Introduction
Our modern world is decidedly confused. On the one hand, the
rationalistic, humanistic viewpoint dominates within our public
education system. We are now taught to question the validity of
anything that can be called "supernatural." The very idea that
someone might believe in miracles, revelation, etc., is opened up to
direct ridicule. At the same time, in a direct reaction against
this kind of dry humanism, many people are fleeing for refuge into
every kind of spiritistic group imaginable. "Channeling" (a fancy
way of saying a spirit medium) is very popular, and the Eastern
ideas of reincarnation and mysticism are drawing converts from every
walk of life.
In the midst of all of this confusion we find the Bible, continuing
to proclaim the timeless message of Jesus Christ. Yet even the Lord
Jesus has come in for modern "updating" in many men's writings.
After a century of "searching for the historical Jesus" men
(hopefully) have discovered that outside of the inspired writings of
the apostles in the New Testament, we will not find much information
on who Jesus was. Indeed, unless we see that it is illogical and
irrational to reject the Scriptures for what they claim to be2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21. we
will never have much to say to our world.
Today it is normal for "Christian" theologians to de-emphasize the
doctrinal aspects of the Person of Jesus Christ. Since rationalism
and naturalism are the modes of the day, it is unpopular to deal
with the clear Biblical teaching of the deity of the Lord Jesus and
his pre-existence. The person who looks to the Bible, however, has
little choice in the matter - the doctrine is clearly stated both in
the Gospels as well as the epistles, and indeed it is implicit in
most of the New Testament.
One cannot easily disassociate the doctrine of the pre-existence of
Christ from that of his deity, as they are part and parcel of the
same teaching. An in-depth discussion of the deity of Christ is
outside of the realm of this paper, and it will be assumed that an
understanding of the main elements of this doctrine are shared with
the reader.This writer sees the following passages as directly ascribing to
Jesus Christ the term God: Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew: Elohim) John 1:1
(Greek: theos), 1:18, 20:28, Acts 20:28 (depending on text), Romans
9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1 and (possibly) 1 John
5:20. Interestingly, in reference to Titus 2:13 (and 2 Peter 1:1 -
both similar syntactical constructions) Chrysostom ("Homily IV on
Philippians in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers volume 13, pg.
207) clearly understood the implications of the syntax of Titus
2:13, and bases part of his polemic against the Arians on the
application of theos to Christ. See also A. T. Robertson, The
Minister and His Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1977), pgs. 61-68.
This discussion will be limited to the focal passages found in the
New Testament that deal with the pre-existence of the Lord Jesus.
For our purposes these are as follows: John 1:1-3, Colossians
1:15-17, and Philippians 2:5-7. Each of these passages have much in
common, as we shall see in our examination of them, both in an
exegetical understanding, as well as in patristic interpretation.
It will be relevant to a discussion of the early Church's views to
discuss the order of writing of the books which contain our primary
data on the pre-existence of Christ. Generally, the Pauline
epistles are dated anywhere from the late 40's to the late 60's of
the first century. The majority of scholarship sees Paul's writings
preceding John's by quite some time, and there is general agreement
concerning the order of Paul's letters and their place in
history.F. F. Bruce Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1977) p. 475) places the epistles
of Paul in the following order: Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 &
2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon,
1 & 2 Timothy, Titus with Galatians at 48 A.D., Colossians and
Philippians in 60-62 A.D., and Paul's death in approximately 65 A.D.
This is almost identical to A. T. Robertson's ("Paul the Apostle" in
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1956) vol. 3:2265-2266) order of
writing, with the exception of Galatians, which Robertson places
just before Romans. See also Ralph Martin, "Colossians and
Philemon" in The New Century Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) pg. 30 on the dating of
Colossians. The question of the exact date of John's gospel,
however, is not so easily resolved. Merril C. TenneyMerril C. Tenney, "John" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981) vol. 9, pp. 9-10. notes that
modern estimates range from 45 to beyond 100 A.D. Part of the
problem can be found in the fact that during what might be called
the "hyper-critical" period of the last century, it became quite
popular to deny the Johanine authorship of the Gospel of John, and,
due to its high Christology (which the rationalists assumed had to
be a mythological invention of the early Church) place it at least
into the second century. Modern textual finds (such as the famous
P[75]) have demolished any ideas of a second-century date for John,
and today the dates normally fall between A.D. 85 and 95.Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church , (Grand Rapids:
Wm B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1985) vol. 1:721-724 gives a
good argument for Johanine authorship, and dates it before 100 A.D.
