Program 291
Did Yahushua “go” or “return” to the Father?

Where did the idea come from that Yahushua went back to the Father, and how do we reconcile it with the fact that Yahushua did not have a pre-existence?

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: After Yahushua’s death and triumphant resurrection, did he—go—to the Father? Or did he—return—to the Father? It’s an important distinction because if we can prove that Yahushua returned to the Father, that is rather conclusive evidence that he had, as many Christians believe, a preexistence in Heaven prior to being born to Mary.

But if you haven’t joined us before, 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.

Several passages in the gospels appear to teach that when Yahushua ascended to Heaven after his resurrection, he was going back to Yahuwah. Well, truth doesn’t contradict itself. We know from other passages that Yahushua was fully and only human. He didn’t have a dual nature. That’s not even possible. He had a single nature just like everyone else, including angels and Yahuwah Himself. So what do we do with these passages that say he went back to Yahuwah? Dave Wright is going to lead us in a study on that today. Then, in our daily mailbag segment, we’ll take a look at the period of church history where Christian theology transitioned from believing Yahushua was only human to believing he was fully human and fully divine. Next, Jane Lamb will share a promise for anyone who’s in need of help. I know I often find myself in such a situation, so I’m looking forward to hearing what she’s prepared for us today.

Dave? Welcome.

Dave Wright: Thank you.

Miles: I’m really glad to know that truth never contradicts itself because this, quite frankly, seems very contradictory. How can Yahushua return back to the Father if he didn’t have a pre-existence?

Dave: Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Because if Christ went “back” to Yahuwah then that seems to be a sound argument for a pre-existence. But we know that can’t be true.

So, let’s start by reading the passages that contain this phrase. I’ve printed off how it’s translated in several different versions. This is John 13 verse 3. Some translations make it a complete sentence. Others, it’s phrased as part of a longer sentence, but it’ll still make sense. Here … why don’t you go ahead and read through those for us?

Miles: All right, uhhh … the first one is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible. It 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.”

Next is the English Standard Version. Looks like this is one where verse 3 is just a part of a longer sentence. It 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, both of these translations say that Yahushua had “come from God and was going back to God.” What’s next?

Miles: Uh, the New International Version. This says: “Yahushua knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God.”

Dave: Okay, so while not saying that he was “going back to” Yahuwah, it still conveys the same idea. He’s returning to Yahuwah.

Miles: This next one is the New American Standard Bible. It says: “Yahushua, knowing that the Father had handed all things over to him, and that he had come forth from God and was going back to God.”

The New Catholic Bible says: “Yahushua, fully aware that the Father had entrusted all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was returning to God.”

Dave: So a lot of “going back to” or “returning to” Yahuwah in these various translations.

Miles: Same in the New Living Translation. It says: “Yahushua knew that the Father had given him authority over everything and that he had come from God and would return to God.”

Next is the Living Bible. Is this more of a paraphrase? It says: “Yahushua knew on the evening of Passover Day that it would be his last night on earth before returning to his Father.”

Dave: Yes. This version is just a paraphrase rather than a translation. But isn’t it interesting how their obvious bias for a pre-existence influenced their paraphrase of this passage?

Miles: Yeah.

Dave: What about the J. B. Phillips version? Again, this is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Miles: Uh, this compresses several verses into one sentence. It says: “Before the festival of the Passover began, Yahushua realised that the time had come for him to leave this world and return to the Father.”

This next one, though, is quite different. This is the King James version. It says: “Yahushua, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God.”

The New King James version is very similar. It says that “he had come from God and was going to God.”

Dave: Did I include one from the Geneva Bible? That’s the Bible of the Protestant reformers. Do you see that there?

Miles: Uhhh … yeah! It says: “Yahushua, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come forth from God, and went to God.”

Dave: All right. So you can see there’s quite a difference across a number of different translations, and the paraphrases reflect the assumption that Yahushua had a preexistence. But is that what the original Greek indicates? Because that is what “going back to” Yahuwah, or even “returning to” Him, suggests.

I want to look at both the text and the context. You’ve got a Bible there. Turn to John 13 and read the first four verses. This will give us the context.

Miles: All right. This is the New King James Version. It says:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Yahushua knew that his hour had come that he should depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Yahushua, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper and laid aside his garments, took a towel and girded himself.

