Many
in Christendom have come to believe that Jesus Christ pre-existed as the God of
the Old Testament. This has affected the teachings of uncounted doctrines in
various organizations. Despite many and numerous scriptures to the contrary,
there seems to be strong evidence to support this premise. Do we really
have a bible that is in conflict with itself? Can we know for sure whether this
is so? Does that evidence “trump” the rest of scripture, or can there
be another explanation?
Amongst
other things, John 1:18 and John 5:37 are often used as foundational
scriptures in “proving” that Jesus “pre-existed” as the YHWH God of the
Old Testament. Since, as they so plainly state, no human (man) has ever seen
God, and many, from Adam and Eve, Abram, Moses and others are
acknowledged to have seen the God of the Old Testament, it makes perfect sense,
at that point, to reason that the YHWH God of the Old Testament could not
be the Father God of the New Testament.
John
1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
And
John 5:37 And the Father
himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard
his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Let’s
begin with John 5:37.
Was
Jesus stating that no human had ever seen or heard the “Father”?
Please consider Matt. 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up
straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he
saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17
And lo a voice from heaven,
saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased. (See also Mark 1:11) Didn’t at least John the Baptist
“hear” the voice of the Father?
Let’s
not omit this scripture: Matthew 17:5
While he yet spake, behold, a
bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said,
This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Who heard that? It was Peter, James and John. We might readily
ask, why and how could John possibly be referring to a physical hearing in John
5:37, which was written decades after the actual event of Matthew 17? (See also
Mark 9 for Mark’s account.)
We
might note, at this point, that some proponents of the premise being discussed
would take the position that the one uttering the words of Matthew 3:16 and
Matthew 17:5 was actually an angel of God acting as God’s “agent”. While
actual support for this is thin to non-existent, let us remind ourselves that
even if it were true, then one must abide with the representative “agent”
position on both sides of this discussion, which would leave us to include the
postulation of the “agent” as also included in the “voice” not heard and
“shape” not seen. Of course, realizing this necessity virtually forces us to
discard the “agent” theory in favor of a Loving Father showing direct
personal interest in His son, like any good father would do.
Next,
still concerning John 5:37, who was Jesus speaking to in this scripture? We find
the answer in John 5:18 Therefore
the Jews (Note: not all Jews, just those to whom he was directing
this.) sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the
sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus
and said unto them ….
Wasn’t
Jesus simply making the same point made many times in the Hebrew Scriptures? The
very point that God ‘blinded’ Israel (which actually means that He ‘let’
them become blind because of their selfish ways), paraphrased as: seeing they
see not, and hearing they hear not. If this scripture is to be taken as a
literally intended statement we are faced with limiting its
application to only those to whom it was directed, and none else!
But, let’s ask the question, “Why would Jesus address these specific Jews as
having never seen God, when no one else, alive at the time, had either?” It
does not make sense, as it would be an empty statement. So, the reality
is that this scripture, at best, can only prove that those particular Jews Jesus
was speaking to had never seen or heard God the Father. They were the “Ye”
that had never seen nor heard God, but regardless, it would appear that perhaps
it is much more logical that there is a figurative application to this
scripture. Therefore, John 5:37 is at best a “neutral” scripture, not
capable of being used to prove or disprove the “Father God of the New
Testament was not the YHWH God of the Old Testament”, not to mention providing
no evidence in support of a pre-existent Jesus being YHWH. Now notice something
else that John writes late in his life, long after this incident.
1
John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God
dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Now,
taking a literal approach first, let’s consider just what this says and does
not say. It does not say, “hear”, or “heard”, only
“seen”. Now this verse no longer appears to conflict with John 5:37, and
neither does it conflict with the two Matthew scriptures previously mentioned.
This
is not to ‘overlook’ the “No man”
that begins the verse. ‘No man’ is
better stated as ‘No one’, which then answers to ‘seen’. Seen is better
stated as ‘beheld’ and carries with it the concept of “gazing with a
purpose”, “to see with desire”, or “regard with admiration”. Can we
say, “Look, this proves that John 5:37 means what I thought it meant?”.
