One of the most quoted and debated statements of Yahushua appears in John 8:58, where he says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” For many readers, this verse clearly shows that Yahushua existed before Abraham and was claiming a divine identity. Because of this, the verse has played a major role in shaping Christian beliefs about who Yahushua is. However, like many passages in the Bible, its meaning becomes clearer when read in its original Jewish context.
Yahushua was speaking to a Jewish audience, using Jewish ways of thinking, arguing, and speaking. His words were not spoken in a philosophical debate but in a tense conversation about identity, authority, and Yahuwah’s promises to Abraham. This article explores what Yahushua meant by his statement, how first-century Jews would have understood it, and why this verse does not require the idea that Yahushua literally lived before Abraham.
THE CONTEXT OF JOHN 8
John 8 records a heated discussion between Yahushua and the Jewish leaders. The conversation centers on Abraham, lineage, and faithfulness to Yahuwah. Yahushua challenges his listeners by saying that true children of Abraham would act as Abraham did—by trusting Yahuwah and obeying Him. The argument escalates when Yahushua claims that Abraham “rejoiced that he would see my day” (John 8:56). His opponents respond with disbelief, saying, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57). Their objection shows that they understood Yahushua’s words in terms of importance and significance, not literal age. Yahushua’s reply, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), comes as the climax of this discussion. It must be understood as part of this argument about Abraham, promise, and fulfillment—not as a detached statement about personal existence.
“I AM” IN JEWISH SPEECH
The phrase “I am” was not unusual in Jewish speech. It was a common way of speaking about identity, role, or significance. Throughout the Gospel of John, Yahushua uses “I am” statements metaphorically: “I am the bread of life,” “I am the light of the world,” and “I am the good shepherd.” No one takes these statements as claims to literal identity with bread, light, or sheep. In John 8:58, Yahushua is not introducing a new divine name claim, but emphasizing who he is in relation to Yahuwah’s plan. He is saying that his role in Yahuwah’s purpose existed before Abraham came on the scene. The Bible often speaks this way about Yahuwah’s purposes. Jeremiah was known before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5). The Messiah was foreknown before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). This language points to divine intention, not personal pre-existence.
ABRAHAM, PROMISE, AND FULFILLMENT
To understand Yahushua’s words, we need to focus on Abraham’s role in Yahuwah’s promises. Yahuwah promised Abraham that through his seed, all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3). This promise shaped Israel’s hopes and expectations. When Yahushua says he existed “before” Abraham, he means that the purpose he fulfills was already part of Yahuwah’s plan before Abraham was even born. Paul clarifies this by saying that the promise came before the Law and is fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 3:16–18). In this way, Yahushua is “before” Abraham, not in age, but in importance. Yahuwah’s plan of salvation, which Yahushua represents, was established before Abraham was called. Abraham looked forward to that fulfillment, even if he didn’t see it fully realized.
HOW FIRST-CENTURY JEWS WOULD HAVE HEARD IT
First-century Jews understood discussionsof people and events in terms of Yahuwah’s plan rather than in literal timelines. They often described things as existing because they were part of Yahuwah’s established purpose. When Yahushua said, “Before Abraham was, I am,” his audience saw it as a claim about authority and mission. He was indicating that Yahuwah’s redemptive plan centered on him and that this plan existed before Abraham. Their reaction—picking up stones—does not prove they thought Yahushua claimed to be Yahuwah. Instead, it shows they believed he was making a bold statement about authority and status within Yahuwah’s plan. Claiming to surpass Abraham was shocking enough to provoke hostility.
CONCLUSION
John 8:58 is a powerful statement, but it must be read carefully. Yahushua was not making a philosophical claim about living before Abraham. He was declaring that Yahuwah’s saving purpose, now revealed in him, existed before Abraham’s calling. When read in its Jewish context, the verse fits perfectly with the Bible’s consistent message: Yahuwah plans the end from the beginning. Yahushua stands at the center of that plan, not because he existed before Abraham in time, but because Yahuwah’s purpose in him came before Abraham in promise. This understanding helps readers read the Bible more carefully and faithfully.