Dave: So, this is the last supper. Yahushua’s public ministry is over; it’s ended. From there, John goes on to tell about the Savior washing the disciples’ feet. The context, then, is about what’s going to happen in the immediate future: Yahushua’s work in the public sphere is over; his mission is almost completed. It’s not talking about some fabled eternity past. It’s talking about what’s going to happen in the immediate future after his death, resurrection, and ascension.

Miles: So, what you’re saying is, to use this passage as proof of a pre-existence, you have to read into it what’s not in the original.

Dave: That’s exactly right. And to prove it, I brought my Greek Interlinear Bible. Now, for those who’ve never used an Interlinear Bible before, it’s a really useful tool for deep digging in Scripture. It gives the full text as it appears in the original with the concordance reference number above, and the translation down below.

So, turn to where that piece of paper is sticking out and read John 13:3. This is about as direct a translation as you can get.

Miles: All right, uhhh …

Okay. This is weird. Uh, “Iscariot, that him he should betray—"

Dave: That’s verse 2.

Miles: Yeah, the verse breaks aren’t real clear here. Um, “knowing Yahushua that all things has given him the Father into the hands, and that from God he came, and to God departs, he rises from the supper and lays aside the garments—”

Dave: That’s good. So, we can see here that in the original Greek, there’s nothing about returning or going back to Yahuwah. It’s simply “from God he came and to God departs.”

What’s the number for “departs”?

Miles: Uhhh … 5217?

Dave: Okay. Would you look that up in the dictionary there? Read what it says.

Miles: All right. It says: “To lead oneself under, i.e. withdraw or retire as if sinking out of sight.” Then it just gives the various ways it’s translated.

• It’s translated as “go” 55 times.
• To “go one’s way” 17 times.
• To “go away” 3 times.
• To “depart” twice.
• And “to get thee hence” once.

Dave: Thank you. Let me read that from Strong’s Concordance. It comes from the Greek root word hupagō. The concordance says, quote, “To lead oneself under [as in] withdraw or retire) as if sinking out of sight) … depart, get hence, go away.”

Miles: Sort of like a ship disappearing into the mists of the horizon.

Dave: Anything there at all about returning or going back to one’s point of origin?

Miles: Nope. It’s all one-directional. It’s all focused on just leaving or going away.

Dave: Hupagō, when conjugated to hypagei, which means “going” is defined as to lead or bring under, to lead on slowly, to depart. It’s used to communicate the idea to go away, depart, begone, and even to die. Hypagei is used 11 times in the New Testament and never once as “returning” except in John 13:3.

In fact, the only time hupagō in any of its various conjugations is ever translated in as “going back to” or “returning to” is here in John 13 verse 3, and even then, only in a few translations.

Miles: Soooo … with that being the case, why do you suppose some translators add words to this passage? Why do they make it sound like Yahushua “going to” Yahuwah is a return trip to his point of origin? It’s not in the original, so why would they inject that?

Dave: Well, we touched on it before. It’s a matter of confirmation bias. Or, actually, twisting it to fit an already existing bias. That bias, of course, is the assumption that Yahushua had a pre-existence because it’s believed by the majority of modern Christians that Christ is divine.

Miles: I like your emphasis on modern Christians.

Dave: Of course. Because neither the apostles nor the first century believers actually believed that Yahushua was divine. He never taught it about himself. His emphasis was always on the fact that he’s only and ever a human being, nothing more. So that’s what the apostles taught, and that’s what everyone believed until pagan philosophy started making inroads.

Miles: You think this was a deliberate attempt to make a solid case for Yahushua having a pre-existence?

Dave: I’m not sure I would go that far. I wouldn’t say this is a deliberate attempt to deceive or trick anybody. I would say it was a deliberate attempt to “clarify.” But clarify what? Clarify their incorrect assumption that Christ had a pre-existence.

See, any of us can do this. When we use our current beliefs as a framework from which to interpret and judge or dismiss information, if we’re not really careful, we can fall into this, too. They probably didn’t think, “It’s not what it’s meant, but I’ll help them out and clarify it.” Instead, they probably thought, “It’s not what it says, but surely that’s what John meant!” And so, with the best of intentions, it gets added to the translation.