If we consider that the previously claimed viewpoint on John 5:37 is
flawed because of the Matthew scriptures (and Mark) then we can neither use 1
John 4 to support “our” John 5:37, nor John 5:37 to support I John 4. Again,
we must look for another ‘explanation’ that will not conflict with any other
scriptures we have seen thus far (Matthew, Mark, John, and I John). Once again I
ask, “Who was John addressing? Was this verse a reference to “all time”
– past/ present/ future? Or just to the present readers of the letter? We must
at least seriously question any possible support that might be considered for
the premise being discussed due to the previously mentioned scriptures. This
means that we have missed something somewhere. Whatever this verse means or
implies, it must agree with ALL the previously mentioned scriptures.
Let’s
ask the question, “Was John even discussing such a literal meaning at all?” 3
John 1:11 Beloved, follow
not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but
he that doeth evil hath not seen God. John is not being literal
here; if he were then the natural logical implication is that those who were not
evil had “physically”, with their own eyes, seen God. So why would we insist
that he be literal elsewhere, when he writes the same exact words, with even the
same intent? Thus, we now have the real meaning and intent of the Greek word
translated “seen”. It addresses not just the literal seeing with eyesight,
but also the mental or spiritual perceiving and comprehending of God. Consider
in this light John 1:18 No
man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him. The more literal translation of the
phrase, No man hath seen God at any time is “God no one ever has
beheld”. With John writing this account late in the 1st century,
around the time he wrote the three epistles, don’t we have to consider that
John, as anyone, would maintain a consistency in his writings? In this case, he
maintains a consistency that appears equally in all of his writings, and is
directed towards a specific purpose based on the circumstances of the time of
the writings. To categorically state that John 1:18 & 5:37 can be used to
support a “physical” seeing is just not possible. To do so is to take two
isolated verses out of the complete context of all of John’s inspired
writings, and there is just no way to validate that conduct or conclusion.
Finally,
concerning this point, let’s not overlook John 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he
hath seen the Father. Again, John uses “seen” as “know”
(perceive). If you are a believer, you have “seen” God, if not, you have
not. Let’s not read into scripture what our theology “needs” it to
“say”, but realize that we may have overlooked scriptures that could help
clear things up- better to change our theology. In that light, you might now
also consider:
John
8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye
should have known my Father also.
John
14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the
Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? In fact, read the
entire incident yourself and “see” how many times “seen” is used, and
how it is directly connected to “knowing” Jesus or the Father.
John
15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other
man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and
hated both me and my Father. These folks have
“seen” the Father, yet it was through their rejection of God and Jesus.
Nevertheless, the point is they have “seen” God, but as with the other
references, it is in the context of their belief and conduct, not through their
“physical” optical capabilities.
John
recorded all of these scriptures. Doesn’t this give us at least a little
insight into his thinking, especially noting that all of these scriptures were
recorded late in his life, long after the events of the gospel account? Should
it be a strange thing to even consider that just possibly John meant “seen”
to be taken metaphorically and not literally?
It is
not possible to legitimately or logically claim that these verses from the hand
of John “prove” that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament. The
understanding of the intent of these verses, if not already clear, cannot be
dissected in isolation from other scriptures, but must be discerned in light of
the rest of scripture.
Yes, but here it says that Jesus Christ created the
universe!
Ephesians
3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the
mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who
created all things by Jesus Christ:
This
verse is fairly quickly explained. Simply check out various translations (see
below) and you will find that “by Jesus Christ” is not in the texts,
but was added later by someone who had an agenda. The result becomes a plus for
the argument that the Father is the Creator God. In which case the likely
question to anyone not thinking that way would be, “How does one reconcile the
correct rendering of Ephesians 3:9 in support of the premise that Jesus was the
Creator God?”
The
Weymouth: verse 9. and to show
all men in a clear light what my stewardship is. It is the stewardship of the
truth which from all the Ages lay concealed in the mind of God, the Creator of
all things—
The
RSV: verse 9. and to make all
men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created
all things;
Might
this scripture address not only the basis of this paper, but the reconciliation
of John’s writings, as discussed previously, when we consider the 11th
verse in the RSV: This was
according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ
Jesus our Lord…. Is there any reason that John’s writings cannot be
understood in the context of the Father having this planned in advance? Could
this give us a clue to what “all things” are and are not?
