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).(back)
2 See Simon Gathercole, The Preexistent Son, p. 32 (back)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment