In this paper I seek to show that the concept of a pre-existent heavenly Messiah who becomes incarnate as a man would not be foreign to first century Jews; and that the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as an incarnate heavenly being. I am primarily concerned with the concept of conscious and personal pre-existence, namely that the Messiah really existed as a conscious person prior to the creation of the world. Socinian authors have often erroneously claimed that the concept of a pre-existent Messiah would have been foreign to the original audiences of the New Testament. For example, Buzzard and Hunting claim,
“The notion that Jesus was really alive and conscious before his birth in Bethlehem is also a very un-Jewish idea. Human beings in Hebrew thought do not exist consciously before they are born. The preexistence of souls belongs to the world of Greek philosophy and was held by some Church Fathers.”
If this is the case, then it would make their Christology seem more in line with the expectations of ancient Judaism. Conversely, if we find that first century Jews did generally have expectations of a heavenly or pre-existent Messiah, it makes the Christology of the Socinians that much more implausible. Especially in light of the many statements in the New Testament which seem to teach the pre-existence of Christ.
HIS HIDDEN HEAVENLY ABODE
The book of Enoch was known to the New Testament authors and was famously quoted by the apostle Jude. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) depict the Son of Man as a heavenly being who existed before the creation of the world. Charles dated the Similitudes between 94-79 BC but Vanderkam suggested 40 BC to 70 CE a probable range. The descriptions of the Parthians and Medes in the Similitudes strongly support a date shortly after 40 BC. (1 Enoch chapter 56) The synoptics seem aware of the Similitudes and seem to allude to it which validates dating the Similitudes prior to the first century.
“"The Synoptics contain only one detailed picture of the last judgment. In Matt. 25:31-46 the Son of Man, accompanied by angels, comes in glory, sits on a throne, and, like a shepherd who separates sheep from goats, divides humanity into two groups, one for the kingdom, one for exclusion from the kingdom. This scene, however, appears only in Matthew, and it seems to owe as much to the evangelist and to the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, where the Son of Man also sits on his glorious throne in judgment, as it owes to Jesus." (Allison, The Eschatology of Jesus, p. 282, 283.)
1 Enoch 68:27: He sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgment was given unto the Son of Man, And he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth, And those who have led the world astray.
Matthew 25:31, 32: When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
The similarities between the parables of Synoptics, especially Matthew, and those found in Enoch has been noticed by many scholars. The Book of Enoch had a great deal of influence upon Jewish eschatology and Messianic views in the second temple period. Regarding ancient Messianic views Patai wrote,
“He first appears as pre-existent in the apocryphal First Book of Enoch, which was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic about 150 BCE From that period on, the concept of the Messiah who was created in the six days of Creation or even prior to them, or who was born at variously stated subsequent dates (see chapter 3) and then hidden to await his time, became a standard feature of Jewish Messianic eschatology. In one version it is the name of the Messiah which was created in the beginning; in another his spirit or his soul; in a third, he himself was actually born and even his celestial throne was fashioned.”
It is possible that this Son of Man figure is identified with Enoch himself. (1En. 71:14) The Son of Man is said to have been hidden behind the throne of God before the world was made, until the appointed time for his manifestation to mankind.
“Elect and the Concealed one existed in his presence before the world was created and forever.” (1En. 48:5, 6)
“For from the beginning that Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High kept him in the presence of His power, and revealed him only to the chosen.” (1En. 62:7)
The Son of Man is properly a heavenly being with “his dwelling-place under the wings of the Lord of the Spirits” where he was kept hidden. (1En. 39:6; 62:6-7; 46:1-3) Long before the planets and stars were created he was “named in the presence of the Lord of spirits.” (1En. 48:2-3) This is not a mere notional or figurative pre-existence, for the Son of Man sits down upon the “throne of glory” which is beside God himself. (1En. 51:3; 45:3; 55:4; 61:8; 69:27) The Son of man judges and guides the saints, (1En. 48:4; 45:3; 49:4; 61:9; 69:27) and is given worship and honor by “all who dwell upon the earth.” (1En. 48:5; 62:6, 9) This heavenly scene echoes the scene of the anointing of Solomon given in 1 Chronicles chapter 29 where the young king sits down upon the throne of David his Father and is given worship and honor by the royal court.
"The parables of 1 Enoch as well as 4 Ezra show us that even if "the Son of Man" was not a recognizable title in Jesus' day, there was at least an exegetical tradition that identified Daniel's humanlike figure with a preexistent Messiah." (Allison, The Eschatology of Jesus, p. 292.)