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1932) vol. 5:1 dates John at A.D. 90. James
Iverach, "John the Apostle" in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company,
1956) vol. 3:1721-1722 also dates John at end of first century. What
is very important to notice about the fact of the early (i.e.,
non-second century dating) is that the Christology of John is,
therefore, no different than that of the early Church as the book
was written during the same time period! Indeed, there is no way for
there to have been sufficient time for such "myths" to have evolved,
and, it is not logical to think that John would have written about
certain events that could be proven false by living witnesses! With
these facts in mind, we can move on to the actual exegesis of these
passages.
Exegesis of Principal Passages
The Prologue of John (1:1-18) is unique in Biblical literature. It
is clear that the main point of John is not the person of God. His
emphasis is the identity of the Word. The Logos is the central
figure of the work, and the teaching of the passage is that the
Logos is intricately involved with the creation of the universe.
The pre-existence of the Logos is clearly stated and assumed
throughout the prologue.
Much has been said concerning the origin of the term logos. PhiloG. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, (London:SPCK, 1952),
pp. 124, 141. Ralph Martin, "Colossians and Philemon" in The New
Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company, 1973) pg. 58.
used the term, yet the logos of Philo is simply an impersonal
manifestation of the Wisdom of God. John's usage of the term may
indeed borrow from Philo (especially if John wrote the Gospel while
in Ephesus, as the Greeks would be able to understand the term), but
he goes far beyond anything Philo dreamed of. Rather than a
pantheistic, impersonal divine emanation, the Logos of John is a
personal, eternal being who is not simply a part of creation, but is
rather the Creator himself. The first verse itself must be examined
to be understood. Transliterated into Greek the verse reads: En
arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho
logos. The verse breaks down into three clauses, each being vital
to the whole. The first thing to notice is the fact that the
imperfect form of eimi is used throughout the prologue in reference
to the Logos. This tense, attached to the phrase "en arche" is
timeless - i.e, as far back as one wishes to push the "beginning"
the Word is already in existence. This is seen, for example, in the
translation of the New English Bible which renders it, "When all
things began, the Word already was." Today's English Version puts
it, "Before the world was created, the Word already existed..."
Hence, the first phrase clearly presents the eternality of the Word
and hence his pre-existence.
The second phrase presents the inter-personal relationship of the
Logos and God. The Greek phrase pros, translated "with," refers to
the existence of communication and fellowship between the Logos and
theos.A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) pp.
625f. See discussion in A. T. Robertson, The Divinity of Christ in
the Gospel of John (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1976) pp. 34-46. The word was used to describe being "face to face" with
another. Now, unless John had added the final phrase ("and the Word
was God") there would have been a problem here, as the first phrase
clearly presents the Logos as eternal, while the second demonstrates
his distinct personality. This would create polytheism without the
final phrase's emendation. At the same time, this second clause
ends any chance of Sabellianism's success.
The final phrase, kai theos en ho logos, presents a syntactical
arrangement in which the term theos is emphasized. At the same
time, the sentence is copulative, and the presence of the article
with logos simply sets it out as the subject of the sentence. Much
has been said concerning the lack of the article with theosSee F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) p. 31, or Leon Morris, The
Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company, 1971) pg. 77 for a discussion of some of the issues
involved in the translation of this phrase. Most noteably, the New
World Translation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
mistranslates the phrase as "the Word was a god." but
that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Basically, the
construction 1) avoids modalism (i.e., the Word is not said to be
completely co-extensive with theos) and 2) teaches that the Word has
the same nature as God (a point that Paul will reiterate in
Philippians). Verse 3 links the eternality of the Word with
creatorship. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing
was made that has been made." John here is intent on separating the
Logos from the realm of the created - he started in the very first
phrase by asserting his timeless existence and continues here by
attributing to the Logos all of creation, an item that will reappear
in Colossians. The only possible way to interpret these verses is
to see the Logos as an eternal being who created all things.