And I believe this to be true because this addition also appears in the various paraphrases as well.

Miles: That’s true.

Dave: The problem, of course, is that when this happens, the sincere-minded believer, studying Yah’s word, doesn’t know that the translator has done this. They assume the translators are careful to stay strictly neutral.

Miles: Yeah, if you’re reading a translation that shows the translators’ bias, the translators are no long translators. Instead, they’re interpreters.

Dave: And their additions end up confusing the very point they tried to clarify.

But translators are only human. They make mistakes, too. In an attempt to clarify, they may unknowingly project their own biases onto a passage and actually confuse the issue. So, if you come across a passage like this that seems to contradict other passages, get out your concordance and a Bible dictionary. Most languages have them available online for free. Start looking up words and see for yourself what the original says.

Would you please turn to Deuteronomy chapter 4? There’s a principle here that we all should take to heart. In context, it’s speaking about the law of Yahuwah, but I think the principle applies to all of Yah’s word, as well.

Miles: Deuteronomy 4?

Dave: Yes. The first two verses of the chapter.

Miles: Okay, it says:

Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land Yahuwah, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of Yahuwah your God that I give you.

Dave: This principle is echoed in the very last chapter of the Bible. Would you please read Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19? Again, this is a principle that we should take into account when we study the Bible.

You have it? Go ahead. Revelation 22 verses 18 to 19.

Miles:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Dave: That’s a very solemn warning! We may not be Bible translators, but in our personal study of Scripture, as well as when we share our beliefs with others, we need to be very careful not to read into passages what’s not there, or gloss over other passages that contradict our pet beliefs. We must always take the word of Yah just as it reads. We must set aside our preconceived ideas and surrender them to what the spirit of Yah wants to teach us from His word.

Miles: Okay, I can see how translators, in a misguided attempt to provide clarity, would project their own beliefs onto John 13 verse 3 and insert the idea that Yahushua was going back to Yahuwah.

But what about the phrase just before that where it says Yahushua came from God? Is that in the original? Or is that a mistranslation, too?

Dave: No, that’s in the original.

Miles: Then couldn’t that suggest a pre-existence? I mean, we work with someone from Manila. That’s his point of origin, I guess you could say. My dentist comes from Mumbai. India is her point of origin. Doesn’t saying that Yahushua came from God suggest a pre-existence with God in Heaven before his birth?

Dave: That’s a good question and I’m glad you asked it because, although we’re not dealing with a mistranslation in this phrase, we are dealing with a cultural difference in perspectives.

Miles: What do you mean?

Dave: Well, as modern Christians, our cultural perspective is that of an eternal co-equal, co-existent triune godhead. You and I now know that Scripture doesn’t actually teach that, but we can understand that perspective. In our subculture of modern Christianity, that’s what we were raised to believe.

Miles: It’s what most Christians today believe.

Dave: Correct. But a first century Israelite would not have shared that unique perspective. The Jews did not believe in a trinity. They were strict monotheists as taught in Deuteronomy 6 verse 4: “Hear O Israel, Yahuwah our God is one Yahuwah.”

Miles: I like the marginal reading on that verse. It’s even more clear. It says: “Hear, O Israel, Yahuwah is our God, Yahuwah alone.”

Dave: That’s excellent. You can’t get clearer than that. So, a first century Jew would not have projected a pre-existence onto either statement in John 13:3.

Miles: So what did they mean, then, when it says that Yahushua “came from” Yahuwah? Is this an idiom?

Dave: Sort of. To a first century Jew, saying that someone—anyone—“came from Yahuwah” simply indicated that the person had existed in Yahuwah’s foreknowledge; the person had a role in Yahuwah’s great plan.

To “come from” is to be understood in the same sense as “to be sent from” Yahuwah. Not that the person was residing in Heaven with Yahuwah and the holy angels. But simply that he or she pre-existed in the sense of being part of Yahuwah’s foreknowledge, fitting into the divine plan and thus coming from or being sent from Him.

Miles: Are there any examples of this other than Yahushua? I mean, there’s Isaiah? Or was it Jeremiah? Where Yahuwah said He knew him before he was born?

Dave: That’s Jeremiah. Why don’t you read that for us really quickly? It’s a great illustration of this point. You’ll find it somewhere in the first chapter of Jeremiah.