His opponents respond with disbelief, saying, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57). Their objection shows that they understood Yahushua’s words in terms of importance and significance, not literal age.
Their response was literally about age.
Not sure where you got “importance and significance” from.
WLC’s Argument on John 8:58 — Summary
Their position has three main planks:
“I am” is just an ordinary Jewish identity claim, not an echo of the divine name
“Before Abraham was” refers to Jesus’s role in God’s foreordained plan, not personal pre-existence
The crowd’s attempt to stone him was about the audacity of claiming to surpass Abraham, not about a blasphemous divine identity claim
Where Their Argument Has Some Legitimate Points
To be fair:
It’s true that John uses “I am” (egō eimi) metaphorically elsewhere — bread, light, shepherd. This is a real observation.
It’s true that Jeremiah 1:5 shows God “knowing” someone before birth without implying pre-existence.
It’s true that first-century Jews thought in terms of divine purpose and plan.
These aren’t invented points. They reflect real features of the text and its Jewish context.
Where Their Argument Seriously Fails
1. The Grammatical Tense Contrast Is Decisive and They Don’t Address It
This is the most important failure in the article. John 8:58 reads:
“Before Abraham was (genesthai — aorist infinitive, a point of coming into being) I am (eimi — present tense, continuous existence)”
John deliberately uses two different Greek constructions:
Abraham came into being — a dated, historical event
Jesus is — timeless, continuous present
If Jesus simply meant “my role in God’s plan pre-dates Abraham,” the natural Greek would have been “before Abraham was, I was” (ēmēn — imperfect tense). John could easily have written that. Instead he uses the jarring present tense eimi — “I am” — which cannot simply mean “my purpose existed before Abraham.” It asserts a mode of existence that transcends historical sequence entirely.
WLC’s article never engages with this grammatical distinction at all. This is not a minor omission — it’s the entire heart of why this verse is so striking, and they simply skip past it.
2. The Crowd’s Reaction Is Not Adequately Explained
WLC argues the stoning attempt was simply because Jesus was “claiming to surpass Abraham” — which they say was shocking enough to provoke violence.
This explanation doesn’t hold up for several reasons:
Jews did not stone people for claiming to be more important than Abraham. That was not a stoning offense under any reading of Torah or Jewish law.
Stoning was the prescribed punishment for blasphemy — specifically for misusing or appropriating the divine name (Leviticus 24:16).
John 10:33 makes this explicit — when the crowd tries to stone Jesus again, they tell him directly: “for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” John tells us exactly what they thought the offense was.
The pattern throughout John 8 is that Jesus’s egō eimi statements escalate in controversy precisely because the audience understood their divine name overtones.
WLC’s claim that the stoning was merely about claiming to surpass Abraham requires us to ignore John’s own explicit explanation of why people tried to stone Jesus elsewhere in the same gospel.
3. The Exodus 3:14 Connection Is Dismissed Without Engagement
The LXX (Greek Old Testament) renders God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14 as egō eimi ho ōn — “I am the one who is.” The absolute use of egō eimi without a predicate was recognized in Jewish Greek as carrying divine name overtones.
WLC says the “I am” statements in John are just ordinary identity claims because they appear with predicates elsewhere (bread, light, shepherd). But John 8:58 is notably different — it has no predicate. Jesus doesn’t say “I am the fulfillment” or “I am the promised one.” He says simply egō eimi — “I am” — the absolute construction that echoes Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:10 (“before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me… I am he”).
Their article treats all the “I am” statements as equivalent. They are not. The absolute construction in 8:58 is grammatically distinct from the metaphorical predicate constructions.
4. The Jeremiah 1:5 Parallel Actually Undermines Them
They use Jeremiah being “known before he was born” as a parallel — God foreknew Jeremiah, therefore Jesus being “before Abraham” is just about divine foreknowledge.
