Program 280
Son of God ≠ God the Son

Yahushua is not unique in being the son of Yah. Scripture refers to many people as sons of Yahuwah.

Welcome to WLC Radio, a subsidiary of WLC Radio Ministry, 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: Yahushua has many titles in Scripture. He’s referred to as the Bread of Life; the Water of Life. We find references to him as the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God, the Consolation of Israel and, his personal favorite, the Son of Man. There is one title, though, that causes some confusion among believers and, surprisingly, it’s the title: Son of God.

From when Gabriel announced his birth to Mary clear through to the book of Revelation, Yahushua is repeatedly referred to as the “Son of God.”

So, what’s the confusion? Well, for many Christians, the title “Son of God” is synonymous with the title, “God the Son.” Does the fact that Yahushua is the “only begotten son of God” mean that he is divine, that he’s also God the Son? That’s what we’re going to be looking at today.

Hello, my name is Miles Robey and you’re listening to World’s Last Chance Radio where we cover a variety of topics related to Scripture, prophecy, practical piety, Biblical beliefs, and living in constant readiness for the Savior’s unexpected return, whenever that might be.

Today, Dave Wright will be comparing the title “Son of God” and whether it can be interpreted as synonymous with “God the Son.” Later, during our Daily Mailbag, we’ll look at just what it means for Yahushua to return “back to” the Father. If he didn’t have a pre-existence, why would he say he was going “back to” the Father?

Then Jane Lamb has a promise for anyone struggling with discouragement. Does life ever feel overwhelming and the struggles just too much? Yah’s got a promise for you.

Dave?

Dave Wright: Thank you, Miles.

We still have titles in today’s world. In the United States and the Philippines, judges are called “Your Honor.” In Great Britain, High Court judges are referred to as “My Lord” or “My Lady.”

Miles: Same in India. Judges are called “My Lord” or “Your Lordship.”

Dave: Different rulers have had different titles. There’s Charles the Bald, Holy Roman Emperor from 875 to 877; Eirik the Priest-Hater, King of Norway from 1280 to 1299.

Miles: Justinian the Slit-Nose.

Dave laughs: You’re making that one up!

Miles: No! Really. He was the last Eastern Roman Emperor of the Heraclian Dynasty. He was so hated, they killed him and cut his nose off.

Dave: Wow!

Miles: Oh! Oh! Oh! Listen to this: as a teenager, I memorized Idi Amin’s titles. You know who he was, right?

Dave: Ugandan dictator in the 1970s?

Miles: Yep. And he gave himself the title—you ready for this?—"His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji, Doctor Idi Amin Dada, Victorious Cross, Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross recipient, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Uncrowned King of Scotland.”

Dave laughs: Okay, then! Not as bad as Korean “Supreme Leader” Kim Jong-Il’s title of “Eternal Bosom of Hot Love,” but … whatever.

Anyway. Titles can be illuminating. They can also be misleading. We’ve seen this in how the Bible translators stuck in the generic title of “Lord” in the Old Testament instead of using His personal name as the original Hebrew did. But the problems continue in the New Testament. When you read the Bible wearing trinitarian lenses, it’s easy to impose that paradigm on what you’re reading. And that’s a problem because Scripture is clear that Yahushua is fully human. He’s not divine at all.

But when your foundational understanding is that “God” is not just Yahuwah but instead is a triune godhead, you’re going to project that understanding onto Scripture.

But you can search the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, and you’ll never find Yahushua referred to as “God the Son.” Not once. You’ll find a lot of “son of God’s” but no “God the Son.”

Miles: Well, I think the problem is—speaking as a former trinitarian—we all tend to transpose that phrase in our minds. We see “son of God” and we just assume it’s the same thing as “God the Son.” But it’s not.

Dave: You’re absolutely right. In fact, I’ve got a quote here I’d like you to read. It’s from Hastings’ Dictionary of the New Testament. It appears under the entry, “Son of God.” Would you read that for us, please?

Miles:

…the title ‘Son of God’ is now appropriated to the Second Person of the Trinity; and the ordinary reader of the Bible assumes this to be the meaning wherever he finds the phrase. He has only, however, to read with a little attention to perceive that this is an assumption which ought not to be made without inquiry, because in Scripture there are many ‘sons of God.’

