Excursus: The Divine Messiah and Ancient Jewish Monotheism

A previous article was discussing what Paul might have meant when he said Christ was in the form of a god before becoming human (Philippians 2:5-8). It was mentioned that the ancient Jews viewed supernatural beings as being "gods". This article will provide a wider image of this belief, as reflected by the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament.

Strict Monotheism or Jewish Monoteism?

Most of today's religions that promote some kind of monotheism, hold to the idea that there is only one God. All other beings that would be called gods are necessarily false gods. This can certainly be labeled as strict monotheism. But is this only a modern version of monotheism?

As this article will show, the ancient Hebrews had a broader definition. Not only was there one God who created everything, and a lot of other false gods which the nations were worshiping. There was also a third category of gods: the supernatural beings populating the spiritual realm. These gods were not false gods because they were not competing with the one true God for worship, and were not worshiped.

Supernatural Beings

A first example of beings from this category can be found in 1 Samuel. The medium of En-Dor tells Saul what she sees:

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 literally says she sees an elohim, in other words a god, a supernatural being. The medium certainly believed that what she saw was a supernatural being, so she called it a god.

Other people too have seen supernatural beings - for real this time - and called them gods. Here's what happens to Jacob:

Genesis 32:24-30 Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved."

Hosea 12:4 makes it clear that the "man" Jacob physically fought with that night, was an angel. He says he has seen "God" face to face. But does the Hebrew text have Jacob saying he saw Almighty God himself? This is a relevant question, since we know that God says:

Exodus 33:20 "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

If we compare the Hebrew text for 1 Samuel 28:13 where the medium says she saw a god, with the text having Jacob saying he saw elohim, we notice they both use the same phrase.

When the Septuagint - a translation from Hebrew to Greek made by ancient Hebrews - translates this verse, it has no definite article before theos, god. The Septuagint therefore has Jacob saying he saw a god, not God Almighty himself, whom nobody can see and live. Similarly, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into English, made by Jews and published by The Jewish Publication Society, called

The TANAKH, a new translation (into contemporary English) of The Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text (Masoretic). The Jewish Bible: Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim.

translates Genesis 32:30 (31 in this version) this way:

Genesis 32:31 So Jacob named the place Peniel, meaning, "I have seen a divine being face to face, yet my life has been preserved."

This certainly explains why Jacob didn't die, and why the angel tells him "you have striven with elohim", that is, with "a god" (vs. 28). Again in this verse, the Septuagint translates "a god" and JPS' Tanakh reads "you have striven with beings divine and human".

Also, the text itself indicates that Jacob knew this was an angel and not God himself, since this "man" asks his permission to leave, Jacob wrestles him and asks for his name.

In conclusion, there are strong indications that Jacob said he has seen a god, a supernatural being. Another instance of somebody saying they've seen a god when they've seen a supernatural being, can be found in Judges 13:

Judges 13:20-22 For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God."

At first, Manoah and his wife don't know this "man" was in fact an angel of God. But after he ascends in flames, they know it was in fact a supernatural being, an angel of Yahweh. But then they say "we have seen God"!

Is it possible that like in the case of Jacob, they are actually saying they saw a god? The Septuagint lacks again the definite article before theos, allowing this to be "a god", just as the same Septuagint again lacks the definite article before "angel" in the previous verse, where many English translations (like KJV) read:

Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD

Just as the Septuagint and JPS' Tanakh say:

Judges 13:22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen a divine being."

This particularity of Hebrew thought, designating supernatural beings as gods, can be also seen in other parts of the Septuagint, where there are several 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" - Brenton'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;

Other instances where the Hebrew idea that angels are gods is reflected:

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 therefore to be noted that ancient Jewish monotheism cannot be identified with today's strict version of it. The ancient Hebrews could designate certain beings as "gods" without being polytheistic. These angelic beings were gods in contrast with fragile and mortal humans, they belonged to the spiritual realm to which the Almighty God also belonged. They were not gods in a religious sense - nobody was trying to worship them - but rather in a sense where their nature was contrasted with the weak material human nature.

