Against the context of John Chapter One, are the three records of John the Baptist's words, concerning Jesus, a proof of Jesus' pre-existence?

"Is this proof of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ before His incarnation as a man?"

Yes. It is a direct statement of such.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. - John 1:15

A literal rendering of the italicized portion of this verse (without altering the Greek word order) could be as follows (taken from Abarim Interlinear):

"The behind of me, coming before of me, he has become that first of me, he was"

where "behind of me" indicates temporally afterwards, "before of me" indicates temporally beforehand, and "first" indicates a superlative preference or rank (firstest).

Thus, John is saying that although he (Jesus) came temporally afterward, for he was conceived and born 6 months after John, that same "he" (Jesus) was actually temporally before John. Since it is evident that the flesh and blood humanity of Jesus had a specific starting date temporally after John it therefore must be some other aspect of Jesus which was temporally before John.

Some claim that this "coming before" indicates preference or rank but that is ruled out by the fact that preference or rank is pointed to by another word in the very same verse: "he has become that first (preferred) of me".

Others claim that what came temporally before John was an idea in the mind of God, a plan, and not a person in the proper sense. This is ruled out by the fact that John bare witness "of him". This point is driven home when, in verse 30, John points to the flesh and blood, walking and talking person of Jesus and says, "Him. That's who I was talking about":

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. - John 1:29-30

Having already established that John is not claiming that the flesh and blood humanity of Jesus came before him, what can be made of the statement "for he (the man who came after me) was before me"?

The word for "man" here is aner which highlights the individuality of a specific adult, male human person, whereas anthropos (one derivative) indicates humanity generally. Interestingly, aner very often carries the connotation of "husband" in it's derivatives and, therefore, may have more to do with individual role than individual, physical humanness.

Regardless of how aner is understood John definitively points to Jesus, an individual adult, male human person and declares that:

(Temporally) after me comes a man (individual adult male human) which outranks me because he (that same one who was born as a man) was (temporally) before me.

The reason John gives for Jesus' preference over him is Jesus' pre-existence and his pre-existence was not flesh and blood and yet was personal.

Yes, these three texts are evidence of the pre-existence of the One they describe and yes they express more of the manner of his coming and of the purpose of his coming.

The full proof was when he rose from the dead : only then is he declared (publicly) to be the Son of God. For, note, that John’s gospel account was not published until late in the first century, after Jesus was already risen and ascended.

• First Section - The Structure of the Chapter
• Second Section - The Witness of John
• Third Section - The Conclusion

First Section - The Structure of the Chapter relative to the question

In John 1:1-4 are two outstanding statements and I am quoting the Englishman’s Greek New Testament translation (1870 from the Stephens text of 1550) :

• John1:1 God was the Word
• John 1:14 The Word became flesh

Having made these two remarkable utterances, the Apostle John repeats the witness of John the Baptist three times :-

1. John 1:15 - The Comprehensive Statement (regarding two individuals)
2. John 1:27 - The Quantifying of the Comparative Precedence of the two
3. John 1:30 - The Qualifying of the Manner of Coming of the First Precedent

Then the Apostle reports Jesus coming to John - 1:29. Remarkably, this is the first time that the Coming One has been named. He is not, yet, identified. That happens next . . . . . when, finally, the Apostle reports the conclusion, as stated by John the Baptist :

I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. [John 1:34 EGNT.]

To reiterate : God was the Word ; the Word became flesh ; this one is named ; this one is identified.

Second Section - The Witness of John the Baptist

I am quoting the Englishman’s Greek New Testament literal renderings of the three texts and I have made it even more literal by stating the actual translation of the three simple words (‘after‘, ‘before’ and ‘first‘) which many feel they have to ‘interpret‘ and which I feel no need to do so :-

• John 1:15 who after me comes, before of me he has, for first of me he was
• John 1:27 who after me comes, who before of me has, of whom I am not worthy that I should loose of him the thong of the sandal
• John 1:30 after me comes aner, who before of me has, for first of me he was

[See footnote (regarding Baxter’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, 1870) for the translation of the very basic language used by John.]

