recently watched a Biblical Unitarian’s[1] YouTube video presentation delving into how Yahweh the Father is the only Elohim, which by process of elimination, must mean Yeshua the Son cannot have had a pre-carnal existence prior to His conception in His mother’s womb because that would have made Him a “second Elohim.” The narrator offered verse after verse, attempting to prove his contention. I was intrigued by his smooth delivery and how he connected all the right verses. Trying to put myself in the shoes of a novice who had never previously looked into this topic, I would have been on the verge of fully accepting his view because he didn’t give out any false information. However, at the end, my “previous experience mode” kicked in, and I realized he had presented all the verses that would, on the surface, validate his view, but he cleverly omitted all the problematic ones that demonstrate otherwise.

Prior to a public debate I had with a Biblical Unitarian believer back in 2019, I was essentially a novice to this topic, having relied solely on John 17:5[2] as my proof text validating that Yeshua had a pre-carnal existence. Until a book titled Trinity, Oneness, Duality, and Pre-Existence challenged my understanding, I was unaware that there are many others that confirm the truth. If I were to assimilate all verses that seem to validate believing Yeshua did not have had a pre-carnal existence, the Biblical Unitarian view would be unchallenged. On the other hand, if I present all verses affirming that He did indeed have a pre-carnal existence, while omitting all others that seemingly contradict such a belief, the Biblical Unitarian doctrine would crumble. The key is balance.

From experience, I have found that Biblical Unitarians believe as they do because they are unable to reconcile Yeshua’s pre-carnal existence with the fact that Yahweh is One. I am persuaded that Yeshua, like other angels, existed before creation of the heavens and earth as we know it. In fact, there is a school of thought that Yeshua, “the light of the world” (John 8:12), is the “light” who was created on Day 1 of creation.[3] If Yeshua is the light of Genesis 1:3, this would explain how the light of Day one could have been created before the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. That same light will illuminate the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23). Moreover, King David understood that Yahweh is Light (Psalms 27:1; see also 1 John 1:5-7). But Yeshua, unlike the other angels, is the firstborn of all creation, which means He was “first born,” and He was subsequently the physical manifestation of Yahweh that could interact with mankind. Thousands of years later, He gave up His spiritual existence to become a flesh and blood human. Biblical Unitarians disagree with this understanding, and they go to great lengths to infuse what I regard as unorthodox explanations and interpretational words to muddy what are otherwise clear Bible texts.

Back in 2018, I was given a book authored by a Biblical Unitarian friend who addressed and “explained away” most of the Bible verses supportive of the view that Yeshua had a pre-carnal existence. That book is the aforementioned Trinity, Oneness, Duality, and Pre-Existence. I was initially shocked and greatly disturbed by what I read, and further surprised that his work was embraced by his peers. I eventually challenged the author to a debate. During the debate, I primarily focused on the verses validating the belief that Yeshua had a pre-carnal existence. My opponent ignored those verses and focused instead on the ones validating that Yahweh is One. How can both views be correct? Again, the key is balance.  Since that debate, a few additional proofs of Yeshua’s pre-carnal existence have surfaced. I will briefly share them in this and a series of newsletter studies. First, let’s examine how Yahweh and Yeshua are ONE.

The Head and Arm Metaphors

The prophet Isaiah identifies the coming Messiah as the “arm of Yahweh” (Is 51:9-11, 40:10-11, 53:1):

Isaiah 51:9-11

9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Yahweh; Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not You who chopped Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?

10 Was it not You who dried up the sea, The waters of the great deep, Who made the depths of the sea a pathway For the redeemed to cross over?

11 So the ransomed of Yahweh will return And come with joyful shouting to Zion, And everlasting gladness will be on their heads. They will obtain joy and gladness, And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

 

Isaiah 40:10-11

10 Behold, Lord [adoni] Yahweh will come with strength, With His Arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him And His recompense before Him.