But notice what the text says: God says to Jeremiah “I knew you before you were born” — it’s God’s foreknowledge of Jeremiah being described. In John 8:58 it’s Jesus himself claiming to exist before Abraham. These are not parallel. One is God’s foreknowledge of a future person. The other is a first-person claim by that person about their own prior existence. The grammatical subject is completely different.
5. The Abraham “Rejoiced to See My Day” Context Actually Supports Pre-existence
WLC uses John 8:56 as context — “Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day.” They interpret this as Abraham looking forward to a future fulfillment in God’s plan.
But they overlook the natural implication: the crowd immediately asks “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (8:57). Their question is about mutual seeing — they understood Jesus to be claiming some form of personal acquaintance with or knowledge of Abraham. If Jesus only meant “Abraham hoped for the fulfillment of God’s plan,” the crowd’s objection about Jesus’s age makes no sense. Their objection only makes sense if they understood Jesus to be claiming personal experience that transcended his 30-odd years of earthly life.
6. Their Own Comment Section Exposes the Problem
Interestingly, one of their own readers (Temitope) raises exactly the right problem in the comments: “who revealed himself to Moses and Daniel? The person Moses and Daniel saw?” — pointing out that if Jesus didn’t pre-exist, who were the prophets encountering in their visions?
The WLC team member doesn’t give a substantive answer, which is telling. This is a genuinely difficult problem for their position that they sidestep.
The Deeper Structural Problem
WLC’s article commits a consistent methodological error: it finds one plausible alternative reading for each individual text and presents it as though finding any alternative interpretation settles the matter.
But good exegesis requires asking: which interpretation best explains all the features of the text simultaneously?
The pre-existence reading explains:
The jarring present tense eimi vs. aorist genesthai
The crowd’s stoning attempt as blasphemy
The absolute egō eimi without predicate echoing the divine name
The crowd’s question about Jesus having “seen” Abraham
The pattern throughout John 8 of escalating divine identity claims
WLC’s reading requires special explanations for each of these features independently, and still doesn’t fully account for the tense distinction or the stoning.
When one interpretation explains all the data naturally and the other requires multiple special pleadings, the evidential weight is clear.
What They’re Pointing To
They’re drawing on verses earlier in John 8 where Jesus repeatedly expresses frustration with his audience’s failure to understand him:
“You know neither me nor my Father” (8:19). “You are from below, I am from above” (8:23). “You do not know where I come from or where I am going” (8:14). “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham” (8:39). “You are of your father the devil” (8:44).
Their argument is: Jesus has been telling these people throughout the chapter that they fundamentally don’t understand him. Therefore when they pick up stones at 8:58, they are doing so out of the same misunderstanding. Their reaction doesn’t validate the claim — it illustrates their persistent failure to grasp what Jesus is actually saying.
This sounds reasonable. It isn’t.
Problem 1: The Misunderstanding Theme in John Cuts the Opposite Direction
WLC is correct that John uses a recurring “misunderstanding” motif throughout his gospel. Characters repeatedly misunderstand Jesus — Nicodemus thinks new birth means re-entering the womb (3:4), the Samaritan woman thinks living water is literal water (4:11), the disciples think Jesus literally means someone brought him food (4:33), the crowd thinks the bread of life is physical bread (6:34).
But here is the critical pattern WLC ignores: in every case where a genuine misunderstanding occurs, John either has Jesus explicitly correct it, or the narrative context makes the misunderstanding obvious to the reader.
Nicodemus misunderstands — Jesus corrects him immediately (3:5-8). The Samaritan woman misunderstands — Jesus clarifies (4:13-14). The disciples misunderstand about food — Jesus explains (4:32-34). The crowd misunderstands about bread — Jesus gives an extended discourse clarifying what he means (6:35ff).
