To the only God our Savior

[Scott Downey]

Jesus the man had no preexistence, Jesus the Son of God had preexistence being one with the Father in Heaven, before the world was in glory together as GOD.

And to some that is a stumbling block, and a rock of offense...

 

[Matthias]

Well, seeing I am believing in a Triune God, then of course, I understand the Father is not the Son and Son is the not the Father.
I also understand the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in the Father, just as Christ so says about Himself.

The point he makes is that in the historical setting of the 1st century, Jewish monotheism is the prevailing theology of the culture, Yahweh is the Father. No one else is. Jesus isn’t.

Jesus is the Messiah. His God is the Father alone, Yahweh.

Jesus isn’t a trinitarian. He’s a Jewish monotheists, and Jewish monotheists are unitarian.

The historical Jesus is a unitarian. So too are the apostles. So also the earliest followers of Jesus.

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.

Jesus is speaking to fellow Jewish monotheists; Jewish monotheists who didn’t believe he is their God’s promised Messiah. Because they didn’t believe him they accused him of blasphemy (”You’re lying about God, Jesus! The Father didn’t send you“, etc.) Because they didn’t believe him, they didn’t believe their God. What then did Jesus say to them? He told them who their father really is, the devil.

Jesus at no time rejected Jewish monotheism. He rejected Jewish monotheists who believed Satan, not the Father.

John 14:11
Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

Some of you guys think Jesus just a man having no pre-existence, is that you too?

I believe Jesus is a miraculously begotten man - begotten by his God and my God in the womb of his virgin mother. In keeping with Jewish monotheism, I believe he preexisted notionally, not literally, with his God and my God, the Father.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus the man had no preexistence …

That isn’t what Jewish monotheism teaches. Jewish monotheism teaches that Jesus the man did preexist.

… Jesus the Son of God had preexistence being one with the Father in Heaven, before the world was in glory together as GOD.

“Jesus the man” is “Jesus the Son of God” in Jewish monotheism. As the angel told Mary (who is also a Jewish monotheist), it was because Jesus would be begotten in her, that Jesus would be conceived in her, that Jesus would be called the Son of God.

That’s the reason in Jewish monotheism. That‘s not the reason in trinitarianism.

And to some that is a stumbling block, and a rock of offense...

Jesus, the man, the Messiah, Son of God, is ”a stumbling block, and a rock of offense”. His theology, Jewish monotheism, causes great offense. The Church later declared it “error, heresy” and proudly boasted of having “destroyed the Jewish dogma.“ This comes to us directly from the lips of one of the greatest trinitarian theologians of all time, Gregory of Nyssa.

I urge every trinitarian to read what Gregory said. I urge every trinitarian to repeat what Gregory of Nyssa said, to themselves and to as many others as possible.

 

[Scott Downey]

The point he makes is that in the historical setting of the 1st century, Jewish monotheism is the prevailing theology of the culture, Yahweh is the Father. No one else is. Jesus isn’t.

Jesus is the Messiah. His God is the Father alone, Yahweh.

Jesus isn’t a trinitarian. He’s a Jewish monotheists, and Jewish monotheists are unitarian.

The historical Jesus is a unitarian. So too are the apostles. So also the earliest followers of Jesus.



Jesus is speaking to fellow Jewish monotheists; Jewish monotheists who didn’t believe he is their God’s promised Messiah. Because they didn’t believe him they accused him of blasphemy (”You’re lying about God, Jesus! The Father didn’t send you“, etc.) Because they didn’t believe him, they didn’t believe their God. What then did Jesus say to them? He told them who their father really is, the devil.

Jesus at no time rejected Jewish monotheism. He rejected Jewish monotheists who believed Satan, not the Father.



I believe Jesus is a miraculously begotten man - begotten by his God and my God in the womb of his virgin mother. In keeping with Jewish monotheism, I believe he preexisted notionally, not literally, with his God and my God, the Father.

Not existed literally!
Yes, He was begotten as a flesh and blood man, but He came down from heaven, so yes, He existed before He got a body.
In many verses Christ said He came down from Heaven, so He has a preexistence in Heaven before His birth as a baby, at which time the angels all worshipped Him.

Heb 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 to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
7 And of the angels He says:

“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A [f]scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

 

[Matthias]

Not existed literally!

