Arians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are among those who believe that Jesus was somehow created or came to be at some point before the rest of creation. That is, they believe Jesus “preexisted” his human existence, so we’ll refer to them here as “Preexisters.” The idea of literal preexistence did not originate with the apostles. The problem, quite simply, is that people have been spoiled by the philosophical and pagan ideas of preexistence so that they do not accept the biblical truth of God’s utter foreknowledge.

Irenaeus (ca. AD 120–200) was one of the best witnesses outside of the Bible, and within early Christian writings, against the preexistence doctrine. He wrote against those same ideas that Tertullian (ad 160–220) adopted and reintroduced. Trinitarians today hold many of the same beliefs that were once only Gnostic but were made “acceptable” by Tertullian. Unlike Tertullian, Irenaeus refuted, rebuked, and rejected Valentinus’ “projection of one thing [god] out of another.” Although Irenaeus was writing against the antichristian Gnostics, his words apply equally well to these same ideas when held by Tertullian, Trinitarians, Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or anyone else who believes the Son of God literally existed before the rest of creation.

If, again, they affirm that that (intelligence) was not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, beyond him who emits it. In the next place, this (intelligence) being sent forth, both that Logos who springs from Him will still be within the Father, as will also be the future emissions proceeding from Logos…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13, par. 6.

Here Irenaeus was talking about the Gnostic idea of God-Persons, who were “emitted” (begotten) from the Father and yet remained within the fullness of the godhead (or pleroma). Irenaeus pointed out how superfluous that would be. If they didn’t have anywhere to go, in what sense were they begotten? If they didn’t go out from the godhead, what was the point in their being begotten?

It would be like a pregnant mother saying her baby was born while it was still in her womb. You can’t have it both ways. Certainly a baby is conceived and has life before birth, but birth speaks of a specific event in the baby’s life. Either the baby is born, or it’s not; but it isn’t yet born while it remains in the womb. First, it would suffocate! Second, it hasn’t become its own breathing self yet. This is how ludicrous the Gnostic antichristian projection of one thing out of another within the godhead was to Irenaeus. Consequently, he stated that he did not believe in a son that was born before the rest of creation. Likewise, Jesus was neither “conceived” nor born until the time he was “made of a woman, made under the law.” There was no mother who also preexisted in heaven whose egg would have been impregnated, and so forth. What did “preexist” was simply God’s “plan,” his logos/word that was part of who God was.

So those who teach that Jesus somehow literally, personally preexisted the rest of creation need to explain into what expanse Jesus was born, who his mother was, and whether David preexisted also since Christ was made of David’s offspring. Of course such ideas are as nonsensical as the idea of literal preexistence itself and confirm Irenaeus’ contention against the whole idea. For if Christ didn’t have a mother and wasn’t ever really “born” (in the sense of “emitted” or emerged from a womb, since he never would have left the Father as in the Gnostic view), how is it not superfluous (to use Irenaeus’ word) to say he was born?

The real issue is that the Son prophesied in the Bible was to be, exclusively, an offspring of David. Any merging of pagan ideas of incarnations of God and the like would identify such a one as not being the Messiah of biblical prophecy.

When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before you: your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:12–16)

Clearly, God’s Son was defined here, by God Himself, as the offspring of David that would proceed out of David’s body. If Jesus preexisted his human life, then so must have David (which didn’t happen). This shows how that both David and Jesus only “preexisted” in God’s plan, or foreknowledge of His Son, but not in reality.

The Biblical Concept of God Calling Things That Are Not As Though They Were

The biblical principle that “Preexisters” ignore and fail to take into account is simply that “God… calls the things that are not, as though they were” (Romans 4:17). This verse agrees with this next one: “…I am God… declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9–10).

Scholars call this biblical figure of speech by several names; for example, the “prophetic perfect (tense),” or “Already–not yet.”