John’s literary pattern is correction of misunderstanding when misunderstanding occurs. When the crowd tries to stone Jesus in 8:59, there is no correction. Jesus hides himself and leaves. He does not say “wait, you’ve misunderstood me again — I wasn’t claiming to be God.” The absence of correction in a gospel where corrections of misunderstanding are a consistent literary feature is not neutral. It is significant. John knows how to write a correction scene. He chose not to write one here.
Problem 2: The Misunderstandings in John 8 Are About Different Things
The misunderstandings WLC points to earlier in John 8 are about specific things: the Pharisees don’t understand Jesus’s origin, his relationship to the Father, his moral authority, his identity as Messiah. They are spiritually blind to who he is.
But their blindness in those verses is not about misidentifying a modest claim as a divine one. Their blindness is about failing to recognize genuine divine identity that is actually present. They don’t understand because they are “from below” (8:23) — they lack the spiritual perception to see what is really there.
This actually supports the opposite of WLC’s argument. The Jews’ problem throughout John 8 is not that they over-read Jesus’s claims into something more than he intends. Their problem is that they under-appreciate who he actually is. The misunderstanding theme in John is consistently about people failing to perceive genuine divine reality, not about people projecting divine claims onto non-divine statements.
So when WLC says “the Jews misunderstood Jesus again at 8:58 by thinking he claimed divine identity,” they are using the misunderstanding theme in precisely the opposite direction from how John uses it everywhere else.
Problem 3: The Stoning Attempt Is Not Presented as a Misunderstanding
John is a careful literary architect. When characters misunderstand in his gospel, the narrative signals it — either through Jesus’s correction, or through the narrator’s comment, or through irony that the reader can detect.
At 8:59 John writes simply: “So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.” There is no irony marker. There is no narrator’s note that they had misunderstood. There is no “but they did not understand that he meant…” — the formula John uses elsewhere when flagging misunderstanding (see 2:21, 12:16, 20:9 where John explicitly tells the reader what was misunderstood and why).
Compare this to John 2:20-21 where the Jews misunderstand Jesus’s statement about the temple: John explicitly inserts an editorial note — “but he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Or John 11:13 where the disciples misunderstand Jesus about Lazarus sleeping — John explicitly clarifies: “Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought he was talking about literal sleep.”
John knows exactly how to flag a misunderstanding for his reader. He does not flag 8:59 as a misunderstanding. He presents it as a response — a violent, extreme response that by Jewish law was the prescribed reaction to blasphemy. His silence on correction is itself a form of authorial communication: this was not a misunderstanding to be corrected.
Problem 4: Jesus’s Response to the Stoning Attempt Is Evasion, Not Correction
When Jesus hides himself and leaves at 8:59, WLC might argue this is just prudent physical escape. But consider what Jesus does in other confrontational moments in John.
In John 10, after another stoning attempt following “I and the Father are one” (10:30-31), Jesus does not run immediately. He engages them: “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” (10:32). When they clarify it’s for blasphemy — “because you, being a man, make yourself God” (10:33) — Jesus responds at length with the Psalm 82 argument (10:34-38). He pushes back, he argues, he tries to persuade. He doesn’t concede that they’ve misunderstood.
Significantly, even in that response Jesus does not say “you are wrong that I am making myself God — I’m only claiming to be God’s agent.” He says “if those to whom the word of God came were called gods, do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” — a lesser-to-greater argument that implicitly accepts the legitimacy of divine title language for himself while challenging their legal conclusion. He does not disclaim divine identity. He disputes their charge of blasphemy while maintaining his position.
So in John 10 Jesus stays and argues without disclaiming divine claims. In John 8 he leaves without correcting a supposed misunderstanding. Neither response is what you’d expect from someone whose modest claim about purposive priority had been grotesquely inflated by a persistently confused audience.
Problem 5: The Cumulative Misunderstanding Argument Proves Too Much
If WLC’s principle is “when Jews try to stone Jesus for claiming divine identity, they are misunderstanding him,” then this principle must apply consistently throughout John — and it destroys their reading of the entire gospel.