11 Like a shepherd He will shepherd His flock; In His Arm He will gather the lambs and carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing ewes. (Legacy Standard Bible)

 

Isaiah 53:1

Who has believed our report? And to whom has the Arm of Yahweh been revealed? (Legacy Standard Bible)

Hopefully, we already know Yahweh the Father is the head (1 Cor. 11:3). Yeshua is the Arm. We are given these metaphors to help wrap our finite minds around who the Father and Son are. My arm is just as much “who” I am as my head, but they serve different functions. Of course, it is the head that generates thoughts and intentions; the arm carries them out. They are two separate parts of one body. Am I to think of myself as two persons since I have both a head and arms? This metaphoric analogy essentially describes the roles of our Heavenly Father and His Son. Together, they constitute the same Being--Yahweh. In fact, the Aramaic Peshitta translation of 1 Corinthians 12:3 affirms that Yahweh is Yeshua:

3 Because of this, I make known unto you that there is no man, who by Spirit of Alaha [Elohim], will speak and say that Yeshua is accursed, and also no man is able to say that MarYAH [YHWH] is Yeshua, except by the Holy Spirit.

It should be noted that in the Aramaic Peshitta Old Testament, wherever the Tetragrammaton or, YHWH is written, the Aramaic word MarYAH is substituted. According to the Apostle Paul, no man can say Yahweh is Yeshua but by the Holy Spirit. This is yet another truth that is rejected by Biblical Unitarians.

Just to be clear: The above proves that Yahweh is ONE, so the great lengths Biblical Unitarians go to in order to validate the fact that Yahweh is One amount to a “Red Herring Argument.”

In the Beginning was the Son

In last month’s newsletter, I addressed the fact that, according to the Hebrew Gospel of John, the existence of which I was unaware of in 2019, “In the beginning was the Son” (John 1:1). This reading represents a significant variance from the Greek translation, which has “In the beginning was the Word.” Based on the Greek text’s use of logos (“Word”) instead of “Son” (Gr huios), my opponent interpreted the text as meaning, “In the beginning was the plan,” i.e., Yeshua’s birth and ministry were in the Almighty’s Plan. If the original phrase was “In the beginning was the Son,” this can only be understood as meaning that Yeshua Himself was indeed “in the beginning” and not merely “in the Plan.” According to the Apostle John, the disciple whom Yeshua loved, Yeshua the Son was in the beginning and He created “all things.”

This same Apostle John also refers to fellow believers as “the sons of Eloah” (1 John 3:2). At the same time, he is careful to avoid taking the liberty of describing Yahweh’s “substance,” adding, “… what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.” Since Yeshua is now with the Father, we can be certain they are now of the same substance that has not yet been revealed to humanity. I am persuaded Yeshua temporarily gave up that substance to become the flesh and blood human who dwelt among us.

John 1:1 is problematic for Biblical Unitarians because it proves that the Son existed in the beginning, contrary to their belief that He did not exist prior to His conception in Mary’s womb. Not only that, but the Son was “with Elohim.” Even more significant is the fact that not only was He with Elohim, but He WAS Elohim. This means there is more than one in the “Elohim family” because it’s not possible for Elohim to be WITH Elohim if there’s only one. If you’re “with” someone, there are two of you. Biblical Unitarians’ only recourse is to add interpretational words to help steer their students in what they feel is the right direction.

How Could David Call Yeshua “Sovereign” if Yeshua Was His Descendant?

The prophet Isaiah describes the Messiah as both a Branch emanating from the roots of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1) and as the actual Root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:10):

Isaiah 11:1

1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.

2 And the spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh;

 

Isaiah 11:10

10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be honorable.

Everyone familiar with botany understands that roots precede the plant’s emergence from the soil. Roots come first. But Isaiah’s analogy describing Yeshua as both a branch and a root is not possible, at least not in the Biblical Unitarian paradigm. The metaphorical image of a Branch and a Root cannot be used to describe one individual–unless that individual had a prior existence. In Biblical Unitarian theology, Yeshua did not exist prior to His conception in Mary’s womb. This is a key element that is all but overlooked by Biblical Unitarians. The best explanation attempt I am able to find from them is a video wherein the narrator states that the word “Root” can possibly mean a “shoot.” If that is true, then would they likewise teach that the love of money is the “shoot” of all evil? After all, the Greek word translated “root” in the Septuagint version of Isaiah 11:10 (risa) is the same word translated “root” in 1 Timothy 6:10. Sealing the matter is the fact that in Revelation 22:16, we read that Yeshua, in His own words, testifies that He is both the Root and Offspring of David. David, as we should all know, was the son of Jesse.