But this godly status was not restricted to supernatural beings in ancient Jewish monotheism. Although not as often as in the case of supernatural beings, humans were called gods as well. Psalm 82's Hebrew text says:

1 god stands in the congregation of god, among gods he is judging [...]
6 [god says] "you are gods, sons of the supreme all of you"

This is a psalm where God is admonishing these gods for not judging justly (vs. 2-4). They are humans, because they "will die like men and fall like any one of the princes" (vs. 7), despite being gods. Jesus certifies as well that these gods are humans by quoting this verse in John 10:34, and then adding that these were the ones to whom the word of God came, that is, humans.

Why were the unjust judges of Israel called "gods"? Judging is certainly a prerogative and a privilege of God, one He delegated to the human judges of Israel. They were called gods because they were performing a divine activity.

Supernatural Messengers, Divine Representatives of God

An additional reason for designating angelic supernatural beings as "gods" could be the fact that often, the angels of God are messengers sent to humans, representing Yahweh himself. We will inspect some of the instances where this is the case.

Abraham and the Visiting Angels

Yahweh visits Abraham:

Genesis 18:1-2 Now the LORD [Yahweh] appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth,

Although it is said that Yahweh visits him, he sees three "men" visiting him. These are certainly angels, as the writer of Hebrews acknowledges:

Hebrews 13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

The text of Genesis itself indicated this. Genesis 18:22 says "the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom"; later, 19:1 says

"Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening".

They were only two now, because after the writer says that "the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom", he adds that Abraham was still standing in front of the LORD:

Genesis 18:22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD.

Not all three angels proceeded to Sodom, one remained in the company of Abraham. The three angels were representatives of Yahweh, were not Yahweh himself. Nevertheless, they speak as if they are God, saying "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son" - 18:10. Verse 13 says that the LORD, Yahweh, asks Abraham something, and then verse 17 reads "The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" (also vs. 19-20, etc).

This angel speaks like he is God himself, in the first person. This is possible because it is God himself who speaks through him, just as he told Moses about Aaron:

Exodus 4:15 You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do.

It was God's words that were coming out of the angel's mouth. Another instance where an angel stands for God himself:

Genesis 22:11-12 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

The angel once again speaks as if God himself speaks. The same thing happens with Hagar, Abraham's servant:

Genesis 16:9-10 9 Then the angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority." Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count."

Moses and the Angels of God

The same thing happens with Moses in Exodus 3. The angel of the LORD appeared to him (vs. 2). But it is said that "when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him" (vs. 4). It is God who speaks, although we know it is an angel of God. Then the angel says:

Exodus 3:6 "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Not only does the angel say "I am the God of you father", but the writer himself notes that Moses was afraid of God. The angel is just a mere stand-in for God. It is God who speaks and who is there present - through his angel of course. Moses speaks to God (vs. 13), and God sends him to the elders of Israel to tell them:

Exodus 3:16 The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has appeared to me

Christians in the first century knew very well also, as verse 2 says in fact, that this was an angel of God:

Acts 7:30-32 After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush. When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord: 'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.' Moses shook with fear and would not venture to look.

While it is said that God gives the Law - including the 10 commandments - to the people of Israel gathered at mount Sinai, the first century Christians knew God did that through angels:

Exodus 19:11, 17-19 and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. [...] And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently. When the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered him with thunder.

Exodus 20:1-4 Then God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. "You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. [...]

Nehemiah 9:13 "Then You came down on Mount Sinai, And spoke with them from heaven; You gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments.

Galatians 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Hebrews 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty

Acts 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.

Again, angelic supernatural beings are acting in behalf of God. Also, when Moses climbs the Sinai mountain, where he spends 40 days in the company of God, it is known by these Christians that God was there with him through an angel:

Exodus 34:2 So be ready by morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to Me on the top of the mountain.