The prologue continues by identifying the Logos with the person of
Jesus Christ in 1:14. It is interesting to note that John very
carefully differentiates between the Word in his absolute nature and
all other things. When the eternal Word is in view, John uses en.
When created things are being discussed (such as John in 1:6), the
aorist egeneto is found. However, when we come to the time event of
1:14 (i.e., the incarnation), John switches from the timeless en to
the aorist egeneto - the Word became flesh at a point in time in
history. Finally, in 1:18,On the text of John 1:18 and the superiority of the reading theos
over huios, see Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the New
Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) p. 198, A.T.
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 5:17. For citation
of manuscripts, see the UBS text, 3rd ed. corrected, p. 322. John seals the case by calling Jesus
the "only-begotten God," or, more accurately, the "unique God"For the true meaning of monogenes see J.H. Moulton and George
Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm B.
Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1935) pp. 416-417.
who reveals the Father, who "exegetes"Greek: exegesato, to lead out, bring forth, make known, explain. God to man. These verses
with which John begins his gospel are meant, in my opinion, to form
an "interpretive window" through which the reader is meant to look
at the words that follow. One must constantly keep the Logos in the
back of the mind when interpreting the words and actions of
Jesus.For an interesting discussion of the relationship of the
Prologue to the rest of John, see John A. T. Robinson, Twelve More
New Testament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1984) pp. 65-76. Much of what Christ says must be understood in this light
to even make much sense! His unique relationship with the Father is
intelligible only in the light of his eternal pre-existence with
him. Equally significant are Jesus' own "I am" sayings found in John
8:24, 8:58, 13:19 and 18:5-6. Though there is some discussion
concerning the use of the phrase ego eimi in this absolute
sense,Philip B. Harner, The I Am Sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of
John, (Fortress Press, 1970). these passages clearly show an intentional aspect to
Christ's words relevant to his identity. In both 8:58 and 18:5-6,
John takes pains to make sure the reader understands the impact of
Christ's words on his hearers. In 13:19 we find an extremely close
parallel to the LXX rendering of Isaiah 43:10, here applied to
Christ by himself. One can hardly escape the significance of the
Hebrew term ani hu as used by Isaiah, and its Greek translation as
ego eimi. Since Christ purposefully utilized these phrases of
himself, it is safe to say that he was claiming for himself the
title of the "I Am" - the eternal one, YHWH. The other two texts
fall outside of the realm of the Gospels, though they must reflect
very early teaching of the Church, and therefore are just as
important as the Johanine passages in determining the Scriptural
basis of the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ. Both Pauline
passages are vital, and both come from very different contexts. The
first to be examined (Colossians 1:15-17) comes from a book that
seems to contain within it a polemic against gnosticism (or,
possibly, "proto-gnosticism"), while the second (Philippians 2:5-7)
comes from a book that is conspicuous for its lack of polemic.
Colossians 1:15-17 is considered by some to be an early Christian
hymn.Ralph Martin, "Colossians and Philemon" pp. 55-57; F. F. Bruce,
Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free pp. 418ff. For further
information on the passage as well as exegesis, see John Calvin,
Calvin's Commentaries vol. 21:151-152. Its structure most definitely resembles the poetic style
of a song, and one can find it easy to see how Paul would utilize
song to teach doctrine in the churches. The principal verses
relevant to our discussion of pre-existence form the first half of
this passage - the second discusses the pre-eminence of Christ in
redemption and in the Church.