Amazingly and shockingly, Biblical Unitarian Dustin Smith actually (mis)translates the Greek word risa as “shoot” when he cites Revelation 22:16 as a proof text validating his belief that Yeshua did not exist prior to His conception in Mary’s womb. Here’s what he says at the end of his podcast titled “243 - The Davidic Son of God”:

In Revelation 22:16, Jesus Himself says, in the first person, ‘I am the shoot and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.’ Revelation 22:16. So He’s the shoot, which is the offshoot branch of David’s family tree, indicating that He is a lineal descendant of David–He is a human being because David was a human being and all of David’s descendants were human beings, and of course, He is the seed of David–the descendant of David, and thereby He is the rightful recipient of the promises of the Davidic covenant, which is the house, the throne, the dynasty, the kingdom, and of course, the chair geographically located in Jerusalem; that is the promise to Jesus forever and the final consummation and fulfillment of all those Davidic promises will occur when Jesus returns to rule and reign in God’s kingdom here upon the earth. So there you have it![4]

Even on a basic elementary level, the above conclusion that Yeshua is both the “shoot” of David and the “branch” of David makes no sense. That’s like saying, Yeshua is the progeny and descendant of David. As I have previously pointed out, no credible Greek scholar believes the Greek word risa, as found in Revelation 22:16, should be translated “shoot” any more than the Hebrew word sheresh (#8328 in Strong’s) should. There is no question that the Hebrew word sheresh, as found in Isaiah 11:10, means “root.” Since Revelation 22:16 represents the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:10, the Greek equivalent of sheresh (“risa”) can only mean “root.” Sealing the matter is the fact that a Hebrew book of Revelation, which is shown to predate the Greek text, clearly uses the Hebrew word shemesh. Here’s the English translation of Hebrew Revelation 22:16:

16 I Yeshua sent my messengers to show this to the assembly. Even I am the root of the families of Dawid!

We can now clearly see that Biblical Unitarians, when presented with Bible verses contradicting their understanding of truth, will wrest Scripture however necessary in an attempt to bolster their doctrinal belief.

Even though the above revelation (pardon the pun) seals the matter, I have found that Biblical Unitarians simply won’t accept this truth because they begin any discussion with their pre-determined belief that Yeshua could not have possibly had a pre-carnal existence. I therefore call on them to answer the question Yeshua asked in Matthew 22:41-46:

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Yeshua asked them,

42 Saying, What think ye of the Messiah? Whose son is he? They say to him, The Son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Sovereign, saying,

44 Yahweh said unto my Sovereign, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then calls him Sovereign, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

See also parallel accounts in Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44.

So let’s see how Biblical Unitarians answer Yeshua’s question. I deeply regret not coming up with this question during my 2019 debate because I would have loved to have heard my Biblical Unitarian opponent’s response! Any Biblical Unitarian is welcome to email me at seekutruth at aol.com.

These three witnesses, in and of themselves, prove that Yeshua had a pre-carnal existence. As an unbiased truth seeker, I cannot fathom how anyone could come away with any other understanding. We don’t need to interpretationally add to the Word so as to make it fit some other doctrine; just take it for what it says.

As rock-solid as the three above examples are, they are but three of many. Here are a few additional proofs:

Yeshua Stated That He was With the Father Before the World Existed

Back in 2018, as I read the Biblical Unitarian book Trinity, Oneness, Duality, and Pre-Existence, I repeatedly found myself stunned by the author’s huge interpretational leaps in his effort to explain what all the rock-solid passages “really mean.”  For example, in John 17:5, when Yeshua prayed for the Father to glorify Him with the glory He had with Him before the world existed, which is a sure-fire clue that Yeshua had a pre-carnal existence, the Biblical Unitarian author expects us to understand that what Yeshua meant is that He prayed for the Father to glorify Him with the glory He was ordained to have at Creation. That is a hefty interpretational leap. The author wasn’t bold enough to add “ordained” to the actual text, but he was bold enough to inform his readers that it belongs. Not much difference. If that interpretation is really true, we should all wonder why the Apostle John didn’t simply include the word “ordained” in that verse instead of expecting his readers to mentally insert it. After all, the Apostle Peter used the word “foreordained”; in 1 Peter 1:20, he stated that Yeshua is the Lamb who was “foreordained” (Gr proegnosménou)[5] before the foundation of the world. So why didn’t the Apostle John, in presenting us with the words of Yeshua’s prayer, why didn’t he just come out and have Yeshua say He was foreordained to have glory with the Father in his John 17 prayer? If that’s what Yeshua meant, then why didn’t he just say it? Answer: Because it wouldn’t have been truthful; He truly was with the Father before the world existed.