Acts 7:38 [Moses] is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai

Liberation from Egypt

God saves Israel from the Egyptian slavery. "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt" He says (Exodus 20:1). It is said that God was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day, of fire by night:

Exodus 13:21-22 The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

Numbers 14:14 [...] They have heard that You, O LORD, are in the midst of this people, for You, O LORD, are seen eye to eye, while Your cloud stands over them; and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.

Nehemiah 9:12 "And with a pillar of cloud You led them by day, And with a pillar of fire by night To light for them the way In which they were to go.

But a bit later, just before crossing the Red Sea with the Egyptians on their tail, we are told that in fact it was an angel of God who was going before them in the pillar of cloud:

Exodus 14:19 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.

Numbers 20:16 'But when we cried out to the LORD, He heard our voice and sent an angel and brought us out from Egypt

Again, a supernatural being acts as a stand-in for God, as God's representative. In the same vein, God tells Moses after they escaped from the Egyptians:

Exodus 33:14 And He said, "My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest."

But just before that, God says how He will do that:

Exodus 33:2 "I will send an angel before you and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite.

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.

So how did God's "presence" (Exodus 33:14) go with the Israelites? God was present on the road among them through his angelic supernatural being. Isaiah also writes:

Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.

Other instances where angels stand in for God:

Judges 2:1 Now the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you

Judges 6:11-12, 14, 16, 20-23 Then the angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak that was in Ophrah [...] The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him [...]

The LORD looked at him and said, "Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?" [...] But the LORD said to him, "Surely I will be with you [...]

The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat" [...] Then the angel of the LORD put out the end of the staff that was in his hand [...] When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD, he said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face." The LORD said to him, "Peace to you, do not fear; you shall not die."

Zechariah 3:1-2 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!

Notice how the LORD says to Satan "The LORD rebuke you". Of course, God himself would not say "God rebuke you" since He is the God who would do the rebuking. The LORD that speaks these words is an angel of the LORD who represents the LORD himself.

The Divine Messiah

When the ancient Hebrew translators rendered elohim - "god(s)" - as angel(s) in Psalm 8:5, 97:7, 138:1 and Daniel 2:11, thus revealing their belief that these texts spoke of supernatural beings, they did not stop there, but did the same thing in a text speaking of the Messiah.

Isaiah 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God [Angel in the Septuagint], Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

The phrase "Counselor, Mighty God" is translated by them in Greek as: "Angel of Great Counsel". So if they are consistent in their reason for translating "god(s)" as "angel(s)", they might view this Messiah - who is given to Israel by being born as a child - to be a supernatural being.

But this is not necessarily so. The noun "angel" means "messenger" in Greek and Hebrew. The same word is used for human messengers, and for the supernatural messengers of God. So one could argue that this messenger could be in fact simply a human messenger.

That is one possibility, but how probable would this possibility be? Let us not forget what is the starting point of all this: "a mighty god". Were any of the human messengers ever described to be gods? Not really. So the fact itself, that the translators of the Septuagint applied to same treatment to this "god" as to the other "god(s)", these other "god(s)" being viewed as supernatural beings, gives weight to the conclusion that they viewed the Messiah as a supernatural being.

This background then, of ancient Jewish Monotheism, where Hebrews call supernatural beings "gods" although they know there's only one Almighty God and that He is the Creator of these beings, sheds light on some of what is said in the New Testament.

The disciples of Christ Jesus were Hebrews, as was he himself one. They all had this background. Then Thomas' exclamation towards Jesus saying "my¹ god" (John 20:28), does not step out of the frame of ancient Jewish Monotheism, just as patriarch Jacob and the parents of Samson never did when they called the supernatural messenger sent by God to them as "god". Especially since Thomas received the message Jesus sent through Mary that Jesus has his own God (John 20:17).

The same can be said about John 1:1 where the Word was a god², and Philippians 2:6 where the preexistent Son was in the form of a god³.

