According to the general ancient usage that we are concerned with, a Spirit is a personal and incorporeal being who exists beyond the physical realm but has the power to interact with it. To an ancient Jew, examples of such spirits would be angels, cherubim, seraphim, dominions, demons, gods, and so on. In the first century onward the concept of a preexistent and heavenly Messiah was already standard among the Jewish commentators.
A common feature of early Christian Christologies is the belief that the Son has a kind of twofold existence since the incarnation. When the Messiah becomes human he does not cease being a spirit, but takes on flesh. He is at once human and divine, flesh and spirit, thereby he retains his heavenly identity as a man. Hence the Son is properly a spirit who becomes fully human. I wish to prove that this sort of Christology is not a later development that was present in the earliest centuries of the church and the passages in the New Testament which directly refer to Jesus unequivocally as a Spirit are best explained in these terms.
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; 1 Tim. 3:16, et al) If someone has come to one place, it is implied that he was somewhere else before his arrival. God, “sent his son, born of a woman,” (Gal. 4:4) “God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom. 8:3) The confession that Christ “was manifest (ἐφανερώθη) in the flesh” or “revealed in the flesh,” implies a prior existence before his manifestation. (1 Tim. 3:16) The Son existed prior to being revealed or manifested in the flesh. This language from the New Testament was understood also by early Christian authors to signify the pre-existence of Christ. In the second century, Ignatius recognized the Son as “both flesh and spirit,” having a twofold existence since the incarnation.
“There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it—Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ephesians 7:2)
Especially noteworthy is his distinction between the divine and human sonship of Christ, he is “from Mary and from God.” This distinction was explained in greater detail in his epistle to the Symernaeans,
“Firmly established in love by the blood of Christ, totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with regard to human descent, Son of God, with respect to divine will and power, truly born of a virgin.” (Smyrnaeans 1:1)
To Ignatius, Christ is the son of David with regard to his human descent and at the same time Son of God by divine will and power. He has both a human and a divine sonship.
“For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary, in God’s plan being sprung both from the seed of David and from the Holy Spirit.” (Ephesians 18:2)
This same sort of distinction between the human and divine sonship of Christ is also made in Romans 1:2-4 which Ignatius seems to have in mind,
“He promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:2-4)
The fleshly descent of Christ proves his lineage from David while his resurrection proves his divine Sonship. Paul describes Jesus as the son of God, and also “of the seed of David according to the flesh.” His twofold sonship, human and divine, implies a twofold existence, spirit and flesh. Ignatius wrote, “Jesus Christ, who before the ages was with the Father and was manifest (εφάνη) at the end of time.” (Magn. 6:1) The preexistence of Christ is taught in the second century epistle of Barnabas, which says,
“He is Lord of the entire world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.” How, therefore, could he submit to suffer at the hand of men?… For the scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.”” (Barn. 5:5; 6:13)
Therefore, Barnabas certainly intends to communicate the incarnation when he says, “the Son of God came in flesh,” “was manifested (φανερωθήναι) in the flesh,” “has come (ήλθεν) in the flesh.” (Barn. 5:6; 5:10, 11; 12:10; 7:37) Such expressions echoing the words of 1 John 4:2, “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” and 1 Tim. 3:16, “He was manifest in the flesh.” Barnabas further describes the incarnation as a voluntary action on the part of the Son, “it behooved Him to appear in flesh, that He might abolish death.” (Barn. 5:6) In the second century Shepherd of Hermas, Jesus is not named but is referred to only as “the Shepherd.” Origen suggests that the author of the Shepherd was authored by the same Hermas mentioned in Romans 16:14. The incarnation appears to be implied when Hermas says,
“The holy pre-existent Spirit (το πνεύμα το άγιον το προόν), that created every creature, God caused to dwell in the flesh which He chose. This flesh, therefore, in which the holy Spirit dwelt, nobly served that Spirit, walking in holiness and purity, in no respect defiling the Spirit.” (5.6.5.)
To this we may add the testimony found in the Second Epistle of Clement, which is neither an epistle nor was it authored by Clement of Rome, but it is a second century homily likely preached in Alexandria in opposition to early gnostic schools. The anonymous presbyter preached to his Church,
“Christ the Lord who saved us, though He was first a Spirit became flesh, and thus called us, so shall we also receive the reward in this flesh.” (2 Clement 9:4)
The Son began his existence as a spirit and later became flesh—contrary to the docetae who denied that the Lord Jesus was truly incarnate as a man. In his exposition of the resurrection Paul refers to the Son as a “life giving spirit.”
