The idea of Jesus’ preexistence is found in John’s prologue, namely John chapter 1:1-18. Before unpacking these verses further, it is worth noting there are some people who say that the Gospel of John is simple in contrast to the other synoptic records. That in one sense may be true, because the vocabulary is relatively easy, the language consists of monosyllabic or disyllabic one or two syllable words making it accessible to most readers. Yet the greatest minds in all the world have failed to fathom the fullest meaning of these words. They have a depth beyond analysis. Like Lake Tahoe—the water is clear, but deep. We are not going to be able to probe all of the depths or climb all of the heights or wrestle with all of the philosophical and metaphysical terms. All we can do is skim the surface.

The third thing that we are told in that verse is that the “Word was God.” That speaks of his deity. That he is identical in essence with God the Father. The word was God himself. Now this is a key statement in the study of Christ. It answers the question as to whether the distinction to be drawn between the Word and God makes the Word anything less than God. John is at pains to show us that his deity is affirmed he has equality of essence with the Father. He is a different personality, but at the same time he has divine essence. Therefore, the word has his whole being within deity, even while he does not exhaust the whole being of deity. So, John is not saying here that Jesus was identical with God, that he is the same person as God the Father; but he has the same character, the same quality, the same essence, and being as God.

It is interesting that when John begins his gospel, he doesn’t say, “The Word was the God, in the sense that he equaled the totality of God’s being, but that he was Theos; he is divine; He is deity; he is the same nature, the same essence, the same quality as God. To give another example of that, in first John Chapter 4, we have the expression made that the “God is love.” Now if there was another article before love, “the God is the Love”, then that would be interchangeable, and love would be God. But without that second definite article, he is saying that the essence and the quality and the nature of God is in essence love and not the other way around. What John is saying here, is that what Jesus was, the word was. He was not only the revealer of God, but he was God himself revealed. He goes on in the second verse to talk about this as being an unchanging relationship; the same one who was before the beginning was also, at the beginning.

It is only because it is God’s nature to communicate himself that there is a world at all. This universe is the arena of God’s disclosure. And whereas people used to think that this was a geocentric universe, since Galileo, it has now become heliocentric, that is all revolving around the Son. The estimates are that we have at least twelve quadrillion solar systems…that is a one followed by fifteen zeros (1,000,000,000,000,000). Twelve quadrillion solar systems. More accurately we can say that we believe in a Christo-centric universe. It all revolves around Christ. He says here, that “all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (Jn 1:3). “All things”, in the sense of the universe, and all that it contains, every single occurrence in time and space is subject to his control. Notice how methodical, how infinite, how meticulous is his care and his planning. The universe is divine in its construction, and diverse in its conception and dependent in its conservation. But not even one little atom has come into being except through the complete creative act of Jesus Christ. He is co-creator.

He also proclaims himself to be light, and this title has its roots in the Old Testament. A very fitting symbol for Christ, because light is necessary for life. Growth and health depend upon light. Light is actually something unseen. Of course, we see the little glowing filament in the bulb; we see the thing illuminated, but we don’t actually see the light passing from the bulb to the object. We can see a light in a projector, and we can see the lighted image on the screen, reflected, but the rays of light as they pass from the projector to the screen is invisible, unless the atmosphere is sufficiently dusty to reveal the passage of light by the particles that are in its path. But light is invisible, light is pure. Evil cannot stain; impurities cannot defile; light can pass through a poisonous atmosphere without contacting taint or carrying germs. The light is what puts chaos to flight. We never see our lives, as truly as they are until we see them in the light of Jesus Christ. Light guides us. We find in the gospels numerous times people running to Jesus asking, “What am I to do?” When he enters the life, the path that was dark becomes light and the guessing, and the groping, and the uncertainty, and the vacillation flee.

He also goes on to say that salvation is not of heredity, “Who were born not of blood.” The Jews boasted that Abraham was their father. But he is saying, no this is not inherited through a natural bloodline. It is not through the will of the flesh. It is not through the impulse or the will of the natural man. It is not through self-effort, or personal reformation, nor is even of the will of man, even through well meant efforts on the part of friends or the preachers persuasive power. No, salvation is of God from start to finish.

== Historical Existence of Jesus ==

We see a number of important themes in this prologue. We see that the whole created order owes it origin and meaning to God’s decision. That is good news which invites each of us to invite all that is within the created order as having meaning not just dependent upon chance or randomness, but because of the will of the one who is the creator by whom all has been created and now exists. We also see the reality of evil, darkness, and it is confronted by the light or revelation. The authority of darkness is real is not ultimate it has never been able to distinguish the light. Therefore, the decision of God by which he makes himself known in light and life is greater than the powers of darkness. Jesus Christ is the eternal speech of God. He can be known as truth and his life can be expressed within our lives. John said a great deal in these opening 18 verses. They really epitomize all that is going to follow within this gospel account.

First of all, with regard to the importance of this topic, there are some religions in the world, both in ancient times as well as in our own day, which require no historical basis. That is, they depend on ideas rather than upon events. That is not true in Christianity. Christianity is firmly yoked to history. It is a historical faith, not just a collection of religious ideas. The question has been raised in recent decades, was Jesus a man, or was he simply a myth. The legend that Jesus never existed is a comparatively late legend as far as its origins is concerned. First advanced in the late eighteenth century (that is in the 1700’s) when the spirit of inquiry began to question all traditions. We have already seen in our discussion of the synoptic problem that there are some critics who argue that Jesus was the consequence of Christianity, rather than its cause—that somehow he was created by the church, as an imaginary figment, and that he never really lived on this spinning globe.