That’s right. As I explained a short while ago, preexistence in Jewish monotheism is notional (sometimes also called “ideal”), not literal.

Yes, He was begotten as a flesh and blood man…

By whom? By his God. Right?

… but He came down from heaven, …

All good gifts come down from heaven. It’s a Jewish idiom for all good things, all blessings, come down to us from our God, the Father. James says this, as I’m sure you must be aware, in James 1:17.

Good gifts from God don’t literally fall down from heaven. Their source is God, who is in heaven. “Our Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9).

The greatest gift God has ever given to mankind is the man, Messiah Jesus.

… so yes, He existed before He got a body.

The man preexisted before he got a body. Without a body there is no man.

In many verses Christ said He came down from Heaven, so He has a preexistence in Heaven before His birth as a baby, at which time the angels all worshipped Him.

Yes. What I’m explaining to you is that Jewish monotheists understand him to have come down from heaven, to have come down from his God, in the way of the Jewish idiom found in James (who is himself also a Jewish monotheist.)

Heb 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 to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
7 And of the angels He says:

“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A [f]scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

That’s right. The Son of God didn’t preexist as an angel.

 

[RedFan]

Not existed literally!
Yes, He was begotten as a flesh and blood man, but He came down from heaven, so yes, He existed before He got a body.
In many verses Christ said He came down from Heaven, so He has a preexistence in Heaven before His birth as a baby, at which time the angels all worshipped Him.

Heb 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 to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?

It seems to me that we should be distinguishing pre-existence and eternal pre-existence. Read literally, Heb. 1:5 may support the former, but I think it denies the latter -- because "this day" or "today" suggests a point in time. Even Arius could embrace Heb. 1:5.

 

[Scott Downey]

It seems to me that we should be distinguishing pre-existence and eternal pre-existence. Read literally, Heb. 1:5 may support the former, but I think it denies the latter -- because "this day" or "today" suggests a point in time. Even Arius could embrace Heb. 1:5.

Eternal pre-existence is the truth, or then He is just a created being before the birth and not God.
But the theme of 1:5 is God bringing the Son into the world as a babe, so that existence begins in time, not from eternity.

Hebrews 7 speaks of the Son having an eternal life in this comparing to the order of Melchizedek as in without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

And

14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning [c]priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For [d]He testifies:

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

 

[Scott Downey]

Hebrews 1:8 speaks of the Son as God from eternity

8 But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A [f]scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

 

[Matthias]

It seems to me that we should be distinguishing pre-existence and eternal pre-existence. Read literally, Heb. 1:5 may support the former, but I think it denies the latter -- because "this day" or "today" suggests a point in time. Even Arius could embrace Heb. 1:5.

You’re making an interesting point. I disagree with Arius. His timing, like that of Tertullian, for the begetting of the Son is just prior to the Genesis creation. (Neither Arius nor Tertullian is trinitarian; nor are they Jewish monotheists.) I also don’t agree with Origen, who is the one who suggested “the eternal generation of the Son”. Interestingly, many trinitarian scholars also disagree with Origen, Adam Clarke being one such person among their number.

In Jewish monotheism, the timing for the begetting of the Son is a few years prior to the 1st century.

 

[Matthias]

Hebrews 1:8 speaks of the Son as God from eternity

8 But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A [f]scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

God [“the only God our Savior” (Jude 1:25)] is speaking prophetically about the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible.

 

[Scott Downey]

So there are two aspects-positions of the SON to whom also scripture and Christ attests.
One is as God, as in the Son of God
One is as Man, as in the Son of Man

He is both of those.

Colossians 2

8 Beware lest anyone [a]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead [b]bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all [c]principality and power.

 

[Matthias]

So there are two aspects-positions of the SON to whom also scripture and Christ attests.
One is as God, as in the Son of God
One is as Man, as in the Son of Man

He is both of those.

I agree that he is. Do you understand now how this works with Jewish monotheism? I’m not asking you to agree with it. I’m just asking if you understand it.

Colossians 2

8 Beware lest anyone [a]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead [b]bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all [c]principality and power.

Paul is a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian. It’s trinitarianism (also binitarianism and sometimes unitarianism) that depends on Greek philosophy; Jewish monotheism doesn’t.

Paul doesn’t use the terminology that you use / trinitarianism uses in speaking about God.