There are many Jewish traditions which speak of a heavenly dwelling place of the Messiah where he is kept hidden until the last days. Paul was likely drawing on such concepts at Colossians 2:2 and other texts where he says that the “mystery hidden in ages" is Christ himself. (cf. Eph. 3:4, 9; Col. 1:26) Rabbi Akiva argued that the Messiah has his own heavenly throne which stands next to the throne of God,
“The Gemara poses another question: One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames,” and another phrase in the same verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: “This is not difficult. One throne is for Him and one is for David, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue: One throne for Him and one for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.” Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: “Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? Rather, the two thrones are designated for different purposes: One for judgment and one for righteousness.”” (Chagigah 14a)
Language of a pre-existent throne of the Messiah is also found in Pesikta Rabba 161b which says, "God beheld the Messiah and his deeds before the creation, but he concealed him and his generation underneath his throne of glory." There is a similar pre-existence of the Messiah in the apocryphal book of second Esdras which was composed in the late first century sometime after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE and depicts him as a heavenly being who will later become incarnate as the offspring of David. Ezra is given a vision of a lion and is told,
“This is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the offspring of David and will come and speak with them.” (2 Esd. 12:32)
It is said that the Messiah has been “kept” and “hidden away” by God for “many ages” until his appointed time. (2 Esd. 13:26, 52) It is also said that Ezra has been given the privilege of being assumed into heaven to live with the Messiah until his appointed time, God tells Ezra, “you shall be taken up from among humankind, and henceforth you shall live with my Son and with those who are like you, until the times are ended.” (2 Esd. 14:9) The author of 2 Esdras believed the Messiah already existed in heaven during the time of Ezra, and other saints who lived with him in heaven. With the Messiah in his heavenly abode are Enoch, Moses, and Elijah who were assumed to heaven so as not to see death. (2 Esd. 6:26, 13:52) Another work written around the same time as 2 Esdras is the Apocalypse of Baruch (also called 2 Baruch) which has the tendency to speak of the Messiah as though he already exists in heaven and awaits God’s decree “to be revealed.” (2 Baruch 29:3; 72:2) As Allison says, “Certainly Judaism was familiar with the notion that God's chief agent in the final judgment might be a character from the past who was now waiting in heaven." (The Eschatology of Jesus, p. 293) The Targum of 1 Chronicles 3:24 states “the sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah and Eliashib and Pelaiah and Akkub and Joḥanan and Delaiah and Anani, he is the King Messiah who in the future will be revealed, seven altogether.” Anani lived hundreds of years before this Targum was written and yet the author identifies him with the Messiah. This ancient practice of identifying the Messiah with a figure of the ancient past presupposes his pre-existence.
In the Midrash it is said that the spirit of the Messiah was somehow involved in the creation of the world, Bereishit Rabbah 8 interprets the “Spirit of God” in Gen. 1:2 as the “spirit of King Messiah.” The Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the OT was produced sometime in the third century BC. by seventy or so Rabbis at the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus II due to the fact that Hebrew was an almost dead language in the region. The LXX permitted Hellenized Jews and Gentiles to read the OT for themselves in a language which they understood. The LXX is not a strictly literal translation and often paraphrases in a way reminiscent of the Targums. The Septuagint translators seem to have believed in a pre-existent angelic Messiah who would be revealed before the end of the world. The LXX version of Isa. 9:6 describes the Messiah as “the angel of great counsel,” which is not a phrase found in the Masoretic. There is a clear statement of pre-existence in the LXX version of Psa. 109:3 [110:3] “I have begotten you from the womb before the morning star.” This is an explicit statement of the pre-existence of the Messiah. In Greek literature the “morning star,” εωσφόρος, refers specifically to the planet Venus, which is distinctly visible at the close of every day due to its brilliance and hence is called the “morning star” or “star of the morning.” Even before God created the planets, stars, and other celestial bodies the Messiah was already begotten. (cf. Gen. 1:16; Psa. 8:3; 2 Kgs. 23:5)
In the MT of Micah 5:2 [5:1] the text says that the “origins” or “goings forth” מוֹצָאָה of the Messiah are “from long ago, from ancient times.” The Hebrew text is somewhat vague and may be taken in a genealogical sense; as a reference to his ancient bloodline which can be traced to the house of David. The language may also signify that the Messiah himself has ancient origins and has existed from the beginning. The LXX translators evidently understood the passage in the latter sense by translating the passage, “his goings forth were from the beginning, even from the ages,” αι έξοδοι αυτού απ' αρχής εξ ημερών αιώνος. The term έξοδοι is more specific and is often used to designate the “goings forth” and travels of kings, princes and armies. (Herod. Hist. 3.14; 7.223; 9.19) The NT uses the same term to signify the travels of Jesus and his apostles. (Lk. 9:31; 2Pet. 1:15) It is also specifically used for the exodus of the Israelites from the land of Egypt and their subsequent wandering. (Heb. 11:22) Targum Jonathan which began to be composed sometime in the first century renders Micah 5:2 [5:1] this way,
וְאַתְּ בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה כִּזְעֵיר הֲוֵיתָא לְאִתְמַנָאָה בְּאַלְפַיָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה מִנָךְ קֳדָמַי יִפּוֹק מְשִׁיחָא לְמֶהֱוֵי עֲבֵיד שׁוּלְטַן עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל דִי שְׁמֵיהּ אָמִיר מִלְקָדְמִין מִיוֹמֵי עָלְמָא
“As for you, Bethlehem Ephrath, you were too little to be numbered among the tribes of the house of Judah. From you before me the Messiah will go out to be a servant, a servant of rulership over Israel, whose name has been spoken from the beginning, from days of antiquity.”
Many Pharisaic traditions, as they have been transmitted to us by oral tradition, seem to teach a literal pre-existence of the Messiah as well. The sages are reported to have taught that the “four smiths,” seen in Zechariah 2:3 are in fact “Messiah ben David, Messiah ben Yosef, Elijah, and the righteous High Priest, who will serve in the Messianic era.” (Sukkah 52b) The name of the Messiah is said to have existed before the universe,
"The name of the Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written about him: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun.” [Psa. 72:17] The name of the Messiah predated the creation of the sun and the rest of the world.” (Nedarim 39b:11)
This saying is reminiscent of 1 Enoch 48 where the Son of Man was “named before the stars,” and presented before the ancient of Days.
