In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)
So now my question is: Is Jesus the son of God because he came to earth or was he the son of God in eternity before creation?
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)
So now my question is: Is Jesus the son of God because he came to earth or was he the son of God in eternity before creation?
My question is where is Jesus in the creation?
....In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God. John 1:1 [NASB]
So now my question is: Is Jesus the son of God because he came to earth, or was he the son of God in eternity before creation?
I made an edit to the above poorly expressed question, in order to better format same and give it clarity. It was then initially approved but then ultimately overruled for being too substantial, so the above is what we have to respond to, whether we like it or not. Some have already expressed their dislike, which is why the Q. was initially closed.
I have touched on this very intriguing verse a number of times before. The following answer of mine (edited for brevity) attests, in no uncertain terms, to that fact and should be taken in conjunction with what I have to say, in response to the Q. now at hand.
.......First of all, it is apparently true that Koine Greek drops the article in a prepositional phrase. It's normal and doesn't necessarily mean anything. It is the INCLUSION, of the article in a prepositional phrase, as we see in this verse, that is unusual and thus means something specific.
......In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and (a) god was the Word....
This is the literal word ordering in English of John 1:1, a,b & c, the bracketing, however, is mine. The first (definite) article is in brackets because it is implied in the prepositional phrase and not actually in the Greek, as allowed. The (indefinite) article - the one that all the controversy is about - is also in brackets, and while there, admittedly, is no indefinite article in Koine Greek, (unlike the definite article), it can also be implied, particularly when one takes into account the whole context of the prologue...see the NWT and the Emphatic Diaglott, or even Dan Evangelium, among other translations, all being fans of the indefinite.
The subject of the whole prologue is "the Word", being in the nominative, whereas " the God" is in the objective position and in the accusative. The Word is therefore more specific to the whole narrative. The "quality" of his nature, of his essence, becomes very apparent. John the Baptist is in no doubt about his qualities, or his divinity and is his ultimate witness. The "only begotten" son of the Father, the "firstborn of all creation", toward/with the Father at the beginning of the creation of all other things, beside himself, forsook his heavenly abode, albeit temporarily, becoming "flesh" and the "Son of Man" to boot, and later still the "firstborn from the dead".
Then we have a paragraph on why John wrote, John 1:1c the way he did. The fact of the matter is that John saw this second theos...as an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative, to describe the class, or category, to which the subject (the Word) belongs, NOT what he supposedly was.
We can now see that:
a) The Word, being the "only begotten" of the Father and therefore "a" legitimate son, and consequently steeped in divinity, is, by all accounts and by extension "a" legitimate "god" of the heavenly realm, just like Satan is "a" legitimate "god", of this World of ours..(see 2 Corinthians 4:4). AND, just like Satan, the Word is indeed "a" LESSER god, than the Father.
b) The Word cannot, logically, therefore be the Father.
c) The Word, while "a" god, cannot be "fully" God, and therefore is NOT the same person as the Father
Finally, John may well have been guided by a hidden entity, a hidden (spiritual) force, but let's not bring a THIRD (nameless) personage into the narrative. John was being guided, in his writing, to talk about TWO different spiritual personages, both with divinity. One being the Father, the ALMIGHTY God, the other being the SON of God. To then suggest EQUALITY here, is leading toward FANTASY. The conciseness of John's theological statement does not lend itself to fantasy; to suggest such a thing, is to undermine this absolute gem of a prologue right at the outset and belittle the unfolding SPECIFIC QUALITY of the Son.....
I personally, being a non-trinitarian am not an advocate for Jesus (the man) having become 'God Incarnate' (God in the flesh). I believe that the Word, being a totally separate spiritual personage to the Father, was the one who was manifested in the flesh.
As for when the Jesus identity came about, it wasn't until the angel Gabriel told Mary that she would have a son, whom she was to name Jesus, who would be great and would be called the Son of the most high God...
..."31)And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. 32)He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of His father David; 33)and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end."
Jesus, as befits the meaning of his name, was to become 'Jehovah's Salvation' so consequently it could be argued that the man that was Jesus, only became Jesus at his earthly birth, if indeed his baptism in adulthood, because up until then he had not embarked on the mission to be 'Jehovah's Salvation'. When he was the Word and the only begotten Son of God, he was not at that point the salvatore of the Father.
The question now should be what could the name of the Word have been, as this definition of the only begotten is merely a title, because after all, it was the names that had specific meaning. Titles were superfluous to (in excess of) one's all important name. Being the first and only spiritual being, begotten of God Himself - the Word did not beget, the Word created - then he must have been firstly, a literal Son and of the most highest order, and even have divinity within himself. ALL spiritual beings, created through the Word, were angelic. How more so would then the actual Son of God be, him being the archetype, the original spiritual being. He must therefore have been, an Archangel and seeing as there is only one Archangel named in the Bible (canon), he must have been Michael the Archangel, Michael meaning "Who is like God".