 

[RedFan]

Eternal pre-existence is the truth, or then He is just a created being before the birth and not God.
But the theme of 1:5 is God bringing the Son into the world as a babe, so that existence begins in time, not from eternity.

I don't read Heb. 1:5 that way. Saying "I have begotten you" is different from saying "I have given you flesh and sent you into the world" and I think Heb. 1:5 is concerned with the former.

 

[RedFan]

“It rests on a misconception of the New Testament mode of speech and conception if we immediately infer that the declaration of Jesus [in John 17:5], that he had glory with the Father before the world was created is simply and necessarily identical in meaning with the thought that he himself preexisted. … According to the mode of speech and conception prevalent in the New Testament, a heavenly good, and so also a heavenly glory, can be conceived and spoken of as existing with God and belonging to a person, not because the person already exists and is invested with glory, but because the glory of God is in some way deposited and preserved for this person in heaven. We remember how, according to the report of Matthew, Jesus also speaks of the treasure (Matt. 5:34); and how also (Col. 1:5 and 1 Pet, 1:4) the hope of salvation of the Christian is represented as a blessing laid up in heaven for them. … Jesus asks for himself not something arbitrary, but what was given to him according to God’s decree and what had always ideally belonged to him. …; the presupposition for this declaration, however, is certainly the thought, which finds decided expression at the close of the prayer in verse 24, that Jesus himself, as the Messiah, did not indeed really exist from the beginning with God, but was the object of the love of God, of His loving thoughts, plans and purposes.”

(H.H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, Vol 2, pp. 169-172)

Brackets are mine.

This is a description of how a Jewish monotheist reads and understands scripture. John, like Jesus, is a Jewish monotheist.

I’ve mentioned to others that trinitarianism (binitarianism and some forms of unitarianism) stand on the literal preexistence of the Son of God. In Jewish monotheism (which is unitarian) it doesn’t; it stands on ideal preexistence - that persons, in this case the Messiah, preexisted in the mind and foreknowledge of God before the person was brought into existense.

In Luke 1:35, the angel tells Mary that the reason the child would be called the Son is God is causal. “For this reason” - the begetting of Jesus by the overshadowing of the Father’s Spirit (the Father’s operational presence and power, personal, but not another person) and the conception of Jesus in the womb of the virgin - is the reason Jesus is called the Son of God.

That isn’t the reason Jesus is called the Son of God in trinitarian theology (nor in binitarian theology, nor some forms of unitarian theology.)

The genesis of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, is in time and place and not, as a child might say, in outer space.

Thanks for sharing. I read John 17:5 quite differently than Wendt does. Greek grammar aside, to me John's recounting of Jesus's comment "Before Abraham was, I am" suggests John's confirmation of pre-existence (although not in the flesh) of the Son. Wendt's explanation of this comment, at p. 174, just does not hold water:

"For the saying that Abraham saw and rejoiced in
the day, that is, the earthly appearance of Jesus, the
readiest explanation if the interpretation by a
sensible seeing on the part of Abraham in the
time of his earthly life is excluded is this, that
Abraham during his earthly life saw and rejoiced in
a spiritual pre-vision of the appearance of Jesus as
the Messiah."

Wendt's error here is in presuming that Abraham's rejoicing over a prevision of the earthly Christ somehow precludes the Son's pre-existence in spiritual form. It doesn't.

 

[Matthias]

Thanks for sharing. I read John 17:5 quite differently than Wendt does. Greek grammar aside, to me John's recounting of Jesus's comment "Before Abraham was, I am" suggests John's confirmation of pre-existence (although not in the flesh) of the Son. Wendt's explanation of this comment, at p. 174, just does not hold water:

"For the saying that Abraham saw and rejoiced in
the day, that is, the earthly appearance of Jesus, the
readiest explanation if the interpretation by a
sensible seeing on the part of Abraham in the
time of his earthly life is excluded is this, that
Abraham during his earthly life saw and rejoiced in
a spiritual pre-vision of the appearance of Jesus as
the Messiah."

Wendt's error here is in presuming that Abraham's rejoicing over a prevision of the earthly Christ somehow precludes the Son's pre-existence in spiritual form. It doesn't.

You shouldn’t believe it if you don’t think it holds water. I believe it because in Jewish monotheism it does hold water.