Dave: That’s quite the admission! Just because Christians use “Son of God” and “God the Son” interchangeably, doesn’t mean we should.

Miles: But Yahushua isn’t the only “son of God.” I’m thinking of Job. Doesn’t the book of Job refer to other “sons of God”?

Dave: It does, and that’s not the only place, but it’s a good place to start. It’s believed that the book of Job, written by Moses, is actually the oldest book of the Bible, written even before Genesis. Would you please read Job 1 verse 6?

Miles: “One day the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahuwah, and Satan also came with them.”

Dave: And Job 2 verse 1?

Miles: “One day the sons of God came again to present themselves before Yahuwah, and Satan also came with them to present himself before Yahuwah.”

Dave: Some versions translate “sons of God” as angels, but in the original Hebrew it actually says, “sons of God.” So, they stuck really close to the original in this translation.

Turn now to Daniel 3. This is the story of the three worthies in the fiery furnace. What did Nebuchadnezzar say when he got close enough to look? Verse 25.

Miles: “He said, ‘Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.’”

Dave: And then in verse 28, Nebuchadnezzar links this “son of the gods” to angels. Would you read that next?

Miles: “Then Nebuchadnezzar said, ‘Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants!’”

Dave: It makes sense that angels would be called sons of God, but kings were, too.

At Creation, Yahuwah gave Adam and Eve “dominion” over the creation. In Genesis 1 verse 26, dominion is given so that, quote, “they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So, with this in mind, I’d like you to turn now to Luke 3. This is working backward from Christ, giving his lineage. Start with verse 36. Let’s start with Noah, a recognizable name, and read through verse 38. Again, it starts with Yahushua as the son of … who was the son of … who the son of … etc.

Go ahead.

Miles:

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Dave: Adam, the son of …

Miles: God.

Dave: God. That’s right. The world’s first king, Adam, was accounted a son of God.

And he’s not the only one. With the founding of the Davidic dynasty, this becomes a common title. Turn to 1 Chronicles 17 and read verses 11 to 14. This is a message Yahuwah sent David through the prophet Nathan.

Miles:

When your time comes to be with your fathers, I will raise up after you your descendant, who is one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for Me, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to Me. I will not take away My faithful love from him as I took it from the one who was before you. I will appoint him over My house and My kingdom forever, and his throne will be established forever.

Dave: This prophecy, like many given the House of David, has a dual application. The first and obvious, of course, is that this is speaking about David’s son and heir, Solomon. But the secondary application refers to Yahushua, the Messiah that would be born of David’s lineage. Scripture repeatedly refers to the Messiah as ruling on David’s throne.

The parallelism continues in other ways. What does 2 Chronicles 6 verse 42 say? This is from Solomon’s prayer of dedication at his coronation.

Miles: Uhh … “Yahuwah Elohim, do not reject your anointed one. Remember the great love promised to David your servant.”

Dave: In Hebrew, “anointed one” is mashiach which, in our language is …?

Miles: Messiah.

Dave: I have here a quote from an old 1935 edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature. It’s from a fascinating article by Ermine Huntress called “‘Son of God’ in Jewish Writings Prior to the Christian Era.” Here – would you read that for us, please?

Miles:

Thus Solomon, the idealized king of Israel’s golden age, is in Chronicles both called ‘Messiah’ and given the promise that he will be God’s son; and since God establishes his kingdom forever, the promise logically should apply to any faithful royal descendant. It would seem a short step from this conjunction of sonship and Messiahship in Solomon to the designation of the future Messiah as God’s Son.

Dave: This theme is developed more fully in the gospels. What did Gabriel tell Mary? Luke 1 verses 31 to 35.

Miles:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name him Yahushua. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and Yahuwah Elohim will give him the throne of his father David; and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God.

Dave: This is a fascinating passage because it’s spelling out why Yahushua would be called the “Son of God.” And notice, he’s not going to be called “God the Son.” If Gabriel were describing the process of God the Son becoming incarnate in human flesh, he rightly could have inserted that he should be called “God the Son.” But that’s not what he says. Instead, he explains that Yahushua would be called the “Son of God” because of the miracle of his conception. Also, notice how Gabriel refers back to the prophecy made to David. He is to be called the “Son of God” because of his dual role as king and Messiah.

To the first-century Jewish mind, the understood being a son of God did not mean you were divine. Let’s read what Nathaniel said the first time he met the Messiah. John 1 verses 47 to 51.

Miles:

When Yahushua saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.”

“How do you know me?” Nathanael asked.

Yahushua answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”

Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”

Yahushua said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”

Oh, that’s interesting. I never picked up on that before – that Nathanael called him Rabbi, or teacher, and the Son of God, and the king of Israel.

Dave: He was acknowledging Yahushua as the Messiah because Messiah simply means “anointed one” and kings were always anointed.

Miles: Did you notice that when King Charles was crowned king, he was also anointed?

Dave: Yes. Well … I knew it was done, but that part of the ceremony wasn’t televised. It was done behind a screen to block the view. Probably because it’s considered the most sacred part of the ceremony.

Nathanael’s words are actually a fairly common literary device. It’s called “synonymous parallelism.” Basically, it’s where you make a statement, and then you repeat that same thought just using different words. That’s what Nathanael did. It emphasized his astonishment. He said: You’re the Son of God—part 1; and then, part 2, you’re the king of Israel. In Nathanael’s mind, as well as in the minds of the Jews of that day, those terms were synonymous.

Miles: And because it was said of so many other human kings, they didn’t interpret it as a statement of anyone’s divinity, least of all Yahushua’s.

Dave: That’s correct. They had a better understanding of the nature of the Messiah than Christians today. They may have had too limited a view of his mission, but they did understand that his nature was fully human.

* * *

Advertisement

Dispensationalism is a popular doctrine among many Christians. But … is it Biblical?

Dispensationalism, the belief that history and divine revelation unfolds in a series of different epochs, is widely held among Baptists, Pentecostals, and various charismatic and non-denominational groups. However, this doctrine makes certain assumptions that are inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. To know your belief is true, it is important to make sure it is consistent with the entirety of Scripture, and this is something that dispensationalism cannot do.

To learn more, look for Program 263 called “Dispensationalism: Its errors and assumptions.” Again, that’s “Dispensationalism: Its errors and assumptions,” Program 263 on WorldsLastChance.com.

* * *Part 2: (Miles & Dave)

Dave: We just read where Nathanael’s exclamation when he met Yahushua was an astonished “You’re the Son of God; you’re the king of Israel.” Now what’s really interesting is that we find in the record of Yahushua’s trial that even Christ’s enemies equated the two roles. So, this was a widely understood concept that, again, wasn’t automatically taken as proof of divinity.

Turn to Matthew 26 and read verses 62 through 66. This is the High Priest speaking to Yahushua here.

Miles:

Then the high priest stood up and said to Yahushua, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Yahushua remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

“You have said so,” Yahushua replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

Dave: Some translations put it as, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Our word “Christ” comes from the Greek chrīstós which is their word for “messiah.”

This connection was commonly understood. Luke includes an example as well. Would you please read Luke 4, verses 40 and 41?

Miles: Sure, uh …

At sunset, the people brought to Yahushua all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them. Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Messiah.

Dave: Notice the automatic correlation. The demons yelled, “You are the Son of God!” and he shushed them. Why? “Because they knew he was the Messiah.”

Miles: Huh! I’ve never seen that before. I mean, I know I have to have read this passage before, but I’ve just never noticed that link before. That’s very interesting.

Dave: Demons, of course, know precisely who Yahushua is. They’re still angels even if they’re fallen angels. But instead of shrieking that he’s God come in human flesh, they say he’s the son of God which, Luke immediately clarifies, is a synonym for Messiah.

Miles: Oh, listen to this! Same chapter, just a few verses higher. It says:

In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an impure spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, “Go away! What do you want with us, Yahushua of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” [Luke 4:34-35]

Dave: There’s a difference between “God” and “Holy One of God.” If Yahushua were “God,” then the demoniac would have cried, “I know you’re God!” But he didn’t. Instead, he said “You’re the Holy One—of—God,” or from God.

The same thing is going on in Matthew 16 verses 13 to 20. Could you read those for us, please?

Miles: Sure. Give me just a second to turn there …

Now when Yahushua came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he was asking his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Yahushua said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven … Then he warned the disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ.

Dave: Clearly, Peter didn’t transpose “Son of God” into “God the Son” because Yahushua commended his answer. He said not only was Peter correct, but that he’d been given this truth by … whom?

Miles: His Father in heaven.

Dave: Yahuwah, that’s right.

Miles: I noticed that in this passage, as well, the phrase “Son of God” is taken to be synonymous with “Christ” or “Messiah.”

Dave: That’s a lot of instances where “Son of God” is understood to be the same as “Messiah” or “Christ.” We’ve got the High Priest at Yahushua’s trial. There’s Nathaniel when he met Yahushua for the first time. There are the demons, and Peter who was taught that truth direct from Yahuwah Himself.

Miles: Gabriel to Mary, as well.

Dave: Yes. And none of them ascribed divinity to Yahushua. They all viewed him as the human Messiah, the king that had been promised to rule on David’s throne forever.

Miles: And Christ never corrected them. For him to let such blatantly incorrect statements go by without correcting them wouldn’t have been honest.

Dave: But their statements were correct, as we can see when Yahushua commended Peter for his declaration.

This is the theology of the apostolic Christians.

Nicholas Thomas Wright is an English an Anglican bishop who is also a Pauline theologian and New Testament scholar. In his article, “Jesus’ Self-Understanding,” he makes an interesting observation. Would you read that for us, please?

Miles:

“Messiah”, or “Christ”, does not mean ‘the/a divine one”. It is very misleading to use the words as shorthands for the divine name or being of [Yahushua]. It is comparatively easy to argue that [Yahushua] (like several other first-century Jews) believed he was the Messiah. It is much harder, and a very different thing, to argue that he thought he was in some sense identified with Israel’s God. In this context, the phrase ‘son of God’ is systematically misleading because in pre- and non-Christian Judaism its primary referent is either Israel or the Messiah, and it retains these meanings in early Christianity …

Dave: Dr. Douglas McReady is a professor of religion and philosophy. I have here a copy of his book, He Came Down From Heaven. Would you please turn to page 56 and read the highlighted paragraph?

Miles: It says: “While some have used the title Son of God to denote [Yahushua’s] deity, neither the Judaism nor the paganism of [Yahushua’s] day understood the title in this way. Neither did the early church.”

Dave: Nowhere in Scripture do we find “Son of God” used as an equivalent term for “God the Son.” In fact, you’re never going to find “God the Son” or “God the Holy Spirit” appearing in Scripture at all. It’s not there.

Miles: I find it interesting that sometimes secular sources are actually more accurate than religious sources.

Dave: What do you mean?

Miles: Well, I looked up the phrase “Son of God” once on Wikipedia just to see what it would say. Let me pull this up on my monitor really quick …

Uhhh … Oh, here we go. Third full paragraph down. It says: “The term "Son of God" should not be confused with the term “God the Son, the second person of the Trinity in Christian theology.”

Just a few sentences above that it says, quote: “As applied to Jesus, the term is a reference to his role as the Messiah, of Christ, the King chosen by God.” So there’s that dual role again of both messiah and king.

Dave: That’s very interesting. Well, secular sources aren’t projecting onto Scripture the trinity doctrine like Christians tend to do.

Miles: That’s true.

Dave: But ancient Israelite kings and anyone anointed by a prophet aren’t the only sons of God. Believers are considered sons and daughters of God. I’ve printed off several references just to save time. Here … would you read through those for us, please?

Miles: John 1 verses 11 and 12. It says: “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”

Dave: Yahushua gave the right to become … what? His children?

Miles: No. Children of God.

Dave: Which is clearly referring to Yahuwah.

What’s next?

Miles: A quote from the sermon on the mount. Matthew 5:9 says: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

Dave: Again, he’s not saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be my children.” He’s saying, “they will be called children of God.” Yahushua is correctly excluding himself from that categorization. He’s not God. Only Yahuwah is.

Miles: Luke 20, verses 34 to 36 says:

Yahushua replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Dave: The gospels aren’t the only places where believers are referred to as children of Yahuwah. Paul does quite a bit. Read the next one there.

Miles: Uh, this is Romans 8 verses 14 and 15. He says: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father.’” And then verse 19 says: “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.”

Next is Galatians 3:26. It says: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Yahushua.”

Last one is Luke 20 verses 34 to 36:

Yahushua answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Dave: Some translations say sons of God instead of children of God in these passages, but this does not in any way exclude women. What does 2 Corinthians 6 verse 18 say?

Miles:

“I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says Yahuwah Almighty.”

Dave: He’s quoting from the Old Testament here where we also find this concept of sons—children—of Yahuwah being more than just a messiah or anointed king. But this role, this dual role of messiah (or anointed one) and king is also a role for believers, too.

What does Daniel 7 verse 27 say? In this passage, an angel is explaining a vision of the future to Daniel. What’s the end result going to be?

Miles:

Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

Dave: Rulership status is something which Yahushua and the saints share. We see this theme continued in Revelation. Would you please turn to the third chapter of Revelation and read verses 21 to 22?

Miles:

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Dave: The redeemed, as sons and daughters of God, share throne-ship status with Yahushua, the only begotten son of God.

Turn now to Revelation 20 and read verses 4 to 6.

Miles: Umm …

Dave: Three chapters before chapter 23.

Miles laughs: There is no Revelation 23!

Dave: Just checking to make sure you were still awake.

Miles: Okay. It says:

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Yahushua and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Dave: Notice that being a priest of God, sitting on a throne, reigning … none of that makes you divine. This is underscored by the use of the title here. The saints are priests of “God” … and … of Christ. Christ isn’t God. Only Yahuwah is.

We sometimes get messages from people who are upset, demanding to know why we use pagan titles to refer to Yahuwah. Well, this passage is a good reason why: Without titles, you can’t draw comparisons between the true God and false gods. And without the use of a title in this passage, it would be easy to assume Yahushua is divine. But by using a title, it draws a clear line of demarcation between Yahuwah, who is God, and Yahushua, who is not.

What you don’t want to do is what the Bible translators did: use titles to obscure and replace the divine name even when it appears in the original.

Miles: And I’d just add that there’s no such thing as pagan words. All languages originated with Yahuwah at Babel. Satan has stolen titles that belong to Yahuwah, but that’s all.

Dave: Good point.

Miles: Stay tuned, folks! What does Scripture mean when it says Yahushua returned to the Father? Could this be proof of a pre-existence? Next, in our daily mailbag.

* * *

You are listening to World's Last Chance Radio.

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

* * *Advertisement

Christians love to meditate upon the love revealed in Christ’s death on the cross. Sermons are preached and songs are sung on the infinite, matchless love of Yahuwah in giving His own son to die for sin.

What we often overlook, however, are the depths of truth revealed in the Savior’s resurrection. What is the true significance of Yahushua’s resurrection? How does that impact our lives? What does the effect of that belief look like as people who believe in the Savior’s resurrection?

To find out, join Miles and Dave as they explore this topic in Program 257, called “A Foolish Faith.” While worldly wisdom may mock the so-called “foolishness” of the cross, for believers, it is the very foundation of our faith. Look for Program 257, “A Foolish Faith” on WorldsLastChance.com.

* * *Daily Mailbag (Miles & Dave)

Miles: Time for a question from our daily mailbag. It is coming to us from … the Land of Poets and Philosophers!

Dave: Soooo not our country then.

Miles laughs: What do you mean? We’ve got poets. And philosophers. I think my national pride is offended by your certainty!

Dave: Yes, but we’re not called that. It’s not what our country’s known for.

Miles: Okay. Fair enough. But Germany is, and that’s where our question’s coming from. Reinhard from Koblenz in Germany writes:

I’ve studied with interest your articles and listened to a lot of your programs on the humanity of Christ. As a life-long trinitarian, it’s all very interesting and you’ve given me a lot to think about. One passage I haven’t heard you discuss, though, is John 13 where it talks about the Savior returning to the Father. In order to return, you first have to be some place. Wouldn’t this passage suggest that Yahushua had a pre-existence? And, if not, what are we to make of it?

Dave: What a great question. There’s a man that knows his Bible well. Go ahead and grab your Bible there and let’s take a look at that passage in John 13. Would you please read the first four verses for us?

Miles:

It was just before the Passover Festival. Yahushua knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Yahushua. Yahushua knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.

Dave: You can see why, in this translation, Reinhard would ask what he did. Saying that Yahushua was “returning to Yahuwah” certainly suggests Yahushua had a pre-existence.

But is this what the original Greek says? Let’s look at both what the passage says, and the context.

The context, of course, is that of the Last Supper just before the Savior’s betrayal. In verse 1—would you read that again?

Miles:

It was just before the Passover Festival. Yahushua knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

Dave: So the context is of the immediate future. We’re not talking about eternity past here. The intent of this passage is focused on the fact that Yahshua will be leaving his followers soon. John, with the omniscient perspective of a third-person narrator, has knowledge that the disciples, in the moment described, didn’t have.

Now, not all translations phrase it as Yahushua “returning to” the Father. I’ve printed off a few other translations. Would you please read through those? It’s just verse 3.

Miles: Yeah, uh, The Holman Christian Standard Bible says, “Yahushua, knew that the Father had given everything into his hands, that he had come from God, and that he was going back to God.” The English Standard version says, “Yahushua, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God.”

Dave: So, “returning to Yah,” “going back to Yah.” That’s the general concept. Now, trinitarians are going to read into this something that isn’t there, and that’s the whole idea of a pre-existence. Because the problem is, this idea of “returning” or going “back to” Yahuwah, doesn’t appear in the original text. The Greek version puts it, “To [Yahuwah] he is going.”

The New King James Version is very similar to the Greek. It says, quote: “He had come from God and was going to God.”

Miles: Okay, but couldn’t saying he’d come from Yah suggest a pre-existence?

Dave: We’ll get to that in just a minute. But first, I want you to read the Greek definition of the word that’s translated as “going” in verse 3. It comes from the Greek word, hypagei.

Here. I’ve printed off the definition as given in Strong’s Greek Dictionary. Would you read that for us, please?

Miles: Sure! Uh … hypagei means “to lead or bring under, to lead on slowly, to depart. Its usages include: to go away, depart, begone, die.”

Dave: This word appears three times in the New Testament, and it’s never translated as “returning” or “going back” except for John 13:3 in some translations.

Miles: So, you’re saying this is an error in translation.

Dave: I’m saying trinitarian translators, in an attempt to be clear, allowed their beliefs to influence their translation. They shaded the translation in a way that’s not supported by the original Greek.

But there’s more. The root word is hupagó. In the New American Standard Bible, this root word is used in its various conjugations eighty times. Would you care to guess how many of those times it’s translated as “returning to” or “going back to” someone or someplace?

Miles: Uhhh … don’t know.

Dave: Exactly once: in John 13 verse 3.

Miles: Okay, so then why do some translations make it sound like a return trip?

Dave: Well, I don’t think it was a deliberate attempt to deceive, but likely was a sincere attempt to clarify. Unfortunately, the added words change the meaning and reflect their trinitarian bias.

Miles: Okay, but then even if you take out the added words that make it sound like Yahushua is doing a round trip back to Yahuwah, you can’t deny that verse three, even in the original, says that Yahushua came from Yahuwah.

If he “came from” Yah, couldn’t that be seen as proof of a pre-existence?

Dave: Not at all. Turn back to the first chapter of John and read verse 6 and you’ll see what I mean.

Miles: All right. Um, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John.”

Dave: This isn’t talking about Yahushua sending John. Clearly, it’s saying that Yahuwah sent John. Also, it’s not talking about John the beloved, but John the Baptist who we know was fully human. Do we assume he had a pre-existence just because Scripture says he was “sent from” Yah?

Miles laughs: No!

Dave: See, in the Jewish mindset, to “come from” or be “sent from” Yahuwah simply indicated that the person had pre-existed in the foreknowledge of Yah’s great plan.

We see this clearly in Yahuwah’s words to the young Jeremiah. Would you read it for us? Jeremiah 1 verse 5. This is probably the clearest passage that encapsulates the Jewish belief on pre-existence.

Miles:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Dave: Again, to the Jews, there was no literal, physical pre-existence. Pre-existence occurred only in the mind and plan of Yahuwah. This is what’s being expressed when John 13 says that Yahushua “came from” Yahuwah. He’d been part of Yahuwah’s infinite plan since the foundation of the world.

Miles: That’s really interesting. Are there any other examples?

Dave: Yes. Turn to John 3. This is when Nicodemus came to Christ by night. He was a member of the Sanhedrin and either busy during the day or perhaps didn’t want to be seen as publicly endorsing this revolutionary new rabbi without checking him out first.

Miles: His ego was involved.

Dave: Maybe. We don’t know. But let’s read what he said. John 3, the first two verses.

Miles:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Yahushua at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Dave: Nicodemus certainly didn’t believe Yahushua had a pre-existence. He was simply acknowledging that the works Christ performed showed that he had “come from” Yahuwah in the sense that he performed the miracles by the power of Yah. Yahuwah was with Yahushua.

We can find this same concept in John 9. Yahushua healed a man who’d been born blind. When miracle got talked around, he was taken before the Pharisees for questioning. Now, Yahushua had healed him on the Sabbath. The Pharisees used this as an excuse to denounce Yahushua because, you see, that was work! Yahushua was working on the Sabbath to have healed him, or so they claimed.

Miles: Such spiritual blindness!

Dave: What did they tell the man born blind in verse 16?

Miles: “Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.’”

Dave: They’re not saying, “Yahushua did not have a pre-existence because he healed on the Sabbath.” No, in their spiritual blindness, they’re saying Yahuwah could not have performed this miracle through Christ because he broke the Sabbath by healing him.

But the man vigorously defended Yahushua. No matter how they badgered him, he remained firm that Yahushua had healed him. Let’s pick up the story at verse 24 and read through verse 33.

As you read, I want you to notice how the man equates the power to work miracles as proof of being “from God.” Not in the sense of having a pre-existence, but in the sense of Yahuwah giving His power to the person performing the miracle.

Miles:

A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.”

He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”

Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”

He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?”

Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”

The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

Dave: “If this—man—were not from—God … Yahuwah—he could do nothing.” Why? Because the power came from Yahuwah. Yahushua was “from Yahuwah” only in the sense that he was doing Yah’s will.

The man who’d been healed didn’t believe that Yahushua was God; he wasn’t saying he’d had a pre-existence with the Father. He was simply expressing his conviction that the man, Yahushua, had healed him by the power of Yahuwah.

This is a theological theme that John develops even more. Turn to 1 John 4. Here, John is speaking to believers and he acquaints being “from God” or “from the world” with where your allegiances lie. Go ahead and read verses 4 to 6.

Miles:

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Dave: Okay, so we’re also from God. Does that make us “God”? Does that mean we had a pre-existence just because we’re from God, too?

Miles laughs: Not at all!

Dave: In 1 Timothy 6 verse 7, Paul says “we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.” He’s clearly not suggesting we all had a pre-existence, proving we’re all gods. He’s simply using a commonly understood phrase to being born.

This is why, whenever you’re studying something in Scripture, it’s always important to consider the whole picture. Gather together every passage on the subject to get a clear understanding of just what’s being said.

Miles: Good points to always remember.

If you’d like to send us a question, just go to our website at WorldsLastChance.com and click on Contact Us. We always enjoy hearing from our listeners.

Coming up is Jane Lamb with today’s Daily Promise.

* * *Daily Promise:

Hello! This is Jane Lamb with your daily promise from Yah’s Word.

Susan Traugh was a very busy mum. Her son, Matthew, was two years old while baby Mary was only three weeks. It had been a difficult birth with Mary needing to spend a week in the Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit before being allowed to go home. Further complicating the situation was the fact that Matthew had suffered a traumatic brain injury when he was only a year old. Susan had read that the special nutrients in mother’s milk can help build synapses in babies’ brains. She had also read that it can even help to restore lost function in children who had suffered traumatic brain injuries, so she was nursing both of her babies.

She had found that this calmed them both, allowing her a window of opportunity to get things done. On one particular day, after nursing her children, she loaded both babies into her car and headed for the nearest supermarket. At the grocery store, she carefully buckled Matthew into the seat of a shopping cart. She then placed Baby Mary in a carrier wrap, cuddling the infant to her chest and off they went.