Miles: All right. Uhhh … here we go. It’s Jeremiah 1 verses 4 and 5. It says:

The word of Yahuwah came to me, saying,

“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: You can find another example in the first chapter of John. Read verse, uhhh … Oh! Here we go. It’s verse 6. I was looking down too far. Read verse 6 of John 1.

Miles: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John.”

Dave: This is a very clear statement: John was sent from Yahuwah. But no one’s insisting this must mean he had a pre-existence up in Heaven with Yah. He was sent from Yahuwah to do a special work. That’s all. So why should it be different if the person being sent is Yahushua?

Miles: It shouldn’t.

Dave: No, it shouldn’t. What does verse 14 say?

Miles: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Dave: A lot of people assume that “the Word” in John 1 is a reference to the pre-existent Christ. But, as we’ve covered extensively in previous programs, that’s not who it’s referring to at all. In fact, it’s not referring to a “who” at all but a what. And that what, again, is the Father’s foreknowledge developed into a plan to save mankind should sin arise. We see that in John 1 verses 1 to 3. Would you read that for us? And as you do, see this not as a pre-existent Christ, but as a reference to Yahuwah’s foreknowledge, the plan He held in reserve from eternity past.

Miles: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

Dave: I don’t want to spend too much time on this point because we’ve covered it enough in other programs. But just understand that a first century Jew—and that includes Yahushua and all 12 disciples—did not believe in any form of pre-existence other than as part of Yahuwah’s foreknowledge.

We can find another example of this in John chapter 3. This is when Nicodemus came to visit Yahushua privately. Let’s take a look at his opening greeting. Nicodemus, remember, was a Pharisee. In fact, he was a highly respected member of the Sanhedrin. His theology did not believe in a pre-existence. Yet, what did he say to Yahushua? Verses 1 to 3 of John 3.

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: For all their shortcomings, the Pharisees knew their Bibles, which were what we call the Old Testament. I read somewhere that to even be considered to be a candidate to join the Sanhedrin later in life, a man had to have memorized all of the books of Moses by the age of 12.

Miles: Wow!

Dave: Nicodemus was not looking for God coming in human flesh. He didn’t believe that. But he did believe that Yahuwah, in His foreknowledge, would appoint certain people to do a special work for Him. It was in that sense that he said Yahushua was a teacher who had “come from God.”

Miles: Well, in the past we’ve kind of skimmed over what Nicodemus had to say and focused on what Yahushua had to say in this passage. But what Nicodemus has to say is important, too. And Yahushua didn’t correct him! So what he said was true.

He didn’t believe Yahushua was God in human flesh. He simply recognized that the miracles Yahushua performed, the “mighty works” he did were the proof that he’d come from Yahuwah. In other words, that he was doing the special work Yahuwah had appointed him to do.

Dave: Yes! And Yahushua himself later said that very thing. Turn to John 14 and read verses 8 to 12.

Miles: All right. Um …

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Yahushua answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Dave: Performing miracles is not proof of divinity because, right here, Yahushua himself states that believers will do “even greater things than” he had done. And I know I’m not divine!

Miles laughs: I know you’re not divine, either!

Dave: The miracles simply prove that someone has been sent by Yah, not that someone is suddenly divine with a pre-existence in Heaven.

There’s another passage I want to look at that supports this. Would you please turn to John 9. Go ahead and start with verse 1. There’s a lot of significance in this passage.

Miles: “Now as Jesus passed by, he saw a man who was blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’”

Dave: The Pharisees had taught the people that physical ailments were a punishment from Yah. Yahushua’s answer not only corrected this judgmental assumption but explained that there was a greater motivation at work. Verses 3 to 5.

Miles:

Yahushua answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. I must work the works of Him who sent me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Dave: Again: Christ’s mighty works are proof that he has a mission to do for Yah.

So then, verses 6 and on, Yahushua anointed his eyes with clay and told him to go wash in the pool of Siloam after which his eyesight was cured. This means that the man never actually saw Yahushua when the Savior anointed his eyes.

Drop down now to verse 13. There’s this huge argument going on because he was healed on the Sabbath. So the argument was whether or not the miracle was of Yah, because by Pharisaical standards, that was “working.”

