Program 185: Christ’s Personal Pronouns

The way Yahushua consistently referred to himself establishes that he was fully human and not at all divine.

Welcome to WLC Radio, a subsidiary of World’s Last Chance Ministries, an online ministry dedicated to learning how to live in constant readiness for the Savior's return.

For two thousand years, believers of every generation have longed to be the last generation. Contrary to popular belief, though, Christ did not give believers “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, he repeatedly warned that his coming would take even the faithful by surprise. Yahushua urgently warned believers to be ready because, he said, “The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” [Matthew 24:44] 

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Part 1: (Miles & Dave)

Miles Robey: Grammar. The bane of schoolchildren. But grammar has its uses and clarifying what is meant is one of them. Bad grammar can cause confusion, but good grammar clarifies what we’re trying to say.

Today, Dave Wright is going to be showing us how the personal pronouns Christ used to refer to himself reveal the truth about his nature. Christ himself, through the pronouns he used when referring to himself, revealed that he was fully human.

Now, if this sounds like blasphemy to you, bear with us. We’re not asking you to take our word for it. We’re simply asking you to look at the evidence and then pray about it and ask Yahuwah to establish you in the truth.

Later, we’ll talk about a situation many Christians find themselves in and that is what do you do if those close to you reject what you believe is new light? Or what do you do if they accept a new idea you believe to be in error? Are you supposed to quit worshipping with them? Are you supposed to ‘shake the dust from your feet’ and just move on? Keep listening and find out!

Dave? What does Yahushua’s use of personal pronouns reveal about himself?

Dave Wright: Well, for one, that he was indeed fully human and not at all divine. Yes, he is the only person who is Yahuwah’s only begotten son. He was begotten, not created. But he was begotten to be fully human.

And, thanks to the grammar he used when referring to himself, we can know this for a fact.

Miles: Ugh! Grammar! Grammar! I recently read a quote by Malik Faisal Moonzajer. Malik is the chairman of the Afghan Journalists’ Committee. He said something I found funny. He said, “Whenever I write a paragraph in English, I first check it with the Google Translator, and most often it says, ‘No language detected.’”

Dave: Depending upon the language, grammar can be quite difficult. I recently embarrassed myself over personal pronouns.

Miles: Do tell! This is going to be good.

Dave: You just want to hear how I embarrassed myself!

Miles: Well . . . yeah! Go on. What happened?

Dave: My family and I were invited to a picnic that had several foreign families attending as well. There was one family there, recently arrived from Canada. When we were introduced, the mom pointed out which ones were their kids amongst the others, naming each one. You know, like parents do. The oldest kid, a young teenager, had the most beautiful long, thick, blond hair. It was unusually shiny and fell in waves down to midback.

Just to make small talk and to acknowledge what the mom said, I commented, “Wow. She’s got really beautiful hair.”

Unfortunately, it was the wrong thing to say. The mom kind of stared at me and then stammered, “Um, uh, he. He’s a boy.”

Miles: Couldn’t you tell from the kid’s name?

Dave: I tried! It sounded to me like a unisex name, so I couldn’t tell. On the way home, when I told my wife what had happened, she thought it was hilarious and asked me the same thing, telling me it was a masculine name. But I hadn’t heard it before, so I didn’t know.

Fortunately, Scripture is a lot clearer, and the way Yahushua used pronouns when referring to himself can teach us a lot.

Miles: All right. Before you go on, let’s just take a moment to remind our listeners what pronouns are. Nouns, of course, are words that refer to a person, place, or thing. Pronouns are substitutes. They take the place of nouns. If we didn’t have pronouns, certain statements would sound awkward.

Dave: Pronouns can take the place of names or titles. Like, uh, King David. King David founded the Davidic dynasty. He was a man after Yah’s own heart. He was the father of Solomon and he was also a forefather of the Messiah.

He, him, she, her, they, them, it. Those are all pronouns. If we didn’t use them, we’d be stuck saying something weird like King David founded the Davidic dynasty. King David was a man after Yah’s own heart. King David was the father of Solomon and King David was also a forefather of the Messiah. See how awkward that is when we don’t use pronouns?

Miles: It’s just too repetitious.

Dave: Right. Personal pronouns are the pronouns we use to refer to ourselves: I, me, my, myself. Those are personal pronouns. So now, with that clear, let’s look at how Christ used pronouns and what that reveals about his nature.

I want to actually start with the Nicene creed, because the vast majority of Christians are trinitarians. I’ve printed out a copy of it I’d like you to read. You don’t have to read all of it, just the parts relating to Yahuwah, the Father, and to Yahushua, the son. Go ahead.

Miles: Uh . . .

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.

Dave: All right. The first statement is correct: there is only one true god, and that’s Yahuwah, the Father. He is also the Creator of everything in existence.