The
KJV renders Hebrews 1:2, “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his
Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made
the worlds:” (Heb 1:2).
The
phrase, “whom he hath appointed heir of all
things” states that God the Father appointed Jesus heir to all things.
Assuming, for the moment, “all things” includes the created
physical worlds, and had Jesus created these, then He would have been their
possessor, so what sense does it make to be appointed to what He supposedly
made? But had God the Father
created the physical worlds, then He would have always possessed them and would
be able to appoint Jesus as their heir. Also, had Jesus created them originally
and then gave them over to the “Father” when, as some think, it was time to
give up his divinity and take on a mortal shell, then how could it be justified
to call it an inheritance rather than a restitution?
In reality,
none of the above is even relevant, as the term “the worlds”
has nothing to do with the physical creation. “The worlds” is translated
from the Greek word “aiones”, which is the plural form of aion. Aiones
simply means “ages” and relates to a period of time and not anything
physical. It just is not possible
to use a reference to time to support a position regarding the physical
creation, or recreation (see our article, “What and When was the
“beginning” of Genesis 1:1?”).
Notice
that in Revelation there is clear continuity between “God” and his
“Christ”, or “God” and the “Lamb”, and so on (Revelation
7:10&17, 11:15, 12:10, 14:4&10 19:9, 21:22&23, 22:1). This is the
same continuity present in theses verses of Hebrews where we read, “God”
[who must be the Father] and “his Son”. Likewise, the specific reference to
“God” speaking with us in these last [here, recent] days [specifically,
after the ministry of John the Baptist] “by”
his Son (verse 2) expresses two distinct and unmistakable thoughts. First, the
Son is not whoever this God figure is, as they are portrayed as two different
entities. That is, unless you accept polytheism, in which case one might as well
completely eliminate the distinction demanded by the grammar. Secondly, the use
of the word “by” in “by his Son” is particularly of note in that this use of the Greek
“en”
denotes the “instrument” by which God has spoken through and this instrument
for speaking through is therefore definitely not this particular God, but again,
a separate entity from this God. This use of en
is exactly the same as used {for “by”} in verse 1 when referring to the
prophets, none of whom were God {the Father} either. The translators have justly
translated the Greek en
to the English by in verses 1 and 2.
Something else that should not be overlooked here is what is not said. God did
not speak to anyone by His Son until His Son was here, prior to that He spoke to
us by the prophets. Did you notice that the Son is not in the “loop” until
he is human? In “time past” God, not a pre-existent Jesus or Son, was the
entity who spoke to the prophets. Why, if a pre-existent Jesus was the
“logos” (spokesman), did God use the prophets and not the Son, unless the
Son was not in the picture until he became the Son? To argue that God did speak
“through” the “Logos” (a pre-existent Jesus) in using the “prophets”
of the past cannot be supported in the use of the language in verses 1 and 2,
lest why make the distinction in verse 2 that God used His Son. The double-edged
sword of “agency” cannot be advocated in one verse and not the next. Why
specifically acknowledge the use of the Son in verse 2, yet omit any reference
to him in verse 1, and then expect us to say, “Yeah, well, we know that He
really used the Son in verse 1, too, but just wanted to emphasize it in verse
2?” This is not being honest and true to the language. To disregard language
in order to maintain a “belief” is pure vanity, and the “belief” is
founded in fraud. We must maintain veracity as well as resolve if we are to have
a faith worth dying for, or worth living for!
Hebrews
1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my
right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? This is a quote from Psalms
110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit
thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. For
numerous reasons from numerous scriptures it is understood that the first
“LORD” is the Father God and that the second “Lord” refers to the
Messiah, Jesus Christ. From many scriptures, including just the context of
Psalms 110, it can be readily discerned that the all capitols “LORD” is the
God of the Old Testament. It wasn’t until Matthew that the specific identity
of the Anointed One, Messiah, was revealed, and shown to be Jesus the Christ. Matthew
22:42 Saying, What think ye
of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him
Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto
my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Ancient
Israel understood that there would be a Messiah. They also understood that the
Messiah would be of the line of David. Their problem, and that of many today, is
that they did not see, understand, or in some cases accept that the Messiah was
Jesus. But even though we now see (side note, notice the figurative use
of “see” as in John?) that it was Jesus, do these scriptures “prove”
that Jesus pre-existed as YHWH of the Old Testament?