Go ahead and read onward from verse 13.

Miles:

They brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees. Now it was a Sabbath when Yahushua made the clay and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”

Therefore some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath.”

Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them.

They said to the blind man again, “What do you say about him because he opened your eyes?”

He said, “He is a prophet.”

But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?”

His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself.” His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this man is a sinner.”

He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.” [Matthew 9:13-25]

Dave: The Pharisees didn’t like that. They got mad and started insulting the man who lost patience with them. Read what he says in verses 30 to 34.

Miles:

The man answered and said to them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where he is from; yet he has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.

Dave: Basically, the man was calling them out on their prejudice against Christ and pointing out their inconsistency. But his point was that Yahushua had been sent by God and empowered to do a special work for God, not that Yahushua actually was God.

Another reason we can’t use coming from God as proof of pre-existence is that believers themselves are said to be from Yahuwah.

Miles: Really?? Where?

Dave: 1 John 4:4.

Miles: Let me read that really quickly.

Uhhh … it says: “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.”

Huh! And we’re not divine! None of us had a pre-existence.

Dave: John 13:3 is not the only passage where translators imposed their theology. John 16:28 has the same translational error. Would you read that for us, please?

Miles: Sure! Uh, “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

Dave: There’s that “going back” again. But it’s not in the original anymore than it is in John 13:3. Read that verse again in the King James Version.

Miles: “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”

Dave: That’s what’s consistent with the Greek. Yahushua is simply going to the Father; he’s not going back. We must be very careful to always take Scripture just as it reads and don’t impose our personal beliefs on it.

Miles: Let Scripture define our beliefs, not let our beliefs define Scripture.

Dave: Exactly.

Miles: Up next: 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 patience of Job” has become proverbial example of endurance and trust under extreme suffering. But have you ever wondered just what it was that kept Job faithful when everything had been taken away? After all, he was only human like you and me. What did he cling to during those dark days? What did he know that enabled him to continue to trust Yahuwah?

These are the questions Miles and Dave look at in Program 288 called “What Job Knew.” These are lessons that can keep us faithful when we face our own trials. To find out how you, too, can remain faithful to Yahuwah even in the midst of suffering and loss, listen to “What Job Knew,” Program 288 on WorldsLastChance.com.

* * *Daily Mailbag (Miles & Dave)

Miles: We’ve got an interesting question coming from Aksel in Norway. Did you know that Norway has won more medals in the Winter Olympics than any other country?

Dave: No. Although that makes sense. I mean … Norway! They’re not exactly known for balmy weather.

Miles: Very true! The Norse also founded Dublin, Ireland in 836 CE.

Dave: Oh, interesting. I know they introduced salmon sushi to Japan in the 1980s.

Miles: You have to give it to those Vikings! Their influence is still felt world-wide!

Anyway, Aksel writes:

In a recent radio program, you briefly mentioned that the idea that Yahushua was subordinate to the Father was a belief the earliest of the Church Fathers held. We know that with the adoption of the trinity doctrine, this changed, but could you please say more about this? I was not aware that the Church Fathers ever believed Yahushua was subordinate to Yahuwah. That contradicts the doctrine of a triune godhead which the Church Fathers also taught. Could you please clarify what you mean?

Dave: That’s a great question. I think he’s referring to Program 290 called “Man Under Authority.”

I can see why it would be confusing to say that the Church Fathers brought in the trinity doctrine, but they also believed Yahushua was subordinate. And, yes. Those are contradictory positions.

The point we have to remember is that huge shifts in doctrine do not happen overnight. They come in gradually with a few concessions being made every generation.

The first era, of course, was the apostolic period. But as they died out, this was followed by the Patristic Era and this period of the Church Fathers lasted roughly 600 years.

Miles: That’s a long time!

Dave: It is! That’s like the difference between today and the early 1400s. That’s a long time ago. So, yes. The earliest of the Church Fathers, in accordance with what Scripture teaches, believed that Yahushua was subservient to Yahuwah.

However. They also had some error. They did believe in subordinationism. I know that’s a long word.

I have here a quote I’d like you to read. It’s from Theopedia.com. It’s very interesting because, as you can see, they believe subordination within the trinity is heretical even though, as we saw in Program 290, it’s actually Biblical. But go ahead and read what it says.

