10 Min.
By the pre-existence or pre-human existence of Christ I refer to the concept that Jesus of Nazareth existed before his human life as a divine spirit. The term "pre-existence" is not found in the Bible, it is merely a term which is used for the sake of convenience. But it does express a Biblical concept. In a similar way the term "Unitarian" is found nowhere in scripture, but it used for the sake of convenience. It is possible to affirm the pre-human existence of Christ without undermining monotheism if the Son came into existence at some point in the finite past. This kind of pre-existence is found an ancient Jewish writings like the Book of Enoch and the Prayer of Joseph. Many early Christian authors, believed that Jesus existed before his human life as a spirit. In the Second Epistle of Clement, an anonymous first century homily, the author says, "Christ, the Lord who saved us, became flesh, even though he was originally a spirit." (2Clem. 9:4) Therefore the doctrine I am presenting to you is not a later development like the Trinity but is a concept present in the earliest ancient Christian literature.
There is also the concept of notional or ideal pre-existence, where figures are said to exist in the mind or plan of God before their human lives. A notable example is Eph. 1:4 which says, "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." It is said that the saints were chosen before the foundation of the world. This does not mean that the saints had a conscious pre-existence with God before creation, rather they existed in the mind and plan of God, and in this sense Paul says they were chosen before the foundation of the world.
Now, consider carefully the words of John 17:5, where Jesus said the following in prayer, "And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Three things are evident about the glory mentioned in this verse.
(1) Jesus "had" this glory, (2) at a subsequent time, he did not have the glory, (3) and he is requesting to be given the glory he once had.
(1) It is obvious that Jesus previously possessed this glory, because he refers to it as "the glory which I had." (2) He also did not have this glory at a subsequent time, because he speaks of it in the past tense, "the glory I had," not 'the glory I have.' (3) Moreover, Christ asks to have this glory returned to him—he does not ask to be given a new glory which he had never experienced before, rather he asks to be given what previously had with the Father before the world was. These three things could only be true if Jesus had a literal pre-human existence. If Jesus were referring to a notional pre-existence, to glory which was eternally predestined in God’s mind or plan, then he would always have this glory in God’s plan he would not be asking for it, he would always have this glory. But the glory mentioned in Joh. 17:5 is glory that he once had with the Father, before the world was, and wishes to have returned to him. This could only be true if he actually existed with God before the world was, and gave up this glorious position to become human.
At Joh. 8:56 Jesus told the Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." In Joh. 8:58 the present tense εἰμι is used to express a state of existence which began at an earlier period and continues to the present. The grammar is exactly what we would expect if Christ were claiming to have existed since the time of Abraham. This would provide a direct answer to the question about his age.
In many places, Jesus speaks of his ascension to heaven as though he were already there previously.
Joh. 6:62 "What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?"
Joh. 13:3 "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God."
John 16:28 "I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father."
When Christ ascended into heaven he was not going there for the first time. He came forth from God and was returning to him. He was ascending where he was before. What is the simplest way of understanding these statements? He previously lived in heaven, alongside the Father and was returning there.
There are also very many passages which teach that Jesus Christ was involved in the creation of the universe. (Joh. 1:3, 10; 1Cor. 8:6; [Eph. 3:9]; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12) Historically, Socinian authors have said that these passages refer to the new creation. But this cannot be the case for many of these examples, consider Heb. 1:10-12, which says regarding Jesus,
"Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they will perish, but thou remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end.""
Notice that the heavens and earth mentioned will perish, grow old like a garment, and be rolled up like a mantle. These descriptions could not apply to the new creation because the new creation will last forever and will never be brought to ruin. (2Pet. 2:11; Dan. 2:44) Therefore this passage teaches that Jesus was involved in the creation of the physical universe. Recall that Genesis 1:26, God said "let us make man in our image," this establishes that at least one other person besides the Father was involved in the creation of the world. Would it not be reasonable to say that he was speaking to his only begotten son?
Now, some may object that Isaiah 44:24 says that God the Father 'stretched out the heavens alone,' and this is true. But consider that Psalm 72:18 says that "God alone works wonders" and yet God worked "wonders" and miracles through the apostles and prophets. (Matt. 21:15; Acts 2:22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 14:3; 15:12; Rom. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4) When Psalm 72:18 says that God alone works wonders it means that God alone is this source and originating cause of such wonders—it does not mean that God cannot work wonders through others. Equivalently, when Isaiah 44:24 says that the father alone stretched out the heavens, this is not in contradiction with the belief that God did this through his son Jesus.
With regard to John 1:1 I will not explain the usual grammatical arguments because I am sure that most Unitarians are already aware that the passage may validly be translated as "the Word was a god." In the third clause θεός is singular, anarthrous and pre-verbal, and may be rendered as indefinite, "a god," rather than "God" is possible. There are many examples of the same grammar found elsewhere which vindicate this kind of translation. (Acts 28:4; Joh. 4:19, etc.) Are we really to think that the apostle John referred to an impersonal plan as "a god"? Throughout every other occurrence in John's writings, his Gospel, three epistles and Revelation, he never once uses θεός to refer to an impersonal plan for concept. He always applies the term to persons. And why did so many in the early Church understand the Logos as a person if John meant to signify the plan and purpose of God? We have no record of any author in the first three centuries who says the Logos of John's prologue is an impersonal plan. Even if one wishes to be Unitarian, he must admit that the Logos is likely to be a person if he is a god.
It is sometimes argued that Jesus could not be truly human if he had a pre-human existence, or that he could not be a descendant of Abraham. These objections have a hidden assumption. This hidden assumption is God could not cause a spirit to become a human descendant of Abraham. But surely that is not reasonable. If God wished to cause an angel, or some other creature to become a human being, he has the power and authority to do so. At Matt. 3:9 says, "God is able, from these stones, to raise up children for Abraham." If God could cause even stones to become children for Abraham, surely the Word could become flesh. (Joh. 1:14) Or are we to say that it is impossible? It seems to be a very bold claim to say that God is incapable of doing such a thing. Surely, if God purposed to do such a thing he could bring it about.