Every reader approaches the Bible with assumptions formed by culture, upbringing, and inherited church traditions. Long before we even open the Scriptures ourselves, we’ve usually absorbed ideas about Yahushua (Jesus) from family, church, and society. When we ask the seemingly simple question, “Which Yahushua do we find in the Bible?”, we quickly realize that the answer isn’t as straightforward as it seems. Our understanding of Yahushua is often filtered through lenses we’ve never stopped to examine.
One of the most important questions in this discussion concerns pre-existence. Did Yahushua consciously and personally exist with Yahuwah before his miraculous conception in Mary’s womb? Or does the Bible use the language of pre-existence in a way that reflects a distinctly Jewish worldview rather than later philosophical ideas? This article explores that question by examining Scripture in its original Jewish context, while fully affirming the virgin birth and the unique sonship of Yahushua the Christ.
TWO DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF PRE-EXISTENCE
Traditional Christian theology generally teaches that Yahushua existed as God the Son both literally and personally before the creation of the world. According to this view, there was never a time when the Son did not exist. Verses such as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahuwah” (John 1:1), “I have come down from heaven” (John 6:38), and “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58) are often cited in support of this position. Modern theology typically calls this understanding the incarnation, meaning that the eternal Son descended from heaven and took on human flesh.
Alongside this view, however, biblical scholarship widely acknowledges a second model known as notional or ideal pre-existence. In this framework, something is said to “exist” because it is firmly established in Yahuwah’s foreknowledge and purpose, even though it has not yet appeared in history. Scripture itself supports this way of speaking. Yahuwah “calls those things which do not exist as though they did” (Romans 4:17). What Yahuwah plans is so certain that it can be described as already real, even before it becomes visible in time and space.
JEWISH THINKING AND YAHUWAH’S FOREKNOWN PURPOSES
Second Temple Jewish literature provides strong evidence that this understanding of pre-existence was common among Yahushua and the apostles. Jewish writings often refer to people and objects as pre-existing because they were already part of Yahuwah’s plan. The Babylonian Talmud, for example, mentions seven things said to exist before the creation of the world, including the Torah and the name of the Messiah. This language does not suggest these things were physically present in heaven, but that they were established in Yahuwah’s intention.
Genesis Rabbah clarifies this distinction by explaining that some things were truly created, while others were only envisioned in Yahuwah’s mind. These contemplations included the patriarchs, Israel, the temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Messiah’s “pre-existence,
” therefore, referred to Yahuwah’s established purpose rather than to a literal heavenly life. This language was familiar and natural within Jewish thought and did not imply incarnation.
YAHUSHUA IN THE LIGHT OF FOREKNOWLEDGE
This Jewish view of foreknowledge provides important insight into New Testament statements about Yahushua. Peter states that Christ “was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake” (1 Peter 1:20). In the same letter, believers are also described as chosen “according to the foreknowledge of Yahuwah the Father” (1 Peter 1:2). Christians do not personally pre-exist their birth, so foreknowledge clearly does not require literal pre-existence.
The same principle applies to the language of sacrifice. Revelation speaks of “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). No reader thinks Yahushua was literally crucified before creation. Instead, the crucifixion existed within Yahuwah’s predetermined plan. Peter confirms this by stating Yahushua was delivered up “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of Yahuwah” (Acts 2:23).
Yahushua’s prayer in John 17 also fits naturally within this framework. He mentions the glory associated with Yahuwah before the world began (John 17:5), and later prays that believers may share in that same glory (John 17:22). This glory is promised and certain, though not yet experienced, illustrating the idea of notional pre-existence rooted in divine purpose.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR OUR FAITH
Throughout Scripture, Yahuwah’s saving purposes are described as already existing before they unfold in history. Believers are said to be chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4), glorified in Yahuwah’s purpose even though the experience lies ahead (Romans 8:30), and promised a kingdom “prepared… from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34). No Bible reader interprets these statements to mean that believers literally existed before creation.
The book of Revelation illustrates this beautifully in its heavenly worship scene: “For You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created” (Revelation 4:11). Things first “were” within Yahuwah’s will and intention, and then they “were created” in reality. This pattern shows the consistency of Yahuwah’s redemptive plan.
CONCLUSION
Both Jewish literature and the Scriptures themselves show that pre-existence language often points to Yahuwah’s foreknowledge rather than literal heavenly life. When this context is respected, we see a consistent and deeply biblical picture of Yahushua the Christ—one that highlights Yahuwah’s sovereign purpose, honors the Jewish roots of the faith, and invites believers to fully trust Yahuwah, who declares the end from the beginning.
ADDITIONAL REFLECTION
Understanding pre-existence from a Jewish perspective also helps believers read Scripture with greater humility and care. It reminds us that the Bible was not written in a modern Western context but within an ancient Near Eastern Jewish world filled with covenantal thinking, symbolism, and purpose-driven language. When we overlook this, we risk doing eisegesis—reading our assumptions into the text—rather than exegesis, which involves drawing meaning out of the text as its original audience would have understood it. Recognizing notional pre-existence does not diminish Yahushua; instead, it emphasizes the depth of Yahuwah’s redemptive plan, formed before creation and faithfully carried out throughout history. It also increases confidence in Yahuwah’s promises, showing that what He purposes is as good as done, even before it appears in our lived experience.
