There are moments in the history of a ministry when a change in understanding is difficult but relatively painless. There are other moments when a correction reaches so deeply into the heart of what has been believed, taught, defended, and cherished that making the correction feels almost unbearable.
For the World’s Last Chance (WLC) ministry, no doctrinal correction has been more difficult, more painful, or more consequential than the one publicly announced on August 7, 2019, when we announced our rejection of the doctrines of the Incarnation and the divinity of Yahushua.
There are simply no words adequate to describe what this realization meant to us as a team.
We had not arrived at this conclusion casually. Nor did we arrive at it because we had lost our love for Yahushua. Quite the opposite. Our love and reverence for Yahushua compelled us to follow the evidence of Scripture wherever it led, even when that path demanded that we surrender beliefs that had become deeply precious to us.
This was not merely another doctrinal adjustment. It struck at the very center of our understanding of Yahushua, His relationship with His Father, His mission, His death, His resurrection, and the plan of salvation.
And yet, looking back, we now regard this truth as one of the most beautiful, exciting, and foundational truths Yahuwah has ever allowed us to understand.
When Truth Becomes More Important Than Tradition
Every sincere Bible student eventually encounters a fundamental question: Will I follow Scripture wherever it leads, even when Scripture leads me away from something I have always believed?
|
Every sincere Bible student eventually encounters a fundamental question:
Will I follow Scripture wherever it leads, even when Scripture leads me away from something I have always believed?
That question is easy to answer in theory.
It becomes much harder when the doctrine under examination is something one has defended for years.
The Incarnation and the traditional doctrine of Yahushua’s divinity were not peripheral ideas in Christianity. They were foundational teachings of the religious environment in which we had been raised and educated. They were deeply woven into Christian theology, worship, hymns, prayers, creeds, commentaries, and popular understanding.
To question them, therefore, felt at first almost unthinkable.
But our allegiance cannot ultimately be to tradition, theological systems, institutions, or even to our own previous teachings.
Our allegiance must be to the testimony of Scripture.
Yahushua Himself repeatedly directed attention to His Father. He prayed to His Father. He received authority from His Father. He acknowledged dependence upon His Father. He declared that the Father was greater than He was. He identified His Father as His God.
These passages could not simply be dismissed because they created difficulties for a theological system.
Eventually, we had to ask whether we had been allowing a theological framework to determine how we interpreted Scripture—or allowing Scripture to determine our theology.
That question changed everything.
The Pain of Realizing We Were Wrong
One of the hardest experiences for any teacher of Scripture is discovering that something taught with confidence was mistaken.
The natural human response is defensiveness.
We want to explain away the evidence. We want to reinterpret difficult passages. We want to find an exception. We want to preserve the position we have already established.
But truth cannot be protected by defending error.
As a ministry, we have made mistakes before. We have had to acknowledge incorrect interpretations and abandon positions we once promoted. Yet none of those corrections compared with this one.
The doctrine of the Incarnation was emotionally different.
It touched our understanding of who Yahushua was.
It touched our understanding of whom we worship.
It touched our understanding of salvation itself.
And therefore, abandoning the traditional doctrine produced genuine anguish within the WLC community.
Some struggled deeply.
Some questioned whether we could possibly be right.
Some feared that rejecting Yahushua’s supposed divine nature meant diminishing Him.
But as our study progressed, we began to see something remarkable.
Rejecting the Incarnation did not diminish Yahushua. It exalted him in the way Scripture itself presents him.
Yahushua Does Not Need to Be the Almighty to Be the Messiah
This became one of the most liberating realizations for us.
Yahushua’s greatness becomes even more meaningful when we allow him to occupy the position Scripture gives him rather than assigning him a role created by later theological formulations.
|
The Bible does not need Yahushua to be Yahuwah Himself in order for Yahushua to be glorious.
His greatness does not depend upon making Him equal to His Father.
Instead, Scripture presents Yahushua as the uniquely appointed Messiah, Son, servant, mediator, redeemer, and representative of humanity.
He was sent by the Father.
He obeyed the Father.
He taught what the Father gave Him to teach.
He performed works through the authority granted by the Father.
He prayed to the Father.
He died in obedience to the Father.
The Father raised Him from the dead.
And the Father exalted Him.
This picture is not one of inferiority or humiliation.
It is a picture of perfect obedience, trust, and love.
Yahushua’s greatness becomes even more meaningful when we allow him to occupy the position Scripture gives him rather than assigning him a role created by later theological formulations.