In vs. 15 the pre-existent Christ is styled the "eikon tou theou tou
aoratou" - the express image of the invisible God. One can easily
see the parallel between this and John's description of Christ as
the unique God who "exegetes" the Father (1:18). In Christ the
invisible God became visible to man. Attendant to this, Paul
describes Christ as the prototokos - the firstborn.See Wilhelm Michaelis, "Prototokos" in Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company, 1982) vol. 6:872ff. The main
meaning of "firstborn" is the one who has pre-eminence, and indeed,
the Hebrew term which prototokos translates in the LXX (bekhor) is
not connected with either the ideas of protos or tokos.See M. Tsevat, "Bekhor" in Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1975)
vol. 2:121ff. On prototokos see entry in Walter Bauer, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature edited by Gingrich and Danker, 2nd ed. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 726. Hence,
the pre-eminence of Christ is the point of prototokos, and, as the
following verses will make very clear, there is no temporal idea of
generation or creation found in this passage relevant to Christ.
Verses 16 and 17 exhaust the Greek mind in their rush to include all
of creation in the realm of the power of Christ. Nothing is left
out by Paul at this point. His use of the phrase ta panta is
absolute, and to make sure that everyone realizes this, he lists the
elements that make up the panta. J. B. LightfootJ. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and
Philemon, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959) pp.
150-151. See also pp. 151-153 on the extent of ta panta. well comments:
"All the laws and purposes which guide the creation and
government of the Universe reside in Him, the Eternal Word,
as their meeting-point. The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos
teaches us to regard the Eternal Word as holding the same
relation to the Universe which the Incarnate Christ holds to
the Church. He is the source of its life, the centre of all
its developments, the mainspring of all its motions...The
Judeo-Alexandrian teachers represented the Logos, which in
their view was nothing more than the Divine mind energizing,
as the topos where the eternal ideas...have their
abode...The Apostolic teaching is an enlargement of this
conception, inasmuch as the Logos is no longer a
philosophical abstraction but a Divine Person..."
In this divine person all things "hold together" or consist. This
divine person is said to be "before ta panta - all things." There
is no clearer passage in the Bible concerning the fact that Jesus
Christ, the eternal Word, created all things. There is no room here
for the gnostic pleroma in which Christ is but a part - no, here
Christ is seen as the Creator Himself who holds the universe
together by his own power. The pre- existent Christ shines brightly
in Paul's mind, and forms the basis for his teaching of the
relationship between Christ and the Church. Note also the harmony
between Paul and John on this point.For other views and discussion on Colossians 1:15-17 in a
theological setting, see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology
(Inter-Varsity Press: USA, 1981) pp. 344-352; George Eldon Ladd, A
Theology of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's
Publishing Company, 1974) pp. 419-421. The third passage to be
examined comes from Paul's letter to the church at Philippi. It,
too, is hymnic in structure, and is set off as such by the New
International Version. The major section comprises what is actually
a sermon illustration of Paul's in reference to his admonition to
the Philippians to act in humility of mind toward one another. To
support this point, Paul points to the person of Jesus Christ as the
ultimate example of this attitude. Indeed, it is vital to
understand the immediately preceding context when some phrases
within the passage are encountered, as we shall see. The first
phrase of verse 6 sets the tone for the theological discussion to
follow. Paul says that Christ was "existing" (huparchon) in the
"form of God" (morphe tou theou). What does this mean? The
participle huparchon is again "timeless" in that it does not point
to any moment when Jesus "started" to exist in the form of God -
Christ has always been in the form of God. And what is the morphe?
It is that quality or characteristic which makes something what it
is rather than what it is not. God is known by his morphe, and no
other being has his form. The NIV picks this up by translating the
phrase, "who being in very nature God..."
Paul is here looking back before the incarnation to the pre-existent
state of the Lord, and says that in that state the Lord Jesus shared
with the Father the form of God. Not only this, but he goes on to
say that the Lord had "equality with God" and yet did not regard
that equality something to be "grasped." Much has been written on
just how to take the term harpagmon.Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology pp. 342-352; George Eldon
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament pp. 419-421; Henry Alford, New
Testament for English Readers, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1983) pp. 1262-1264; Kenneth Wuest, "Philippians" in Word Studies in
the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company, 1981) pp. 62-65; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to
the Philippians, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953) p.