Miles:

Subordinationism is an heretical view that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not merely relationally subordinate to God the Father, but also subordinate in nature and being. In other words, this view maintains that, within the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are ontologically inferior to the Father. To the contrary, orthodox doctrine maintains that although there is no autonomous Person of the Trinity, none who is God apart from any other Person, yet each Person is autotheos.

Dave: “Ontologically inferior.” Meaning: the Son and the Holy Spirit are, by nature, less than the Father.

And yes, orthodox doctrine contradicts this. With the adoption of a triune godhead from paganism, the belief was embraced that each person of the triune godhead was self-existent, or “God in and of Himself.” That’s what autotheos means.

I’ve got another statement here I’d like you to read. This one’s from the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary.

Miles: Uh, it says:

In the early centuries, the struggle to understand the human and divine natures of Christ often led to placing the Son in a secondary position to the Father. Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian all evidence a certain amount of subordinationism in their writings. . . This incipient subordinationism, especially that of Origen, eventually led to Arianism and other systems such as Sabellianism, Monarchianism, and Macedonianism. Arius, who would allow no intermediary being between the supremacy of the One God and his creatures, denied the full deity of Christ. From this it followed that Christ the Word was less than God incarnate and was instead a subordinate image of the Father. In subordinationism lay the roots from which modern unitarianism and related theologies were to spring.

Dave: As some Christians tried to cling to beliefs of the apostles, and others began interpreting Scripture through a lens of pagan philosophy, there were differences of opinions.

Kegan Chandler in The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma explains that the doctrine of subordinationism teaches that, quote, “the Son is subordinate to God the Father in nature and being, and that the Son both takes his orders from and owes his existence to God.” Unquote. I have another quote from him I’d like you to read. Would you please turn to page 76 and read where it’s marked?

Miles: Uhh … it says: “It is an unsung fact of Church history that the most well-known second and third century Church Fathers believed that Jesus had pre-existed, not eternally as the one true God himself, but as a subordinate angelic being, God’s first creation.”

Dave: So, again. This shift in belief from Yahushua being fully human to being fully God went through a series of iterations. Eventually, it reached the stage of what most Christians believe today: that Christ was fully God and fully man, with a preexistence as well as being of the same essence as the Father. But for hundreds of years, no one believed that.

Here's a quote from Volume 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Early Church. It’s from page 797. Would you read that for us, please? It’s from an entry called “Subordinationism” by M. Simmonetti.

Miles: Let me see, uh …

Subordinationism. Thus we call the tendency, strong in the theology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, to consider Christ, as Son of God, inferior to the Father. Behind this tendency were gospel statements in which Christ himself stressed his inferiority (John 14: 28, Mark 10:18, 13:32, etc.) and it was developed especially by the Logos-Christology…Subordinationist tendencies are evident especially in theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen and Novation; but even Irenaeus, to whom Trinitarian speculations are alien, commenting on John 14:28, has no difficulty in considering Christ inferior to the Father

Dave: They “had no difficulty in considering Christ inferior to the Father” because Christ himself repeatedly stated that the Father is greater than he! Unlike later theology that developed based largely on speculative interpretations of Scripture, the doctrine that Yahushua is inferior to the Father is consistent with what Christ and the apostles taught.

Thomas C. Pfizenmaier is a retired Presbyterian minister and professor. He wrote a very well-researched book called The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). The subtitle is very revealing. The subtitle is: “Context, Sources, and Controversy (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions).”

Miles: Sounds like a university textbook!

Dave: It is rather … weighty. But very informative. I want you to read this quote from page 91.

Miles: “While the forms of subordinationism varied, virtually all ante-Nicene theologians engaged in some form of it.”

Dave: Ante-Nicene means “before the council of Nicaea.” Ante, like antecedent. It comes before.

Miles: Antediluvian.

Dave: Right.

Richard Hanson was bishop of Clogher in the Church of Ireland from 1970 to 1973. I have here one of his books. It’s called The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381.

Miles: It’s interesting that he calls it “the search for the Christian doctrine of God.” Because you’re right: there was a lot of fighting over just who Yahushua was in relation to his Father. In fact, the entire “Arian Controversy” was a huge fight spanning several hundred years.