Another aspect of this ancient Hebrew Monotheism, that these supernatural messengers stand in for God, acting in behalf of God and speaking God's words to the ones they are being sent to, is also significant in the case of Jesus. He says:

John 14:24 the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

John 12:49 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

John 14:10 The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

John 14:24 the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

John 17:8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them

John 17:14 I have given them Your word

Like the supernatural messengers sent in the past, Jesus speaks the words God told him to. In fact, more than a thousand years before his coming, God said that:

Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

Jesus also testifies that he came as a representative of God, just like those angels did:

John 5:43 I have come in My Father's name

In fact, he explicitly says he stands in for God:

John 12:45 45 "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.

John 14:8-9 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?

Matthew 10:40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

But even when he stands in for God, he explains that "a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16).

Conclusion

In conclusion then, ancient Jewish Monotheism is not identical with today's strict monotheism. No strict monotheist today would call other supernatural beings "gods".

The difference between Ancient Jewish Monotheism and the strict version is defined by two aspects:

• Supernatural beings are called "gods". This is probably done to contrast their nature with the weak, physical human nature.
  
• Angelic supernatural beings are often presented as a stand-in for God. They act in behalf of God and their action is ascribed to God (liberation from Egypt for example), and they speak often as if God himself speaks, even speaking in the first person. God puts his words in their mouth.

What is said about Christ Jesus comes in agreement with the above points. His divine status is defined by the context of his time, the ancient Jewish Monotheism.

---

¹Thomas not only says that Jesus is a god but that he is his god; Jesus was already his master, and Thomas his disciple, therefore Jesus is his god.<sup>(go back)

2</sup>See Jason Beduhn, Truth in Translation, p. 113 for a discussion on the translation "a god" in John 1:1.<sup>(go back)

3</sup>See the discussion on Philippians 2:6 here. Paul knows as well that Jesus has his own God (Ephesians 1:3,17 etc) ^{(go back)}

The Pre-Human Existence of Christ Outside the Gospels - Conclusion

In part I, II and III we have examined some of the books in the New Testament that contain the idea of a personal pre-human existence of the son of God. A common characteristic of all these books is that the writer's topic is not the personal pre-human existence of the son of God. They do not argue for it, they always assume it and employ it in their exhortations.

This means the recipients of these letters shared with the authors this belief, otherwise the writers would not have based their arguments on the pre-human existence of Christ.

Paul's influence on early Christianity cannot be understated. The churches he visited and founded must have been familiar with this preexistence. Those who were associated with him in his missionary work would have been acquainted with his understanding of Christ's preexistence - among them Luke, the writer of the synoptic gospel that bears his name.

In the next articles, we will examine how the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke - point to the personal pre-human existence of the son of God.

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

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.

The first part of this article reviewed the writings of Paul. In the second part, the epistle to the Hebrews was reviewed. This third part will examine the epistle of Jude and the Revelation of John.

In the Epistle of Jude

Jude 5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

The question is, which Lord does Jude mean here, to have saved Israel out of Egypt: the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Lord Yahweh, Christ Jesus' Father? The question is relevant because there are many versions of this verse in the Greek manuscripts. Some say Jesus, some Lord, others God.

UBS' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament, on which the majority of the modern translations are based on, chose from all these possibilities the second one, Lord. But the decision was a difficult one. Here's how the committee explains its decision:

Despite the weighty attestation supporting Iesous (A B 33 81 322 323 424^c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop^{sa, bo} eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; o Iesous 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (KC¹ being taken for IC²). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Jesus alone, but always Jesus Christ. The unique collocation theos christos (God Christ) read by P⁷² (did the scribe intend to write theou christos, "God's anointed one"?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Christos would be represented also in other witnesses. (Metzger, Textual Commentary 2nd ed, p. 657)

[...]

[Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Jesus, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt, (yet compare Paul's reference to Christ in 1 Co 10,4), copyists would have substituted (o) kurios - Lord or o theos - God. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) "the original text had only o³, and that OTIO⁴ was read as OTIIC⁵ and perhaps OTIKC⁶" ("Notes on Select Readings," ad loc.).

