Jesus the Man Before John !

[brightfame52]

That the Lord Jesus Christ was a Man before the incarnation and birth out of the virgin Mary, is seen when we carefully weigh the words of John the Baptist here Jn 1:29-31

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Now notice in Vs 30 the phrase "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."

The object here is a man, and John states these 3 things about this particular man, That this man comes after him, and is preferred before him, and he [the man] was before him !

Now we know from other scripture that John the Baptist in regards to his physical birth by his Mother, that he is six months older than Jesus and so , in that regard John is not speaking of. Lk 1:34-36

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

But John does acknowledge that Jesus Christ was a Man before Him.

In fact, when John said the he was preferred before him, that word is the greek word ginomai and means:

I.
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

II.
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen

John knew that The Man Jesus Christ was that Man of God's Right Hand, the Son of Man Ps 80:17

17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.

Also in connection with that, John knew that Christ, the Man coming as a Bridegroom for His Bride Jn 3:29

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Now Jesus was the Man Christ Jesus, the Mediator between God and Men before the foundation 1 Tim 2:5

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Now for this to be True, Adam , who was the beginning of Men, had to have the Man Christ Jesus as the Mediator between God and Men !

 

[Runningman]

That the Lord Jesus Christ was a Man before the incarnation and birth out of the virgin Mary, is seen when we carefully weigh the words of John the Baptist here Jn 1:29-31

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Now notice in Vs 30 the phrase "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."

The object here is a man, and John states these 3 things about this particular man, That this man comes after him, and is preferred before him, and he [the man] was before him !

Now we know from other scripture that John the Baptist in regards to his physical birth by his Mother, that he is six months older than Jesus and so , in that regard John is not speaking of. Lk 1:34-36

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

But John does acknowledge that Jesus Christ was a Man before Him.

In fact, when John said the he was preferred before him, that word is the greek word ginomai and means:

I.
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

II.
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen

John knew that The Man Jesus Christ was that Man of God's Right Hand, the Son of Man Ps 80:17

17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.

Also in connection with that, John knew that Christ, the Man coming as a Bridegroom for His Bride Jn 3:29

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Now Jesus was the Man Christ Jesus, the Mediator between God and Men before the foundation 1 Tim 2:5

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Now for this to be True, Adam , who was the beginning of Men, had to have the Man Christ Jesus as the Mediator between God and Men !

I like this, but one point for consideration in regards to your last statement. Paul said concerning Jesus that he is the second man, the Lord from heaven, in the KJV.

1 Cor. 15
47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

So it would seem unanimous that in regards to the origin and destination of Jesus, whether a man from heaven or a man taken to heaven who stands mediating between God and men, that Paul did say Jesus is the second man, yet Adam is the first man. Can we rightly say Jesus pre-existed if he wasn't the first man, yet he was still a man from heaven?

What I believe is that this must be in regards to Jesus being a man sent by God (John 3:13, John 6:38, John 16:28, John 17:3, Acts 3:26, Galatians 4:4-5) just like John was sent by God (John 1:6) and it is the True Light who gives light to all men (John 1:9.)

 

[Who Me]

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”from heaven.

All John would see is a man walking along the river bank, it was all the multitudes saw, was a man.
Yet as John so clearly said " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it."
Jesus made everything, that means he is not a made or created thing, further more he came to atone for our sins. If he was a made or created being he too would be a sinner.

 

[brightfame52]

Runningman

Paul did say Jesus is the second man

Thats in regards to manifestation. Jesus was a Man first but only He resided in heaven 1 Cor 15:47

47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Jesus has the preeminence in all things.

 

[Hopeful 2]

That the Lord Jesus Christ was a Man before the incarnation and birth out of the virgin Mary, is seen when we carefully weigh the words of John the Baptist here Jn 1:29-31

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Now notice in Vs 30 the phrase "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."

The object here is a man, and John states these 3 things about this particular man, That this man comes after him, and is preferred before him, and he [the man] was before him !

Now we know from other scripture that John the Baptist in regards to his physical birth by his Mother, that he is six months older than Jesus and so , in that regard John is not speaking of. Lk 1:34-36

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

But John does acknowledge that Jesus Christ was a Man before Him.

In fact, when John said the he was preferred before him, that word is the greek word ginomai and means:

I.
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

II.
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen

John knew that The Man Jesus Christ was that Man of God's Right Hand, the Son of Man Ps 80:17

17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.

Also in connection with that, John knew that Christ, the Man coming as a Bridegroom for His Bride Jn 3:29

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Now Jesus was the Man Christ Jesus, the Mediator between God and Men before the foundation 1 Tim 2:5

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Now for this to be True, Adam , who was the beginning of Men, had to have the Man Christ Jesus as the Mediator between God and Men !