Dave: And at its core was the question of whether Yahushua was a created being, subordinate to the Father, or whether he was of the same divine substance as Yahuwah.

And we know how it ended. It ended with the confusing, contradictory believe that he was both fully human and fully divine.

Anyway, I want you to read this quote from Bishop Hanson’s book. Just … yes. Right there.

Miles:

With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of Subordinationism at least up to the year 355 CE; Subordinationism, might indeed, until the dénouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.

Dave: Three fifty-five is rather late! For over three hundred years, Christians believed and taught some form of the truth: that Yahushua is below the Father and subservient to Him.

It was at the Council of Nicaea, in 325, that spelled the beginning of the end of this truth. The Council of Nicaea changed some of the most important and fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. And Christian theology is still dealing with the corruption of belief embraced at that time. It’s why we’ve got these confusing doctrines like a dual-nature, and why Bible scholars say that the trinity is a “mystery” “too profound” for human minds to grasp.

It is rather difficult to grasp nonsense that makes no logical sense, and that’s the doctrine of the trinity.

Turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 15. You can’t get clearer than Paul’s explanation here: 1 Corinthians 15 and read verses 24 to 28. Here, Paul is talking about how Christ is the “firstfruits” of believers who have passed away. He’s encouraging believers to grasp the promise that, just as Yahushua was raised back to life, so shall all be who die believing in him. Then, he talks about what happens next, after the resurrection. The “he” being referred to here is Yahushua.

Go ahead.

Miles:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Dave: Paul is making a very significant point that challenges and denies any equality of the son with the Father. His point is that as much power as Yahushua has, he’s still subordinate to the Father and, when sin and sinners are no more, the subordinate son will turn over to the one and only true God the rulership of all.

I have here a copy of The Only True God, by James McGrath. Would you please turn to page 50 and read where it’s marked?

Miles: Oh, this looks interesting! The subtitle is “Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context.” I’d like to read this.

Dave: Sure! I’d be happy to lend it to you.

Miles: Uhhh … page 50?

Dave: Yes.

Miles:

Monotheism is preserved not because [Yahushua] is absorbed into God or included in the divine identity but because even though [Yahushua] reigns over absolutely everything else on God’s behalf, God himself is not subjected to Christ, but Christ is subjected to God.

Dave: That is consistent with Scripture. That what the apostles believed and what Christ taught about himself. And if Christianity today contradicts this, you have to ask yourself why.

I’ll tell you why. It’s not that Christ and the apostles were wrong. It’s that pure apostolic Christianity became corrupted by paganism during the early centuries. And that’s why most Christians today believe in a divine Christ and a triune godhead.

Miles: You know, the evidence is so clear when you start digging into it. It amazes me that I ever believed in a triune godhead.

Don’t go away. Up next is Jane Lamb with today’s Daily Promise.

* * *Daily Promise:

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

Over the last few years, General Motors has closed down a number of its plants in the United States. One city of 75,000 people was especially hard hit when the company closed its doors. The plant had been a major part of the local economy and the effect of the plant closure was felt by everyone. In addition, gasoline prices had reached an all-time high and a local river had flooded, causing a great deal of destruction and hardship for those inundated by the flood waters. It was a situation rife for suffering, hardship, and depression.

A local church youth group decided that they wanted to do something to help. The young people presented their ideas to the church, collecting an offering of $1,700 to help. One of their ideas was to present $25 gasoline gift cards or a bouquet of roses to people who seemed in need of help and encouragement. Before setting out on their mission, the youth group and their leaders gathered for prayer, asking Yahuwah to lead them to just the right people.

Two of the boys, both 13, watched a young woman pull up to a gas pump. Now, the boys had been told not to approach anyone until they actually got out of their cars to pump the gas. As the boys watched, the young woman looked in her purse, and then with increasing urgency looked in her glove compartment, again in her purse, and then on the floor of her car. Finally, she put her hands and her head on her steering wheel and started to sob.

The boys hesitantly approached and knocked on her window. “Here’s a 25-dollar gift card for gas,” they said. “No strings attached. We just want you to know that Yah loves you.”