It’s interesting to look at some of the forms of skepticism that have developed, for example we have the Christ myth theory, where the claim is made that the story of Jesus is only a piece of unreal mythology; it possesses no real historical accuracy any more than those old Greek stories or those old Norse stories, of God’s and heroes are true. For example, we can take the account of Christ’s birth, and skeptics say we can find parallels in the traditions attached to Buddha, and Krishna, and Mithras and other ancient faiths. That his miracles are set in comparison with those of some of the Greek divine men. That his death and resurrection have parallels in these other mystery cults. There’s a French scholar who says Jesus was an extraordinary reincarnation of the teacher of righteousness, who is mentioned quite frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls. He feels perhaps that the monastery where these Qumran Monks stayed where these Essenes were perhaps might be better than Bethlehem or better than Nazareth as the cradle of Christianity—that they themselves produced an image which they call Jesus.

There is even a book that came out about a number of years ago by a John M. Allegro, called, “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.” Allegro tried to show on grounds of philology and comparative religion that Jesus never existed; that the cult which took his name was a specimen of a general pattern of near eastern religions which simply venerated the sacred mushroom. That is to say, the key to explaining the belief in practice was a combination of drugs and sex, making open propaganda impossible. So, the sect simply resorted to an inventive dramatization in story form, and Jesus and his followers are simply symbolical names for this cultic, cryptic fertility religion. Now there is not much credence given to this highly imaginative work which borders on the pornographic. But here we have these varieties that appeal to those who imagine somehow that the origins of Christianity are wrapped in obscurity, that we can’t know how it all began. And they overlook the fact that in Paul in Acts 26:26 makes the statement that, “none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner”—that is to say, done out in the open. Peter reiterates declaring, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16, KJV).

So, what is the proof of the existence of Jesus? There are essentially three categories of proof for the historical existence of Jesus. First of all, there is personal experience. How do I know he lives? He lives within my heart. Now that is meaningful to believers individually, but it is a very subjective argument.

Even though we treasure that intimate fellowship that we have in our hearts with the Lord, it’s not the best source for factual information. So, if we don’t have personal experience, we move on to the institutional proof. Namely the church, which is a monument to Jesus Christ. But someone says, that’s not very conclusive evidence either. So, our best source of documentation, is the documentary evidence. What do we have in written form? There are two kinds of sources for Christian documentation: first of all Christian sources, because certainly the Old Testament anticipated Christ; certainly the Gospel Narrative are written, two of them by eye-witnesses; two of them by early disciples. We have the book of Acts; we have the epistles of Paul and others. These are the earliest documents and the witness to Christ. But someone comes along and says they are all biased in favor of Jesus. We can’t believe that, we can’t take the witness of Scripture, we don’t accept the Bible as being inspired. Therefore, it seems the only level of proof left is non-Christian testimony. What is the verdict of history outside Christian literature? Do we have any independent testimony uninfluenced by Christians on which a historian can draw with certitude? The answer is yes, there are some available evidence. It’s not large in quantity; it’s not a voluminous mass of data, but it is trustworthy and illuminating in terms of the quality which it has. Let’s look at some of these non-Christian sources which are available to us today to see what we can find out about Jesus of Nazareth.

“They met on stated day before it was dawn. And addressed a form of prayer, singing alternate verses to Christ, as to a god. Binding themselves to a solemn oath, not to the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery. Never to falsify their word, or deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. After which, it was their custom to separate and then reassemble to eat in common a harmless meal.”

Notice, Christ, from whom they took their name, suffered penalty during the reign of Tiberius, at the hands of one of our Procurators Pontius Pilate. Now it is very obvious as a historian that he did not secure his information about Jesus death from a Christian source. Because if he had, he would not have treated this nationalistic outbreak in Judea and the simultaneous arson activities of Christians in Rome as part and parcel of the same movement. Certainly this information didn’t come from Jewish sources, because they certainly wouldn’t have called Jesus, ‘Christos’ or ‘Christ’, or ‘messiah’. So, this comes from solid pagan origin of evidence. By adding the names, Tiberius, and Pontius Pilate as Luke himself does in the third chapter of Luke’s gospel, this witness firmly anchors Christianity in the historical stream.

Lucian of Samosata who was a lecturer, an author, a master of wit and biting sarcasm, sort of the Mark Twain of his day. He said that the founder of the Christian religion was a man who had been fixed to a stake in Palestine, and was still being worshipped because he established a new code of morals.

There are other evidences we could talk about—we could talk about uncanonical sayings, that is certain statements that are attributed to Christ but they are not mentioned in the books we have in our Bible, we could look at some of the early church writers, we could look at archeological evidences, we could even examine the twenty passages in Islam’s Koran, that make mention of our Lord. But how do we evaluate what we have been looking at concerning the historical Jesus? First of all, that there has been no new or accurate information, that we can gleam from these extra-biblical sources, sources outside the Bible. We haven’t gained anything new, that is also accurate. But they certainly do confirm the very simple fact that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. Even some of the absurdities in the later Talmudic literature, assume that he was a flesh and blood antagonist. We have Joseph Klausner, a very distinguished Jewish rabbi and scholar, who writes, “It is unreasonable to question the existence of Jesus.”