What you are saying then, is that at one time, in heaven were God, the Word, and Jesus.
I say there was no Jesus until the Word took on flesh and was born of Mary.

 

[RandyK]

I agree with those above who say that it is saying not that Jesus previously existed in heaven *as a man,* but rather, as Deity. He issued from the eternal Word of God, which assumed the form of man *at the Incarnation.*

 

[Fastfredy0]

Jesus the Man Before John !​

God is spirit and eternal and immutable.
Jesus had two natures.
1) One was divine and therefore spirit and eternal and immutable.
2) One nature was that of man which is not eternal and not immutable. Proof: Jesus was born a baby and grew in wisdom and stature. Since God is immutable, it seems obvious that the human body of Jesus was not eternal/immutable; rather, his body was created when Mary was impregnated and she was impregnated after John the Baptist.
Conclusion: Part of Jesus; his human nature did not exist before John and part of Jesus did exist before John.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I agree with those above who say that it is saying not that Jesus previously existed in heaven *as a man,* but rather, as Deity. He issued from the eternal Word of God, which assumed the form of man *at the Incarnation.*

He WAS the Word !

 

[Runningman]

Runningman



Thats in regards to manifestation. Jesus was a Man first but only He resided in heaven 1 Cor 15:47

47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Jesus has the preeminence in all things.

So Jesus was/is a man residing in heaven and in heaven God said He isn't a man or the son of man. (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9)

 

[RandyK]

He WAS the Word !

Both. He was and is the Word. He issued from God's spoken Word, and as the Word coming from the mouth of God he emerged a man. He was a revelation of God's person in the form of a human person.

 

[Vinny37]

That the Lord Jesus Christ was a Man before the incarnation and birth out of the virgin Mary, is seen when we carefully weigh the words of John the Baptist here Jn 1:29-31

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Now notice in Vs 30 the phrase "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."

The object here is a man, and John states these 3 things about this particular man, That this man comes after him, and is preferred before him, and he [the man] was before him !

Now we know from other scripture that John the Baptist in regards to his physical birth by his Mother, that he is six months older than Jesus and so , in that regard John is not speaking of. Lk 1:34-36

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

But John does acknowledge that Jesus Christ was a Man before Him.

In fact, when John said the he was preferred before him, that word is the greek word ginomai and means:

I.
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

II.
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen

John knew that The Man Jesus Christ was that Man of God's Right Hand, the Son of Man Ps 80:17

17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.

Also in connection with that, John knew that Christ, the Man coming as a Bridegroom for His Bride Jn 3:29

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Now Jesus was the Man Christ Jesus, the Mediator between God and Men before the foundation 1 Tim 2:5

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Now for this to be True, Adam , who was the beginning of Men, had to have the Man Christ Jesus as the Mediator between God and Men !

[Jesus the Man Before John !]

As a trinitarian, I would be hard-pressed to make some kind of argument for the noncarnate son having the ID, Yeshua, prior to incantation: some NT texts do link beyondness to the human name, Jesus. But I think that specious. I would be harder-pressed to argue that prior to incarnation, to enfleshment, the son existed in-carnate, specifically as a man. One could lob in, “God is not a man, that he should lie”, and argue that if God’s son were a man beyond time and space, then he was not God—that counterargument too would be specious. I would not deny prior huiophanies, but I would deny prior incarnation.

Texts are not always cut & dry. Has Yahweh wings; is Earth flat? Take Jhn.1:15,30. Did the Baptist—clueless about atonement—really deem his cousin to have had prior existence, yet later question his messiahship? Did Peter really believe in Jesus’ deificity when he contradicted him at Caesarea Philippi? Did the Baptist tell his audience that his cousin was God the son? Where were the stones for such apparent blasphemy? I would argue that the son incarnate’s deificity—his ontological deity-link—was only recognised by the apostles after his resurrection, although the absolute I am of Jhn.8:58 must have set them reeling. The NT writings put that into some kind of shape in the church domain.

If we take it that a prophets prophecy can be deeper than realised by the prophet (eg Isaiah on Immanuel; Caiaphas on Golgotha), we can take the unusual wording of John (so D A Carson) as prophetic with a surface meaning of ‘before’ being ‘greater’, yet a deeper sense of trans-existence (IMO pre-existence is a subpar term): see Köstenberger’s John (BECNT), 2004:45. Ie, there was a deificity to the man Jesus which his cousin didn’t divine, but Yeshua did not pre-exist as a man.

BTW on Jhn.1:1, I would argue that the Logos incarnated as Jesus, not that Jesus is the Logos.

IMO, there was never a time when the noncarnate son was not; there was a time when the incarnate son was not. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of the uncreated eternal society.