Hearing their kind words, the young woman started to cry again. As she gratefully accepted their gift, she explained that she was a single mother who had been out of work for some time. She was headed to a job interview she desperately needed but her car was out of gas. She’d thought she’d had a 10-dollar bill for putting a couple of gallons of gas in the car but then couldn’t find it. When she realized that, without the gas, she wouldn’t be able to make it to the interview, she broke down and started crying, calling out to Yahuwah for help.

“Father,” she’d prayed, “You know how desperately I need this job and I can’t find my last 10-dollar bill. I’m going to miss my interview if I can’t get some gas. I don’t know what to do and I’m so tired. Please, please help me!”

She told the boys, “You have no idea what you’ve done for me! Thank you so much!”

The boys returned to their youth leader and shared her story with him. He gave the boys four more gift cards and a bouquet of roses to give to the young mother. When she saw them return with even more gifts, she said she couldn’t accept any more, but they insisted. Finally she accepted and with tears of gratitude and renewed hope she left for her job interview.

Michael Powers says: “We have continued the tradition of handing out roses and/or gift cards once or twice a year for the past 12 years now. And every time [Yahuwah] leads us to people who desperately need to know that they are loved.

“Not only does it make a difference in the lives of those who receive the gifts, but it also makes a difference in the lives of the teens who get to see that Yahuwah is never random. And they get to take part in something that is bigger than themselves.”

Psalm 17 tells us: “I have called upon You, for You will hear me, O Elohim;
Incline Your ear to me, and hear my speech.
Show Your marvelous lovingkindness by Your right hand,
O You who save those who trust in You.” [Psalm 17:6-7a]

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

* * *Part 2: (Miles & Dave)

Miles: Today’s program is an excellent example of why we should never stop studying our Bibles. We need to keep studying, keep digging into Scripture.

Have you ever heard a quote so many times that you could paraphrase it? You might not get it word for word, but you could get pretty close?

Dave: Sure.

Miles: Well, that’s me with John 16:23. If you’d asked me, “What did Yahushua say about leaving just before his betrayal?” I would have said, “I’m leaving and going back to the Father.” And I would have been convinced that’s what he said! But it’s not.

Dave: What starts with a mistranslation, keeps going through faulty memories and people start misquoting. And the misquote gets quoted more frequently than the actual quote.

Miles: Kind of like Winston Churchill. In his famous speech in the summer of 1940. Most people think he said, “He shall fight them on the beaches.”

Dave: Oh, come on! Are you sure?

Miles: See? Perfect example. What he actually said was: “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

Dave: It’s pretty close.

Miles: Yeah, but so is John 16. Just a one-word difference, but what a difference!

Dave: It’s like that famous line from the Star Wars movies where Darth Vader, the arch-villain tells the hero, Luke Skywalker: “Luke, I am your father.”

Miles: Are you saying he doesn’t say that?

Dave: Nope. It’s a misquote.

Miles: No way! Are you serious? But I remember him saying that in the movie!

Dave: I know, but that’s not what he said. So many people have misquoted that line, that it’s almost a Mandela effect. You know, where a large group of people share a false memory?

Miles: So, what’d he actually say?

Dave: The actual words in the movie are, “No, I am your father.”

Miles: Interesting. I’m not sure I believe you. I’ll have to go back and watch it again.

Dave laughs: You do that.

The point that you were making, though, is a good one. You’re exactly right that this is just one more example of why we should never decide that we know everything we need to know to be saved. That’s spiritual pride! It’s the sin of the Laodiceans. How can Yahuwah teach us what He wants us to know when we’re convinced that every new idea that comes along must be wrong, because if it were true, we’d already know it?

Miles: Ahhhh, yes! The circular reasoning of spiritual pride! But it’s true and it’s something we all need to guard against.

Dave: This side of Yah’s kingdom, no one’s going to arrive at full and complete truth. I’m not sure our fallen human minds can even grasp all the glories of Yah’s truth at this point, so yes: keep studying. Keep digging. There’s always something new to be learned.

Miles: Very true.

Thank you for joining us for today’s program. If you were blessed by it and would like to share it with a friend or loved one, just look for Program 291 called “Did Yahushua ‘go’ or ‘return’ to the Father?” Again, that’s “Did Yahushua ‘go’ or ‘return’ to the Father?” Program 291 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.