137. After plowing through a
large portion of the material representing various views, the
interpretation given by ChrysostomSee discussion under patristic interpretation. and followed by LightfootIbid.
seems to be the only logical outcome and is the one that best fits
the context of the passage. Basically, this view sees the word
harpagmon referring to the fact that Christ, though already equal
with the Father, did not regard that equality something to be held
on to at all cost, but, as the ultimate example of humility, laid
his privileges aside for our sakes and "made himself nothing." This
fits the context of the passage, that of walking in "humility of
mind" for how can it be an example of humility for Christ to not
desire equality with God if he did not already have it? Not trying
to become equal with God is not humility - it is simply not
committing blasphemy.Both the Authorized Version and the New International Version
see that the term kenosis is always used metaphorically by Paul -
hence, the translation "to make of no repute" or to "make himself
nothing." It is never used by Paul of a literal "emptying."
We have now seen three passages that clearly present the Lord Jesus
as having had a personal, distinct existence before his incarnation
and earthly life. This existence is seen to be personal, and to be
connected with distinctive acts such as creation and intimate
fellowship with the Father. His pre-incarnation life is also seen
to have been eternal, and not temporal as that of a creation. Given
this fact, how did the early Christian Fathers view this doctrine?
To this we now turn.
Patristic Interpretation
As we have seen, the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is
explicitly stated in the New Testament documents, and is implicit in
much of the story of Jesus as well as the teaching of the Church
about his person. J.N.D. KellyJ.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Longman Inc.,
1981) pp. 87, 91..cw 9 notes this, and given all of
this data, it seems incredible that anyone today could still
maintain that the doctrine is based on the reflection of the Church.
Such "mythologizing" takes more time than the documents now allow.
The Apostolic Fathers do not give us a great deal of information on
Christology proper. Hence, the information to be found on this
particular aspect of the doctrine of Christ will also be scant.
There are still, however, some interesting facts. Ignatius gives us
one of the most eloquent statements concerning the early Church's
view of Christ in his letter to the Ephesians, 7:2:
"There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit,
generate and ingenerate (gennetos kai agennetos) God in man
(en anthropo theos), true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son
of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our
Lord."
The duality of the Lord's nature (God/man) is clearly seen in
Ignatius, and is repeated in his letter to Polycarp, 3:2:
"Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the
Invisible, who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable,
the Impassible, who suffered for our sake, who endured in
all ways for our sake."
Pre-existence is not just implied but clearly stated in this
passage, attributing to Christ eternality, and seeing the
incarnation as the point in time at which God broke into human
history for the sake of man. It is significant that Ignatius calls
Jesus Christ "God" 14 times in his letters.
Discussion of John 1, Colossians 1 and Philippians 2 was fairly
limited in the early Fathers' writings, most probably due to the
fact that the Arian controversy was still future, and the church's
main enemy at that time was gnosticism and docetism, neither of
which would require a strong statement of the pre-existence of
Christ, at least by itself. Paul is attacking gnostic ideas in
Colossians, but even the gnostics believed in some kind of
pre-existence for Christ. Irenaeus exegeted John 1:1 against the
gnostics in Book V of Against Heresies, chapter 18,Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1981)
vol. 1:546. and did as
Paul did and pointed out that Jesus is the Creator not a part of the
creation.
The introduction of Arianism drew the attention of the Church back
to the Person of Christ and his relationship with the Father.
Origen's synthesis of Greek philosophy and its idea of the Divine
Wisdom with Christian doctrine had laid the groundwork for Arius'
denial of the absolute deity of Christ and, thereby, the denial of
the eternal pre- existence of the Lord Jesus. John's filling of the
eternal Logos with personality was reversed somewhat, and the
timeless en of John 1:1 seemingly was lost in the shuffle.
