have? Is the parent still a father to his dead son? Is the dead child still a son to his father? As in the case of humans, the relationship Father-Son ends because the relationship needs two entities. If one is missing, there's no relationship. That is why God can become again Jesus' Father at resurrection.

Here are some arguments in favor of the idea that resurrection from the dead is begetting.

Luke 20:36

Jesus was once asked by some Sadducees a question about the resurrection of the dead. When Jesus describes the resurrected ones, he says:

Luke 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Jesus says that being sons of the resurrection, those resurrected from the dead are sons of God. One of the reasons they are sons of God is because God, through Jesus, resurrected them, gave them life and brought them into existence once more.

Colossians 1:18

The apostle Paul himself says this about Jesus and his resurrection:

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Even in resurrection he has to be literally the first one. Yes, Jesus was the first one to be resurrected to eternal life. Thus, he is described by Paul as being the firstborn from the dead. In other words, he is God's first begotten from the dead, by way of resurrection to eternal life. Yes, God gave him life and brought him into existence by way of resurrection to eternal life, he was born from the dead.

Romans 1:4

Paul says something similar in his letter to the Romans:

who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord

The resurrection from the dead declared him to be the Son of God. But some argue that this verse must actually be understood as saying that God showed/proved that Jesus was his son by resurrecting him, the ultimate proof of Jesus being a son of Him, and not that Jesus became again a son to God because God gave him again life and brought him again into existence. Is that what Paul really wants to say?

When Paul says Jesus was "declared" son of God, he uses the Greek verb horizo (ὁρίζω in Greek). Note how this verb is translated in every instance it is used in the NT:

• Luke 22:22 "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"
• Acts 2:23 "this Man, delivered over by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
• Acts 10:42 "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead"
• Acts 11:29 "And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
• Acts 17:26 "and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation"
• Acts 17:31 "because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead"
• Hebrews 4:7 "He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."

As it can be seen, this verb is frequently translated as "to determine", "to appoint" (when the above verses employ this verb with reference to Jesus as Judge, horizo is translated "to appoint". Would this mean that Jesus was appointed/determined to be God's son by the resurrection, in other words, by giving him life and bringing him into existence?

Please note that in a total of 37 English translations, this verb is rendered in these ways, by this many translations:

- declare: 15
- proved: 2
- established: 2
- designated: 3
- marked out: 3
- demonstrated: 1
- predestined: 1
- known: 3
- appointed: 3
- shown: 3
- before-ordained: 1

Here they are:

New American Standard Bible:
who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

New American Bible:
but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

New International Version:
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Geneva Bible:
And declared mightily to be the Sonne of God, touching the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection from the dead)

New Jerusalem Bible:
was born a descendant of David and who, in terms of the Spirit and of holiness, was designated Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ, our Lord,

KJV:
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Revised Standard Version:
and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Complete Jewish Bible:
he was powerfully demonstrated to be Son of God spiritually, set apart by his having been resurrected from the dead; he is Yeshua the Messiah, our Lord.

God's Word translation
In his spiritual, holy nature he was declared the Son of God. This was shown in a powerful way when he came back to life.

American Standard Version:
who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord,

Bible in Basic English:
But was marked out as Son of God in power by the Holy Spirit through the coming to life again of the dead; Jesus Christ our Lord,

Bishops' New Testament:
And hath ben declared to be the sonne of God, with power after the spirite that sanctifieth, by the resurrectio from the dead, of Iesus Christe our Lorde.

Holman Christian Standard Bible:
and was established as the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness.

Darby:
marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;

Douay-Rheims American Edition:
Who was predestinated the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead;

English Revised Version:
who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord,

English Standard Version:
and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Etheridge Translation of the NT Peshitta:
and is known (to be) the Son of Aloha by power, and by the Holy Spirit, who raised him from among the dead, Jeshu Meshiha our Lord:

Magiera Peshitta NT Translation:
and was made known [as] the Son of God by power and by the Holy Spirit, who raised Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead,

Murdock Translation of the NT Peshitta:
and was made known as the Son of God, by power, and by the Holy Spirit,) who arose from the dead, Jesus Messiah, our Lord,

New English Translation:
who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

New Living Translation:
and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.

New Revised Standard Version:
and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Tyndale's New Testament:
and declared to be the sonne of God with power of the holy goost that sanctifieth sence the tyme that Iesus Christ oure Lorde rose agayne from deeth

Webster Bible:
And declared {to be} the Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Young's Literal Translation:
who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;

Weymouth New Testament:
but as regards the holiness of His Spirit was decisively proved by His Resurrection to be the Son of God--I mean concerning Jesus Christ our Lord,

World English Bible:
who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

International Standard Version:
and was declared by the resurrection from the dead to be the powerful Son of God according to the spirit of holiness-Jesus the Messiah, our Lord.