“The Father Is Greater Than I”
One of the statements that became impossible for us to ignore was Yahushua’s declaration:
“My Father is greater than I.”
These words are remarkably straightforward.
If the Father and Son were literally equal in every sense, the statement requires substantial theological qualification. But if Yahushua is truly the Son whom the Father sent, empowered, taught, and commissioned, His statement becomes natural.
Yahushua never presented Himself as the Father.
He prayed to the Father.
He spoke of the Father as another person.
He said the Father had sent Him.
And after His resurrection, He continued to distinguish Himself from His Father.
Perhaps most strikingly, Yahushua referred to the Father as “my God.”
The risen Messiah declared:
“I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
This was not spoken before His death merely as an expression of His humanity. It was spoken by the resurrected Yahushua.
That statement forced us to reconsider everything.
The One True God
Can The Same Single Line Begin At Two Different Points? (Radio Episode)
Another foundational text became increasingly important:
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Yahushua the Messiah, whom thou hast sent.”
The distinction is unmistakable.
The Father is identified as the only true God.
Yahushua is identified as the one whom that God sent.
This distinction does not dishonor Yahushua.
Instead, it establishes the beautiful relationship between Father and Son.
The Father is the ultimate Source.
Yahushua is His appointed Messiah.
The Father gives.
The Son receives.
The Father sends.
The Son obeys.
The Father commands.
The Son faithfully carries out His Father’s will.
This is not a relationship of competition.
It is a relationship of perfect unity.
Why Rejecting the Incarnation Actually Honors Yahuwah
For WLC, this became the heart of the matter.
We came to understand that the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation can unintentionally obscure the identity of the One Yahushua came to reveal.
Yahushua consistently directed attention away from Himself and toward His Father.
He taught His disciples to pray to the Father.
He called the Father “Lord of heaven and earth.”
He said that the Father was His God.
He attributed authority to the Father.
And He ultimately surrendered the kingdom to God.
The apostle Paul likewise wrote:
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.”
This is profoundly beautiful.
The Father is the ultimate Source of everything.
All things originate from Him.
All authority ultimately belongs to Him.
And Yahushua’s greatness is derived from the Father who appointed and exalted him.
For us, recognizing this distinction became an act of worship.
We were no longer trying to make Yahushua equal to the Father in order to make him worthy of honor.
We were honoring Yahushua because the Father Himself honored him.
Giving Yahushua His Proper Place
This is where we believe the truth became especially exciting.
Rejecting Yahushua’s divinity in the traditional sense does not mean rejecting Yahushua.
It means giving him the honor Scripture gives him.
Yahushua is the Messiah.
He is the Son of Yahuwah.
He is the Lamb.
He is the mediator.
He is the one through whom Yahuwah accomplishes His redemptive purpose.
He is the obedient servant who remained faithful unto death.
He is the one whom Yahuwah raised from the grave.
He is the one whom Yahuwah exalted.
He is the one to whom the Father gave authority.
And he is the one through whom humanity can approach the Father.
This is an astonishing position.
Yahushua does not need to be the Almighty to be our Savior.
He saves us precisely because Yahuwah appointed him to save us.
The Father’s authority is not diminished by the Son’s authority.
Rather, the Son’s authority demonstrates the greatness of the Father who bestowed it.
A Savior Who Truly Represents Humanity
The rejection of the Incarnation also caused us to reconsider what it means for Yahushua to be the mediator between Yahuwah and humanity.
Scripture says:
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Messiah Yahushua.”
The language is striking.
There is one God.
And there is one mediator between that God and humanity.
That mediator is identified as the man Messiah Yahushua.
For us, this became profoundly meaningful.
Yahushua does not save humanity by pretending to be human while actually being the Almighty God. He saves humanity as the genuine human Messiah appointed by Yahuwah.
|
Yahushua does not save humanity by pretending to be human while actually being the Almighty God.
He saves humanity as the genuine human Messiah appointed by Yahuwah.
He experienced temptation.
He suffered.
He prayed.
He learned obedience.
He endured rejection.
He died.
He was raised.
His victory therefore becomes deeply connected with the human experience.
He is not distant from us.
He is our brother, representative, mediator, and Messiah.
Salvation and the Truth About Yahushua
Why do we regard this correction as salvational?
Because Yahushua Himself connected eternal life with knowing the Father as the only true God and knowing Yahushua as the Messiah whom the Father sent.