It is no surprise, then, that the Church Fathers after Nicea spend
much more time on John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, and Philippians
2:5-7. The Nicene Creed had clearly stated the Deity of Christ as
well as his pre-existence.For the text of the Nicene Creed, see J.N.D. Kelly, Early
Christian Creeds, (New York: Longman Inc., 1981), pp. 215-216 and
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1985) vol. 1:27-28. The six decades that followed saw a
resurgence of Arianism and, after great struggle, the victory of the
Nicene faith. During that time the great Athanasius wrote volumes in
defense of the deity of the Son. Chalcedon reaffirmed Nicea and
went farther in attempting to answer the questions concerning the
relationship of the divine and the human in Christ.Schaff, Creeds of Christendom vol 1:30.
The body of writing of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers is large
indeed. The series edited by Schaff takes up 28 large volumes
alone. Hence, to overview all of this literature would be far
beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, the three main exegetes
of the century after Nicea - Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Augustine -
will be examined, briefly, to determine how they understood the
focal passages listed above.
Chrysostom:
Of the three Fathers I have chosen to look at, Chrysostom (345- 407)
expressed the clearest if not the most in-depth understanding of the
doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ. Chrysostom was called the
"golden-mouthed," and this passageJohn Chrysostom, "Homilies on St. John" in The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1980) vol. 14:8. on John 1:1 should explain
why:
"For the intellect, having ascended to `the beginning,'
enquires what `beginning': and then finding the `was' always
outstripping its imagination, has no point at which to stay
its thought; but looking intently onwards, and being unable
to cease at any point, it becomes wearied out, and turns
back to things below. For this, `was in the beginning,' is
nothing else than expressive of ever being and being
infinitely."
Chrysostom's point is the same as made previously on the basis of
the imperfect en in 1:1 - it is timeless. A little later he adds,
"...(the) first `was,' applied to `the Word,' is only indicative of
His eternal Being..." In the same manner, he keys on the term pros
as well, saying "For he does not say, was `in God,' but was `with
God': declaring to us His eternity as to person. Then, as he
advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this
`Word' also `was God.'"Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 14:12. The eternality of the Word was one of
Chrysostom's main ideas in his exegesis of John 1, and he repeatedly
stressed the concept.Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 14:18. His entire
exegesis found in pages 10-19 is excellent.
Nor did Colossians 1:15-17 escape Chrysostom's notice. Keying on
verses 16-17, he attacked the gnostic concept of the creation and
its duality by pressing the list of things created by Christ,
claiming that obviously Paul was including all of creation under the
Son's reign.
"...the subsistence of all things depends on Him. Not only
did He Himself bring them out of nothing into being, but
Himself sustains them now, so that were they dissevered from
His Providence, they were at once undone and destroyed."Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 13:271.
Most importantly, Chrysostom contributed greatly to the
understanding of Philippians 2:5-11. He wrote:
"What does Paul wish to establish by this example? Surely, to
lead the Philippians to humility. To what purpose then did he
bring forward this example? For no one who would exhort to
humility speaks thus; `Be thou humble, and think less of thyself
than of thine equals in honor, for such an one who is a slave
has not risen against his master; do thou imitate him.' This,
any one would say, is not humility, but arrogance!...If he were
exhorting servants to obey the free, to what purpose could he
bring forward the subjection of a servant to a master? of a
lesser to a greater?"Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 13:207-208.
The point has already been made (in the exegesis section) that the
understanding of Paul's exhortation to humility is, in this writer's
opinion, the key to understanding the passage, and here Chrysostom
makes this point quite well.
Athanasius:
Rightly called the great defender of the Nicene faith, Athanasius
possessed a keen insight into the central doctrines of Christianity.
Like Augustine after him, Athanasius saw Philippians 2:5-7 in close
connection with John 1:1. In his "Four Discourses Against the
Arians", Discourse II,Athanasius, "Four Discourses Against the Arians" in The Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers (series II) ed. by Philip Schaff (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1980) vol. 5:409. he ties John 1:1, 14 together with
Philippians 2:6 as his main Scriptural support of the deity of
Christ. To Athanasius, John's eternal Word existing "with" God and
being God is the same as Paul's pre-existent Christ eternally
existing in God's form and being equal with him.