It was indeed a difficult decision, as the D rating was assigned by the committee to this rendering of Lord. They explain what the the D rating means:

The letter A indicates that the text is certain.
The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain.
The letter C, however, indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
The letter D, which occurs only rarely, indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.⁷

What is striking about this decision is that it is a purely theological one, based on internal grounds, one that willingly disregards the weighty attestation of the Jesus reading. Three out of five, the majority of this committee, decided that it was impossible for Christ to have been the one who liberated the Jews from Egypt. Despite the fact that "critical principles seem to require the adoption of Jesus, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses". Osborn, the author of the most extensive treatment of Jude 5, also writes:

the former reading has the best attestation among Greek and versional witnesses and ... critical principles require its adoption.8

So let's see the supporting manuscripts for each version 9. God and Christ God are poorly attested.

This is the attestation of the Lord reading:

• Codex Sinaiticus (IV A.D.)
• Codex Ephraemi C (V)
  
• Codex Athous Lavrensis (IX/X)
• Codex Mosquensis K (IX)
• Manuscript number 1175 (X), 2138 (1072 A.D.), 1243, 1846, 945 (XI), 436 (XI/XII), 1241, 1505 (XII), 1611 (XII), 630 (XII/XIII), 1292 (XIII), 1067, 1409 (XIV)
  
• Some individual manuscripts of the Vulgate against the majority of the Vulgate
• Syriac Harklensis (616 A.D.)
  
• Coptic versions (transl. began III A.D.)
  
• The M group ¹⁰

This is the attestation of the Jesus reading:

• Codex Vaticanus B (IV A.D.)
• Codex Alexandrinus A (V)
• Jerome (420 A.D.)
• Cyril (444 A.D.)
• Bede (735 A.D.)
  
• Manuscript number 33 (IX), 1739 (X), 1735 (X, has Lord Jesus), 81 (1044 A.D.), 2344 (XI), 424 (XI, later correcting hand), 323, 1241, 2298 (XII), 1881 (XIV), 322 (XV)
  
• The Vulgate (transl. began IV/V A.D.)
• Coptic Sahidic and Bohairic versions (transl. began III A.D.)
• In the margins, manuscript 1739 (X) attributes this comment to Origen (d. 254): "Jude says in his epistle, 'For Jesus once saved...'"
• Ethiopic version (transl. began 500 A.D.)
• Old Latin (ar manuscript, XI)

The weight of the external witnesses in favor of the Jesus reading is undisputed by the Committee, but they find it impossible to be the original reading based on internal grounds. The committee has also another argument in favor of Lord: nowhere else does the author employ Jesus alone, but always Jesus Christ.

But this is a rather unconvincing argument, taking into account the shortness of Jude's epistle. In response to this one might answer that almost every time Lord is mentioned, it is in reference to Jesus.

The committee explained the origin of the Jesus reading in terms of transcriptional oversight (KC being taken as IC, see above). In instances where a reading does not make too much sense this could be true. The only problem is, as Gathercole says 11, "a brief examination of the apparatus to NA27 does not seem to give any indication of this"change from KC to IC ever happening. Here's what Bauckham has to say (though he favors Lord):

It should be noted initially that to some extent this textual situation is not unusual, since there are many places, especially in the Pauline corpus, where the text varies between two of the three words kurios, theos and Christos, and in some cases between all three ... What is exceptional in Jude 5 is the reading Iesous which there seems to be no evidence of scribes deliberately substituting for kurios [Lord] or theos [God] elsewhere. - Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives, 308

Gathercole comments on Bauckham's observation saying:

What this means is that "Jesus" is more likely to be original, since kurios is more likely to be replaced by Christos or theos. It is difficult to imagine why a scribe would change KC (kurios) to IC (Iesous).

Gathercole then goes on to say that the change from Jesus to Lord would be understandable since to a scribe it would have appeared odd to use Jesus with reference to an action that occurred prior to Christ's incarnation. So he would have wanted to clarify that not the fleshly Jesus saved Israel from Egypt, but rather maybe a preexistent Lord.