Susan was feeling great! Learning to parent two children at once was an adjustment, but she was feeling confident in her skills as a mother as she began shopping. The children were quiet and content. Things started to fall apart, though, once she reached the frozen foods aisle.

“Mommy, I’m cold!” Matthew complained. He let his little teeth chatter to prove to his mama just how cold he was. Susan moved swiftly down the aisle, but even once they moved to another aisle, Matthew continued to complain. Then Baby Mary, hearing her brother’s unhappiness, started to fuss. No amount of soothing or distracting could calm the children. Weeks of sleeplessness and “postpartum brain fog” combined to make the simple act of shopping seem overwhelmingly difficult.

Cutting her trip short, Susan went to the check-out counter and began unloading her groceries. By this point, the children’s fussing had escalated into loud crying, the unhappiness of one child, spurring the other on to still greater unhappiness, all expressed at full volume. Predictably, the inevitable happened. Her body reacted to the sounds of the children’s unhappiness and her milk let down. This was too much. Exhausted and humiliated, Susan ducked her head, blinking back the tears as she hunched her shoulders and tried to finish unloading her groceries.

“Honey?” A matronly woman behind her reached out and touched Susan’s arm.

Oh, great, Susan thought. Now I’m going to get yelled at on top of everything else. She didn’t want to face the woman. She’d see her tears and her wet shirt.

“Honey?” The woman tried again. Left with no choice, Susan turned to face the woman.

“It’s hard,” the older woman smiled sympathetically. “No one really ever tells you that. But you’re doing a good job, Mama. You’ll do fine.”

At the woman’s kindness and understanding, Susan burst into tears. The woman chuckled softly and handed her a tissue. “Hormones are funny things,” she said. “It’ll get better. I promise.”

Remembering the encounter, Susan recalls, quote: “I paid for my groceries and walked out the door. But I walked out buoyed, confident and determined. They were just a few words, and yet they were the world.”

Honestly, when I read Susan’s story, it brought tears to my own eyes as I remembered those early years when my own children were very young. No matter how much I loved my kids, those were difficult years. The kind encouragement the woman showed Susan, giving her strength to keep going, reminds me of one of my favorite Bible verses. It’s Isaiah 42 verse 3. In speaking of the Messiah’s mission, it says: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice.”

The Savior came to encourage and to strengthen, and the way he did it was through kindness, through non-judgmental acceptance. We are so hard on ourselves. This, in turn, makes us hard on others. It’s so easy to find fault with others when we’re unhappy with ourselves but remember that Yahuwah understands. He loves you and accepts you, failings and all. In Isaiah 66:13, the heavenly Father tells us, “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you.”

We have been given great and precious promises. Go and start claiming!

* * *Part 3: (Miles & Dave)

Miles: I’ve got kind of an odd question for you. You’ve shown us that being a “son of God” does not, by default, make one define. But are all sons of God—children of God—created equal?

Dave: Well, no. In Colossians 1:15, Paul says that Yahushua “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Why? Because Yahushua is the only begotten son of God.

I’m a son of God; you’re a son of God but we’re not Yahuwah’s begotten sons. Only Yahushua is.

Miles: Not to mention that he’s our Redeemer. I like how Paul talks about the first Adam and the second Adam. Yahushua, as the second Adam, succeeded where the first Adam fell.

Dave: And, thanks to his selfless life and self-sacrificing death, we can all look forward to the resurrection when he returns.

Turn to the second chapter of Hebrews. There are a few points here that I think answer your question. Read verses 9 and 10.

Miles:

But we see Yahushua, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Dave: The marginal reading is that he was made lower than the angels … for a little while. And that’s how some versions translate it.

Yahuwah has exalted Yahushua over all Creation, and justifiably so. He’s above the angelic sons of God; he’s also above the other human sons of God and justifiable so. Not only because he’s the only begotten of Yahuwah but because, through his suffering and self-sacrifice, he has led many sons and daughters to glory.

Miles: That’s beautiful.

If you’ve enjoyed today’s program and would like to share it with a friend, you can find it on our website. Look for Program 280 called “Son of God does not equal God the Son.” That’s Program 280 on WorldsLastChance.com.

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.