Similarly, Athanasius quotes all of the Carmen Christi and then
says, "Can anything be plainer than this? He was not from a lower
state promoted; but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a
servant, and in taking it, was not promoted but humbled
Himself."Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4:329. This view of the eternally existing Christ is found
also in his "Statement of Faith"Athanasius, "Statement of Faith" in Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 5:85. in which he says,
"All things to wit were made through the Son; but He
Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: `In Him
were all things created, and He is before All' (Col. 1:16).
Now He says not, `was created' before all things, but `is'
before all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to
all things, but `is before all' applies to the Son only."
One final quote from Athanasius should be sufficient to represent
his interpretation of this doctrine:
"Therefore if the Word be creature, He would not be first or
beginning of the rest; yet if He be before all, as indeed He
is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow
that He is beginning of all things as to His Essence, for
what is the beginning of all is in the number of all. And
if He is not such a beginning, then neither is He a
creature, but it is very plain that He differs in essence
and nature from the creatures, and is other than they, and
is Likeness and Image of the sole and true God, being
Himself sole also. Hence He is not classed with creatures
in Scripture..."Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5:375. See
also 5:382.
Augustine:
Augustine wrote a great deal on John 1:1 and Philippians 2:5-7, but
very little on Colossians 1:15-17. Quite frequently the two
passages are quoted together. Augustine's "Homilies on the Gospel of
John" provides plenty of information on his views of the
pre-existence of Christ as revealed in John 1.Augustine, "Homilies on the Gospel of John" in The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers series I, edited by Philip Schaff, vol. 7:7-13.
Augustine also connected the idea of pre-existence with the absolute
usage of e go eimi at John 8:21-25; in vol. 7:218-219. However, we will
look more at the doctrinal sections of Augustine's writings. In his
"Enchiridion" he wrote:Augustine, "Enchiridion," in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
vol. 3:249.
"Wherefore Christ Jesus, the Son of God, is both God and
man; God before all worlds; man in our world: God, because
the Word of God (for`the Word was God'); and man, because in
His one person the Word was joined with a body and a
rational soul. Wherefore, so far as He is God, He and the
Father are one; so far as He is man, the Father is greater
than He. For when He was the only Son of God, not by grace,
but by nature, that He might be full of grace, He became the
Son of man; and He Himself unites both natures in His own
identity, and both natures constitute on Christ; because,
`being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be,'
what He was by nature, `equal with God.' But He made
Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of
a servant, not losing or lessening the form of God. And,
accordingly, He was both made less and remained equal, being
both in one, as has been said: but He was one of these as
Word, and the other as man. As Word, He is equal with the
Father; as man, less than the Father. One Son of God, and
at the same time Son of man; one Son of man, and at the same
time Son of God; not two Sons of God, God and man, but one
Son of God; God without beginning; man with a beginning, our
Lord Jesus Christ."
This passage is one of manySee also Augustine, "On Faith and Creed" in The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers vol 3:322-323, 329. that could be cited, but it
admirably sums up Augustine's view-point for our purposes.
A Modern Viewpoint: The Westminster Confession The Westminster
Confession is hailed by many as the greatest theological creed since
the Reformation era, and so it is. A lengthy discussion need not be
put forth to demonsrate the harmony between Westminster and the
Scriptures, creeds, and Fathers already cited. The Confession
itself, Chapter VIII "Of Christ the Mediator," sections I-III should
be sufficient to demonstrate the acceptance of the doctrine:
"I. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and
ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the
Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King;
the Head and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things,
and Judge of the world; unto whom he did, from all eternity,
give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time
redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. "II.
The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very
and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the
Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon
him man's nature, with all the essential properties and
common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived
by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and
distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were
inseparably joined together in one person, without
conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very
God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between
God and man. III. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus
united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the
Holy Spirit above measure; having in him all the treasure of
wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all
fullness should dwell;..."Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3:619-620.
The greatest of the Protestant creeds clearly bases its high view of
the Lord Jesus Christ on the fact of the Scriptural revelation of
his eternal pre-existence with the Father, in the very form of God.
This writer sees any movement away from the clear stance of
Westminster (reflecting Biblical teaching) as a move away from
truth.