For example:

In the Hebrew and Aramaic idiom in which the Bible was written, when something was absolutely going to happen in the future, it is often spoken of as if it had already occurred in the past. Hebrew scholars are familiar with this idiom and refer to it as “the prophetic perfect,” “the historic sense of prophecy,” and the “perfective of confidence.” Students studying Semitic language and thought sometimes call this idiom, “here now, but not yet” or “already—not yet.” Unfortunately, the average Christian has no knowledge of the idiom. This is due to the fact that in the vast majority of the cases in which it appears in the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, the translators have not done a literal translation into English, but have actually changed the tense. Thus, the “prophetic perfect” is rarely apparent in English Bibles. –Author not provided, “The Prophetic Perfect,” accessed 1/29/2017, www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-prophetic-perfect.

So, what is unknown to average Christians, but commonly known to scholars who read the Scriptures in their original languages, is that prophetic statements in the Bible often speak in the past tense.Thus it would be incorrect and unlearned to claim that Romans 4:17 only applies to one, solitary incident. Rather, it is a generality for a quite common figure of speech in the Bible. In fact, as one writer points out…

We find in the Bible that a great deal of prophetic utterances are not written in the future tense, but rather, are written in the PAST, or PRESENT tense. This is why many prophecies are considered to have already taken place. This has resulted in error, confusion, and bewilderment. Hopefully, this composition will clear up any misunderstanding caused by the inappropriate uses of English grammar—to wit, using past and present tenses in our Bibles instead of the future tense. Tom L. Ballinger, “Prophecy: Past Or Present Tense?” accessed 1/29/2017, http://www.plainerwords.com/artman2/publish/2007/Prophecy_Past_Or_Present_Tense.shtml

So then, in the original languages, the Bible has quite a number of instances of God calling those things that are not as though they were. The writings linked above provide many more examples. When God speaks in such figurative language, we need to understand that He isn’t lying; rather, He is simply emphasizing to us the point that what He has settled to come to pass in the future, will come to pass with the utmost of certainty.

Let’s take a look at a small sampling of prophecies that would appear to be lies if we didn’t view them through the knowledge of “God calling those things that are not as though they were”…

A shoot will come out of the stock of Jesse, And a branch out of his roots will bear fruit. (Isaiah 11:1)

In the original language, this literally states “And a rod hath come [past tense] out of the stock of Jesse.” If we were to take this passage literally, it would be saying that the Messiah had already come out of the stock of David centuries before Jesus was born. Did the prophet lie here and the KJV translators cover up the error? No, the KJV translation has attempted to fix a problem for us by changing the language from the prophetic perfect to a future tense. But an attempt to fix one area has created an inordinate amount of confusion in another area: understanding, recognizing, and accepting God’s idioms and figures of speech!

There are many more examples in both testaments that could be provided, but we will limit them here. Take, for example, this next passage and consider the way in which God speaks to Moses. Clearly, in giving Moses instructions, God is using language that calls things that had not happened yet as though they already had:

¹⁶Go, and thou hast gathered the elders of Israel, and hast said unto them: Jehovah, God of your fathers, hath appeareth unto me, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, I have certainly inspected you, and that which is done to you in Egypt; ¹⁷and I say, I bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt… ¹⁸And they have hearkened to thy voice, and thou hast entered, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye have said unto him, Jehovah, God of the Hebrews, hath met with us; and now, let us go, we pray thee, a journey of three days into the wilderness, and we sacrifice to Jehovah our God. And I — I have known that the king of Egypt doth not permit you to go, unless by a strong hand. (Exodus 3:16–19, YLT)

If we read this passage out of context, it gives the impression of being something that God said after Moses had already gone and spoken to the elders of Israel. But in fact, this was the way God spoke to Moses before he even left to go back to Egypt. If you were to reread the passage in the Bible, the context would be obvious: Moses is speaking to God in the famous burning bush incident. This is where God was initially giving Moses direction on what he was to do.

This fact leads us to the internal indicator in the above passage. Note the very first word, go. That word is an imperative, a command to Moses. So in this passage we actually have a conflict of tenses: first an imperative indicating what Moses is to do in the near future, and then the past tense, when God declares to Moses what he will do.