PREEXISTENT PROPHETS
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Priest-King Melchizedek is depicted as an angelic figure who presides over the heavenly council of spirits in Ps. 82:1, 6 as a sort of Messianic judge who will ‘deliver the Jews from the power of Belial.’ (Fragment 11Q13) The Assumption of Moses which was composed sometime before the first century is quoted in the NT epistle of Jude (1:9) and was a work known also to Origen of Alexandria who says,
“The work entitled The Ascension of Moses, a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his epistle, the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses.” (De Principiis 3.2.1.)
Elsewhere in the Assumption of Moses, the pre-existence of Moses is taught when the prophet is made to say, “He designed me and prepared me before the foundation of the world that I should be the mediator of the Covenant.” (1:14) The concept of incarnate angels seems to be found in the book of Tobit composed sometime in the third century BC. The angel Raphael claims to be an Israelite when Tobias inquires of his identity.
“So Tobias went out to look for a man to accompany him to the land of Media, someone who was acquainted with the way. He went out and found the angel Raphael standing in front of him; but he did not perceive that he was an angel of God. Tobias said to him, ‘Where do you come from, young man?’ ‘From your kindred, the Israelites,’ he replied, ‘and I have come here to work.’” (Tobit. 5:4, 5)
Raphael identifies himself as an Israelite and Tobias understands this claim literally, he exclaims, “I have just found a man who is one of our own Israelite kindred!” (Tobit 5:9) Unless we are to say that Raphael is depicted as lying to Tobias when he claims to be an Israelite, we may conclude that Raphael was telling the truth. The angel was indeed an Israelite man because he had temporarily become incarnate as an Israelite for the purpose of this meeting. The Prayer of Joseph was composed sometime in the first century and depicts Jacob as an incarnate angel who says,
“I, Jacob, who is speaking to you, am also Israel, an angel of God and a ruling spirit. Abraham and Isaac were created before any work. But, I, Jacob who men call Jacob but whose name is Israel am he who God called Israel which means, a man seeing God, because I am the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life…. Uriel, the angel of God, came forth and said that I had descended to earth and I had tabernacled among men and that I had been called by the name Jacob.” (Fragment A, 1-7.)
This work was also known to Origen as a popular Jewish fable. Origen then suggests that John the Baptist might also have been an incarnate angel. (Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis 2.25.)
JESUS AS AN INCARNATION OF WISDOM
Word and Wisdom are often interchangeable and equivalent terms in ancient Jewish thought. The apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon which is generally dated to the first century BC. uses the terms interchangeably, “O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by your word (λόγος) and by your wisdom (σοφία) have formed humankind.” (Wis. 9:1, 2) The same work describes the Wisdom and Word of God as “a kindly spirit” and a judge “who will not free blasphemers from the guilt of their words.” (Wis. 1:6) This spirit-wisdom is identified as a protector of the Israelites during their wandering in the wilderness and the source of the life-giving water from the rock. (Wis. 10:21-11:14) The NT epistles seem to accord a similar status to Christ. (1 Cor. 10:4, 9; Jude 1:5) Wisdom is also called the “only-begotten,” μονογενής of God, a title often bestowed upon Christ throughout the Johnannine writings. (Wis. 7:22; Joh. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Joh. 4:9) It is also said to save man from sin, reside among men and is worthy of honor on this account. (Wis. 6:1, 12-22; 9:10; 10:13) In the NT the Son of God likened to light, truth and life. (Joh. 1:4; 8:12; 14:6) Similarly wisdom is a glorious light, called truth and life. (Wis. 6:22; 7:10, 26; 8:13, 17; 9:18)
In the book of Enoch, Divine wisdom is sent to earth to dwell with men and bring them true knowledge of God but she is rejected and returns to heaven for she can find no place to dwell. Wisdom is ignored and rejected by men until she finally returns to heaven. (1 En. 42:1-4; 48:7; 49:3; 51:3) This same concept seems present in the book of Proverbs, where wisdom cries out in the streets but is rejected by men. (Prov. 1:20-33; 8:1-8) We find similar statements in the Synoptics about the Son of Man, who is also called wisdom and finds no dwelling place among mankind. (Matt. 8:20; 11:19; 23:7; Lk. 11:49, et al) He expresses discomfort regarding his earthly existence and longs for his work to be completed,
“O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?” (Mk. 9:19)
Regarding this saying, Nineham says, "Jesus speaks here as an incarnate deity whose human form and earthly existence are only temporary and who already has one foot in the next world.” He does not merely lament their faithfulness, but questions how long he will remain with this particular generation of humankind. Throughout the Synoptics Jesus often uses έρχεσθαι of himself and Cranfield notes that his “use of it is perhaps a pointer to his consciousness of pre-existence.”
The Wisdom of Joshua Ben Sirach, composed in the second century BC. and identifies wisdom as the first creation of God who subsequently sustains the heavens and earth in existence. (Sir. 1:4, 9; 24:9; 43:26; cf. Heb. 1:3) Here too wisdom is said to save man from sin and to reside with men. (Sir. 24:8, 22) Often in the Scriptures and Jewish writings, the wisdom of God is a mere personification of a divine attribute and is not intended as a conscious person. This is the case many times in the book of Proverbs where wisdom is personified as a reasonable woman crying out in the street corners. (Prov. 1:20; 2:2-10) It is also sometimes presented as a pre-existent spirit or Angelic being. Philo of Alexandria describes the logos as an “archangel of many names” and a “secondary deity (δεύτερος θεός)” who was involved in the creation of mankind. (De Conf. 28.146; Que. Gen. 2.62.) These should not be understood as two distinct or mutually exclusive wisdom traditions because they often overlap. Philo speaks of Wisdom and Logos impersonally as often as he describes it as an angelic being. (Que. Gen. 1.6, 11.) Evidently he made a distinction between God's personal and impersonal Logos.