The next statement is where things start to go off course. It is this statement that attempts to establish Yahushua as a divine being. It says, “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.” It is attempting to establish Yahushua as one with the Father: one in purpose and one, church fathers later claimed, in very essence. One and the same.

Now, keep reading. After claiming that Yahushua is “God,” the creed is now going to explain how he’s actually also human. Go ahead.

Miles:

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

Dave: So now, it’s splitting them. According to the Nicene creed, Yahuwah is “God” and so is Yahushua. Notice: they are both “God.” Not godSSS. Just, simply, “God.” Purportedly they are both the one and only true god. Still singular.

But now we’re told that this “God” came down from heaven, became a man, was crucified, died, buried and resurrected. And then, after his resurrection, we’re told he ascended into heaven where . . . he did what? What did “God” do?

Miles: Uh, “is seated at the right hand of the Father.”

Dave: Wait a minute! Wait a minute! But the Nicene creed tells us the Father is “God.” So how can “God” sit beside himself?

Miles: Well, as you know, trinitarians say that the true god is in three persons: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” But they’re all one and the same.

Dave: All right. So, if that’s true then the statements Yahushua made while on earth and recorded in the gospels will support that assertion. Right?

Miles: They should.

Dave: Okay, turn to John chapter 10 and let’s start at . . . uh, verse 22. John 10, verse 22.

Miles: “Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem.”

Dave: Interesting fact. This Festival of Dedication? It’s talking about Hanukkah. It wasn’t one of Yahuwah’s feasts, but it was a celebration of thanksgiving for something that happened during the intertestamental time period. I don’t know if Yahushua himself kept it, but its observance does show up in Scripture here.

Anyway, go on.

Miles:

It was winter, and Yahushua was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Yahushua answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. my Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. [John 10:22-29]

Dave: A lot of pronouns in that passage: you, them, they, I, me, my.

Now. Think about what it just said in the Nicene creed, the creed that defines the trinitarian doctrine. If “God the Father” and “God the Son” are equal in power and equal in divinity and equal in . . . whatever else makes up being divine, how could Yahushua say that the Father is greater than “all”? That would include himself!

Miles: Well … not necessarily. Not if they were both divine. He would be included in that.

Dave: All right. Fair enough. The only problem with that is that Yahushua is not including himself. By referring to Yahuwah as “My Father” he is establishing distance there.

Miles: Okay. I can see that. But what about verse 30? I didn’t read that. It says, “I and the Father are one.” Couldn’t that mean that they were one in power and one in divinity? So that when Yahushua said the Father was greater than he, couldn’t he have simply been referring to his human nature? I mean if, as the Nicene creed states, Yahushua was divine, too. Couldn’t the statement that the Father was greater than he be taken as proof that Christ had a dual divine-and-human nature?

Dave: No. And I’ll show you why.

When you are using personal pronouns, you are, by very definition, referring to the totality of the person. When you refer to yourself as “I,” you’re referring to everything about you. You don’t separate yourself out into parts.

For example, if I say I can play the piano, I’m referring to me. All of me, not just my fingers.

What did you have for lunch today?

Miles: Uhhh … soup and sandwich.

Dave: Okay, so you—that’s a personal pronoun—you had soup and a sandwich for lunch. Does that mean just your mouth and your stomach and your intestines? Or does that include your feet, your hair, your … I don’t know, your ears?

Miles: I don’t know. It’s all of me. All of me benefitted from the nutrients.

Dave: And it’s all of you because when you use a personal pronoun, you’re referring to the person in totality. All that makes that person the individual he or she is. Their skills and abilities. Their powers, if you will. It can’t be otherwise.

Let’s look now at John 14 verse 28. This was just before the betrayal in Gethsemane. Yahushua’s cramming in every last bit of information he can before he’s taken from the disciples. Read for us what he says in John 14:28.

Miles: “You have heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for my Father is greater than I.”

Dave: “My Father is greater than I.” You can’t get more clear than that because when Yahushua uses the personal pronoun of “I” he has to, by definition, be referring to himself in the totality of who he is as a unique, distinct being.

We don’t separate ourselves. We don’t say, “Oh, I can’t think”—which, of course, is a lie because we all think—and then excuse that lie by saying, “I was just talking about my little finger.”

We don’t separate ourselves out that way, but that’s what trinitarians are trying to do when they try to claim that Yahushua is referring exclusively to his human nature in these statements.

Miles: Okay. I think I finally see what you’re saying. Logically speaking, you can’t use a personal pronoun and not be referring to anything and everything that makes up that person. So, when Christ referred to himself using personal pronouns, he couldn’t not have been referring to all of himself, including his supposed divine self.

Dave: Exactly. Let’s consider an example. Christ’s trial before the Sanhedrin. The rulers had a tough time coming up with charges and making them stick. What does Matthew 26, verses 59 and 60 tell us about the trial?