The Message:
his unique identity as Son of God was shown by the Spirit when Jesus was raised from the dead

Amplified Bible:
And according to the Spirit of holiness was openly designated the Son of God in power by His resurrection from the dead

Contemporary English Version:
But the Holy Spirit proved that Jesus is the powerful Son of God, because he was raised from death.

New Century Version:
But through the Spirit of holiness he was declared to be God's Son with great power by rising from the dead.

New International Reader's Version:
By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was appointed to be the mighty Son of God because he rose from the dead. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.

Wycliffe New Testament:
and he was before-ordained the Son of God in virtue, by the Spirit of hallowing of the again-rising of dead men, of Jesus Christ our Lord

Worldwide English (New Testament):
He came alive from death. That showed he was God's Son. He had God's power. God's Holy Spirit did all this.

Today's New International Version:
and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Some translations which have footnotes for "declare/shown", want to make sure the reader does not miss out on other legitimate renderings of this verb:

NIV: "Or was appointed to be the Son of God with power"
KJV: declared: Gr. "determined"
NLT: "Or and was designated"

Notice how shown/known/proved/demonstrated constitute a minority of renderings, while declared/established/designated/appointed/ordained constitute a majority. There's a good explanation for this. None of the minority meanings are actual meanings of this verb. Here is what some lexicons have to say about the meanings of it:

• BDAG: to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set: of persons - appoint, designate, declare
• Friberg: of persons appoint, designate; as making a definite plan appoint, decide, determine;
• Barclay Newman: decide, determine; appoint, designate
• Louw-Nida: (figurative extension of meaning of ὁρίζω ‘to set limits on,’ not occurring in the NT) to come to a definite decision or firm resolve - ‘to decide, to determine, to resolve.’
• Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie: M: to establish, to ordain (an ordinance)
• Gingrich: determine, fix, set; appoint, designate, declare
• Thayer: to determine, appoint
• Liddell-Scottto mark out by boundaries; to limit, determine, appoint, lay down, order
• Strong: to mark off by boundaries, to determine;
  
  

The most basic meaning of this verb according to BDAG (the mother of all Greek-English lexicons) is "to separate entities and so establish a boundary". Other lexicons say the same thing, "mark off by boundaries". Entities are separated by being marked off with the help of boundaries, and so, the entities are defined. BDAG places the occurrence of this verb in Romans 1:4 under this main meaning:

"to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set"

But this meaning has two subsections:

a) of things
b) of persons

Naturally, Romans 1:4 is placed under b), because the verb's object here is a person, the Son of God. Now section b) is defined as:

b. of persons appoint, designate, declare.

Of course "declare" may have different shades of meaning. Which ones are we to consider for Rom 1:4? This lexicon is not merely saying that this verb also means "declare", but it specifies that this is a sub-meaning of "to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set".

One has to put the meaning "declare" in the context of "to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set". Those shades of meaning of "declare" are the valid ones, the ones that have an affinity for "making a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set". Most of the 15 translation committees that chose "declare" probably had in mind "to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set" when they chose to translate "declare".

Notice how the "declared" in the sense of "showing" Jesus to be a son of God, or "providing the decisive proof" that Jesus is a son of God, fits nowhere in this picture. These have nothing to do with "declare" in the sense of "to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set".

Also, the "appointed" rendering is used by three translations, while one more says in its footnote it can also be translated as "appointed", and another one's footnote says "designated"; two say "established", three more say "designated", fifteen more "declared".

There are good reasons then to conclude that Paul is saying here that Jesus was "appointed" by God to be his son through resurrection, by giving him life again and bringing him again into existence, and not that the resurrection was the ultimate proof of Jesus being a son of Him.

Being appointed to be the son of God is not a new idea. Psalm 2:7 already expressed the same idea.

Psalm 2:7

I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You'

Notice how Messiah's status as a son is also the result of a decree. What does a decree do other than appoint/establish/designate/determine somebody to be something?

Is this verse referring to the birth of the son of God as a human? What does the context say?

Verses 1-3 say:

Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"

We know exactly when these first three verses, the beginning of this Psalm, were fulfilled; here's what 1st century Christian exegesis said:

Acts 4:24-28 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said, 'why did the gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? 'the kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ.' "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

These verses have their fulfillment, as these Christians said, when "in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur". That is, they are indicating the time when Jesus was arrested and put to death.

Then the psalm continues, showing what happens afterwards:

Psalm 2:4-6 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying, "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."

Notice how the events in this psalm are presented chronologically. First the rulers take their stand against Jesus, arresting him, torturing him and killing him. After that God laughs at them. and after that speaks to them in anger, saying He has installed his king, Jesus. Then Jesus cuts in, saying:

Psalm 2:7-8 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.

So what is the context of verse 7?, the decree of God saying "You are my Son, today I have begotten you'? The death of Christ Jesus. It is also plain to see that the events presented in this psalm are succeeding chronologically, one after another, up until verse 7. What reason would be there to say that verse 7, the decree, does not also follow chronologically as well, after Jesus' death? No reason at all, especially since God tells Jesus in verse 8 that:

Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession.

