In the New Testament, the Son is personally pre-existent in a real (as opposed to ideal) sense, and the incarnation is a free, gracious act on the part of the Son. The present article engages critically with the arguments of Robert Jenson that the Son is pre-existent principally (a) in and as the nation of Israel, and (b) in that the Son's eternal birth from the Father precedes his birth from Mary; this 'precedes' is not linear, or temporal, however. It is concluded that Jenson's account fails on two counts: first, it does not do justice to the canonical witness; secondly, it is incoherent in introducing an atemporal element into Jenson's avowedly temporal construal of the divine identity. The Son's gracious freedom should be seen both in creation and incarnation in a much stronger sense than Jenson allows. This article aims to explore a central aspect of Christology which, as will be pointed out later, has rather suffered at the hands of some theologians in recent times. As a Neutestamentler venturing into this debate, I can only plead the precedents of a generation ago, when New Testament scholars became embroiled in -indeed, to a large extent, initiated -the 'Myth of God Incarnate' controversy. 1 The present debate is, thankfully, on a more modest scale. Nevertheless, recent critiques of the concepts of the Son's pre-existence and of the logos asarkos have been at least as forceful and intellectually compelling as any of the salvos against the doctrine of the incarnation in the 1970s. The recent treatment of pre-existence by Robert Jenson Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005,