When we compare the way this text literally reads, as above, with how it is most often translated in our English Bibles, we can see how our translators have taken their liberty to attempt to clear things up for us. But in doing so, by masking God’s actual figures of speech, they have clouded our understanding, which in turn causes unwary and unlearned people to stumble in other areas.

Notice that all the past tense speech in the original language has been rendered into future tense:

¹⁶“Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and tell them, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, ‘I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt; ¹⁷and I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt…’’ ¹⁸They will listen to your voice, and you shall come, you and the elders of Israel, to the king of Egypt, and you shall tell him, ‘Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Now please let us go three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to Yahweh, our God.’ ¹⁹I know that the king of Egypt won’t give you permission to go, no, not by a mighty hand.” (Exodus 3:16–19, WEB)

When we continue the passage in the literal interpretation, we can clearly see, by Moses’ response to God, that this conversation was taking place before Moses left God’s presence to return to Egypt. That is because Moses has questions about what to do if things don’t go as expected:

And Moses answereth and saith, ‘And, if they do not give credence to me, nor hearken to my voice, and say, Jehovah hath not appeared unto thee? (Exodus 4:1, YLT)

Repetitive expressions occurring as a pair is called a “couplet.” This is a poetic device that is common in Semitic languages. Sometimes couplets are paired with mix tenses. When tenses are mixed in pairs of passages regarding the same topic, this can be a good indicator of figurative language mixed with literal, because we can’t actually have the past tense and the future tense occurring simultaneously except in God’s foreknowledge.

Further along in their conversation, we see another example of God mixing an imperative tense with a past tense:

²¹And Jehovah saith unto Moses, “In thy going to turn back to Egypt, see — all the wonders which I have put in thy hand — that thou hast done them before Pharaoh, and I — I strengthen his heart, and he doth not send the people away.” (Exodus 4:10, YLT)

The mixing of tenses are the key, in addition to the context of the conversation.

Now let’s look at a few more samples provided in E. W. Bullinger’s book, Figures of Speech Used In The Bible Explained and Illustrated, (Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing, 2011, reprint of 1898). The parenthesis are found in the source:

Heb. ii:7.– “Thou hast made (i.e., Thou wilt make) him for a little while less than the angels.” For this prophecy was spoken of Christ long before, in Ps. viii. (page 519).

Heb. iii:14 We have been made (i.e., we shall become) partakers of Christ, if we hold, etc. (Page 519).

Mark ix:31.–The Son of man is delivered (i.e., will be delivered) unto the hands of men. (Page 521).

2 Pet. iii:11.–Seeing that all these things are (i.e., shall be) dissolved. (Page 521).

Here’s how Bullinger explained these:

The Past for the Future. This is put when the speaker views the action as being as good as done. This is very common in the Divine prophetic utterances: where, though the sense is literally future, it is regarded and spoken of as though it were already accomplished in the Divine purpose and determination: the figure is to show the absolute certainty of the things spoken of… nearly all the prophecies are thus written. E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used In The Bible, 518–521.

Or, as the Bible says, God calls things that are not as though they were!

The Son Was Born in Process of Time

When the Bible defines Christ’s birth, it is defined as occurring in the process of time in our world. There is never an “explanation” given of an incarnation of a preexistent son of God.

The idea of the “couplet” was mentioned above. This is the key to understanding and identifying when the prophetic perfect is being used. It is important to keep in mind that the “couplet” doesn’t have to be within the context of the event being described in the past tense, or even adjacent to it.

Understanding and accepting the concept of the couplets used with the prophetic perfect helps us to understand how the Bible seems to talk of Christ as both preexisting and also being born in process of time.

The wrong way of interpreting the Scriptures, which people often resort to, is to jump to pagan ideas of actual, literal preexistence. But, again, no Scripture goes into such types of explanations. And that is why understanding the use of the prophetic perfect, and the use of the couplets in the Bible, is the way to show that a non-literal-preexistent view of Christ is the only true biblical position.