This verse is fulfilled chronologically, after Jesus death and after resurrection:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth".

Philippians 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth

Acts 5:30-31 “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

If verse 8 is fulfilled after the resurrection, and verse 7 after the death of Jesus, it is only natural to see that the decree of God that appoints Jesus as son again occurs between his death and after events following his resurrection; that is, the decree went out when the resurrection occurred, the act through which Jesus receives again life from his Father, when his Father brings him into existence again, making him His son again, saying to him:

Psalm 2:7 You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

The context therefore leaves no room for the interpretation that Psalm 2:7 was actually fulfilled at Jesus' birth as a human. On the contrary, it points to Jesus becoming a son again to God at his resurrection from the dead, in harmony with what Paul said in Romans 1:4, that Jesus was appointed, by the decree of resurrection, to be God's son.

In conclusion, the Bible does indeed indicate that what happens at resurrection is begetting, life being given to creatures of God, bringing them into existence. The resurrected ones are sons of God because they are resurrected. Jesus is the first born of the dead by being resurrected to eternal life. Jesus is also appointed son of God by his resurrection. God tells him at his resurrection "You are my son, today I have begotten you'.

NT Objections to the Preexistence of God's Son

Here are some of the New Testament based objections to Christ Jesus' preexistence (italicized).

As it was the case earlier with the OT verses, these verses do not really address the issue of the pre-human existence of the son of God. They only say that the human son of God was born at a certain time, to Mary. These verses speak of the start of his human existence. That is something that those who accept the pre-human existence of the son of God believe. Therefore, the belief that this son of God existed before as a person, in a non-human state, cannot be contradicted by these objections.

Matthew 1:15-18

Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. [...] Now the birth (lit. origin) of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The NASB says "birth" but the word used here is a bit stronger than that. It is the word "genesis" which means beginning or origin (like the first book of the Bible). So the origin of this Messiah (Christ = Messiah) is in the womb of the virgin Mary. The inescapable consequence of his origin being in Mary is that he did not literally exist prior to this> (though of course Jesus existed notionally from the beginning–in the mind of God).

The context must be at all times kept in mind, that is, Jesus' existence as a man. Indeed, as a man, Jesus' ancestors are Abraham and David, as a man, Jesus' origin is the womb of Mary. But the origin of the living person of Jesus Christ is much much further back in time:

Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth [origin] are from long ago,
from the days of eternity." (see Mt. 2:5-6)

According to HALOT 4920 (and Holladay 4382, and Harris' Theological Wordbook of the OT 893d) the Hebrew word מוֹצָאָה, translated by NASB as "goings forth", means "Origin". Messiah's origin, as a living person, is "from long ago, from the days of eternity", not from the 1st century.

Luke 1:31-35

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; [...] and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Two points here: (1) Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive, she will bear a son, and he will be great. The clear implication of this language is that Jesus did not already exist,

Keeping in mind that we are talking about the son of God that became flesh, the clear implication of this language is that the human son of God did not already exist, not that the living person of the human son of God did not already exist.

Furthermore, if he did exist prior to his birth then he was not great. Gabriel says that "he will be great," which means if he already existed he was not great, or else the angel should have said, "he is great" or "he will remain being great" or something to that effect

Sticking to the context again, the angel is talking about a human being. Mary "will conceive in her womb". Preexistentialists do not believe Jesus preexisted as a human being before being born to Mary. So as a human, he was going to be great. He could not have been great as a human, before being born as a human.

The precise reason given for why the child is called the "son of God" is [...] because of the miracle in the womb of Mary.

The conclusion is not mandatory. Why were the other sons of God called "sons of God", because they were born in the womb of women?

Genesis 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Job 38:4-7 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? [...] When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

etc...

Acts 1:1

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach"

If Jesus began to "do and teach" in the book of Luke [...], then Jesus could not have done anything or taught anything before he was born!

The "first account" Luke refers to here is his gospel, where he presented what Jesus began to do and teach on earth, as a human son of God. It is extremely accurate indeed, to say that Luke captures the beginning of what Jesus does as a human being, on earth.

Hebrews 1:1-2

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.


If the Son were there in the Old Testament times, what was he doing? This text tells us that only in these last days has God spoken through His Son.

Again, careful reading reveals it is not the case. What the author is here focused on, is only the human channel used by God (as opposed to the non-human channel - angels meeting and speaking to Abraham, etc) to speak to these ancient fathers. What the Greek literally says is:

Πολυμερῶς [In various parts] καὶ [and] πολυτρόπως [in many ways] πάλαι [long ago] ὁ θεὸς [God] λαλήσας [spoke] τοῖς πατράσιν [to fathers] ἐν τοῖς προφήταις [in (through) the prophets].

In other words, "In various parts and in many ways, long ago, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets". The writer is concerned only with the human channel because he wants to get to what the human son of God, Jesus, did as well: spoken to us. Yes indeed, only in these last days God spoke to us through his human son, because only in these last days he was born as a human, on earth.