In the New Testament λόγος is often applied to the Gospel (Lk. 5:1; 1 Tim. 5:17) or to any rational expression or message. (Matt. 7:24; 12:37; Mk. 9:10; Phil. 2:16) Throughout the Johannine writings, Jesus himself is referred to as “the Word” (ο λόγος) who existed with God from the beginning, who is θεός and was the mediator of creation. (Joh. 1:1-2, 10, 18; 1 Joh. 1:1-5) In the Apocalypse we read “his name is called the Word of God,” το όνομα αυτού, ο λόγος του θεού. (Rev. 19:13) Some scholars suggest Luke had a logos christology in such places as Luke 1:2; Acts 10:36; 13:26; 20:32. Here again a distinction is made between a person and an impersonal Logos. Throughout the Synoptic Gospels the sayings and deeds of wisdom are attributed to Christ himself. Christ famously says at Matthew 11:28-30:
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
These words seem to be a direct allusion to Sirach 51:23-27 where we find the same themes of labor, rest, and a kindly yoke,
“Come near to me, you who are untaught, and lodge in my school. Why do you say you are lacking in these things, and why are your souls very thirsty? I opened my mouth and said, Get these things for yourselves without money. Put your neck under the yoke, and let your souls receive instruction; it is to be found close by. See with your eyes that I have labored little and found for myself much rest.”
Christ is called Wisdom several times in the Synoptic Gospels. “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” (Matt. 11:19) Christ announced to the Jews “behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes,” (Matt. 23:34) however in the parallel account in Luke these words are attributed to wisdom, “the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles.’” (Lk. 11:49) Jesus speaks not only like Wisdom, but he is Wisdom. Tatian combines these sayings together, “Therefore, behold, I, the wisdom of God, am sending unto you prophets.” (Diatessaron 41:1) If the “prophets” sent by Christ in Lk. 11:49 were the prophets of the OT then these are direct statements of pre-existence.
A similar distinction was made by the early Christian apologists, who distinguished between the immanent Logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) which exists eternally within in the mind of God and the expressed Logos (λόγος προφορικός) who is the pre-existent Son, begotten as the “first product of the Father.” (Athenagoras, Apol. 10; Theophilus, Ad Autolychum, 2.10.) In other words, the Greek apologists possessed the concept of an impersonal logos as well as the concept of a personal Logos. The immanent Logos is understood by the apologists as a rational faculty of God himself, his literal reason which is at times conflated with his plan of creation. This immanent Logos was not understood by the Greek apologists to be a conscious person. However, at the same time they regarded the expressed Logos (λόγος προφορικός) as a conscious being, the Son of God, who was created before all else and later became incarnate as Jesus Christ. It seems that these Christian authors made a similar distinction to Philo and others who wrote before them.
CELESTIAL TITLES OF THE MESSIAH
The Messiah is often likened to the Sun, planets, and stars. An eastern star heralded his incarnation and stars will fall from heaven at his return. (Matt. 2:2, 7, 9, 10; 24:29; Mk. 13:25; Lk. 21:25) He is "the bright and morning star." (Rev. 22:16) When his kingdom arrives he acts as "the Sun of righteousness" who will shine with healing in his wings. (Mal. 4:2) The Torah described the arrival of the Messiah as “a star appearing from Jacob.” (Num. 24:17) The Messiah is given the designation צמח in the OT which is generally translated “Branch,” but the LXX gives the curious translation ανατολή which signifies “sunrise,” “dawn,” or “rising star.” (Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8; 6:12) The apparent difference in meaning is evident from comparing Jer. 23:5,
NASB | LXX |
Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch (צמח). | Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will raise up for David a righteous Dawn (ανατολή). |
There has been much discussion over the behind the LXX translators decision to use ανατολή rather than another word which would more literally signify branch, shoot, or vine. Mitchell states that the LXX simply “incorrectly rendered” the Hebrew. Lanier, I believe correctly, argues that the translation ανατολή, “sunrise,” is fully within the semantic field of צמח and expresses “the underlying sense of the metaphor: the emergence or arising of a deliverer figure.” Hence, meaning of צמח in Messianic contexts is to emerge or arise. I wish to suggest that because the LXX translators believed in a literal heavenly pre-existence of the Messiah, they interpreted this analogy as a heavenly descent. The LXX version of Isa. 9:6 describes the Messiah as "the angel of great counsel," which is not a phrase found in the Masoretic. There is a clear statement of pre-existence in the LXX version of Psa. 110:3 [109:3] "I have begotten you from the womb before the morning star." Hence, the concept is that before God created Venus and the other celestial bodies the Messiah was begotten. This concept seems repeated at Psa. 71:17, “Before the Sun his name remains,” προ του ηλίου διαμενεί το όνομα αυτού, his name will not only outlast the Sun, but precedes it. But more importantly for my purpose here is that the Gospel of Luke borrows this language and applies it to Christ.
Luke 1:78, 79: "On account of the clement mercies of our God, by which the Sunrise (ανατολή) will visit us from on high, to shine on those who are in darkness and in the shadow of death.”