So it is no wonder that 2 (against 3) of the committee thought there are good reasons to adopt the Jesus reading. Gathercole also points out that out of the 3 members of the majority, one was "operating with a very limited range of options, either Lord or Joshua", not Jesus - but Joshua was clearly not the one who got the Jews out of Egypt.

But the internal grounds are not too much against the reading Jesus. One important aspect is what the previous verse says:

Jude 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

So even if Jude initially wrote Lord, he still could be referring to Lord Jesus Christ, whom he just mentioned. But why would Jude think Jesus in a pre-human state has saved Israel from Egypt? Did not God himself do that? He surely did, but Exodus mentions an angel - literally a messenger in Hebrew - just before crossing the Red Sea:

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.

Could it be that Jude thinks God saved Israel from their Egyptian oppressors through his Son? If yes, this puts the Son as existing before the Flood, for Jude continues:

Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day

For more information on why Christ would be the messenger who liberated Israel from Egypt, see the discussion of 1 Corinthians 10:4 in the first part of these series, and the section "Liberation from Egypt" in the The Divine Messiah and Ancient Jewish Monotheism article.

Conclusion

The evidence for Christ's pre-human existence is not clear-cut in Jude 5, since we do not know with absolute certainty if Jude wrote Jesus or Lord. But there seem to be good reasons to believe he wrote Jesus.

Date of the Jude's Epistle

Jude 1:17-18 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, "In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts."

Jude reminds the recipients of his epistle of what the apostles told them. As Gathercole concludes¹², perhaps this church received at one time a delegation consisting of some of the apostles. Taking into account that 1 Corinthians 9:5 says that "the brothers of the Lord" were involved then in missionary work, this could be placed in the mid-50s. This would allow for the missionary work of Jude - who was brother of James, and hence of Jesus - to be placed around the fifties.

In the Revelation of John

Revelation 3:14 To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

The Greek word translated by NASB as "beginning" is arche, and it has basically two meanings: "beginning" and "ruler". BDAG says about this word:

1. the commencement of someth. as an action, process, or state of being, beginning, i.e. a point of time at the beginning of a duration.
2. one with whom a process begins, beginning fig., of persons: (Ge 49:3; Dt. 21:17, ...)
3. the first cause, the beginning
[...]
6. an authority figure who initiates activity or process, ruler, authority

So different translations have different renderings of this word. Some say "beginning", some say "source/origin", some say "ruler". These are among the ones saying "beginning":

1. The New American Standard Bible
2. Geneva Bible 1599
3. King James Version
4. Revised Standard Version
5. American Standard Version 1901
   
6. The English Darby Bible 1884/1890
7. The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
8. English Revised Version (1885)
9. English Standard Version
10. New Living Translation
11. The Bishops' New Testament (1595)
12. The English Revised 1833 Webster Update 1995
    
13. The Tyndale New Testament (1534)
    
14. The English Noah Webster Bible 1833

Did John want to say Jesus was the beginning of the creation or the ruler of the creation? It is interesting that, as BDAG points out at number 2, in Ge 49:3; Dt. 21:17, the Septuagint uses arche to say that the first born ofthe family was somebody's arche teknon, that is literally the beginning of [their] children:

Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and the first [arche] of my children, hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first [arche] of his children, and to him belongs the birthright.¹³

BDAG says about the occurance of arche in Revelation 3:14 that "the meaning beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable". If John understood it this way, he certainly believes Christ has a pre-human existence, as the first creature of God.