The identity of God is not a trivial theological question.
Neither is the identity of the Messiah.
If salvation involves reconciliation with Yahuwah, then knowing whom Yahuwah is and whom He sent matters enormously.
Yahushua did not come to replace the Father.
He came to reveal the Father.
He did not come to redirect worship from Yahuwah to himself.
He came to bring humanity back to Yahuwah.
He did not teach His disciples to worship a triune God.
He taught them to worship and love the Father.
He did not present Himself as the ultimate Source.
He presented Himself as the one sent by the Source.
For WLC, this understanding has transformed our appreciation of the plan of salvation.
The Greatest Joy on the Other Side of the Pain
When we first confronted this issue, we experienced pain.
Today, we experience gratitude.
We are grateful that Yahuwah did not leave us permanently trapped in error.
We are grateful that Scripture can correct even deeply entrenched beliefs.
We are grateful for Yahushua’s own testimony concerning his Father.
And we are grateful that the truth does not require us to choose between honoring the Father and honoring Yahushua.
We can honor both exactly as Scripture teaches us to honor them.
The Father receives supreme worship as the only true God.
Yahushua receives the honor, authority, glory, and reverence that the Father has given to His Messiah and Son.
There is harmony rather than confusion.
There is distinction rather than theological paradox.
There is a Father and His Son.
And at the center of it all is love.
Our Public Confession
Therefore, on August 7, 2019, when WLC publicly announced its rejection of the Incarnation and Yahushua’s divinity, we were not celebrating the destruction of something precious.
We were confessing that we had finally come to recognize something more precious:
the truth of Scripture.
We acknowledge that we had previously accepted and defended a doctrine that we now believe misrepresented both the Father and the Son.
For that, we are sorry.
We are sorry to Yahuwah for having attributed to Him a theological framework that we now believe does not accurately reflect His revealed Word.
We are sorry to Yahushua for having taught people to understand him in a way that, in our present conviction, did not do justice to his own testimony concerning his Father.
And we are sorry to those whom our previous teaching may have confused or burdened.
We cannot change the past.
But we can tell the truth about it.
A Truth Worth the Cost
Of all the errors WLC has had to discard in its journey toward truth, this one was the most painful.
Yet it has also become the most exciting.
Why?
No cost is too great when the reward is a clearer knowledge of Father Yahuwah. And no sacrifice is too painful when it enables us to give Yahushua the honor that his Father intended him to receive.
|
Because it has brought us into a clearer understanding of the One whom Yahushua Himself called “the only true God.”
It has also given us a deeper appreciation for Yahushua—not as Yahuwah disguised in human flesh, but as the beloved Son who willingly submitted Himself to His Father’s will and became the Messiah and Savior of humanity.
The Father is honored.
Yahushua is vindicated.
The Scriptures are allowed to speak for themselves.
And the plan of salvation becomes clearer.
Our journey has taught us something that we hope never to forget:
Truth is sometimes most costly precisely where error has become most precious.
But no cost is too great when the reward is a clearer knowledge of Father Yahuwah.
And no sacrifice is too painful when it enables us to give Yahushua the honor that his Father intended him to receive.
Today, WLC looks back upon August 7, 2019, not as the day we lost Yahushua.
We look upon it as the day we began to understand him more truly.
Not as the Almighty Father.
Not as Yahuwah incarnate.
But as the Messiah whom Yahuwah sent, the Son whom Yahuwah loves, the Savior whom Yahuwah appointed, the mediator between Yahuwah and humanity, and the one whom Yahuwah exalted.
That truth does not diminish Yahushua.
It renders justice to him.
And above all, it honors the Father.
For this reason, what once caused us the deepest pain has become one of the greatest joys of our ministry.
To Yahuwah belongs the glory.
To Yahushua belongs the honor his Father has bestowed upon him.
And to us belongs the privilege of continuing to seek truth wherever the Scriptures lead.
May we never again love a doctrine more than we love truth.
May we never defend a teaching merely because we have defended it before.
And may we always possess the humility to say:
“Father Yahuwah, show us the truth—and give us the courage to follow it, whatever the cost.”
|
Study to show thyself approved! https://www.worldslastchance.com/directory/#godhead |
The Most Painful Truth: Why WLC Rejected the Incarnation and Divinity of Yahushua
[Verse 1]
There came a day when we had to choose,
To hold to tradition or truth we could not lose.
The path was painful, the burden was great,
But truth was calling, and we could not wait.