Miles: “The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Yahushua so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.”

Dave: When they later took him before Pilate and Pilate asked what the charges were, John 18 verse 30 says that they told Pilate, quote: “If he were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered him up to you.”

Miles: Trying to wriggle out of having to answer.

Dave: They had a really hard time coming up with charges that would stick. Now, what if they’d questioned him as to what he meant by all his statements saying he was dependent on Yahuwah? They liked to accuse him of blasphemy. You’d think if there were grounds to question him on this point, they would have done so.

Now, I want you to imagine that Yahushua gave the standard trinitarian answer when asked what he meant by saying the Father was greater than he. Can’t you just picture him, before the Sanhedrin, saying, “Yes, well, I was only talking about my human nature. In truth, I am one with Yahuwah. I am the elohim of your fathers. I am the elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob whom you profess to worship.” What do you think would have happened?

Miles: Ha! He wouldn’t have made it to the cross! They’d have ripped him limb from limb on the spot.

Dave: Probably. But it certainly would have given them better grounds for laying a charge against him. Furthermore, if Christ tried to make such a claim—that all those comments were about his human nature only; not his divine nature—then his accusers would have had grounds to accuse him of lying.

Miles: How so?

Dave: Well, Christ said, in John 5 verse 30, quote: “I can of myself do nothing.” So, either, he was prevaricating—using dishonestly evasive language—or he was making false statements. Because if he’s truly “God” in the trinitarian sense, it is not accurate to say, “I can of myself do nothing.”

So either, at worst, he wasn’t being strictly honest or, at best, he wasn’t being strictly accurate.

Miles: Huh. That’s a good point. And here’s another thought that just struck me. In Revelation, Yahushua is called the “Faithful and true Witness.” Being faithful, being true . . . being Yahuwah’s witness, he would never have contradicted his own statements about being dependent upon Yah, and how the Father was greater than he was. He’d never have claimed to be, as the Nicene creed puts it, “very God.” He wasn’t divine, and he never claimed to be.

Dave: What’s more, his disciples never understood him to be independent of Yahuwah or claim to have a self-existence. All those ideas came in centuries later.

Miles: We have to take a quick break but stay tuned. Dave has more to share.

We’ll be right back.

* * *

Advertisement

* * *Part 2: (Miles & Dave)

Dave: I’d like to turn now to the gospel of John. John was known as the disciple whom Yahushua loved. He was likely the youngest disciple which would suggest he was likely less settled into his beliefs and so more open to Yahushua’s teachings.

John’s gospel carefully records the Savior’s sermons to a degree the synoptic gospels—that’s Matthew, Mark, and Luke—simply don’t. And what’s interesting when you dig deeply into John is that, more than any other of the gospel writers, John preserves Yahushua’s repeated statements regarding his dependence on the Father. You can find it in the other gospels, but these statements about Yahushua’s dependence on the Father, his being commissioned by the Father, his authority being granted by the Father, etc., all this is most clearly presented in John.

Miles: I can see John doing that. He was meticulous when it came to making sure his audience understood what he was trying to say.

For example, he explained a number of titles and even names. Like Thomas. Thomas means “twin” in either Hebrew or Aramaic, but it’s only in John that we find out that Thomas was commonly called Didymus by his friends, which is Greek for “twin.” It’s like John was really concerned that whoever read his account “got” all the nuances. He works in all these details.

Dave: He’s meticulous.

Miles: Here. Listen to this. It’s just three verses in the first chapter of John. It says:

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Yahushua.

Now when Yahushua looked at him, he said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone). [John 1:40-42]

So in just three little verses, we’ve got two parenthetical explanations. He tells us that “Messiah” is translated as “Christ,” and that “Cephas” means “A Stone.” The other gospel writers aren’t as concerned with the nuances as John.

Dave laughs: You’re getting ahead of me!

Miles: Oh, sorry!

Dave: No, you’re right; it’s a good point. And you think about it, it’s more than just word definitions. John also takes time to explain Yahushua’s teachings in a way the other gospel writers just . . . don’t. I don’t know whether they were in too much of a hurry or what, but John focuses on the deep lessons and explains them when he feels it’s necessary.

Turn to John 2 and read verses 18 to 20.

Miles:

So the Jews answered and said to him, “What sign do you show to us, since you do these things?”

Yahushua answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

Dave: They don’t get what he’s saying so they laugh at him. But John wants to make sure his readers understand what Yahushua meant. Go ahead. What does it say next?

Miles: “But he was speaking of the temple of his body. Therefore, when he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Yahushua had said.” [John 2:21-22]

Dave: It’s very important to John that his audience understands the deep lessons Yahushua is trying to convey.

Read John 6:64 now. Read just the first sentence. What does that say?

Miles: “But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Dave: Okay, so that’s what Yahushua said. Now John’s going to explain why he said it. Read the rest of the verse.

Miles: “For Yahushua knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray him.”

Dave: In novels, we talk about point of view and perspective. There’s the first-person point of view, where there is someone telling his or her story. There’s a lot of “I’s” and “me’s” and “my’s” in the first-person point of view.

You’ve also got the second person point of view, or “you.” Then there’s the third person point of view. John writes in the third person. He’s like this omniscient narrator who knows everything about the characters. More than just the plot points, he knows the thoughts and feelings of the various people in his stories.

Miles: He probably gave it a lot of thought over the years. Maybe even did interviews later.

Dave: I’m sure he did. He didn’t want to miss a detail or a nuance that could reveal truth.

Let’s go to the next chapter now. John 7 verses 37 to 39.

Miles: Um …

On the last day, that great day of the feast, Yahushua stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

Dave: Now John’s going to explain what he meant. Verse 39.

Miles: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Yahushua was not yet glorified.”

Dave: By “the Holy Spirit was not yet given,” John meant the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit that came directly from Christ on Pentecost. But, see: Yahushua’s using metaphorical language and John wants to make sure his audience knows precisely what was meant.

Uh … turn to John 11 and read verses 11 to 13. This is talking about after Yahushua and the disciples heard that Lazarus was sick. Go ahead.

Miles:

He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.”

Then his disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.”

Dave: All right, here comes John’s explanation. Next verse.

Miles: “However, Yahushua spoke of his death, but they thought that he was speaking about taking rest in sleep.”

Dave: All right, just a few more. John 12:32. Let’s see what that says.

Miles: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself.”

Dave: We know what Christ meant by this because … verse 33! John explains what he meant.

Miles: “This he said, signifying by what death he would die.”

Dave: John 13 verses 10 and 11? This was when Yahushua was washing the disciples’ feet and Peter, being Peter, asked to have his head and hands washed, too.

Miles: “Yahushua said to him, ‘He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.’ For he knew who would betray him; therefore he said, ‘You are not all clean.’”

Dave: John 21 verses 18 and 19.

Miles: “‘Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.’ This he spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify [Yahuwah]. And when he had spoken this, he said to him, ‘Follow me.’”

Dave: And one last one. John 21, verses 20 to 23. This is about John himself. John never refers to himself by name. He only drops hints as to his identity. Go ahead. This is an exchange between Peter and Yahushua about John.

Miles:

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Yahushua loved following, who also had leaned on his breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays you?” Peter, seeing him, said to Yahushua, “But Lord, what about this man?”

Yahushua said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow me.”

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Yahushua did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

Dave: So we’ve got all these parenthetical comments and editorial explanations from John. No other gospel writer does this to the degree that John does. He was very concerned that Christ’s words be understood and that he, John, as the author, was precise in conveying the truth.

So now, let me ask you this. Having seen the meticulousness with which John made sure to clarify exactly what was meant in each situation, how likely is it that if Yahushua did indeed have a dual nature, 100% human and 100% divine, how likely is it that John wouldn’t have made a point to explain that?

Miles: Not very likely, when you put it like that.

Dave: Yahushua made all these statements about being dependent upon his Father, and how his Father was greater than he, and how, by himself, he could do nothing; it was his Father doing the works. He repeats that over and over and over again.

Now, we’ve seen how meticulous John was in providing explanations for anything that might be misinterpreted. I know I keep using that word, but “meticulous” is the only word to describe John’s level of carefulness.

If Yahushua truly were equal with the Father in his divine nature, why didn’t John say that? When Yahushua talked about being dependent upon the Father, why didn’t he say something like, “This He spake concerning His human nature and not of Himself as God.”

Why didn’t he say something like that?

Miles: Yeah, you’d think he would. He provides all these explanations for things that are, comparatively, not really all that important in the scheme of things, but he remains silent, giving no word of explanation on something as important as Yahushua’s nature?

Yeah, that doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t compute.

Dave: Surely if John knew that Yahushua, in a divine nature, was independent of Yah and equal to Yah, was, in fact, himself God in the triune sense, then he’d also have known that explaining just which nature such statements were referring to was a whole lot more important than, say, telling us that “Cephas” means “a stone.”

Miles: Or that Thomas was a twin and what his Greek acquaintances called him!

Dave: If John had truly believed that Yahushua was part of a triune godhead, if he believed that being called the “Son of God” was simply a title or designation of his role in the trinity, had he believed Yahushua had a dual nature—one human and dependent, the other divine and omnipotent—he wouldn’t have stayed silent, offering no clarifying explanations when all these statements were made about how Yahushua was wholly dependent upon his Father and that he did nothing without the Father’s express approval and support.

Miles: Yeah. Explaining what he meant by Lazarus sleeping is nothing compared to the importance of understanding Christ’s actual nature. Yeah, you put it like that, and I can’t see that happening. If John had believed Yahushua had an independent, omnipotent, divine nature, he certainly would have provided the explanation that such limiting comments referred strictly to Christ’s human nature.