---

¹ "IC" is an abbreviation for Ἰησοῦς, Jesus in Greek. See Nomina Sacra <sup>(back)

2</sup> "KC" is an abbreviation for κύριος, Lord in Greek. See Nomina Sacra <sup>(back)

3</sup> o would mean "he" in English in this context. <sup>(back)

4</sup> In the manuscripts there were no spaces; OTIO would be OTI and O, which would mean "that he" in English in this context. <sup>(back)

5</sup> In the manuscripts there were no spaces; OTIIC would be OTI and IC, which would mean "that Jesus" in English. See the previous notes on why IC means Jesus.<sup>(back)

6</sup> In the manuscripts there were no spaces; OTIKC would be OTI and KC, which would mean "that the Lord" in English. See the previous notes on why KC means Lord.<sup>(back)

7</sup> The Greek New Testament, UBS, 4th ed.<sup>(back)

8</sup> "The Text of Jude 5", C.D. Osburn, Biblica 1981, 107-115. <sup>(back)

9</sup> See NA27, UBS 4th ed and Metzger Textual Commentary.<sup>(back)

10</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)

11</sup> The Preexistent Son, 38.<sup>(back)

12</sup> The Preexistent Son, p. 36. He quotes others who estimate as possible a date between 40 and 70 A.D. <sup>(back)

13</sup> Both verses as they appear in Brent's translation of the Septuagint.^(back)

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

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.

The first part of this article reviewed the writings of Paul. This second part will examine the letter to the Hebrews, whose author does not identify himself. As it could be seen in the first part, the pre-human existence of Christ is always assumed, not argued for.

In the Letter to the Hebrews

Just like Paul, the writer believes that God created everything through his Son.

Creation of the World through the Son

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world¹.

Adopters of the no preexistence theory are arguing about John 1:10 that the Word - through whom the world was made - was merely the word of God, the word saying "Let there be light", and that this impersonal word became later the person of Jesus. But Hebrews 1:2 states clearly that this Word of whom John speaks was not an impersonal utterance of God: this Word is the Son himself. It is through his Son that God made the world. The writer of Hebrews repeats this:

Hebrews 2:9-10 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, [...] For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

All things are through Jesus, just as John says, that "all things came into being through Him" (John 1:3). The writer of Hebrews clearly states that this Son was the agent God used to create everything:

Hebrews 1:10 And, "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands"

The writer quotes here Psalm 102:25 and applies it to Christ, despite it being addressed by the psalmist to Yahweh, the Father of Christ:

Psalm 102:25 Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

Putting this statement together with the previous ones, that the world was made through the Son, by God, we can easily understand what the author of Hebrews does when he attributes the creation work to Jesus: he states that the one executing the order "Let there be light" was Jesus Christ himself. He is the agent through whom God made the light and the world, the one who carried out the creation act. God ordered, and his Son executed.

Therefore, to the author of Hebrews, Christ clearly preexisted, and not only before becoming a man, but before everything else was created!

Partaker of Flesh and Blood

The idea of pre-human existence appears to be the substrate of the following statements:

Hebrews 2:14,17 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, [...] Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Notice how these two statements are necessary and relevant if the author thinks the Son existed in a non-human personal form before coming to earth, and how redundant they are if in the author's mind, the Son could never be anything else but flesh and blood! In his mind, the Son who created the world was in a no-flesh-and-blood state before coming to earth, but it was necessary for him to become flesh and blood in order to make propitiation for the sins of the people. This idea is reflected again in 5:7:

Hebrews 5:7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.

If in all his days of existence Christ was nothing but flesh and blood, then what is the point of saying "in the days of His flesh"? What other days other than the ones he was in the flesh would we able to talk about? The writer obviously believes that the days the Son was in the flesh were just one period of his existence.

So what does the writer believe about Jesus' existence, did it began by being born through Mary?

High Priest Forever According to the Order of Melchizedek

Hebrews 6:20 - 7:3 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings [...] was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness [...] Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

In this part of the letter, the writer intends to deal with Jewish objections to the idea that Jesus could be a High Priest of God. How could he be one, since he was not from the tribe of Levi? Joseph was not a Levite, Mary was not a Levite, Jesus' genealogy therefore is not a Levite one. But according to the Law, only Levites could become High Priests. So, the Jews would argue, how can anyone even suggest the possibility that Jesus might be a High Priest? Jesus was not satisfying the conditions of being one!