We searched the Scriptures with trembling hearts,
As cherished beliefs began to fall apart.
No words can measure the anguish we knew,
When the light of truth broke through.
[Pre-Chorus]
We did not turn away from Yahushua,
We sought to see him as Scripture declares.
We did not lessen the honor due him,
We sought the truth with humble prayers.
[Chorus]
Father Yahuwah, You alone are the true God,
Yahushua, Your Son, whom You sent.
You gave him glory, authority, and honor,
And through him Your salvation was meant.
WLC confesses the error we carried,
The doctrine we once held so dear.
But truth has become our greatest treasure,
And Your voice is the voice we will hear.
[Verse 2]
“My Father is greater,” Yahushua said,
“My God and your God,” the words were read.
He prayed to the Father, obeyed His command,
He trusted completely in His Father’s hand.
The Father raised him from death to life,
Exalted His Son through suffering and strife.
And now we see with awakened eyes,
The beauty of truth we once compromised.
[Pre-Chorus]
There is one God, the Father above,
And one Messiah, whom He sent in love.
Yahushua, the mediator, faithful and true,
Pointing our hearts, Father Yahuwah, to You.
[Chorus]
Father Yahuwah, You alone are the true God,
Yahushua, Your Son, whom You sent.
You gave him glory, authority, and honor,
And through him Your salvation was meant.
WLC confesses the error we carried,
The doctrine we once held so dear.
But truth has become our greatest treasure,
And Your voice is the voice we will hear.
[Bridge]
August seventh, twenty nineteen, a painful day,
We publicly turned from the error we had embraced.
The Incarnation no longer could stand
Before the testimony written by Your hand.
We wept, we wrestled, we counted the cost,
We faced the fear of everything lost.
But what we thought was an ending became
A doorway to truth and a brighter flame.
[Final Chorus]
Father Yahuwah, we honor Your name,
The only true God, forever the same.
Yahushua, Messiah, beloved Son,
Through faithful obedience Your victory was won.
WLC will no longer defend what is wrong,
But follow Your truth and proclaim it in song.
What caused us anguish now fills us with joy:
To honor the Father and Yahushua His Son.
[Outro]
We cannot undo the years gone by,
But truth gives courage to testify.
Father Yahuwah, keep us faithful and true.
Yahushua, may we honor the place given to you.
Never let doctrine become more precious than truth.
Lead WLC forward in faith and in truth.
To the Father be glory forevermore,
And honor to Yahushua whom He sent.
The excellent arguments on this subject were very interesting. What a great search for truth the people who worship you are in, my father Yah. Many thanks to all who participated in these arguments and counter-arguments. May Yah bless and lift the Truth high.
Beloved Satya,
Amen and HalleluYHWH! 🙏❤️ Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. We are grateful for everyone who is sincerely searching for truth, asking difficult questions, and allowing Scripture to be examined carefully from every side.
And we certainly do not want anyone to worship WLC or the people involved. Our desire is to point hearts away from ourselves and toward Father Yahuwah and His Son Yahushua. As Yahushua said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).
May Yahuwah bless everyone who participated in these discussions, give us humility to recognize error when we find it, courage to follow truth when it challenges us, and wisdom to keep His truth lifted high.
Shalom, and may Yahuwah richly bless you! 🙏❤️
Hi, Your theological transformation would reflect your theological starting position of which I know nothing, except your work seems to reflect a SDA starting point.
If I may, can I say firstly that I recognise your use of the wording, Yahuwah and Yahushua, reflects your desire to honour God. I would like you to consider that modern Hebrew is a reconstruction of the Hebrew language by people who were unaccustomed to using the J sound because the Yiddish language although written using the Hebrew alphabet, does not contain the J sound. Anyone aware of the Hebrew alphabet recognises that the original language may have been subject to a rule mostly making a distinction in the sounding of consonants according to whether they were at the beginning or in another position within a word. We can see for example that consonants like Pe, Kaf, Mem and Nun are even written differently according to this distinction. So I would like you to consider the strong possibility that the Yod or Jot has 2 possible voicings. The Y sound and the J sound are essentially the same consonant except that the one is plosive (or hard pronunciation) and the other fricative (or soft pronunciation). Anyone can prove this for themselves by vocalising both pronunciations and noting the striking similarity in the shape of the mouth. So you probably realise where I’m going with this.