“So also it is written: “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam was a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.” (1 Cor. 15:45-47)
The apostle contrasts the origins of Adam with the origins of Christ. The first Adam began his existence on earth, but “the second man is from heaven.” The first Adam was created from the dust but the second Adam, Christ, had origins in another location, he is “from heaven.” Christ began his existence as “a life-giving spirit.” If literal origins are not in view here then there is no contrast between these statements. Again, elsewhere the apostle says,
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. But we all, with unveiled faces, looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:17, 18)
The particular “Lord” mentioned here is Jesus himself, not the Father, as is clear from an examination of the surrounding context. There is a spiritual veil which remains upon the hearts of the Jews, due to their vain observance and repetitions of Torah. (2 Cor. 3:13) This veil is “removed in Christ.” (2 Cor. 3:14) Therefore, “whenever someone turns to the Lord [i.e. Christ] the veil is taken away.” (2 Cor. 3:15, 16) To turn to the Lord is equivalent with turning to Christ which results in the removal of the veil. Christ is “the Spirit” who takes away the veil of the old covenant. The apostle does not merely say that the Lord Jesus is like a Spirit, or that he may be considered to have a spiritual influence, but that “the Lord is the Spirit.” The Son just is the Spirit. But this does not undermine his humanity, for he is both Son of God and Son of David, flesh and spirit, divine and man. (Rom. 1:3, 4)
A similar thought is expressed by Peter, who says that it was the “Spirit of Christ” who guided the prophets, “the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.” (1Pet. 1:10, 11) This implies that Christ had a real existence during the time of the prophets. How could “the Spirit of Christ” be upon the prophets if Christ did not yet exist? Equivalently, the expression “the Spirit of Elijah” would have no meaning if Elijah did not yet exist. (2 Kgs. 2:15) To say that the “Spirit of Christ” was upon the prophets demonstrates that Christ's presence and influence were not limited to his earthly ministry but extended back thousands of years into the time of the prophets.
Early Christians had a tendency to search for types, or symbols of their Lord in the Old Testament, these included identifying persons, objects, and events in narrative situations with Christ himself. The book of Numbers tells the story of how Moses struck a rock with his staff and caused fresh water to flow from it, sustaining the hosts of Israel on their journey through the Canaanite desert. (20:1-13) In Pharisaic tradition, it is said that the rock struck by Moses no longer remained stationary, but miraculously followed the people during this journey giving each “a drink of water at the door of his tent.” (Targum Jonathan, Num. 21:19) The tradition of the mobile fountain of water seems to be known to Paul,
“And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4)
Many might suggest that Paul had only a typological meaning in mind. But notice that Paul uses the past tense “that rock was Christ” rather than saying “that rock is Christ.” It is the custom of Paul to use the present tense when he speaks allegorically, he says, “Hagar is Mount Sinai” not “Hagar was Mount Sinai.” (Gal. 4:24-25) Robertson argues,
“Of much more importance is the unquestionable evidence of the apostle’s belief in the pre-existence of Christ. He does not say, ‘And the rock is Christ,’ which might mean no more than, ‘And the rock is a type of Christ,’ but, ‘And the rock was Christ.’ In Gal. 4:24, 25 he uses the present tense, Hagar and Sarah ‘are two covenants,’ i.e. represent them, are typical of them. Similarly, in the interpretation of parables (Matt. 13:19–23, 37–38) we have ‘is’ throughout. The (ἦν) implies that Christ was the source of the water which saved the Israelites from perishing of thirst; there was a real Presence of Christ in the element which revived their bodies and strengthened their faith.” [1]
In the Wisdom of Solomon, divine Wisdom personified, a “kindly spirit,” who was the source of the water from the Rock. (Wis. 1:6; 11:4) Wisdom is said to have delivered Israel from Egypt, and afterwards punished the rebellious Israelites among the camp as a “stern king.” (Wis. 11:10) Philo teaches “the abrupt rock is the wisdom of God, which being both sublime and the first of things he quarried out of his own powers, and of it he gives drink to the souls that love God.” (Leg. All. 2:86) Jude may intend a similar implication when he says,
“Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all duly informed, that Jesus who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)
The reading which mentions “Jesus” is the best supported textually and is adopted in the NA27 and by the SBLGNT. Metzger wrote the following regarding it,
“Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (Α, Β, 33, 81, 322, 323, 424c, 665, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2298, 2344, vg, copsa, boeth, Origen, Jerome, Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88, 915), a majority of the [United Bible Societies] Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight [...] Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστὸς in 1 Cor 10.4).”[2]
Even if one were to prefer the reading κύριος, it is still likely that Jesus is intended, the title κύριος is applied far more to Jesus than to God in the New Testament. [3] It would be far more plausible for the “Lord” in verse five to refer to the same figure mentioned previously in verse four, “our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
[1] Archibald T. Robertson, and Alfred Plummer, wrote in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, published in New York, and Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961, pp. 201; Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume IV., The Epistles of Paul (New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931), pp. 151, 152.
[2] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament (Federal Republic of Germany: Biblia-Druck GmbH Stuttgart, 1975), pp. 723, 724. Emphasis added.
[3] Watson E. Mills, Roger A. Bullard, Mercer dictionary of the Bible (Macon Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998), pp. 520-525.