1. The Comprehensive Statement.

The simple words on the page state exactly what they appear to state - that although Jesus came after John regarding his birth and regarding his appearing to Israel, ‘before of me he has’ for the reason, and the only reason, that ‘before me he was’.

There can be no attempt to manipulate these words to mean some other kind of precedence or another manner of importance or a different kind of rank. The words simply do not bear that meaning.

Jesus possessed a ‘beforeness’ for the simple reason that he existed prior to John’s existence.

This statement is a kind of heading and is, twice, enlarged further . . . . . .

2. The Quantifying of the Comparative Precedence

John the Baptist witnesses that one comes after him who is actually before because he was before.

He then states that he is not worthy to loose the sandal of him, which is a reference to redemption (see Ruth and the man with one shoe) and which makes it clear that John is not able to restrict Jesus’ progress. This we see later when ‘John stood … and Jesus walked’, 1:35 and 36, and the disciples must needs leave John and follow Jesus.

Jesus incorporates John’s ministry (“Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” Matthew 3:2, of John, and Matthew 4:17, of Jesus) but goes further : even as the baptism of John is limited and the baptism of the apostles of Jesus is comprehensive, Acts 18:25.

Thus John clearly indicates his own inferior position to the coming one. This one, who, though he came after, was before. Nor does this word ‘before’ denote a higher position, the word only means ‘prior in time’. The word is never used in scripture to denote a superior position or a more superlative condition. It only ever expresses that something happens before another.

3. The Qualifying of the Manner of Coming of the First Precedent

Only three times in scripture is the word aner used of Jesus - John 1:30, of his identified coming and his precedence over John the Baptist ; Acts 17:31, of his being identified as the Judge of all humanity ; Ephesians 4:13, of his perfected and identified humanity (Head and Body) in fulness.

Aner represents an identifiable individual, a male person, who can be located. It is not anthropos which is the concept of humanity, generally. I deal with this in full detail (pp 6-29) in the book ‘The Son of man’ which can be downloaded free of charge and free of registration on my website (see profile for link). It is an important distinction and the study of that cannot be reduced to a few lines in an article.

Basically, John’s use of the word here identifies the coming one as one come in humanity. Prior to that, the Word was made flesh but no more detail was given. What kind of flesh ? Well, now we know it is aner flesh : an identifiable and locatable male human.

The Conclusion

There can only be one conclusion. And that conclusion is more than merely the fact of the pre-existence : the conclusion states the manner of the pre-existence.

If the Person who came in flesh (after John the Baptist was born) existed prior to John’s existence, then that can mean one thing and one thing only :

John 1:34 - I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.

A prior existence cannot be human. Nor can it be an angel. Angels which left their first estate and manifested themselves on earth (having seen the daughters of men) are said to be held in everlasting chains, Jude 6. Their error is monumental.

Nor is the ‘son’ of God a creation. No Father ‘creates’ a Son. No father makes his son out of stuff.

A Father begets a Son, a matter of life begetting life.

And if the eternal Father ; then an eternal begetting of an eternal Son.

His is ‘glory as of only-begotten with Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14EGNT).

For ‘God no-one has seen at any time : the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared [him]’ (John 1:18 EGNT).

This chapter plainly demonstrates solid evidence that the One who was from the beginning with God, who, indeed, was God ; and who was therefore both with God and also was God - this One came in flesh and therefore before his flesh : He was.

And His prior existence could only possibly have been as the only begotten Son of the Father.

Footnote :

Three very simple words are used by John the Baptist and recorded by John the Apostle.

‘BAGL’ is Baxter’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, 1870. There is no need whatsoever to ‘interpret’ these words and to give special meanings in the above passages to them in an attempt to ‘prove’ something. That is just improper translation.

• Protos - noun (BAGL p355) There is no dispute about this word, it means ‘first’.
• Emprosthen - adverb or preposition (BAGL p136) ‘Before’ in the sense of ‘in front of’. It does not mean ‘in the face of’ : that is another Greek word, enopion, (BAGL p143).
• Opiso - preposition - (BAGL p290) after or behind/at one’s back.