Dave: You know he would have! Because what’s more important? Knowing that when he said he’d raise up the temple in three days he was referring to being resurrected after three days, or knowing that he had a dual nature?

Miles: Knowing his nature, of course.

Dave: Right. Because that impacts our entire understanding of the plan of salvation and Yahuwah’s expectations of us. A misunderstanding on this point leads to a virtual avalanche of doctrinal errors in other areas.

So, here’s the thing. And I don’t think trinitarians have really thought this through. You know, we just inherit so many of our beliefs without really considering all the ramifications of them, but the problem with insisting that Christ had a dual nature, in light of all his statements to the contrary, is that this means he was, at best, prevaricating or, at worst, being outright deceptive.

To claim to be dependent while, in actuality, being “God” in the triune sense with all the powers that entails—even if voluntarily laid aside as trinitarians claim—is simply not true. It’s a lie.

Miles: You’re right. I never saw that before. As a trinitarian, I always heard that he’d chosen to lay aside his divine nature, while at the same time being told he still had it. Just didn’t use it. Or something. It was vague. But all those comments about being dependent on Yahuwah were always said to apply only to his human nature, not his divine nature.

Dave: And yet, neither Christ himself nor John, with all his careful explanations, ever explained that. So, in essence—and this is very solemn—to insist that Yahushua was “very God,” as stated in the Nicene creed, that he was divine and had power in himself, and to insist all this in the face of his own statements to the contrary, is to do so at the expense of his honesty. Because Christ’s statements of dependence completely contradict what the reality would be if he were divine. And to make such statements with no clarifying explanation whatsoever?

Miles: That doesn’t make sense.

Dave: Which brings me to my next point: If Yahushua were indeed “God” in the trinitarian sense of the word, then all his statements about being dependent upon his Father weren’t accurate, and they weren’t accurate even by their own definition of what his nature was!

Miles: How do you mean? Because I remember when I was a trinitarian, I believed that Yahushua voluntarily laid aside his divine nature. I was taught that he was wholly human and wholly divine.

Dave: Okay. Follow the logic here. If Yahushua had a dual nature, did the divine nature die when he died on the cross?

Miles: No. Because by very definition, divinity cannot die.

Dave: Correct. So, in a sense, there was a separation between the two natures. There had to be if one had to die and the other couldn’t.

Miles: All right.

Dave: So this divine nature, while one in purpose with the Father, by virtue of being divine itself was, in actuality, independent of the Father. Or, for those who believe that they were one-and-the-same: same nature, same essence, same being, then this second nature was an independent entity, just as independent as the Father Himself.

Now, again by definition, this self-sufficient independence by very definition makes personal dependence impossible. It precludes it.

Miles: Hmmm . . . okay, yeah. I think I see what you’re getting at. If Yahushua was indeed personally self-sufficient by virtue of being divine, how could his human nature need any help at all from another person?

Dave: And yet, Christ repeatedly stated that he was completely reliant upon the Father. Turn back to John 5 and read verse 30 again. Just the first phrase. What does that say?

Miles: “I can of myself do nothing.”

Dave: Notice he did not say, “I can, with my human nature, do nothing.” That would have been a more accurate and, quite frankly, honest statement if he did indeed have a dual nature.

But he doesn’t stop there. Read the explanation Christ did give in John 14 verse 10.

Miles: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does the works.”

Dave: And verse 28?

Miles: “You have heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for my Father is greater than I.”

Dave: And John 8:28?

Miles: “So Yahushua said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.’”

Dave: Could such statements be at all accurate, let alone honest, if Yahushua, like the Father, were self-sufficient and independent due to being divine?

Miles: I think, even if he had spelled it out, even if he’d said, “I am not Yahuwah. I am His son and Ambassador” trinitarians would still dismiss it and say, “Yeah, but He’s referring to His human nature.”

Dave: Which just goes to show how careful we need to be not to close our minds to other ideas.

If Yahushua, as trinitarians believe, was indeed divine, if he was indeed “God,” what possible motive could he have had to say he was dependent upon a different being?

Miles: The way I heard it explained was that he was our example.

Dave: Of course. But he could still have been our example by his humanity relying on the perfection of his divinity. Wasn’t his divine nature perfectly capable of supplying the needs of his human nature? Just humanity relying on divinity would have made the point, but he never once explains that.

One last point: What possible motive could Yahushua have had to refer to his dependence upon the Father, if it weren’t entirely true, when the very statement implies his whole being, all of who he was, was dependent? If anyone else was deliberately misleading, we’d accuse them of being disingenuous.

Miles: Or prevaricating. I don’t trust people who do that. If you can’t trust them to mean what they say, and say what they mean, you have to always be searching for hidden meanings.