Luke gives the Messiah the heavenly designation “sunrise” and directly says that he has a heavenly origin, the Messiah comes, “from on high,” that is, from heaven. Not only this, but his earthly stay is described as a “visit” or temporary stay on earth. The Messiah belongs to the heavenly realm and who remains only temporarily upon the earth to accomplish his mission before returning to the heavenly realm, therefore, his stay upon the earth is called a “visit.” This is reminiscent of Johannine sayings like John 6:62 which describe the Messiah’s return to heaven in similar terms, “What, therefore, if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was previously?” Gathercole sees in Lk. 1:78 “a strong indication of Jesus as a pre-existent Messiah.” It is noteworthy that Philo of Alexandria interpreted the ανατολή title to be a heavenly title which is properly applied to an “incorporeal being no different from the divine image.”
"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such an oracle as this: "Behold, a man whose name is Sunrise (ανατολή)!" A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider the one mentioned as consisting of body and soul. But if it is that incorporeal being no different from the divine image, then you will agree that his name Sunrise is attributed to him most appropriately. For the father of all things has caused him to spring up (ανέτειλε) as his eldest son - the one elsewhere he calls his firstborn." (Philo of Alexandria, Confusione Linguarum 62.)
The celestial descriptions of the Messiah as a “Sun of Righteousness,” “bright and morning star,” “star appearing from Jacob,” “sunrise from on high,” who was “begotten before the morning star,” are best explained in terms of a literal pre-existence.
THE “I HAVE COME” STATEMENTS AND HEAVEN
To summarize the purpose of his ministry and his general earthly mission, Christ often utilizes “I have come” sayings. He begins with the phrases, “I have come” or “the Son of Man has come,” or some equivalent phrase before stating his purpose for arrival. Such sayings are found in all four Gospels. These sayings often use the verb έρχομαι, the compound verb εξέρχομαι although in one instance παραγίνομαι is used. (Lk. 12:51) There are three such “I have come” sayings with purpose clauses in the Gospel of Mark:
“Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is why I have come.” (Mark 1:38; cf. Lk. 4:43)
“I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)
“For the Son of Man has come not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
These sayings do not specify where the Son has come from, only that he has arrived and that it is for a purpose. These sayings are significant and suggest a prior existence because they are accompanied by purpose clauses. The Son has a reason for his arrival and thereby it is implied that he had a prior conscious existence before voluntarily arriving at his destination. Because the sayings mention coming with a purpose, they imply that the arrival itself was a deliberate act, Gathercole explained,
“Specifically, because the sayings talk of a coming with a purpose, they imply the coming is a deliberate act… Hence the usual sense which one would attach to the statement “I have come to do such-and such” would be that the person was previously not carrying out the task, but has come from somewhere in order to carry it out. Furthermore, if the person is referring to his whole early activity as the goal of his coming, the place of origin is logically somewhere outside of the human sphere.”
But where has the Son of Man come from? In his commentary, Cranfield gives three possibilities for the meaning of the “I have come” saying in Mark 1:38 which provide a good framework for this study,
“είς τούτο γάρ εξήλθον. Does this mean (i) that Jesus had left Capernaum in order to exercise a wider preaching ministry in the neighbourhood; or (ii) more generally, that he had undertaken his mission with a wider preaching ministry in view; or (iii) that it was for the sake of this preaching ministry that he had come forth from God? The fact that εξέρεσθαι had just been used in v. 35 of his leaving the house in Capernaum supports (i). On the other hand Luke’s substitution of απεστάλην [in Lk. 4:43] is support for (iii), and Jesus frequently uses ‘come’ of his mission (see on [Mark] ii. 17). Perhaps the ambiguity was intentional—a veiled reference to his coming from God?”
I shall argue that the “I have come” sayings, due to their nature and context, do not refer to a local travel from one city to another and are best explained as “a pointer to his consciousness of pre-existence.” These “I have come” sayings summarize the entire earthly life and mission of Jesus. Christ does not merely refer to “coming” to a particular city or earthly location. Consider the remarkable saying at Lk. 19:10,
“The Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.”
In this saying, Christ does not mean ‘the Son of Man has gone from Galilee to Jericho to save the lost,’ rather, this is a mission statement. During his entire stay on earth, his mission is to “save the lost,” there is no local city named because there is no local city in mind. These “I have come” sayings summarize the entire earthly life and mission of Christ, therefore, these sayings describe the reason that Jesus has entered into the human realm.
“I have come to cast fire onto the earth, and how I desire it were already kindled.” (Lk. 12:49)
“Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34)
In these sayings, unlike the Markan forms, “earth” is directly mentioned. The Son has “come” to bring about particular changes on the earth, which may be taken to imply that he came from another realm into the earthly realm. In many of the “I have come” sayings in the Gospel of John this becomes explicit, the Son directly claims to have come “from heaven,” (Joh. 6:38, 42) “from above,” “from God,” and “into the word.” (Joh. 9:39; 12:49; 16:28; 18:37) There are several Johannine forms of the “I have come” sayings which are classified by Loader.
The Son of Man comes
from God (3:2; 8:42; 13:3; 16:30)
from the Father (1:14; 17:8; 16:27, 28)
from above (3:31; 8:23)
down from heaven (3:31; 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58)
into the world (1:9; 3:20; 9:39; 12:46; 18:37; 16:28)
to his own people (1:11)
At other times the Johannine forms of the “I have come” sayings greatly resemble those in the Synoptics and do not have any local reference either and do not specify location or origins. (Joh. 10:10; 12:27) The “I have come” sayings in the Synoptics summarize the entire earthly mission of Jesus as a whole in which case they would have the same meaning as the Johannine sayings which specify that the Son of Man came from heaven into the world. It has often been recognized by commentators that the repeated statements that Christ has “has come in the flesh” imply he had a real existence before his arrival in flesh. (1 Joh. 4:3; 2 Joh. 1:7) If someone has come to one place, it is implied that he was somewhere else before his arrival. Equivalently, if the Son has truly “come in the flesh,” he was not previously existing in this state but now does.