God = the Father, namely JHVH, or JHWH, which means "Causes to become".
Word = Son of God, namely Michael, which means "Who is like God".
(the) Incarnate One = Son of God, namely Jesus, which has the meaning of "Jehovah's Salvation".
So both (the) Word and (the) Incarnate One, being one and the same personage, were/was the Son of God but only that one that was incarnated, the earthly Jesus, was also the Son of Man. All CREATION was through, or by way of, Michael, the Word, the 'Master Worker' for/responsible to, the 'Architect', who is and will always be the 'Almighty Father'...see Proverbs 8:22-30, where 'Wisdom' is shown to have been originated and personified in the Word.
As for what must have happened to the earthly Jesus, well, he would most likely have reverted back to being the Archangel Michael, ready for his yet future role, when he is to stand up for his people, Jew and Gentile alike, but to all intents and purposes Jewish in spirit. 'Spiritual Israel' will be Michael's people, not literal Israel, but that's another story, for another time maybe???
Dan 12:1 [NASB]
"Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued." (bolding mine).
This same question might be asked slightly differently: "How could Christ be the Son of God at all?" Is He not an eternal Being? To answer this, I believe we need to differentiate between Christ's physical Being, His earthly body as Jesus (from Mary) and His eternal nature as God: His Spirit. Suppose we focus on the beginning of John's Gospel:
John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (emphasis added).
There does not seem to be any ambiguity regarding Christ’s eternal identity here. He is The Word. We see this same characterization of Christ in the Book of Revelation:
Revelation 19:13: “He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God” (emphasis added).
Again, we see "The Word" representing the second Person of the Godhead. It seems that, eternally, the Figure we call Christ is “The Word.” We might slightly paraphrase Revelation 19(:13) as follows: “He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and He is The Word.”
Another question that is just as profound is the idea of one Member of the Godhead "becoming" or being "begotten." How can God ever be either of these things? Well, assuming that words have meaning and God is not a god of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), there appears to be only one way out of this conundrum. That is, three Beings exist, all of the same (spiritual) nature: The Father, The Word, and The Spirit.
This will be the contentious part of my response: The only way to view Christ as the "Son of God" is historically. How can we know this? Well, we are told several times that "The Word" became flesh, that is, the self-existing Word became a human being:
John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (emphasis added).
Note the terminology: "The Word became flesh" and "[The Word] dwelt among us." If this is insufficient, the Letter to the Hebrews seems to clearly indicate that there was a specific day when Christ, the human being, was begotten. We cannot simply ignore these words:
Hebrews 1:5: “Today I have begotten You.”
To which day do you suppose God (the Father) is referring? Naturally, we must be talking about Christ’s physical birth as the baby Jesus. The incarnate God-Man, Christ Jesus, was made in God’s image, but He was far more than that. This is why “we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten…” Allow me to elucidate several passages in Scripture that speak more fully to this matter:
It seems that even as an incarnate man of flesh and blood, Christ’s cognitive Being still uniquely identified with the Father. That is because He was still God just as John 1:18 tells us. Christ was always God, eternally “The Word” and temporally Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 9:6: “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”
First, a child (Jesus, the Christ) would be born. Further, the text suggests that the fullness of the Godhead, that is the Trinity, dwelled in Christ. [Note: The "child" is identified by four specific terms, all of them characteristic of a member of the Godhead: Father, Word, or Spirit: "Wonderful Counselor" (Spirit?), "Mighty God" (Father/Christ), "Eternal Father" (Father), "Prince of Peace" (Christ).]
Colossians 2:9: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,…” (emphasis added).
The only way the "fullness of Deity" could dwell in Christ, was if He maintained a flawless relationship to the Father while on earth:
John 3:13: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven" (NKJV, emphasis added).
Fantastic! These words may explain more than we first realized.
Jesus' incarnation is a mystery which cannot be fully explained, but there are certain facts about it which are revealed. Let's see if we can piece them together in a sensible manner.
God is not a man.
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)
But Jesus was a man. And He was God. He was BOTH. He is called "Emmanuel" which means "God with us," and yet "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18). Jesus' divinity, all the fulness of the Godhead, was hidden by his humanity so that no one saw it--for if we looked upon God, we would not live.
Jesus' humanity was created.