To Make the Micah 5:2 Prophecy “Fit” Their Interpretation, Biblical Unitarians Insert the Word “Ordained”

In Micah’s prophecy about a future ruler who will come from Bethlehem Ephratah (Micah 5:2), he adds that this ruler’s “goings forth” are from “of old, from the days of eternity.” Taken at face value, this means the future ruler has an ancient origin–not someone with a typical human lifespan. Everyone agrees that Yeshua is the fulfillment of this prophecy, but Biblical Unitarians say, “What Micah is saying is, the future ruler’s ‘goings forth’ were ordained from the days of eternity.” Thus, for this prophecy to fit their doctrine, they have to add the word “ordained,” if not in the actual text, then by interpretation. There isn’t much difference.

Before Abraham Was, I Was in the Plan?

In John 8:58, Yeshua says, “Before Abraham, I AM.” According to Biblical Unitarians, we should understand that what He meant is, “Before Abraham was, I am in the Plan.”[6] The words “in the Plan” would certainly change the meaning of the text, but they’re not in the text. John 8:58 represents yet another incident in which Biblical Unitarians retrofit Scripture so as to square with their theology. A question arises as to whether or not there’s a difference between deliberately mistranslating text and deliberately teaching that verses do not really mean what they say.

Hebrew Scholars Who Translated Isaiah 9:6 into Greek Understood a Prophetic Angel

The combined prophecies of Isaiah 9:6 (see  and Malachi 3:1-2 present a powerful and compelling testimony of who Yeshua is. The angel of Malachi 3:1 can be none other than Yeshua, the same angel prophesied about in Isaiah 9:6. 

Here’s what the Septuagint reading of Isaiah 9:6 says:

“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder: and His name is called the Messenger of Great Counsel (megales Boules aggelos): for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him.”

The word translated “Messenger” in Isaiah 9:6 is the Greek word aggelos, and aggelos is the same word translated “angel” throughout the New Testament.  This means the Hebrew scholars who translated the book of Isayah into Greek understood that the Ruler whose coming is prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 is the Angel, the aggelos.

Here’s the prophecy of Malachi 3:1-3:

1 Behold, I will send MY MESSENGER (malachi, or my angel), and he shall prepare the way before Me:  And the Master (adon) whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the MESSENGER (malach, or angel) of the covenant, who ye delight in:  behold, He shall come, saith Yahweh of hosts.

2 But who may abide the day of His coming?  And who shall stand when He appeareth?  For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap.

3 And He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver:  and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto Yahweh an offering of righteousness.

So I agree that Yahweh is ONE. Yet, Yahweh clearly has an angel who serves as the physical manifestation of Himself–a form of Yahweh upon whom we can see and touch without DYING.  Is that angel–that physical manifestation of Yahweh–the pre-incarnate Yeshua? According to the Hebrew text of the Apostle John’s Messianic account, the answer is a resounding YES:

35 And on another day, Yohchanan and two of his talmidim stood again, looking at Yeshua as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Mal’ach [angel] of YHWH.”

How many are willing to acknowledge that Yeshua is the fulfillment of Malachi 3:1-3? Yohchanan the Baptist was willing!

Yeshua Testified That He Came Down from Heaven

In the 6th chapter of John, Yeshua explained to the Jews that He is the bread that came down from heaven. The Greek verb translated “came down” specifically means descended [katabas, descended #2597].  So Yeshua said He’s the bread that descended from heaven.  That means He came down from heaven.  Not everyone can say they came down from heaven, and if you read the entire passage, you know the Jews understood precisely what Yeshua meant; He meant that He came down from heaven! Here’s the passage in question:

41 The Jews then murmured at Him, because He said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Yeshua, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?  How is it then that He saith, I came down [katabas, descended #2597] from heaven?

Biblical Unitarians, once again, claim Yeshua didn’t really mean that He literally came down from heaven. So once again, in their estimation, Yeshua didn’t mean what He said, so they are compelled to insert interpretational words to “help” us understand that what He “really meant” is “all good things come from above,” and since He lived a perfect life, He figuratively came from above. This is precisely how the author of Trinity, Oneness, Duality, and Pre-Existence puts it. He writes, “The Messiah as the ‘bread which came down from heaven’ is understood in the sense that good things come from above and come down from Yahweh (Jam 1:17).”

Now don’t get me wrong; there are times when we have to take Yeshua’s words literally and there are times when we must take His words figuratively. This calls for careful, unbiased discernment.  For example, when Yeshua said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in the next few verses of this chapter, we know He was speaking figuratively, especially since John shows us what He meant by those words later on, in John chapter 13:  We eat unleavened bread at Passover, recognizing its symbolically representing Yeshua’s body.  When we drink the wine, we recognize it as symbolically representing His blood.   But when He says He came down from heaven, are we supposed to understand that what He meant was, He was a really good guy because all good things come from above?  Sadly, that is exactly what Biblical Unitarians think Yeshua meant, and that is what I call a complete distortion of the context, not only because it is a ridiculous understanding even on the surface, but the Apostle John did not convey such an impression and the Jews certainly took Yeshua at His word–literally, not figuratively.

“Ascending to where He was before ….”

In John chapter 6, Yeshua asks His disciples if they would be offended if they saw Him ascend up to where He was before.  As we can by now anticipate, Biblical Unitarians say that’s not what He meant. Here’s John 6:60-62:

60 Many therefore of His disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Yeshua knew in Himself that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto then, Does this OFFEND you?

62 What and if you shall see the Son of man ASCEND UP [Greek anabaino, #305 in Strong’s] where He was before?

Biblical Unitarians’ explanation of what Yeshua “really meant” is so elaborate that I devoted 27 pages of my full-length study examining and refuting their claim. Suffice it to say, I believe Yeshua meant exactly what He said. And in Acts 1:9, He ascended to where He was before.

I don’t mean to get any more detailed than the above in this newsletter, so suffice it to say I remain persuaded that nearly everything “spoken” by Yahweh in what is known as the Old Testament was through Yahweh’s “spokesman,” who appeared as an angel. I remain persuaded that that angel was the pre-incarnate Yeshua, the firstborn of Creation who is/was the physical manifestation of the Father. He is the only angel to whom Yahweh said, “You are my son; this day I have begotten you” (Heb 1:5):

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

 

The means by which Yahweh dealt with Moses and others was so awe-inspiring that it was as if they had actually spoken directly with Yahweh the Father, even though it was actually His pre-incarnate Son, the arm of Yahweh, the physical manifestation that we humans can see and touch.

 

---

[1] Biblical Unitarians teach that Yeshua did not exist prior to His birth in Bethlehem.

[2] John 17:5 contains a portion of Yeshua’s prayer to His Father as follows: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

[3] C.f., Tertullian (155-220 CE),  Against Praxeas, chapter 7, where he writes, “Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when the Almighty says, Let there be light (Gen 1:3). This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from the Almighty—formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom ...” (Translated by Peter Holmes. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm).

[4] Quoted from the podcast “243 - The Davidic Son of God,” by Dustin Smith, (at the 24:38 - 25:47 mark), recorded on 09/22/2022.

[5] The Greek word proegnosménou can also be translated “known.”

[6] Cf., Trinity, Oneness, Duality, and Pre-Existence, by Chuck Henry, p. 547, where he writes, “‘I AM’ in John 8:58, is translated from ego eimi, which simply refers to oneself; it is not a claim to the ‘I AM WHO I AM’ of Exodus 3:14. Yeshua did not identify Himself as Deity, but as the prophesied-of Messiah, who existed in Yahweh’s plan from the beginning, before Abraham.”