In general the “I have come” sayings in the Synoptics mirror the “I have come” sayings uttered by angelic beings in the OT and other ancient Jewish literature. The angel who visits Balaam says, “I have come as an adversary.” (Num. 22:32) The angel Gabriel said to the prophet Daniel, “I have come forth now to give you understanding.” (Dan. 9:22-23) “I have come.” (Dan. 10:12) “Do you know why I have come to you?” (Dan. 10:20) A certain high ranking spirit says to the prophet Joshua, “as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” (Josh. 5:14) In the writings of Josephus the angels often make similar “I have come” statements. (Antiquities 5:278, 280; 1:200; Jewish war 3.400.) In 2 Esdras the angels who visit the prophet Ezra say “I have come to show you the time of the night to come.” (2 Esd. 6:30) “Hear the words that I have come to tell you.” (2 Esd. 7:2) In the second book of Baruch composed in the first or second century, an angel announces to Baruch, “For I have come to tell you these things, because your prayer has been heard with the Most High.” (2 Baruch 71:3) The Gospel of Luke describes the descent of Gabriel from heaven with these words,
“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God.” (Lk. 1:26)
The phrase “from God,” uses particular language, the preposition από with the genitive object θεού. In the NT whenever this “from God,” phrase appears it describes a literal descent from heaven, either of angels, New Jerusalem, or Christ himself. It occurs four times with reference to Christ leaving the presence of God in heaven. (Joh. 3:2; 13:3; 16:30; Acts 2:22; Rev. 3:12; 12:6; 21:2) This is not to argue that Christ is an angel, but that angelic language used to describe their departure from heaven mirrors language used of Christ. The angels who visited earth in these narratives had a real pre-existence in heaven, and the same sort of language is used of Christ.
THE DEMONS
There is an interesting distinction made in Acts 19:15, where a demon says, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about,” τον Ιησούν γινώσκω, και τον Παύλον επίσταμαι, which suggests the demon had a personal acquaintance with Christ but only heard of Paul by reputation. Whether this prior acquaintance with Christ was during his earthly ministry or in the heavenly realm is vague. However, in the Synoptics the demons immediately recognize Jesus as the “holy one of God” and “the Son of God” who has authority to throw them into the abyss. (Matt. 8:29, 31; Mk. 1:24; 3:11; 5:12; Lk. 4:41; 8:31) The demonic spirits not only recognize him as the Son of God, but inquire about his coming into the earthly realm,
“What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” (Mk. 1:24)
Although exorcism was already practiced by Jews, this seemed like a new teaching (Mk. 1:27) because never before did demons express terror at seeing the exorcist. The demons immediately recognize his identity and ask the purpose of his advent. This implies that these demons had a prior acquaintance with the Son of God, and that Jesus retained his heavenly identity throughout his life on earth. It is unlikely they have in mind any local trip from one city to another when they ask, “Have you come to destroy us?” Rather, this is a recurring question in demonic encounters in the Synoptics, notably, “Have you come to torment us before the time?” (Matt. 8:29) The “time” in question being the Last Day, when the Son of Man would descend from heaven to judge those dwelling in the earthly realm. (Dan. 7:13-14) The query of the demons implies that the Son of Man has descended already, and they seek to know for what purpose. In the fourth Gospel it is directly stated that the Son of Man has already descended into the earthly realm,
“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” (Joh. 3:13)
This language of ascent and descent is reminiscent of Jacob’s ladder. (Gen. 28:12) This is no figurative ascent and descent, but is the same sort of language we find earlier regarding the Second Coming.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”” (Joh. 1:51)
At the Second Coming when the Son of Man arrives in glory, he will bring the holy angels with him. (Matt. 16:27; 24:31; Mk. 8:38; 13:27; Lk. 9:26; 12:8, 9; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 15:6-8; 16:1) At that time, the entire earth will behold the Son of Man and see “the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” Literally leaving heaven is in mind in these passages. Because John 3:13 asserts there has already been an earlier ascent and descent of the Son of Man, it is teaching a literal pre-existence of the Son.
THE LORDSHIP RIDDLE
The Synoptics all record a riddle given by Jesus concerning the lordship of the Messiah. (Matt. 22:41-46; Mk. 12:35-37; Lk. 20:41-44) The story is always told in the same general order. After a dispute with the Sadducees Jesus turns his attention to the Pharisees and quotes Psalm 110:1 then puts the question to them " if David calls Him [the Messiah] ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” The gospel of Matthew gives the most lengthy account of the event.