 

[Randy]

Runningman



Thats in regards to manifestation. Jesus was a Man first but only He resided in heaven 1 Cor 15:47

47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Jesus has the preeminence in all things.

The Son who was before the world began was not a man, (flesh and blood). The Logos became flesh. I'm not sure why you read Him as a man before John but His soul was before John. A body was prepared for Him.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;

John the baptizer knew and understood this even before the 12 so He would see a Jesus who existed before him.
John's testimony
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful.

 

[Runningman]

[Jesus the Man Before John !]

As a trinitarian, I would be hard-pressed to make some kind of argument for the noncarnate son having the ID, Yeshua, prior to incantation: some NT texts do link beyondness to the human name, Jesus. But I think that specious. I would be harder-pressed to argue that prior to incarnation, to enfleshment, the son existed in-carnate, specifically as a man. One could lob in, “God is not a man, that he should lie”, and argue that if God’s son were a man beyond time and space, then he was not God—that counterargument too would be specious. I would not deny prior huiophanies, but I would deny prior incarnation.

Texts are not always cut & dry. Has Yahweh wings; is Earth flat? Take Jhn.1:15,30. Did the Baptist—clueless about atonement—really deem his cousin to have had prior existence, yet later question his messiahship? Did Peter really believe in Jesus’ deificity when he contradicted him at Caesarea Philippi? Did the Baptist tell his audience that his cousin was God the son? Where were the stones for such apparent blasphemy? I would argue that the son incarnate’s deificity—his ontological deity-link—was only recognised by the apostles after his resurrection, although the absolute I am of Jhn.8:58 must have set them reeling. The NT writings put that into some kind of shape in the church domain.

If we take it that a prophets prophecy can be deeper than realised by the prophet (eg Isaiah on Immanuel; Caiaphas on Golgotha), we can take the unusual wording of John (so D A Carson) as prophetic with a surface meaning of ‘before’ being ‘greater’, yet a deeper sense of trans-existence (IMO pre-existence is a subpar term): see Köstenberger’s John (BECNT), 2004:45. Ie, there was a deificity to the man Jesus which his cousin didn’t divine, but Yeshua did not pre-exist as a man.

BTW on Jhn.1:1, I would argue that the Logos incarnated as Jesus, not that Jesus is the Logos.

IMO, there was never a time when the noncarnate son was not; there was a time when the incarnate son was not. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of the uncreated eternal society.

Provided that the word incarnate is not in the Bible, and there is a word to describe incarnating in Koine Greek, it doesn't seem it's an idea that came to anyone's mind of something God wanted to divinely inspire anyone to write about in the Gospels or Letters. The concept of an incarnation is also not clearly explained or described in Scripture.

Yes it's true that if someone isn't flesh and then they become flesh then that is a picture of an incarnation, but what if there is nothing about the Word saying or doing one thing in the Old Testament? What if John wrote elsewhere, such as in 1 John 1:1-3, that the Word is not even a person at all, but rather something that was revealed or manifested in Jesus? Perhaps, then, the Word isn't a literal person, but something being personified that encamped in flesh, rather than materialized as flesh from a non-flesh state?

 

[Free]

Provided that the word incarnate is not in the Bible, and there is a word to describe incarnating in Koine Greek, it doesn't seem it's an idea that came to anyone's mind of something God wanted to divinely inspire anyone to write about in the Gospels or Letters. The concept of an incarnation is also not clearly explained or described in Scripture.

That the word "incarnate" is not in the Bible is not relevant. The concept clearly is there.

Yes it's true that if someone isn't flesh and then they become flesh then that is a picture of an incarnation, but what if there is nothing about the Word saying or doing one thing in the Old Testament?

That wouldn't be relevant.

What if John wrote elsewhere, such as in 1 John 1:1-3, that the Word is not even a person at all, but rather something that was revealed or manifested in Jesus?

Except that John didn't write that. You've been shown the fallacy of that argument several times.

Perhaps, then, the Word isn't a literal person, but something being personified that encamped in flesh, rather than materialized as flesh from a non-flesh state?

No, the Word is a literal "person," in the same way the Father is a person.

 

[RandyK]

[Jesus the Man Before John !]

As a trinitarian, I would be hard-pressed to make some kind of argument for the noncarnate son having the ID, Yeshua, prior to incantation: some NT texts do link beyondness to the human name, Jesus. But I think that specious. I would be harder-pressed to argue that prior to incarnation, to enfleshment, the son existed in-carnate, specifically as a man. One could lob in, “God is not a man, that he should lie”, and argue that if God’s son were a man beyond time and space, then he was not God—that counterargument too would be specious. I would not deny prior huiophanies, but I would deny prior incarnation.