Dave: Precisely.

The matter of whether Yahushua was dependent or independent is extremely important because of what it reveals about his nature. So why wasn’t this clearly spelled out if, indeed, he had a dual nature? If he could keep insisting that he could do nothing by himself, while in reality, he could do everything, how do we know that, in his other statements, there’s not a hidden meaning somewhere that means the exact opposite of what he said?

This calls into question his morality and honesty. It’s a very important point. We can’t just dismiss this as unimportant. It’s very important.

Miles: Well, yeah. I never thought of that, but you’re right. He made all these incredibly clear statements. Incredibly clear, that is, if you take them at face value and don’t read anything more into them. He repeatedly said that he was dependent upon his Father. So, if the reality was actually something else, something hidden, something he never explained nor did any of the apostles, something that is actually just the opposite of what he said, how do we know that there’s not hidden meaning to what we’ve assumed are other clear statements of his? How do we know he meant what he said?

Dave: That’s the problem. It’s far more than simply a question of whether he was talking about his human nature or his supposed divine nature. It has to do with the very veracity, the truthfulness, the trustworthiness of the Messiah himself. And if you can’t take at face value what he says, if you can’t trust that he means what he says, what anchor do you have?

Miles: Don’t go away folks. When we return, we’ll be answering your questions sent in to our Daily Mailbag. Stay tuned.

* * *

You are listening to World's Last Chance Radio.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Advertisement

The primary purpose of prophecy is so that, when it is fulfilled, we can know that Yahuwah is in control.

One prophecy that has been fulfilled in its entirety is a prophecy found in Daniel chapter 9. This prophecy spans 70 weeks, or 490 years. Many Christians believe that the first 69 weeks of that prophecy have been fulfilled, but the final “week” is yet future.

The truth is, the entire prophecy has already been fulfilled and it was fulfilled 2,000 years ago. This is an incredibly important prophecy because it pinpoints the coming of the Messiah as well as his death and when the gospel went to the gentiles. Again, it’s been entirely fulfilled, and it does indeed reveal that Yahuwah is in complete control.

If you would like to learn more about this important prophecy, listen to the radio program entitled “Daniel’s 70-Week Prophecy Fulfilled!” [Program 184] You can find this and other previously aired programs on our website as well as on YouTube. Listen to it today and see the proof that Yahuwah is indeed in control.

* * *Daily Mailbag (Miles & Dave)

Miles: Basuki from Jambi, Indonesia has sent us a question.

You know, Indonesia is such an interesting country. It’s the fourth most populous in the entire world, coming after China, India, and the US. It’s also the world’s largest country that’s made entirely of islands.

Dave: That’s interesting. Do you know how many islands there are in Indonesia?

Miles: How many?

Dave: No, I’m asking. I don’t know.

Miles: I don’t know for sure, either, but I do know there’s well over 17,000 with somewhere around 6,000 of them being inhabited.

Dave: Wow. So what’s Basuki’s question?

Miles: He says, quote: “You often refer to the WLC ‘team’ and have said you’re scattered all around the world. How do you arrive at a consensus of opinion as to what you all believe? We have a small home-churching group that is really struggling right now as we’ve developed a difference of opinion on a particular subject. Some have accepted it as new light while the others have rejected it. It’s really heart-breaking as we’ve been very close in the past. I’m hoping you can share some wisdom on what we’re to do. How do you all agree on everything?”

Dave: I think you can answer that, Miles. How do we all agree on everything?

Miles laughs: We don’t!

Dave: No, we don’t. But here’s the key: we don’t question each other’s sincerity and we don’t cut each other off just because occasionally we don’t see eye-to-eye on certain topics. And I think that’s where it’s at: recognizing each other’s Yah-given right to exercise liberty of conscience. That’s true religious liberty.

The truth is, if you’re part of a group where all of you are truth seekers, you’re going to have diversity of views. That’s normal. It’s to be expected. But you don’t have to denounce each other as deluded or “clinging to error” simply because you disagree. How often have we believed a particular point of view only to realize later, after more study and other truths are learned, that the point of view we used to hold was, in fact, in error?

Miles: Quite a number of times, actually. And I have also—and I think you have, too—had the experience of rejecting something as wrong, only to accept it later as truth.

Dave: Absolutely. I remember one point in particular. The first time it was presented to me, I was sure it was wrong. The evidence presented didn’t convince me as it seemed to be based on nothing more than emotional arguments. It wasn’t using much logic.

About three years later, the same point came up again, this time with a whole lot more logical proofs presented from Scripture, and I accepted it! Now, just what do you think would have happened if the first person to share it with me had cut me off and denounced me when I first rejected what, in the end, I came to see as truth?

Miles: Well, he or she would have lost the opportunity to continue to witness to you.

Dave: Exactly. We don’t need to argue over truth. Let’s give each other religious liberty free of judgment.