John 5:18 — the Jews sought to kill Jesus “because he was not only breaking the Sabbath, but was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Were they misunderstanding him? Jesus’s response in 5:19-47 is not a disclaimer of equality with God but an extended elaboration of his unique filial relationship with the Father that includes sharing divine prerogatives of judgment, life-giving, and honor.
John 10:33 — “because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Were they misunderstanding him? As I noted above, Jesus doesn’t correct this — he argues against the blasphemy charge while maintaining his position.
John 19:7 — at the trial: “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” Was this a misunderstanding? The narrative presents it as the actual charge that leads to crucifixion, and neither Jesus nor John corrects it as a misidentification of his claims.
If every Jewish perception of divine identity claims from Jesus is a misunderstanding, then John’s gospel is a sustained record of a man being repeatedly almost stoned and ultimately crucified for claims he never actually made — while the author never once clarifies what he actually did mean. That is not a coherent account of the gospel. It requires John to be a catastrophically incompetent communicator of his own subject matter.
Problem 6: The “Jews Don’t Understand” Theme Actually Indicts WLC’s Reading
Here is the sharpest irony in WLC’s argument. Throughout John 8, when Jesus says “you don’t understand me,” the implication is that understanding him correctly would reveal something greater than the Jews perceive, not something lesser.
“You know neither me nor my Father” (8:19) — proper understanding would reveal Jesus’s true divine origin and relationship to the Father.
“You are from below, I am from above” (8:23) — proper understanding would reveal the ontological gulf between Jesus and ordinary humanity.
“Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins” (8:24) — proper understanding requires believing the absolute ego eimi claim about Jesus.
In every case, the corrective to Jewish misunderstanding in John 8 points upward — toward greater recognition of Jesus’s divine identity, not toward a more modest appreciation of his covenantal role. The Jews’ problem is that they see too little, not that they see too much. They miss his divine origin, his divine relationship, his divine identity.
So WLC’s use of the “they don’t understand” theme is precisely backwards. In John 8, failing to understand Jesus means failing to perceive his divine identity. WLC is using the misunderstanding theme to argue the Jews perceived too much divine identity — but John uses it to show they perceived too little. The argument collapses by its own internal logic.
Problem 7: What a Genuine Misunderstanding Correction Would Look Like
Let me make this concrete. If WLC were right — if Jesus at 8:58 was making a modest claim about purposive priority that the Jews grotesquely inflated into a divine identity claim — what would we expect John to give us?
We would expect something like the corrections we get elsewhere. Something like: “But they did not understand that he spoke of Yahuwah’s purpose established before Abraham, not of his own personal existence” — the kind of editorial note John provides at 2:21 and 12:16 and elsewhere.
Or we would expect Jesus himself to clarify as he does throughout the gospel when genuinely misunderstood: “You misunderstand me — I am not claiming to have personally existed before Abraham. I am saying that God’s plan for salvation, fulfilled in me, preceded Abraham’s calling.”
Neither appears. What appears instead is Jesus hiding and leaving — not correcting, not clarifying, not reassuring. The silence is not ambiguous in a gospel where authorial silence on misunderstanding is itself a communicative act by a writer who knows exactly how to signal misunderstanding when he wants to.
The Bottom Line
WLC’s “they misunderstood him” argument for John 8:58 fails on every level:
John’s consistent literary practice is to signal and correct genuine misunderstandings — he does neither here.
The misunderstanding theme in John 8 points toward the Jews perceiving too little divine identity, not too much — WLC uses it in the opposite direction from how John uses it.
Jesus’s non-correction at 8:59 follows the same pattern as his non-correction in John 10 — where he also refuses to disclaim divine identity claims.
Applying the “misunderstanding” principle consistently across John’s gospel would require every Jewish perception of divine claims from Jesus to be wrong — making John a record of a man crucified for claims he never made, with an author too incompetent to clarify what he actually meant.