Texts are not always cut & dry. Has Yahweh wings; is Earth flat? Take Jhn.1:15,30. Did the Baptist—clueless about atonement—really deem his cousin to have had prior existence, yet later question his messiahship? Did Peter really believe in Jesus’ deificity when he contradicted him at Caesarea Philippi? Did the Baptist tell his audience that his cousin was God the son? Where were the stones for such apparent blasphemy? I would argue that the son incarnate’s deificity—his ontological deity-link—was only recognised by the apostles after his resurrection, although the absolute I am of Jhn.8:58 must have set them reeling. The NT writings put that into some kind of shape in the church domain.

If we take it that a prophets prophecy can be deeper than realised by the prophet (eg Isaiah on Immanuel; Caiaphas on Golgotha), we can take the unusual wording of John (so D A Carson) as prophetic with a surface meaning of ‘before’ being ‘greater’, yet a deeper sense of trans-existence (IMO pre-existence is a subpar term): see Köstenberger’s John (BECNT), 2004:45. Ie, there was a deificity to the man Jesus which his cousin didn’t divine, but Yeshua did not pre-exist as a man.

BTW on Jhn.1:1, I would argue that the Logos incarnated as Jesus, not that Jesus is the Logos.

IMO, there was never a time when the noncarnate son was not; there was a time when the incarnate son was not. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of the uncreated eternal society.

I would only disagree with you and argue that Jesus is and was the Logos. I don't know how you can read anything other than that in John 1.1? Am I misunderstanding you?

I understand that the "Word" and the "Man" are 2 distinct things and should not be confused. But as you seem to be pointing out, the divine identity of Jesus is not to be confused with the necessity of his always being "Incarnate." Jesus can be God's Word prior to his Incarnation as the "Word of God," right?

This is the whole nature of God's identity as a Person and his revelation as something distinct from Him or revealed apart from Him. What He reveals has to be different from who He is as the Source of His revelation. And yet, when He reveals Himself distinctly as a Man, then He continues to relay the eternity of His Person, and not just the distinction of His revelation.

Other than that I think your points are brilliant. Thank you!

 

[LeviR]

That the word "incarnate" is not in the Bible is not relevant. The concept clearly is there.


That wouldn't be relevant.


Except that John didn't write that. You've been shown the fallacy of that argument several times.


No, the Word is a literal "person," in the same way the Father is a person.

The concept of incarnation as Trinitarians teach it is not there.
The text says that the word was made flesh.
The idea of the language is that what the word was had become flesh.
The Trinitarian idea is that the word took upon himself flesh , like putting on a coat or a meat jacket.
The reality of the language is that the word was made flesh and not joined and not mixed with flesh as they say.

 

[Runningman]

That the word "incarnate" is not in the Bible is not relevant. The concept clearly is there.


That wouldn't be relevant.


Except that John didn't write that. You've been shown the fallacy of that argument several times.


No, the Word is a literal "person," in the same way the Father is a person.

Yes I know you disagree, but I am not really sure why despite your repeated arguments do the contrary. 1 John 1:1-3 directly calls the Word of life a that, which, and an it. It's in the KJV, NIV, ESV, and other popular versions. The passage says the Word of life is eternal life and John 1:5 calls the light an it. John 1 uses the word Light to sometimes speak of God and sometimes to speak of a thing that is given to men. The Light (God) has light (eternal life) and the light is the life of men.

In other words, God gives eternal life (a thing) to men and it was first revealed in Jesus.

Long story short, the Word is a thing that God revealed or manifested through Jesus and it was given to the disciples. It's all poetic personification. Closely examine John 1 and 1 John 1 and this is this case.

 

[Free]

The concept of incarnation as Trinitarians teach it is not there.
The text says that the word was made flesh.
The idea of the language is that what the word was had become flesh.
The Trinitarian idea is that the word took upon himself flesh , like putting on a coat or a meat jacket.
The reality of the language is that the word was made flesh and not joined and not mixed with flesh as they say.

What we are told in John 1:14 is that "the Word became flesh." "Became" is the same verb used in verse 3, egeneto ("made"), and speaks of coming into being. That is contrasted with "was," en, in speaking of the Word already existing in the beginning. That is, the coming into being of all things ever created and the Word becoming flesh (entering time), are contrasted with the continuous preexistence of the Word with God.

The Word created everything that came into being and then himself entered into time, into that creation, as the person of Jesus (John 1:1-3, 10, 14).

This is what Trinitarians teach, or should teach.

 

[brightfame52]

Hopeful 2

What you are saying then, is that at one time, in heaven were God, the Word, and Jesus.

Yes Jesus the Mediator was in Union with the Word

 

[brightfame52]

So Jesus was/is a man residing in heaven and in heaven God said He isn't a man or the son of man. (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9)

He was the Man Mediator Christ Jesus before He became marys Baby