If
we consider the full context of the scriptures in question, Old Testament and
New Testament, none of them require that the he pre-existed as the God of the
Old Testament (YHWH), or even that he pre-existed at all. Specifically, Psalm
110 looks forward to the end time restitution of Israel and implementation of
the Jeremiah 31 New Covenant. Paul “connects” Psalms 110 in Hebrews 1 to
Jesus, the Son of God; identifying the lower case “Lord” was a reference to
Jesus. Thus, still supporting the fact that Jesus was not the God of the Old
Testament. Many scriptures show that Sit thou on my right hand, till I make
thine enemies thy footstool is not a reality until the Day of the Lord
spoken of throughout the scriptures, and in particular, Revelation. Jesus is
sitting on the right hand of God the Father right now, but the enemies have not
yet been subdued or made to submit. Notice in Hebrews 10:12-13 that Jesus is
“waiting” at the right hand of God for the enemies to be made a footstool.
Furthermore,
even Daniel 7:13-14 supports Hebrews 1. The Ancient of Days is the Father God,
who is YHWH, and the “Son of man” would be Jesus Christ. However, Daniel 7
was purely future and Jesus was not even born at the time that this was written.
There is nothing in Daniel that requires that Jesus Christ pre-exist as the God
of the Old Testament, and since it was futuristic that he even pre-exist at all-
except in the mind of God. Is there any other evidence that might further
clarify our understanding of Hebrews 1? Yes!
Acts
2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith
himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35
Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Here we
see, from Peter’s Pentecost proclamation, that Jesus was the one who was to
have the role of the lower case “Lord” in Psalms 110. But notice the timing
of when! It was not until after Jesus was born, died and ascended into heaven to
sit on the right hand of the Father. Peter stated that the Father “made”
that same Jesus not only the Messiah, which is “Christ” in English, but also
“Lord”. Neither of these two things is stated to have occurred until after
Jesus came into this world.
Another scripture
commonly used to “prove” that Jesus Christ pre-existed and was the God of
the OT.
1Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Many
claim that this proves that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament. Did
Paul intend for us to come to that conclusion? I would ask if we think that
Moses baptized Israel? Verses 2 and 3 are figurative, and all were baptized
into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food,
but we are supposed to think that verse 4 is not? Yet, 2,3, and 4 are all
connected in thought. The Israelites never even got wet crossing the Red Sea, so
it cannot mean that they were “physically” (literally) baptized. Neither
were the Israelites buried “in” the “cloud”, but rather it provided them
shelter and protection. Furthermore, the Israelites ate spiritual “food” and
spiritual “water” [drink], and we are supposed to think that the “drink”
is Christ. What then, or rather WHO was the spiritual “food”? Only the
“drink” is connected to Christ, leaving us to wonder who was the food
unless, of course, Paul meant something else. It
would seem that Paul said that these things were “types” (in verse 11 the
word ensample means type), therefore, not the
genuine article, i.e. the “rock” was not really Christ,
but only typified him. Consider the Weymouth version of verse 11
All this kept happening to them with a figurative
meaning; but it was put on record by way of admonition to us upon whom the ends
of the Ages have come. Paul did not place Christ with ancient Israel. Paul
did address a symbolism, or typology, that creates a relationship in “type”
with the actions and events of the exodus to those of Christianity.