The argument is exegetically backwards, literarily unsupported, and self-defeating. It doesn’t explain John 8:58 — it explains it away.
Dear Galal.
Good afternoon brother. It’s been quite some time. I have a question about the existence of Yaohsha before he was born as a man on earth. According to Yaohsha himself. He said
Joh 1:18 RNKJV No man hath seen the Father at any time; the only begotten Son, which was in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
If these words are understood correctly, they point to Yaohsha as the one seen by prophets of old like Daniel and Moses. They didn’t see Ya’oh but the Son. The Son declared our Father in Heaven to our ancestors even before He was born by Mary, I suppose. I find it somehow confusing to say he had not existed before Abraham.
May I have your explanation please, about who revealed Himself to Moses and Daniel? The person that Daniel and Moses saw?
Dear Temitope,
Thanks for your question. From a Biblical Unitarian perspective, John 1:18 does not teach the pre-existence of Christ. Instead, it teaches that:
-No human has seen Yahuwah directly.
-Yahushua uniquely reveals Yahuwah to humanity.
-His sonship comes from his miraculous birth.
-“In the bosom of the Father” describes an intimate relationship, not heavenly origin.
-Yahushua makes Yahuwah known as Yahuwah’s perfect human representative.
So in this interpretation, John 1:18 actually strengthens the Unitarian non-pre-existence view of Yahushua:
He is the uniquely begotten Son of Yahuwah who perfectly reveals the unseen Father, while remaining fully human and distinct from Yahuwah Himself.
I pray that this makes sense to you.
In Father Yahuwah’s Love,
galal.
Dear Galal
Please let’s take note. I use the name Yaohsha for the Son of our Father in Heaven but when I quote from the scriptures RNKJV, Yahushua is used just like the preferred name used by WLC. Both names (Yaohsha and Yahushua) in my write-up refer to the same person, our Mâshı̂yach. The same applies to the name of our Father in Heaven as I used Ya’oh while RNKJV uses the abbreviation YHWH just like WLC uses the name Yahuwah in its fullness. Thanking everyone for their understanding.
Let’s dive a little bit deeper into this matter by taking note of what Yaohsha our Mâshı̂yach said directly without any element of doubt or ambiguity about His meeting between Himself and Abraham which was not in spirit, not a dream, not a vision or given by messengers, but a face to face meeting with Abraham many years ago before the birth of the nation of Israel of the Hebrew scriptures. Yaohsha’s speech that angered the Jews when He said:
John 8:56 RNKJV Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
But the Jews answered Him:
John 8:57 RNKJV Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Yaohsha replied saying:
John 8:58 RNKJV Yahushua said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
What followed was the Jews picked up stones to kill Him for blasphemy as seen below:
John 8:59 RNKJV Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Yahushua hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
My observations:
Referencing Genesis chapter 18 in collaboration with the book of John chapter 8. We can see that what Yaohsha said to the Jews in the book of John chapter 8 was as real as Him having a physical body to have his feet washed and also to eat our earthly food with Abraham when Abraham was still alive. This is not my personal opinion but a fact as established by what Yaohsha said many years later which makes the Jews accuse Him of blasphemy claiming to be the Self Existing One that appeared to Abraham. And the personality of this One especially, although in company of other two men that appeared to Abraham was explicitly described or named Ya’oh, our Father in Heaven (as called Yahuwah by WLC) the self existing One as revealed in this verse as quoted below:
Gen 18:1 TS2009 And יהוה appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamrĕ, while he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
יהוה as used in the TS2009 translation of the scriptures as called Ya’oh by me, Yahuwah by WLC and RNKV, and Jehovah by Strong’s dictionary refer to our Father in Heaven. These are just variations in translations by different translators. I prefer to use Ya’oh. And we should not let this verse lose its meaning because some other translators used or switched the name of our Father in Heaven with the general word “Lord” to denote His Personality and name.