These next verses should be used as the couplets to verses that appear to present a preexistent Christ. These verses are the “it is written again” Scriptures that neutralize the jumped to conclusion of a literal preexistent Christ:

For to which of the angels did He say at any time, “You are my Son, Today have I become your father?” and again, “I will be to him a Father, And he will be to me a Son?” (Hebrews 1:5)

I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, “You are my son. Today I have become your father. Ask of me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, The uttermost parts of the earth for your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron. You shall dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Now therefore be wise, you kings. Be instructed, you judges of the earth. (Psalms 2:7–10)

These two verses explicitly assign a point in time to Christ’s sonship and the Father’s fatherhood: “Today I have become your father.” Note that the writer of Hebrews contrasts the prophecy from 2 Samuel (above) with the exclamation of God that “today I have become…” This again shows that the time of the Son had a beginning that came after David.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law. (Galatians 4:4, KJV)

Here we have yet another passage that tells us the Son was made when the time came and that he was made of a woman. He was also made “under the law,” which tells us two things: he was made during the period that the law was in force; and secondly, he was made according to the law. God was legally wed to Israel and had every right to have a child by His legal “wife” (Jeremiah 31:32).

And finally, we know that Jesus wasn’t made and didn’t exist before his birth (in Bethlehem by his mother Mary) because the Bible explicitly tells us so:

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45–47).

Saying, “That which is spiritual isn’t first, really should settle the matter.

Those Scriptures explicitly teach that the Son was made in the process of time and did not literally preexist his human existence. It was not until being human that he “became a life-giving spirit.”

The problem people have in accepting these Scriptures is that they have been spoiled by the pagan doctrine of literal preexistence and have not come to the understanding of God’s awesome power of foreknowledge and the use of the “prophetic perfect.” That is, when they read the passages where Jesus appears to preexist his human life, they aren’t reading them in the context of God calling those things that are not; rather, they read them in the context of the pagan idea of God’s coming to earth in the form of man. This is exactly what “being spoiled by philosophy” means. This topic was covered in Chapter Sixteen of this book.

Christ Had Faith, and Faith That is Seen is Not Faith!

Another point that does not harmonize with the literal preexistent Christ theory is the fact that Christ had faith in God and was tempted in all things just as we are. This topic was covered in many places, such as Chapters Six and Fifteen. Essentially, in no way could Christ have been tempted as we are in all things if he hadn’t had the same faith as we have. Faith is the substance of things not seen. If Christ had been alive even for a moment in eternity before coming to this earth, then his obedience would not be the obedience of faith; rather, it would be the obedience of having seen God firsthand. That would mean every saint of God that ever lived would have had more faith than Christ himself! The idea is utterly foolish and would practically make void the whole basis of Christianity. That’s how wrong, bad, and evil this doctrine is!

All of this is why, when the apostles preached Christ on the day of Pentecost, they preached him as a man who was foreknown of God, not a man that preexisted his human existence.

²²Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you… which God did by him… even as you yourselves know, ²³him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed… (Apostle Peter, Day of Pentecost, Acts 2:22–23)

¹Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen ones… ² according to the foreknowledge of God the Father… ¹⁸ knowing that you were redeemed… ¹⁹…with precious blood, as of a faultless and pure lamb, the blood of Christ; ²⁰ who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times… (1 Peter 1:1–2, 18–20)

Note carefully that “foreknowledge” is a biblical word that was used in preaching the Christ. The word “preexistence” is not a biblical word; in fact, it is nonsensical. To preach a literally preexistent Christ is to preach a different Christ than the apostles preached him to be. That in itself is a very grave error.

I fear, lest… your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! (2 Corinthians 11:3–4, NKJV)

The preexistence doctrine is, therefore, a doctrine that is “against” the true Son of God and should not be either preached or supported!

Another fine article that helps refute the idea of a preexistent Christ is J. Dan Gill’s article on Philippians 2:5–8. J. Dan Gill, “21st Century Reformation Commentary: Philippians 2:5–8,” accessed 1/29/2017, http://www.21stcr.org/21stcr_commentary/phil2_5-8-page3.html.

 Print This Post