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.

OT Objections to the Preexistence of God's Son

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

As it can be seen, 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 to be born in the future. That is exactly what 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 refuted by these objections.

Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

The "one" is to be a descendant of the woman. A descendant is by definition one who comes into existence after the ancestor. Apparently, from the very beginning of this mess, God had plans to fix the problem through the seed of the woman (i.e. a solution from within the human biological chain).

Indeed, the "one" is to be a descendant of the woman, but who or what is this woman? Since this is a prophecy, one would expect it to be given in prophetic language, that is, not literal. Just as the serpent is not a literal serpent, and the seed of the serpent are not little serpents, neither the "woman" is a literal woman. What enmity did God put afterwards between Eve and the serpent/devil? And what did the 1st century Christians think about this woman and its seed? It is clear that the main part of this seed is Jesus. But he has brothers (Heb 2:11-12), who therefore have the same "mother" as him, they're part of the woman's seed. They too will crush the serpent's head:

Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Who or what is their "mother"?

Galatians 4:26-27 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband."

Is Eve the heavenly Jerusalem? This heavenly Jerusalem is probably seen in Revelation 12 giving birth to a son:

Revelation 12:1-4, 17 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon [...] And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. [...] So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Tthe dragon is identified as being the serpent in vs. 9. Is it plain to see there's enmity between the serpent and THIS woman, not Eve. He makes war with her seed (some translations render "children" instead of "seed", but the Greek word used here is spermatos (σπέρματος) and it means "seed").

Genesis 3:15 does not support the claim against Jesus' pre-human existence.

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, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

The child will be born/given.

That is exactly the same as what those who accept the son of God's preexistence believe. Let us remember, it is not the preexistence of the MAN Jesus Christ that is advocated, but the preexistence of the PERSON of Jesus Christ. As a man, the son of God was given to His people as a child, that is precisely how it happened.

At the time of Isaiah 9 the language used to describe the Davidic Messiah is future tense.

Yes, the human (a "child"!) son of God was yet to be born, nobody disputes that. After all, this verse talks about a human, isn't it? Those who accept Jesus' pre-human existence do not believe he preexisted as a human.

If Jesus already existed we should expect different language here.

No, we should not expect a different language here if the son of God already existed before his human existence since this passage talks about the human son of God. The language perfectly fits the intention to communicate that the son of God will be given to humans as a child, as a human.

Isaiah 11:1-3

"Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, And He will not judge by what His eyes see, Nor make a decision by what His ears hear"

The shoot will spring means that a descendant of David (Jesse's son) will be born some day. The whole idea of lineal descent is emphasized by the terms "shoot" and "branch" which are obviously tree metaphors. In other words, this person will come from the line of Jesse. If he already existed independent from the line of Jesse then he would come through but not out from the stump of Jesse.

"Come through" but not "out of"? This sounds more like special pleading. Once again, the quoted verse deals clearly with Jesus' human existence. He as a man literally came out of Mary, who came out of her ancestors, which ancestors came out of Jesse. Yes, as a human, the born child of Mary came out from the root of Jesse.

Take for example a butterfly. One casual observer of its apparent genesis will state that a butterfly comes out from its chrysalis case. But somebody with full knowledge will state that the creature the butterfly now is, did not come out of that chrysalis case, but that this creature was a larva before, a larva that came out of its egg moths ago in some cases. This creature existed way before becoming a butterfly. It doesn't make any sense to say the larva came out of its chrysalis case, it really came from an egg. This creature really preexisted before coming out of its chrysalis case.

The same is said about the son of God. He existed before coming out of Jesse. He only came out of Jesse through Mary when this son of God became flesh (John 1:14), as this creature came out of its chrysalis case, becoming a butterfly.

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'"

This oracle does not include when this was to happen. The only information given is that on a certain day (i.e. "today") God begets a son who is to rule the world (not just Israel). This means that the day before "this day" the son did not exist. Begotten means for a father to bring someone into existence.

Here is the fulfilling of this begetting:

Acts 13:30-33"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.'

God begets Jesus when He resurrects him, when He gives him life. Indeed, usually "begotten means for a father to bring someone into existence". The dead do not exist anymore, and neither did Jesus after he died. Resurrecting him, God brings him from this non-existing state into existence, giving him life. This, is what Paul - a Hebrew - says. This Psalm has not been fulfilled in Matthew 1:20-23 as some claim, a fact indicated by Paul above - see "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You" Fulfilled

1 Chronicles 17:11-14

"When your days are fulfilled that you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up one of your descendants after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. "I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. "But I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever."

Again, notice the future tense here. One day a descendant of David will be born and he will be chosen by God to rule on the throne of David forever. Was David thinking that an angel, a spirit, or God himself would metamorphose into a human, pose as a descendant, and fulfill this prophecy? Of course not! David is most likely thinking of Solomon (who we know didn’t end up being "the one") or perhaps a distant descendant.

Let's see the fulfillment of this promise. God is talking about Solomon as well, as "David is most likely thinking". Here it is:

1 Chronicles 22:9-10 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.

1 Kings 5:5 "Behold, I intend to build a house for the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD spoke to David my father, saying, 'Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, he will build the house for My name.'

1 Chronicles 28:6-10 "He said to me, 'Your son Solomon is the one who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him. 'I will establish his kingdom forever if he resolutely performs My commandments and My ordinances, [...] but if you [Solomon] forsake Him, He will reject you forever. "Consider now, for the LORD has chosen you to build a house for the sanctuary; be courageous and act."

1 Kings 2:45 "But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD forever."

1 Kings 8:20 "Now the LORD has fulfilled His word which He spoke; for I have risen in place of my father David and sit on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD, the God of Israel.

So as a first fulfillment, this future son that will build God a house is Solomon, not Jesus. This prophecy is fulfilled a second time in Jesus, a fact indicated by Hebrews 1:5:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, "You are my son, today I have begotten you"? And again, "I will be a father to him and he shall be a son to me"?

Notice how the "I will be a father to him" statement is associated with the one saying "You are my son, today I have begotten you". It is only logical. If somebody begets a son, he will be his father. To which begetting is the author referring? As already quoted, Hebrew theology teaches that God's statement "You are my son, today I have begotten you" was fulfilled when He gave Jesus life, at his resurrection:

Acts 13:30-33 30 "But God raised Him from the dead; 31 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. 32 "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 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.'

This teaching is further confessed again by Paul in Romans 1:3-4:

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 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,

So the future tense in "I will be a father to him" stems from the fact that it is the result of a future action: the resurrection of Jesus, giving him life again, bringing him from nonexistence into existence.