See the Strong’s Definition below for this name יהוה used in Genesis 18:1, this same name that the Jews knew expressly refer to our Father in Heaven but being claimed by Yaohsha, which makes them want to stone Him for blasphemy.
“H3068 Original: יהוה
Transliteration: yehôvâh
Phonetic: yeh-ho-vaw’
BDB Definition: Jehovah = ” the existing One”
the proper name of the one true God
unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H136
Origin: from H1961
TWOT entry: 484a
Part(s) of speech: Proper Name
Strong’s Definition: From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: – Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.”
It is because of switching the name of our Father in Heaven with “Lord” in translations that most of us failed to understand on time why the Jews wanted to stone Yaohsha and accused Him of making Himself equal with Ya’oh. He actually called Himself Ya’oh by referencing Abraham’s event with Ya’oh that He was the One that appeared to Abraham.
This is not my opinion but the fact as also revealed by the verses given below in Yaohsha’s words:
John 10:30 TS2009 “I and My Father are one.”
John 5:23 RNKJV That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Both verses make it clear that there are two personalities that we are explicitly instructed to honour or value the same. Not that both personalities are merged as one Being or into one Being. But two that are set apart from any others in Divineness. Both in a relationship of a Father and His only begotten Son, and not just an adopted Son. Nevertheless, it should not be twisted away from recognising the Father as one of a kind because He is higher and greater in all ramifications than His only begotten Son.
This was what the Jews missed totally and seeing as if the same happened to my dear WLC.
If we continue with Genesis 18, we see that the two other men with Yaohsha that appeared to Abraham left towards Sodom but Yaohsha remained with Abraham. Please see:
Gen 18:16 TS2009 And the men rose up from there and looked toward Seḏom, and Aḇraham went with them to send them away.
The verse that followed makes it crystal clear again why the Jews were annoyed and wanted to stone Yaohsha. The eternal name of our Father in Heaven is again mentioned in scriptures, as the personality that continued His discussion with Abraham while the other two left to carry out the mission. Yaohsha mentioned this to the Jews that “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This is not Abraham seeing Yaohsha in a vision or a dream about the eternal mission of Yaohsha but about physically seeing Yaohsha in Person and Abraham was glad to achieve such an extraordinary feat as explained by Yaohsha to the Jews.
The same can be said about Moses and Daniel, when I asked in my earlier comment that who did they see, who appeared to them? If the Son had said that “No man hath seen the Father at any time; the only begotten Son, which was in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him..” This makes it become clear as the sun in its fullness of the day that He refers to Himself as the only true mediator between Ya’oh and man.. no man can boycott Him and see or hear Ya’oh directly.
Then in verse 17 the eternal name again is used to describe who Abraham encountered, who Abraham rejoiced and was glad to see, while bearing in mind that no man has seen our Father in Heaven at any time, the only begotten Son, which was in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him..
Gen 18:17 TS2009 And יהוה said, “Shall I hide from Aḇraham what I am doing,
Gen 18:18 TS2009 since Aḇraham is certainly going to become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 TS2009 “For I have known him, so that he commands his children and his household after him, to guard the way of יהוה, to do righteousness and right-ruling, so that יהוה brings to Aḇraham what He has spoken to him.”
Gen 18:20 TS2009 And יהוה said, “Because the outcry against Seḏom and Amorah is great, and because their sin is very heavy,
Take note of verse 19, how can Yaohsha have known Abraham if Yaohsha was not already in existence at the time or even before the time of Abraham?
Then to round it all up with the most interesting part, the icing on the cake. In Genesis 19 it became clearer when these two special Personalities, the first ever family of two, a Father and His Son, sharing the same family name, יהוה. Just like any son shares the name of his Father as a surname or family name is as revealed in this special verse in Genesis 19. Please see:
Gen 19:24 TS2009 And יהוה rained sulphur and fire on Seḏom and Amorah, from יהוה out of the heavens.
There are of course two “Ya’oh” mentioned in that verse. The Father and His Son. No more no less. He that has ears let him hear..
