The following article is an edited version of a paper given at the Northwest Conference on Religious Issues at Seattle, Washington, in November 1995. M. James Penton is a professor emeritus (history and religious studies) at the University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. He is also a past president of the Canadian Society of Church History and the author of several books.

The emphasis on the Shema is as central to the New Testament as to the Old. Asked about the first and greatest commandment, "Jesus answered, \u2018The first is, "Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength."\u2019"1 In harmony with this emphasis on the Shema, Jesus prayed to his Heavenly Father in John 17:3, 4: "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." The apostle Paul, echoing this stress on the oneness of God, stated, " . . . yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (1 Cor. 8:6).

In Hebrew, the word for one isechad (.....). It means a singular one. In certain circumstances it can modify a set of one. But there is no sense of a composite nature toechad; it is "one."2 Hence there is no way in which the oneness of God as stated in Hebrew can be inferred correctly to mean a triunity. Nor can its Greek equivalent.

We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other late pre-Christian Jewish materials that the Messiah of Judaism was expected to be a king in the line of David, or a priest in the line ofAaro n, or both.3 There is no suggestion there, or in any of the Old Testament for that matter, that he was to be a God-man or to have been preexistent. The synoptic Gospels make no reference to Christ as God or divine, nor as having preexisted. I think,however, that the concept of preexistence is developed in the Pauline epistles, inHebrews, and above all in the Gospel of John.Certainly it is clearly arguable that this is so.

In the Pauline epistles, for example, itseems thatChrist\u2019s preexistence is talked about in Philippians 2:6-11. Ofcou rse, some would argue that this text is to be understood in terms of "Adam Christology." But while that is apossib ility, I feel that there are strong reasons to discountit.4 Perhaps, though, a better example of reference to Christ\u2019s preexistence is to be found in Colossians 1:15-20 which reads:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created,thin gs visible and invisible, whether thronesor dominions or rulers or powers \u2014 all things have been createdth rough himand forhim. He himself is

so that hemight come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

I would also argue that preexistence is taught inHebrews 1:10-12 which quotes Psalm 102:25-27. These verses say: "And, in the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavensa re the work of your hands; they willperish, but youremain ; they will all wear out like clothing; like a cloak you will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never end." Significantly, the writer of Hebrews applies these verses tothe Son of God, Jesus Christ. Yet in the Psalm from which they are quoted, it is clear that what is said refers to Yahweh or God the Father, a fact which has caused Trinitarians to assume that Yahweh is the name of the triuneGod .5 A more plausible suggestionhere, however, is that what we may well have is the preexistent Christ serving as a divine agent in the fullest sense.6

InJ ohn\u2019s Gospel Jesus is referred to \u2014 either asthe Word or personally in his resurrected state \u2014 as....... ...... ., or, in English, "God," just two or three times. These are at John1 :1, 1:18, and 20:28.

John 1:1 tells us regarding the Word,.... ...... ...... .. or "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasGod." This text, as used byTr initarians, has caused them to conclude that the Word was God in the fullest sense. But the Greek is not specific enough to assert that. TheRe v. J. W.We n ha m states concerning the statement.... ...... ..: "as faras grammar is concerned, such a sentence could be printed:....... ..., which would meaneither, \u2018The Word is a god,\u2019 or \u2018The Word is the god.\u2019 The interpretation of John 1:1 will depend upon whether or not the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than onegod. Itwi ll be noticed that the above rules for the special uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and withoutexceptions."7 Furthermore, it isdifficult to believe that the Word is the same God as the One with whom he wasexisting.8

In John 1:18, the most weighty textual evidence indicates that the Word is called....... ....,9 an expressionwhich may be translated "the only begotten god." Some translators, intrying to deal with the problem of an "only begotten god" from a Nicene sense, have translated....... ...... . as "God, the only" or "God the unique who is in2

the bosom position of God." This will not do, however, for even from a Trinitarian standpoint such translations make no sense. They make the Word the "onlyGod " or the "unique God" and thus deny Godhood to God the Father or the Holy Spirit. Such renderings lead logically to Modalism. Professor John Dahms has surveyed the ancient literature on this matter and has come to the definite conclusion that the most accurate translation ofmonogenes is "onlybegotten."10

In John 20:28 we read Thomas\u2019 famous cry ofaston ishment at the sight of the risen Jesus:.... ....., that is,"My Lord and my God." Thus it seems certain that Thomas wasaddressing Jesus as histheos (God or god). But again, in what sense? To assert that because Thomas was using the definite article before theos it can be inferred that Jesus is

standpoint of Greekgrammar.11 However, there can really be no objection to calling Jesus...... (God or god). In addition, there can be no objection to worshipping him in the sense ofproskynesis.12

The texts that I have just discussed are given specific and often dogmatic interpretations by various theological camps, but all such interpretations are somewhat problematic. For example, do the texts in question teach Jesus\u2019 preexistence beyond a shadow of adou bt? We cannot say definitively, but what we can do is look at what Christians in the second and third centuries thought about this matter and others. While what they believed is not always clear, and there were variousopinions among them, two things can be said about

disciples of Christ, than are we; and,second, there do seem to have been clear concepts regarding Christologyamong the majority of them, although these grew fainter as time went by.

appears so prominently in Proverbs and various other pre-Christian Jewish works as well as those of Jesus\u2019 contemporary, Philo of Alexandria. Scholars generally assume that this motif, as dealt with in Proverbs 8:22-31, is the basis for the prologue of the Gospel of John, Colossians1:15-20, and Hebrews 1:10-12, and, by extension, for the second-century Christian belief in the personal preexistence of Christ. It is therefore not surprising that the early ante-Nicene Fathers of the church quoted Proverbs 8:22-31over and overagain .

There were other concepts that these Fathers used to buttress their idea of the preexistence of Christ. These included the wordof God,13 the beginning(............ orarche) of creation,14 and the angelof