“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They [the Pharisees] said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies under Your feet”’? [Psalm 110:1] Therefore, if David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” No one was able to offer him a word in answer, nor did anyone dare to question him from that day onward.” (Matt. 22:41-46)
The perceived dilemma in verse 43 is that if the Messiah were merely the son of David then David ought not to call him “Lord.” In other words, there is some sort of contradiction in supposing that the Messiah is the son of David and that David also calls him lord. evidently this is because the Jewish people were a patriarchal society and Sons were naturally in subjection to their fathers. What father would ever address his own son as “my Lord?” More specifically, what kind of lordship does the Messiah have that even his own father, the great King and prophet David must call him “my Lord?” The answer to the question is answered by considering the Psalm which Jesus quotes. In Psalm 110:3 the Hebrew text is somewhat ambiguous, the final line may be understood as having the Messiah as the sole subject, hence the Masoretic text is often translated in the following manner,
עַמְּךָ֣ נְדָבֹת֮ בְּי֢וֹם חֵ֫ילֶ֥ךָ בְּֽהַדְרֵי־קֹ֭דֶשׁ מֵרֶ֣חֶם מִשְׁחָ֑ר לְ֝ךָ֗ טַ֣ל יַלְדֻתֶֽיךָ׃
“Your people will volunteer freely on the day of your power; In holy splendor, from the womb of the dawn, your youth are to you as the dew.”
But this is by no means the only possible rendering. The Aramaic Targum understands the passage to refer to the wars of the Messiah and his future offspring, evidently, seeing in it a reference to Ezek. 46:16 and Psa. 45:16.
עַמָךְ דְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל דְמִתְנַדְבִין לְאוֹרַיְתָא בְּיוֹם אַגָחוּתָא קְרָבָא תִּסְתַּיַע בְּשִׁבְהוֹרֵי קוּדְשָׁא רַחֲמִין דֶאֱלָהָא יִסְתַּרְהֲבוּן לָךְ הֵיךְ נַחֲתָת טַלָא לְרוֹחֲצָן תּוֹלְדָתָךְ:
“Your people are those of the house of Israel who devote themselves to the Torah; you will be helped in the day of your making battle with them; in the glories of holiness the mercies of God will hasten to you like the descent of dew; your offspring dwell securely.”
Jerome, who translated his Vulgate from the Hebrew, offers a somewhat different interpretation of the Hebrew text but which also refers to a primordial begetting of the Messiah.
Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te.
“With you is the principality in the day of your strength: in the splendor of the saints: from the womb before the morning star I have begotten you.”
This is by no means a novel interpretation of the Hebrew text. Several hundred years before the time of Christ, the Septuagint translated the passage in much the same way as Jerome later would.
Μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε.
“With you is dominion on the day of your power, in the majesties of your saints. I have begotten you from the womb before the morning star.”
The LXX claims the Messiah was begotten before the morning star. The Messiah is not a mere man, but he is more than a man, he is properly a Heavenly being who was begotten before the planets and stars were created. If we understand Psalm 110:3 in the same way as the translators of the Septuagint, then we have a straightforward answer to the riddle given in the Synoptics. “If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” (Matt. 22:45) He is David’s Lord because he is not merely the son of David but he is also the Son of God, begotten before the stars. This is the reason why David may properly refer to him as “my Lord.” He is a son of David according to the flesh but is also an incarnate Heavenly being who has begotten before the world. He has a Divine sonship and a human sonship. (cf. Rom. 1:3) In this way he is the son of David and he is also greater than David. In each version of the riddle, the Synoptics are quoting from the LXX version of Psalm 110:1 which only a few verses later, says that the Messiah was begotten before the morning star.
THE LAMENTATION OVER JERUSALEM
This lamentation is recorded in Matthew (23:34-39) and in Luke (11:49-52). Many commentators throughout the centuries have seen pre-existence in Christ’s Lamentation over Jerusalem which describes Christ as active in the history of ancient Israel. This would not be unusual because other texts in the New Testament depict Christ as having been active in Israel’s history. When discussing the sin of Moses and Israel surrounding the water miraculously provided by the flinty rock, Paul makes mention of Christ. (Numbers chapters 20, 21.) Regarding the rock which followed Israel and provided them with water, he says, “the rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4) When speaking merely of types or symbols Paul tends to use the present tense, he says, “Hagar is Mount Sinai,” he does not say, ‘Hagar was Mount Sinai.’ (Gal. 4:25) The present tense is used because he speaks symbolically, the mountain currently symbolizes Hagar. However, in 1 Cor. 10:4 he uses the past tense, “the rock was Christ” referring to a past state of affairs. In the wilderness, Israel put God and his angel to the test and were plagued by Serpents, therefore, Paul says, “either let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents.” (1 Cor. 10:9) Referring to the exodus, the apostle Jude says that it was “Jesus who saved a people out of Egypt.” (Jude 1:5) Such examples serve to show that it would not be unusual to suppose that Matthew and Luke portray Christ as active in the history of Israel if there is good reason for concluding this, since other Christian authors during the same period do the same.
The longer version of Christ’s lamentation over Jerusalem is found in the Gospel of Matthew. After a lengthy denunciation of Pharisaic Judaism (Matt. 23:1-33), Christ expresses despair over the historic disobedience of Israel. In past centuries Jerusalem has frequently rejected the prophets which God sent to her. The Pharisees have continued the tradition of impiety and vain religion.
“Therefore I send you prophets and wisemen and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourging your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you will fall all the righteous bloodshed on earth from the blood of a bow down to the blood of Zachariah the son of Baracael whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Amen I say to you that all of this will come upon this generation.”