Yusuke, one of the readers that made comments too, has also made a good report which I please request that you look seriously into.
I humbly make my submission for your sincere re-evaluation and reconsideration.
Hi Temitope,
Regarding John 1:18:
“And no one.” Jesus did not speak the words recorded in John 3:13 (or any of the words from verse 13 to the end of chapter 3). Jesus did not say he was in heaven while he was standing in Jerusalem speaking to Nicodemus. Jesus stops speaking at the end of verse 12, and that is where the red letters in red-letter Bibles should also stop. Verse 13 is part of the narrative of the Gospel of John, not Jesus speaking. Most of the Gospel of John is the narrative of John. John opens up with narrative, and the majority of chapter 1, and most of the rest of John, is narrative. John chapter 3 opens with narrative (“There was a man of the Pharisees….”), and that narrative continues in verse 13. (REV Bible Commentary)
In the Fathers’ Love,
lee (wlc team)
Thank you for your reply. Please find my reply to Galal, in it is my reply also to you. Thank you once again.
Dear Temitope,
Allow me to briefly respond to the points you have raised, from our point of view as strict Unitarians:
1. “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58)
The phrase “I am” (ego eimi) is not a claim to be the “Self-Existent One” (Yahuwah). If it were, the blind man in John 9:9—who uses the exact same Greek phrase—would also be claiming divinity. Rather, Yahushua is stating that he existed in Yahuwah’s divine plan and purpose before Abraham was born. Abraham “saw” Christ’s day (John 8:56) through the eyes of faith in the promise, not through a physical encounter.
2. The Identity of the Visitor in Genesis 18
As Unitarians, we maintain that the visitor identified as Yahuwah was a celestial messenger (angel) acting with Divine Agency. In Hebrew tradition, a messenger sent by Yahuwah speaks and is addressed as Yahuwah because he represents Yahuwah’s authority. This is why John 1:18 and John 5:37 explicitly state that “no man has seen Yahuwah at any time.” If Yahushua was the physical person Abraham fed and washed, John’s statement would be a lie.
3. “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30)
Context shows this is a unity of purpose, not a unity of essence or “family name.” Yahushua prays in John 17:21-22 that his disciples would be “one” just as he and the Father are one. This does not make the disciples part of the Godhead; it means they are aligned in mission and will.
4. Genesis 19:24 and the “Two Yahuwahs”
The repetition of the name Yahuwah (“Yahuwah rained… from Yahuwah out of heaven”) is a common Hebrew rhetorical device used for emphasis, not an indication of two distinct beings sharing a name. Similar structures appear in Genesis 1:27 and 1 Kings 8:1, where a subject refers to themselves or their actions in the third person to emphasize the solemnity of the event.
To claim Yahushua is the “Yahuwah” of the Old Testament contradicts Yahushua’s own words: “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Yahushua Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).
We have numerous articles on this topic, through which we have addressed all the objections we ourselves raised before adopting Unitarianism. Therefore, we fully understand the objections you have raised, as we have posed them ourselves during our learning process. Therefore, keep studying and praying so that your mind becomes prepared and receptive to accepting His truth.
Well under stood .so much confusion has come from not understanding this text.thank you for the insights and happy sabbath to all Yahs children
You are most welcome, brother Isaac. Happy and blessed Sabbath to you, too, and to all of your loved ones.
In Father Yahuwah’s Love,
galal.
Dear WLC, it is a delight to study these articles in these days as it is like good wine that has been served at a marriage feast.(John 2:10). The best is saved for last, since we are so close to Yahushua `s coming. As agents of Master Yahuwah, let His light shine on your pathway continually! I shall stand upon my watch to see what Yahuwah wants to tell me…
Lovingly in His Service,
bazil.
Thank you, beloved brother, Bazil, for your words of encouragement.
Praise Father Yahuwah’s Name for planting in your heart devotion for His truth, no matter where it leads you.
In His love,
galal.