As a man, Jesus was a created being. No human existed before Adam, and Jesus is called the Second Adam (or "last Adam"), which shows plainly that Adam was made first.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45, KJV)
To further support this fact, we have Hebrews 10:5.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (Hebrews 10:5, KJV)
A (human) body was prepared for Jesus before He came to earth. This was the body that was to hide God's glory, fulfilling the "Emmanuel" promise, in Bethlehem.
Putting those two bolded concepts together, there were two natures present in Jesus: God (pre-existent and eternal) and Man (created for God to inhabit).
Where was Jesus?
Therefore, to answer the question as to where Jesus is in the creation, one must first determine which nature one is referencing. Jesus' divine nature has always existed as God. But his human nature was prepared (created) for him well after the creation of Adam and Eve.
There is, however, another aspect to consider. God references Himself as the "I AM." As we know, He knows the future as well as if it were yesterday. He knew that sin would happen, and He had already prepared the entire plan of salvation, knowing that Jesus would come as our atonement.
We see an allusion to this plan in John 17.
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24, KJV)
We see more of this in Revelation.
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8, KJV)
The Greek here can be translated as "creation" in place of "foundation." As we know, the Lamb was not slain during creation week--so what is this saying? It is saying that God knew already that the Lamb would be slain. It was promised, even before sin had entered our world. Because the Son was promised, even from eternity, the Son can virtually be spoken of as having existed from eternity, because to God, His promise is as good as done. He does not lie; and He knows the future.
The Father is in Christ
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14:10, KJV)
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. (John 14:24, KJV)
Jesus, as God, has always existed. That is the "Word" spoken of in John 1:1. It was this "Word" which spoke all things into existence and which dwelt in Christ. As a man, Jesus has not always existed, except by promise. That is the "flesh" we see in John 1:14, and it was this flesh in which the Father dwelt and through whom He spoke (see John 14).
FOR EXTRA STUDY
No man has seen God.
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18, KJV)
In the sanctuary services of the Old Testament, God's glory (Shekinah glory) was present in the Most Holy Place, shining above the mercy seat. So that the priests ministering in the Holy Place from day to day would be shielded from this glory, a heavy veil separated between the Holy and the Most Holy Place. This veil represented the MAN Jesus Christ.
By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (Hebrews 10:20, KJV)
It was this flesh which veiled the Father's glory so that we could look upon him and live. In place of seeing God, we saw humanity, as also Isaiah 53:2-3 makes clear.
Sometimes language can confuse cause and effect.
Consider the family relationship between a son and a father.
Each son will be very much like his father, and on the average will in every way be his the physical and intellectual equal. There is really only one way in which they will consistently differ, sons defer to the authority of their fathers. As Jesus said in Luke 22:42, "… not My will, but Yours, be done".
This relationship between those we call the Son and the Father has always existed. They are identical, but one of them follows the guidance and judgement of the other.
John 10:30 "… I and My Father are one"
John 14:28 "… My Father is greater than I"
Man was created in God's image. The human family structure was also created in the image of God, with the father and son relationship echoing the relationship that exists within the God family. That human families have this relationship is why the terms Father and Son are appropriately applied to God.
That one literally became the father of the other when Jesus was incarnated symbolically illustrates this relationship. The human son and father relationship demonstrates the same relationship within God's family.
When mankind was created, the human family and its father and son relationships were created as a type of God's family and the relationship between the Father and the Son. When Jesus was incarnated, he literally became the son of God in the human sense. But the Father and Son's personal relationship, which is symbolized by the human father and son relationship, has existed for all eternity.
The terms "The Son" and "The Father" apply to God's family retroactively, to acknowledge that their relationship is the same as what human sons and fathers have.
(Note that this answer does not support mainstream Trinitarian and Unitarian doctrines.)
> "My question is where is Jesus in the creation:"
God has always been but creation had a beginning.
The beginning of God's creation was Christ.
“The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else. Jehovah possessed me - the beginning of His way, Before His works since then." (Prov.8:22-23)
What does the Hebrew word 'Qanah' (קָנָה) mean in Proverbs 8:22?
"Jehovah himself produced (qanah) me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." (Prov.8:22 - NWT)
The Hebrew word 'qanah', can mean either to "produce, acquire, create" or "possess". Context is key in finding out which one it means.
Many Bible commentators agree that the Son is referred to as wisdom personified here.
Here is another Scripture saying He is the beginning of God's creation.
"These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (Rev.3:14)
Jesus Christ came out of God.
"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist." (1Cor.8:6)
But not everyone has this knowledge.
Christ is God's image.
"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation. All of creation exist in Christ in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted." Col.1:15
I can't believe this answer hasn't been given yet, but since it hasn't, here goes: Jesus was the one doing the creating.