One final point on this before moving on is the
consideration of verse 5! 1 Cor. 10:5 But
with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were
scattered in the wilderness. This is a specific reference that is confined
to being a reference to the God of the Old Testament. If this Old Testament God
of Israel were really a pre-existent Jesus, which was supposedly present as the
“Rock”, then how or why did Paul identify the God of Israel as another, or
Jesus as something other than the God of Israel? The mere reference in verse 5
to “God” shows that the “Rock” is not this God. Even trying to insert or
substitute the Hebrew “elohiym” for theos, the Greek word
translated to “God”, falls completely short of providing any
“connection” between the Rock and the God of Israel. (For the reason please
see the addendum that addresses Genesis 1:26 and the use of the Cohortative verb
stem as it relates to the use of elohiym in scripture.) Even if we just
look at this from a point of logic it is woefully inadequate to be used to try
to support the doctrine in question. The “Rock” and “God” come out as
two different things. If Jesus was this “God”, then isn’t Paul bouncing
all over the map, so to speak? Paul only states that the “Rock” was a
spiritual drink, not identifying who or what was the spiritual food. Then Paul doesn’t
say “they” (were not well pleased) or in any way “connect” the spiritual
drink to be the God that led Israel, or even that there were really two Gods
present in the wilderness, but shifts completely away from the “Rock” to a
singular reference to the single God of Israel (see the Cohortative verb stem
info previously mentioned and consider that the “Jesus was the God of the
OT” doctrine typically includes the non-presence of the “Father” to/with
ancient Israel), whom we are supposed to understand is really a pre-existent
Jesus, who is supposedly also the “Rock”.
Meanwhile, that “God”, who was not well pleased with those
Israelites, can be shown in numerous other scriptures to be the God who is
called the “Father” in the New Testament.
Ex
3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM
THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM
hath sent me unto you.
John
8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was, I am.
Many
in Christendom claim there is a NT-OT link (bridge) between John 8:58 and Exodus
3:14, connecting the phrase “I am”
found in both these verses. This supposed link is used to support Jesus being
the God of Exodus.
Since
the phrase “I am” occurs in
numerous OT and NT verses and not all of the latter involving Jesus, it is
difficult to imagine that everyone else can say, “I am” this or that, but
when Jesus says it we must take it to mean he was the God of the Old Testament.
Never mind the grammar considerations that need “I am” to be the subject
and verb, rather than a title in all of the other verses, including John
8:58. Are we to believe that Jesus cannot use language the same as anyone else?
In Exodus 3:14, the “I am”, in “I AM hath sent me unto
you”, is the subject of the sentence, and “hath sent” is the verb,
which is what tells us the “I AM” expression in Exodus 3 is a
title. All other uses of “I am”
in the Hebrew or Greek cannot be titles because the “I” is the subject in
the sentence or clause, and the word “am” is the verb, or predicate in the
sentence or clause.
In
Exodus 3:14 the God of Exodus used the phrase “I am” to name Himself “I am” (“The Self-Existent One”) and
using these words in such a way (due to the grammar and sentence structure)
makes these words a title. However,
in John 8:58 Jesus used the phrase “I am” (Greek, Ego eimi) not
as a title, but to attest that his Messiahship existed prior to Abraham.
Therefore, the phrase “I am” has quite different meanings in these
two verses.
To
illustrate just how illusory a link this is let us examine John 9:9, where the
blind man, whom Jesus had healed, used the identical Greek phrase Ego eimi
(I am) to state that he was the one they were looking for.
This phrase is a very common Greek expression; it
is not the name of a God.
Instead of an illusory link, let
us look at Peter’s NT-OT connection of Acts 3:13 to
Exodus 3:6 & 15.
Acts
3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,
the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered
up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him
go.
Exodus
3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face;
for he was afraid to look upon God.
15
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for
ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
The
direct connecting of “The God of
Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob” to being the father of Jesus Christ
also connects the “I AM” to the Father God of the New Testament. Peter’s
“connection” (bridge) shows that the so-called John 8:58 bridge is indeed
illusory.
Another verse used to support the premise that Jesus was the
God of the Old Testament is:
Colossians
1:16 For by him were all
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him:
It
should be pointed out that the word translated “by” in this
verse is the Greek “en”, with the phrase “by him”
being en auto in the Greek. The literal translation for this is
“in him”, however, in some instances, as Bullinger states, “It is
also used for the efficient cause as emanating from within, and hence has
sometimes the force of by, denoting the instrument, with,
passing on to union and fellowship; en denoting inclusion. En
denotes also continuance in time.”