Have you read William Barclay’s commentary on Abraham seeing the Messiah? He does a splendid job of presenting Jewish monotheism.

You most likely won’t find it persuasive but you might find it interesting. It will give you good insight on how Jewish monotheists think.

 

[Matthias]

In the silence of “the great pause” we should ask ourselves, “Which came first in the Church: trinitarianism or Jewish monotheism?”

Who knows what theology lurked in the hearts of the earliest church members, the primitive Christians? The shadow of Church history do.

And Fortman, when I finally get back to quoting him, will share it with us.

P.S.

I’ve also quoted Dr. Harold O.J. Brown for those who prefer a Protestant. Other trinitarian historians may also be quoted. The history of the doctrine of the Trinity is very well documented, even if widely ignored.

 

[Scott Downey]

Thanks for sharing. I read John 17:5 quite differently than Wendt does. Greek grammar aside, to me John's recounting of Jesus's comment "Before Abraham was, I am" suggests John's confirmation of pre-existence (although not in the flesh) of the Son. Wendt's explanation of this comment, at p. 174, just does not hold water:

"For the saying that Abraham saw and rejoiced in
the day, that is, the earthly appearance of Jesus, the
readiest explanation if the interpretation by a
sensible seeing on the part of Abraham in the
time of his earthly life is excluded is this, that
Abraham during his earthly life saw and rejoiced in
a spiritual pre-vision of the appearance of Jesus as
the Messiah."

Wendt's error here is in presuming that Abraham's rejoicing over a prevision of the earthly Christ somehow precludes the Son's pre-existence in spiritual form. It doesn't.

You keep finding people who do not believe in the divinity of Christ, deny Him any pre-existent reality

Another set of good verses pointing to Christ as existing beforehand is this in 1 Peter 1 of how the Spirit of Christ spoke to the OT prophets beforehand.

10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to [e]us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.

***************************************************

I have been thinking how you would name Jesus before His birth, and Christ is likely a good name for Him before being born and called Jesus. As Peter uses this saying the 'Spirit of Christ', but of course you would not have called Him Jesus before His birth. Possibly the Son, Christ, God. But I also think Son is more appropriate for when He was begotten, not before that,

 

[Lambano]

That’s right. As I explained a short while ago, preexistence in Jewish monotheism is notional (sometimes also called “ideal”), not literal.

I don't know, man. John 1:3 and 1:10 attribute credit for the Creation of the universe to the Logos, and then verse1:14 identifies Jesus as a continuation of the Logos. Similarly, Colossians 1:16 attributes agency for the creation of all things to the Son. And Philippians 2:6 states Jesus existed in the "form" of God. Unless John and Paul overstepped the bounds of proper monotheism, that is a lot more than "notional pre-existence". That is active pre-existence, and those are attributes that are reserved for Israel's God.

 

[Matthias]

I don't know, man. John 1:3 and 1:10 attribute credit for the Creation of the universe to the Logos, and then verse1:14 identifies Jesus as a continuation of the Logos.

That’s right. I don’t know if you can do this or not but can you forget for a moment that you’ve ever read John 1:1-3? Can you wipe your mind free and put yourself in the place of someone who is coming to John’s Gospel for the very first time and doesn’t know anything at all about? No preconceived idea, just a blank slate? If you can, let’s try this. I’m going to give you the first three verses in John and ask you to tell me what you hear and see.

***

”In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.”

(John 1:1-3, Geneva Bible)

Read it a couple of times. Read it out loud at least once. What do you hear? What do you see?

Similarly, Colossians 1:16 attributes agency for the creation of all things to the Son. And Philippians 2:6 states Jesus existed in the "form" of God. Unless John and Paul overstepped the bounds of proper monotheism, that is a lot more than "notional pre-existence". That is active pre-existence, and those are attributes that are reserved for Israel's God.

I’ll come back to this later.

 

[Matthias]

@Scott Downey there is a common misunderstanding of Jewish monotheism among trinitarians (and among others who aren’t Jewish monotheists) -> “Jewish monotheists don’t believe the Messiah is divine.”

For Jewish monotheists who don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah that is a true statement.

For Jewish monotheists who believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah that is a false statement.

I’m a Jewish monotheist who believes Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I believe the Messiah is divine.

Non-Jewish monotheists have to be more precise in their language when speaking with a Jewish monotheist.