Miles: I like what you said about not arguing. I used to think that if I could just find the right words, I could somehow, through sheer force of will, convince the other person to view things the way I did. But I finally came to realize that it’s not my job to convince anyone of the truth. It’s not your job, either. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job.

Dave: That lifts the burden of feeling you have to convince them if you want to save them, doesn’t it?

Miles: It really does. Shortly after this realization, I got into a discussion with someone who was adamantly opposed to … um, I’m trying to remember. It was about the lunar Sabbath, if I remember correctly. He was mocking and made a lot of derogatory comments. There was plenty there to take offense to if I’d wanted to, but I didn’t. I refused to argue. I just took a deep breath and said, basically, “I want to encourage you to keep on studying the subject. You will find answers for your objections if you’ll just keep studying.”

It was over a year later this bloke tracked me down and, I kid you not, he actually thanked me for not getting defensive or angry in return. He had kept studying and eventually ended up seeing the truth and the logic he’d been closed to before. He wanted to thank me for simply encouraging him to keep studying.

Dave: That’s wonderful. And it just goes to show how we don’t need to get angry or denounce those who disagree with us.

I’ve thought about it before and, while I can’t prove anything, I think this tendency to cut off people who disagree with us is left over from the Christian subculture of having different denominations for different sets of beliefs. It’s just part of the confusion of Babylon.

Miles: What do you mean?

Dave: Well, take any doctrine. Take, uh … baptism, for example. Originally, baptism was done by immersion. Over time, to address issues that arose when pagan doctrines were brought into the faith, they tried to solve the contradictions by introducing infant baptism.

Centuries later, as Bibles became more widespread so people could study for themselves, many came to see infant baptism as wrong. But there were still many sincere-minded believers who continued to cling to infant baptism. Why? Because they’d not yet been exposed to advanced truths that would have clarified that infant baptism wasn’t necessary. So, what happened? Churches were split in two. New organizations were formed which, in turn, later split into more organizations.

Miles: And we see the results today: a plethora of many different organizations, all claiming to be the only ones to teach the truths of Scripture.

Dave: And they all do have some truth. The problem is, they all still have some error, too. We still have error. I don’t know what it is. We’re not knowingly clinging to error but based on how Yah’s spirit has led us in the past, I’m guessing that as time continues, Yah will reveal to us more areas where our beliefs can be refined and, yes. Even corrected. But, as you said, it’s not our job to convict of the truth. We merely present it.

But let me ask you this: if we cut off everyone who disagrees with us, how are we in any different position from the Pharisees who denounced everyone who wasn’t a Pharisee as being some great sinner?

Miles: More than that. When we cut off someone who doesn’t agree with us, we are voluntarily silencing our witness to the other person. Have you noticed how truth builds on itself? Each new truth lays a foundation on which another truth can build. So maybe someone hasn’t knowingly rejected the truth. It’s just that they haven’t yet reached the point of being able to grasp an advanced truth.

Dave: And since we can’t read the heart, it’s not our place to condemn them! We all start off at different points. Let’s leave the job of convicting to the Holy Spirit. That’s why, when we denounce the various organizations that make up Babylon, we denounce the organizations that cling to error, not the humans in them.

So. Practically speaking, how does this look when you’re working—or worshipping—in close proximity to someone who believes differently? Well, when you leave it up to the Holy Spirit to do the convicting, you give the gift of trust to each other. What I mean is, I trust your sincerity, and you trust in mine. We don’t denounce each other. And, because we trust the others of the team to be sincere, too, when a point of difference arises, our reactions are different.

Miles: Yeah. A lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to denounce other beliefs as wrong because, if the new idea were really true, they’d already believe them!

Instead, when you trust the Holy Spirit to convict, when you trust the sincerity of the other brother or sister who believes differently, then your knee-jerk reaction isn’t going to be to argue every single point of difference. You’ll look at it, giving it an honest, open-minded study. You’re not going to leap instantly into trying to convince the other person that he or she is wrong. Instead, you’ll take the difference of opinion as an invitation to study.

Dave: Exactly. Huge difference in attitude. You don’t have to argue every single point just because you don’t believe that way. Listen, and then go study it out for yourself. Long-winded arguments, lengthy, wordy e-mails, don’t convince the other person because that’s the Holy Spirit’s job. We’re to plant the seed. Sure, water it. But the actual act of convincing is not our work.

If you find that you disagree on some point of doctrine with friends or even family members, you can certainly share briefly and succinctly your own views, but don’t immediately leap into argue mode. They may have a point if you’ll just give it some honest study. And then, if you still disagree, continue to keep an open mind. Maybe you or they will see things differently at some point in the future. But the last thing we should do as sincere truth seekers is to cut each other off. That doesn’t advance the truth or honor Yahuwah. At all.