That is why the writer of Hebrews brings Melchizedek into the picture. He was like Jesus, without a Levite father, without a Levite mother, without the right genealogy that would have enabled him to be High Priest; but despite this, he certainly was a High Priest of God! The first known High Priest then, was not a Levite, did not have to possess a Levite ancestry, was with no Levite father and Levite mother; and so is Jesus. Melchizedek was like Jesus in this respect, and since Melchizedek was rightfully a High Priest, so is Jesus.

But there are two more elements mentioned by the author that Jesus and Melchizedek have in common: having neither beginning of days nor end of life. These show that there is more involved here than just the lack of Levite genealogy.

It is hard to believe that the writer thought Melchizedek had no beginning of life. Every man has one. But unlike the patriarchs and prominent individuals in the Scripture who the Jews knew who their father and mother was, knew their genealogies, when their lives started and ended - because they were recorded in writing; but there's no written record on all these aspects when it comes to Melchizedek. Melchizedek's birth and death are not recorded, they are unknown. This shows that the writer intends in fact to say that Melchizedek had no known Levite father and mother, no known Levite genealogy - in contrast with every Levite High Priest - and neither known beginning of days nor known end of life.

Did the writer think that Christ as a person had neither known beginning of days nor known end of life? It is unlikely that the writer did not know Christ had a human mother, Mary. He certainly knew Jesus had no human father. He also most probably knew approximately when Christ's human life began, since according to tradition Jesus was about 30 years old when he was baptized; if the writer was not an eyewitness of Jesus, to be able to count the years that have passed since he last saw him, and so to know the year he was born, he would have had access to eyewitnesses or people who had access to eyewitnesses in order to find out, just like Luke did (Luke 3:1).

If the writer believes that the Son who created the world had a pre-human existence - how else would he have created the world? - he can certainly view Jesus as a being that was not brought into existence by a human mother. In this case, he certainly does not know when Christ's life began, because all the Jewish Scriptures say is that his origin is from the days of eternity (Micah 5:2); and finally, Christ also is without and end of life since he continues to live to this day - hence no end of life.

So if the writer knows that the Son had a human beginning - and he most certainly does know that- by being born from Mary, then by saying that the Son is without a known beginning of days he is effectively saying that his human birth was not the beginning of his days, but his days began in fact earlier. Thus, he existed as a person before he became flesh.

Dating the Letter to the Hebrews

The Anglo-American scholarship seems to enjoy a growing consensus on dating this letter prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.²

The writer speaks in the present tense about the Jewish priests offering both gifts and sacrifices and serving at the altar (8:3-5; 13:10). This could not entirely be in itself a proof that these things were still happening, it could just be a case of historical present, like Josephus and Clement use. But the lack of any reference at the destruction of the temple is significant because it would have helped the writer's argument significantly.

Also, he writes in chapter 10:

Hebrews 10:1-2 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

If the temple wasn't destroyed, the sacrifices would have been still continually offered, they obviously did not cease at the time of the writing. If written after 70, this would be an awkard thing to say. The writer expects his readers to answer with "yes" to this question. Also:

Hebrews 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

The writer would have had a much easier job arguing that the Law has expired if he would have mentioned the destruction of the temple and all the rituals centering around it. This verse shows that this did not happen yet, the Law covenant was only "ready to disappear", not disappeared.

Conclusion

As in the case of Paul in part I, Jesus' pre-human existence is always assumed by the writer of Hebrews, not argued for. Just like John and Paul, the writer believes that through the Son the world was made. He participated in the act of creation.

The writer also has preexistence in the background when he says the Son had to partake of flesh and blood, calling his human existence "days of his flesh".

The writer also does not believe Christ's personal existence started by being born from Mary, although it was known among Christians that he was born of a virgin.

---

¹ The word "world" appears in plural in the Greek text, aionas, and is sometimes translated as "ages". It also occurs in plural in 9:26 (the consummation of the ages) and 11:3 (the worlds were prepared by the word of God).<sup>(back)

2</sup> See Simon Gathercole, The Preexistent Son, p. 32 ^(back)