Recognizing notional pre-existence does not diminish Yahushua; instead, it emphasizes the depth of Yahuwah’s redemptive plan, formed before creation and faithfully carried out throughout history. It also increases confidence in Yahuwah’s promises, showing that what He purposes is as good as done, even before it appears in our lived experience.
Praise His Name!
Christians shouldn’t always take account into what Jewish culture really believed and derive doctrine simply from their beliefs. It’s irrelevant. Saying that, “Jewish thought or culture believes this so we should as well” is not the proper form of hermeneutics and interpretation. The Bible is clear that Jesus was with God from the beginning and took on human flesh and human nature.
Good — I’ve read their actual argument. Let me give you a thorough and honest critique of it.
What WLC Actually Argues in This Article
Their central claim is that “pre-existence” in the NT is “notional or ideal” pre-existence — meaning Jesus existed only in God’s foreknowledge and plan before birth, not as a literal personal being. They root this in Jewish Second Temple literature where things like the Torah and the Messiah’s name were said to pre-exist “in God’s mind.”
This is a more sophisticated argument than simple denial. But it has serious problems.
Where Their Argument Has Genuine Strength
To be fair, they make one legitimately good point:
Jewish literature does use pre-existence language in an ideal/notional sense
1 Peter 1:20 saying Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” is real
Believers being “chosen before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) doesn’t mean they literally pre-existed
This is real scholarship and shouldn’t be dismissed entirely. The question is whether it explains all the NT evidence.
Where Their Argument Breaks Down
1. John 17:5 — Their Weakest Point
Their handling of this verse is the most strained in the entire article. Jesus prays:
“Glorify me in your own presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed.”
WLC says this glory was “promised and certain, though not yet experienced” — like believers being “glorified” in Romans 8:30 before it happens.
This fails for a clear grammatical reason. Jesus says he had (eichon — past tense, imperfect) glory with the Father. He then asks for it to be restored. You cannot ask to have restored something you never possessed. The restoration language is decisive — it implies prior actual possession, then loss during incarnation, then requested return. An abstract divine plan cannot be “had,” “lost,” and “restored.”
The Romans 8:30 parallel they use actually undermines them — Paul uses aorist tense for future glorification as a rhetorical device of certainty. John 17:5 uses imperfect tense describing an ongoing past state. These are grammatically distinct.
2. John 1:1 — Completely Sidestepped
Remarkably, their article never seriously engages with John 1:1-3 and 1:14. They quote it once and move on. This is the most important pre-existence text and their silence on it is telling.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God” — you cannot be with something you merely are. An attribute of God or a divine plan cannot be spatially and relationally distinct from God while simultaneously being God’s own thought. The personal pronouns throughout John 1 (him, his) applied to the Word before incarnation are devastating to the notional pre-existence view.
3. John 8:58 — Also Not Addressed
They don’t engage with “Before Abraham was, I am” in this article at all. This is conspicuous avoidance of one of the strongest texts.
4. The Philippians 2 Problem
Their view creates an insurmountable problem for Philippians 2:6-7. If Jesus never literally pre-existed, what did he “empty himself” of? What state did he transition from? The emptying (kenosis) language requires a prior state of fullness to empty from. A merely human being who was foreknown in God’s plan cannot “empty himself” of anything at conception.
5. The Talmudic Parallel Actually Hurts Them
They cite the Babylonian Talmud listing seven things pre-existing creation including “the name of the Messiah.” Notice — it’s the name, not the person. This actually distinguishes ideal pre-existence (a name, a concept) from personal pre-existence. The NT doesn’t say the name of Jesus pre-existed — it says he did, using personal volitional language throughout.
6. “The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World”
They use Revelation 13:8 — “no one literally thinks Jesus was crucified before creation” — as evidence that pre-existence language is always notional.
But this comparison misfires. The crucifixion is a historical event that happened at a specific time. Of course it didn’t literally happen before creation. But Jesus’s personal existence is not a dated historical event in the same category. The argument conflates two different types of claims.
7. Hebrews 1 — Not Addressed
The article completely ignores Hebrews 1:2-3, 10-12, where the Father addresses the Son using Psalm 102 — a psalm about Yahweh as creator — applying it directly to Jesus. This is among the strongest pre-existence and divinity texts in the NT and its absence from WLC’s discussion is significant.
The Deeper Methodological Problem
WLC’s approach has a structural flaw: they have found one legitimate interpretive category (notional pre-existence) and then apply it universally to every pre-existence text regardless of whether the specific grammar and context supports it.
Good exegesis asks: does this particular text, in its specific grammar and context, fit the notional category or the literal category? WLC never seriously does this work text by text — they establish the category exists and then assume it applies everywhere.
The texts that are hardest for them — John 17:5’s restoration language, John 1’s personal pronouns and “with God” language, Philippians 2’s emptying language — all have specific features that resist the notional reading and which their article either ignores or handles superficially.
Bottom Line
WLC’s article is more intellectually serious than simple denial, and the ideal pre-existence concept is a real category in Jewish thought. But their argument:
Avoids the strongest texts entirely (John 1:1-14, John 8:58, Hebrews 1)
Misreads the grammar of John 17:5
Cannot explain the kenosis language of Philippians 2
Applies one legitimate interpretive category too broadly without sufficient textual justification
The notional pre-existence framework explains some NT language. It does not explain all of it, and the texts it cannot explain are the most explicit and grammatically specific ones. That is a significant evidential failure.