The differences between Matthew and Luke are very significant here. Most agree that Luke’s version of the saying is the more primitive one and is found in Q. Matthew has exchanged the difficult Q saying “the Wisdom of God has said,” with a simple “I.” In the Lukan version Wisdom is the sender of the prophets to the Jews in old testament times. Jesus does not merely do a similar work to wisdom but he is Wisdom, he is that very same Wisdom of God who sent the prophets. Christ’s lament over the apostasy and rebellion of Israel suggests that he was present to witness it himself.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often I have desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings but you were not willing.” (Matt. 23:34-37)
The subject of these words is the same. Christ is mourning the death of the ancient prophets who were sent to Jerusalem in past centuries, but he mourns as someone who witnessed these crimes personally. These are not the words of a mere man, but of a divine being who witnessed the past sins of ancient Jeruslaem and desired her repentance. He does merely refer to his earthly ministry, but to “killing the prophets,” that is, the prophets just mentioned, from Abel to Zechariah. Jesus himself witnessed their deaths and continually desired the repentance of Israel but they were not willing. Realizing the force of these words Suggs comments,
“The saying cannot be attributed to Jesus. The sentence, "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings," is in itself sufficient proof that the metaphor requires a heavenly, indeed, a divine being… That is, Matthew successfully transfers a Wisdom saying to Jesus because for him Jesus is identified with Sophia. It is in Wisdom's person that Jesus can speak of "how often" in relation to Jerusalem, for the call of Wisdom has been heard again and again in "the prophets and those sent;" the "how often" has nothing to do with the number of trips made to Jerusalem by the historical Jesus, but with how Wisdom in every generation has appealed to men through her prophets and has not been heeded. As this figure, Jesus can say—as no merely historical individual might—" I would have gathered your children under my wings." Jesus is Wisdom incarnate.”
In other words, Jesus is identified with Wisdom in a particular way, the deeds of Wisdom in ancient times are attributed to Jesus himself which implies that he had an active and personal existence in ancient times. How could he have desired the salvation of Israel in ancient times if he did not have a personal existence at the time? There are other texts which may be cited but this is sufficient to illustrate that these wisdom sayings attributed to Jesus in the Synoptics reveal a very high Christology.
SUPERNATURAL KNOWLEDGE
The supernatural knowledge of Christ encompasses events in both the earthly and heavenly realms. His implicit knowledge of the heavenly realm is best explained if he is properly a heavenly being who retains this identity as a man. The exhaustive and at times supernatural knowledge of Jesus is displayed even in his youth. Luke reports that Jesus, at the age of twelve, left his parents to question and listen to the scribes and scholars of the temple. (Lk. 2:41-51) Even as a young child, Jesus has a special relationship with God which is displayed in his depth of theological knowledge, “ And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.” (Lk. 2:47) Jesus also displayed awareness of his unique relationship with God, "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?”" (Lk. 2:49) The meaning of this story goes beyond saying that Jesus was merely an intelligent child. His ability to converse intelligently with religious scholars at such a young age was nothing less than miraculous and was a display of supernatural knowledge.
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt. 11:27)
This not only ascribes a unique and exclusive relationship between the Father and Jesus but it also ascribes to Jesus a role in election and salvation because only by his permission can humans gain knowledge of God. During his earthly ministry Jesus claims to have a unique relationship with the Father and to possess special knowledge of God that is not available to anyone else. Only by the permission of the Son can anyone else gain access to true knowledge of God. (cf. Joh. 6:46) Christ has knowledge of whose names are “written in heaven,” who will inherit eternal life and who will not, which is a heavenly secret typically reserved for angelic beings. (Lk. 10:20) But the Son is not omniscient. In his Olivet Discourse our Lord states,
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matt. 24:36; Mk. 13:32)
First we should note the hierarchy here, that the Son outranks Heavenly beings such as the angels. One might expect that the Angels would have knowledge of the last day since they are part of God's private heavenly council. Christ is mentioned alongside heavenly beings because he also might be expected to have special insight into the Last Day. The Gospel authors then clarify that neither “the angels in heaven, nor the Son” know, but “only the Father.” The Father alone has knowledge of this event because he alone is omniscient. Hence, the implicit hierarchy is the Father, the Son and the angels. No mere earthly king like Solomon would outrank even the angels, or be expected to have access to heavenly secrets. There is also the very widely debated saying at Lk. 10:18 “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” At any rate, Christ has implicit knowledge of heavenly matters and events taking place in the divine council. He knows of the deeds of Satan when he says to the apostle Peter,
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” (Lk. 22:31, 32)
Christ knew when and what Satan had “asked” of God in the heavenly realm. Jesus has sight, and knowledge beyond that of any mere man. Jesus not only has knowledge of what goes on in the heavenly council but he also participates in it. He is capable of seeing into the minds and thoughts of those whom he encounters. (Matt. 22:18; Mk. 2:8; Lk. 6:8; 11:17, et al) In the fourth Gospel he also has knowledge of earthly events which occurred on earth at a distance. He sees Nathaniel sitting under a fig tree, although this event occurred miles away and outside of his field of vision. (Joh. 1:47-50) Jesus knows the marital history and personal life of the Samaritan woman he encounters at the well of Jacob. (Joh. 4:15-19) The ability of Christ to see events at a distance, whether in heaven and on earth, and to peer into the thoughts and lives of men are abilities beyond that of a mere human prophet.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charles Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1959)
Dale Allison, The Eschatology of Jesus from "The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism" (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2000)
Dennis E. Nineham, The Gospel of Saint Mark (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969)
Gregory Lanier, The Curious Case of צמח and ανατολή: An Inquiry into Septuagint Translation Patterns (St. Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom)
Hinckley Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912)
Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979)
Robert Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: Translated From the Editor’s Ethiopic Text (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1912)
James Vanderkam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004)
Simon Gathercole, The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 2006)
William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (New York: Peter Lang, 1992)