"1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe." Hebrews 1:1-2, NIV, emphasis added.
If you want to know where Jesus was before creation, that's a very different question and it will get you into a lot of doctrinal squabbles, but this is where Jesus was at creation according to the Bible as I understand it.
Jesus Christ is the creator of all creation. Since this is true then logically He had to have eternally existed with His Father as the Son of God.
John 1:1-3, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "WITH" God and the Word was God. Vs2, He/this one was in the beginning with God. Vs3, All things came into being By/Through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."
Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 start out with the same word, "in beginning." Or "in the beginning." The main thought of Genesis 1:1 focuses on "WHAT HAPPENED" "in the beginning." The main thought of John 1:1 is on "WHO EXISTED" in the beginning. This means that the Apostle John's beginning "antecedes" the Genesis 1:1 beginning when all was created.
Why this makes sense is supported by John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:10 by His Father, "Thou, Lord in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands."
Someone mentioned Proverbs 8:22 to prove Jesus was a created being. Some groups link this verse with Revelation 3:14 to prove Jesus was created.
"The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." The Greek word for "beginning" is arche just as it is at John 1:1. We get our English word, "architect" from that word.
An architect is a person who draws up the plans, designs, oversees, is the source or origin of something. Lastly, Isaiah 44:24 sats, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the ONE who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of ALL things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."
Since this is true, why then is Jesus Christ identified or presented as the Agent of creation at John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:10 and at Revelation 3:14? Not only did Jesus always exists, but He holds all creation together. Colossians 1:17.
Was Jesus the son of God in eternity before creation? No.
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
We should begin the simple answer to the question by actually reading the text in context.
John is not speaking of Jesus here at all. The subject is the ‘word’. Of course we could read in whatever we want, but that is not the idea of understanding what God has inspired to be written.
In the beginning was the word...
Does it say In the beginning was Jesus?
Well, no. Should we read it as if it does? If we do, we are rewriting what God has, through John, very carefully and accurately provided.
We have clear revelation about the timeline of Jesus. He is not the word until he is the result of the word made flesh v14. Now, he is the word, but by no means is he the word prior to that event.
Insisting Jesus is, 'in the beginning', is a gross error of understanding. John does gradually introduce Jesus from v 9
The true light who enlightens every man was coming into the world.
This refers to Jesus. Was the logos 'coming into the world'? Yes, as Jesus.
John eventually clearly says where Jesus came from - "the word became flesh" v14 We know when this happened, about 4BC.
Jesus is the son of God because he was explicitly conceived by the power of God, through God’s spirit and Mary.
That’s it, it’s no more complicated than that as the scriptures plainly reveal.
There is no scriptural evidence of a pre-existing Jesus. There is no 'person' called the logos. 1John 1 points this out very clearly.
That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we have gazed upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life— 2and the life was made manifest, and we have seen and bear witness, and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us. v1-2
Does it sound like John is speaking of a 'person' here? The person is Jesus who is "the life was made manifest". WHEN did that happen? 4 BC.
"was revealed to us", again this is Jesus John is speaking of - when he appeared in the world for the first time as a baby boy.
The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the son of God. Luke 1:35
That's the first mention of the 'revealing', the 'manifesting' of this new, holy, son of God. Of course, apart from sketchy prophecy, there is no mention of Jesus prior to this. To insist otherwise is just making stuff up.
If he is the son of God eternally or a God the Son, we are not told. To grant Jesus a pre-existence before his birth is to read in more than God has provided and to ignore the whole NT which explains him being a man only.
'the grace of one man' Jesus Rom 5:15, ‘a man approved of God’ Acts 2:22 ‘One God, one mediator, the man Jesus’ 1Tim 2:5, ‘God will judge the world through a man He has appointed' Acts 17:31, ‘you are looking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God’ John 8:40.
Is Jesus the son of God because he came to earth? No.
Jesus didn't 'come to earth' from anywhere. He was born of God's spirit and Mary as explained earlier, and thus began the son of God we know as Jesus, the Christ.
It's very clear who Jesus is as described by scripture. There is no mystery, no contradictions, no need to make anything up, no unnecessary creeds - the inspired word of God is all we need.
It’s quite bizarre that so many extrapolate scripture to make it mean anything they want. The answers here are good examples of bending scripture to suit various dogma - they cannot all be right. If we adhere to the simple revelation we won’t need to be jumping to false conclusions. Sadly, that seems a very difficult thing to do. The 3 DV's without a shred of constructive dispute, reveals a resistance to the simplicity of the word and slavish support for a tradition not of God.
If Jesus has a God - which he has expressed as the fleshly man and the ascended man, then he cannot be God to the rational mind.