In
simple English, what we are presented with, according to the Greek grammar, is a
situation where if Jesus was the creator God of the Old Testament,
then this would be the correct translation. On the other hand, if
Jesus was not, then it should be “in” instead of “by”. If the
translators were of the opinion that he was, then they would naturally choose
“by”. The theology of the day suggests that they were and they did. However,
in light of the scriptures presented in this article, both those already
presented and those that will follow, it is suggested that this verse can hardly
be used to support any premise on its own. This scripture should be viewed not
only as neutral, but as undeterminable, until the case on either
side is established. Once the matter is resolved, then the translation may be
made. However, even then, this verse will never qualify as a “support”
scripture for this issue, as it is the resolution of the issue that determines
the translation and understanding. Since
this scripture’s translation depends upon the outcome of the issue first, it
cannot logically be used to solve its own translation and understanding
question, never mind any other one.
There
are a few more scriptures that some use to try and support a premise that Jesus
was the God of the Old Testament, but the above should provide sufficient
material encouraging one to reconsider. Any of the remaining scriptures not
discussed in this article can be placed into proper context when consideration
is taken to avoid creating a conflict within scripture. Therefore, any
additional scriptures need to comply with those already presented. The result is
a conclusion wherein the option to identify a scripture as one that might
“prove” that Jesus was the God of the OT is just no longer practical or
possible. Hopefully, we have presented enough information to enable one to
consider that these scriptures do not support the premise being discussed, and
that for one to assemble these as “support” scriptures actually creates a
direct conflict with literally dozens of other scriptures.
Some
New Testament scriptures that present the Father as the God of the Old
Testament.
Acts
4:24,27 reveals that God the Father is the OT Creator God. The following
quotation omits verses 25-26 because these are not relevant to this issue:
Acts
4:24 And when they heard that,
they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God,
which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is.
Acts
4:27 For of a truth against thy
holy child Jesus, ...
The possessive pronoun
‘thy’ in verse 27 points to the God who has a child named Jesus; and so He
must be God the Father. In verse 24
this God is identified as the OT Creator God.
Acts 4:24-27 identifies God the Father as the OT Creator God.
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore
by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning
his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, …
Verse 1
declares that Paul was separated unto the gospel of God. This raises the
question: Of which God was this gospel? Verse
2 tells us that this gospel had been promised by the God in question ‘afore’
(ie. during OT times) to His prophets. From
this we can identify the God in question to be the OT God. Verse 3 states the gospel He gave concerned His Son Jesus
Christ. Therefore, the OT God was
the NT God the Father.
Peter’s testimony on Pentecost:
Acts
3:12 ¶ And when Peter saw it he
addressed the people, "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do
you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk?
13
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers,
glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of
Pilate, when he had decided to release him.
In
parting, just a couple Old Testament to New Testament bridges that show that the
God of the Old Testament is the Father of the New Testament.
John 2:16
And said unto them…make not my Father’s house an house of
merchandise
John 2:17 And
his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten
me up.
Ps 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up…
Ps 69:13
But as for me, my prayer is unto
thee, O LORD, …
John
2:16-17 shows that Jesus was zealous for His Father’s House or Temple.
His disciples linked His Father to the OT God by quoting Ps 69:9.
That this is also the OT Lord
may be seen from the context of Psalm 69, for example verse 13.
Again the NT God the Father is the OT Lord
or Yahweh.
John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man
therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Isa 54:13
And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; …
Jesus
says in John 6:45 every man that has learned from His Father comes to Him.
In this Jesus quotes from Isa 54:13 and so we may again identify the NT
God the Father with the OT Lord or Yahweh.
It
has not been the intent or purpose of this paper to list every
conceivable scripture that has been used to support the claim that Jesus
pre-existed as the God of the Old Testament. It is the intent to
present scriptures that will stimulate a reasonable person to re-consider that
position. If anyone has information that would demonstrate that the contents of
this article do not do as intended it is requested that they notify us
immediately and provide any lacking information possible.
A
special thanks goes to Henk W. Jens for segments taken from his paper “God
the Father is the Creator and Husband of Israel!”
[editing of Henk Jens segments performed by Richard Fix]
Richard
Fix
January
2004
Please
note that the “omission” of John 1:1 is deliberate and was not
“overlooked”. If anyone would like to read about John 1:1 please write me.
The answer will be consistent with this article and with scripture. The greatest
problem people encounter in scripture, not just John 1:1, is that they look for
what they expect to find there. They expect to find what they’ve been taught,
instead of starting with a blank slate.