Miles: Yeah. A flood of words doesn’t convince anyone. Reminds me of something my dad used to say. He’d say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Arguing, trying to get our point across by sheer force of will, is us trying to do the Holy Spirit’s job. He doesn’t need our help.

Dave: True religious liberty, true liberty of conscience, means that we respect each other’s right to believe differently. Arguing simply rouses the emotions and then Satan can take advantage. Continue to be polite. See differences as invitations to study. Know that Yahuwah loves the other person just as much as He loves you.

You can trust Yah to lead you both into truth if you’ll keep studying. Continuing to seek more light is far more important than agreeing on every single point of doctrine.

Miles: That’s very true. Very true. So, Basuki—and anyone else who finds themselves in that same position—you don’t have to split off. You certainly shouldn’t denounce someone who disagrees with you. Continue being kind, mutually respect each others’ right to believe as they’re convicted, and continue to trust Yahuwah to lead all of you into His truth.

Dave: Amen.

Miles: Thanks for a great question we can all learn from. If you’ve got questions or comments, we’d like to hear from you, too. Just go to our website at WorldsLastChance.com and click on Contact Us. We always enjoy hearing from our listeners.

* * *Part 3: (Miles & Dave)

Dave: There was one more point about Yahushua’s use of personal pronouns that I didn’t get to earlier. Would you read John 16 verse 27 for us? This makes an important point I want to take just a minute to focus on. John 16 verse 27.

Miles: “The Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from [Yah].”

Dave: Just a few minutes later and Yahushua says a prayer. It’s recorded in the next chapter. I’d like you to turn there and read John chapter 17 verses 7 and 8.

Miles: “Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.”

Dave: We need to seriously contemplate these passages. Saying Yahushua came from Yah and believing that Yahuwah sent him is very different from saying that Yahushua is “elohim” and equal with Yahuwah in every respect despite being a separate being.

Trinitarians will sometimes scoff at those of us who are “unitarians”—we believe that Scripture teaches that only Yahuwah is divine—and they say we lack faith. Well, in that prayer you just read from John 17, Yahushua is approving the disciples’ faith in believing he was sent by Yah. You can’t have it both ways.

Miles: I noticed, in skimming through the rest of the chapter, there’s nothing in here that even hints at Yahushua being divine or the “living elohim” they all worshipped.

Dave: Notice, too, the reason Yahushua gives the disciples for why Yahuwah loves them. John 16:27.

Miles: “The Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from [Yah].”

Dave: This would have been the perfect place to have said, “The Father Himself loves you because you have believed that I am elohim and equal to Yahuwah.” But he didn’t say that. Instead, he approves the faith they have for believing he “came from” Yah. Not was one-and-the-same-as Yahuwah. The very faith Trinitarians denounce unitarians for, is what Yahushua was praising the disciples for having.

Miles: Ironic, isn’t it?

Dave: Well, you can’t claim the disciples believed it was only Christ’s human nature that came from Yahuwah because their love for Yahushua and their belief that he came forth from Yah are the very grounds for Yahushua to explain why the Father loves them! And believing that Yahushua “came forth from Yahuwah” is the only article of faith mentioned there.

Miles: Sooo . . . claiming to believe that Yahushua was independent from Yah, that he was equal to Yah and was himself also elohim, is not a reason given why Yahuwah loved the disciples.

Dave: No. That appears nowhere in sacred Scripture.

I remember once hearing a trinitarian preacher say that the disciples struggled to accept Christ’s divinity. They knew he was human; they struggled to see the divine. Then he said, our struggle today is to accept Christ’s humanity. And that’s the great harm the doctrine of the trinity does. It strips the Savior of his humanity. It puts him on such a high pedestal that we stop seeing him for the example he came to be. And Yahushua’s use of personal pronouns supports that he was fully human and not at all divine.

The disciples had no problem accepting Yahushua’s humanity because they knew that he was fully human and not divine. Scripture supports this. And now it’s time that we accept this truth, too.

Miles: Amazing, isn’t it? How the errors that came in in the fourth century and beyond, when the Christians started making concessions with paganism, still cling to Christianity to this day? It’s past time to search out the truth and lay aside the error.

I want to thank you for tuning in. We hope you can join us again tomorrow and until then, remember: Yahuwah loves you . . . and He is safe to trust!

* * *

You have been listening to WLC Radio.

This program and past episodes of WLC Radio are available for downloading on our website. They're great for sharing with friends and for use in Bible studies! They're also an excellent resource for those worshipping Yahuwah alone at home. To listen to previously aired programs, visit our website at WorldsLastChance.com. Click on the WLC Radio icon displayed on our homepage. 

In his teachings and parables, the Savior gave no “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, the thrust of his message was constant … vigilance. Join us again tomorrow for another truth-filled message as we explore various topics focused on the Savior's return and how to live in constant readiness to welcome him warmly when he comes.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.