The King James Bible was produced by the greatest linguistic scholars of their day (who were also mostly faithful believers in Christ), and they obviously believed that the J sound existed in original Hebrew and had survived the transition to the 16th century.
This is good news for believers because it means that we do not have to create yet another doctrinal division in the Christian church (we have gobsmackingly more than we need already). Because in the light of this knowledge we can see the connection between Yahuwah > Jahuwah > Jehowah > Jehovah, especially when we also take into consideration that there are in general no written vowels in Hebrew and so there is uncertainty about their pronunciation, and also that there is some uncertainty about how to pronounce the Vav letter which can be rendered as a V or W voicing.
Likewise Yahushua > Jahushua > Jehoshuah > Joshuah > Joshua or Jeshua.
My main point however is that as Christians a foundational belief is that Jesus (Jeshua) was fully human (1Timothy 3:16 – “God was manifest in the flesh”) born of a virgin ie. God was his father.
We have to qualify what we say and what we believe by reference to the full counsel of God (ie. all of scripture) which says, among other things, John 1:1-16 >, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us …”
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and respectful comment. We appreciate your recognition that our use of Yahuwah and Yahushua is motivated by a desire to honor the Father and His Son. We also agree wholeheartedly that Christians should avoid unnecessary divisions and should examine every doctrinal conclusion in the light of the whole counsel of Scripture.
Regarding the sacred names, however, we would respectfully differ. The development of English forms such as Jehovah, Jesus, and Joshua is considerably more complicated than simply tracing a possible Yod → J → English-J progression. The fact that the KJV translators used the forms familiar in the English of their day does not establish that those forms reproduce the original Hebrew pronunciation. Our use of Yahuwah and Yahushua is therefore not intended to create another denomination or division, but to restore what we believe is a more faithful representation of the Hebrew names revealed in Scripture.
Regarding Yahushua, we certainly affirm that He was truly human, born of a virgin, and that Yahuwah is His Father. We also recognize the profound testimony of John 1 concerning the Word becoming flesh. Where we differ from traditional Christianity is in how we understand that passage and its relationship to the many Scriptures that distinguish the Father from His Son. We do not believe that honoring Yahushua requires identifying Him as the Almighty Father Himself.
For WLC, the question is ultimately not which traditional formulation has been accepted for centuries, but what the Scriptures themselves teach when all relevant passages are considered together. We therefore deeply appreciate your encouragement to examine the full counsel of Scripture—and that is precisely what we seek to do, even when our conclusions lead us away from inherited traditions.
Thank you again for engaging with us so graciously. May Yahuwah bless you richly as we continue searching the Scriptures together for truth. ❤️🙏
Merci pour le courage que vous avez eu de corriger ce qui avait ete falsifie.
Merci beaucoup pour vos encouragements. Nous rendons toute la gloire à Yahuwah, qui nous donne le courage de rechercher humblement la vérité des Écritures et de corriger nos erreurs lorsque Sa lumière nous convainc. 🙏❤️
Jesus clearly timed the second coming along with the destruction of the temple.
And farther to express his coming as very near, he declares [Matthew, chapter 24] verse 34, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Upon which Bishop Newton thus expresses himself: “It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant even, when it is here said, so positively, in the conclusion; All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation. It seemeth as if our Saviour was aware of some misapplication of his words, by adding yet GREATER force and emphasis to his affirmation, verse 35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” [The Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem Nisbett (1787 AD) pp.14-15 [#157]
But I ask, could Jesus be accused of being so reckless with His own use of language that He would equate the word “immediately” with a period of time extending hundreds (maybe thousands) of years into the future? I hardly think so. Milton Terry said: “But we can find no word or sentence which appears designed to impress anyone with the idea that the destruction in question and the parousia would be far separate as to time. The one, it is said, will immediately follow the other, and all will take place before that generation shall pass away.” (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, note on p. 439) Still later, Terry said: “We are driven, then, by every sound principle of hermeneutics, to conclude that Matt xxiv, 29-31, must be included within the time-limits of the discourse of which it forms an essential part, and cannot be legitimately applied to events far separate from the final catastrophe of the Jewish State.” (same, p. 449) …No matter what we think (or know) will happen in the future, it is not ours to insert them into these passages and thereby change the ONE meaning that Jesus was expressing to His disciples. [Matthew 24 Fulfilled John Bray pp.132-133 [#158] ]
From the historical perspective that I’ve tried to maintain here, what is clear is that the APOCALYPTIC JESUS we’ve uncovered is a far cry from the Jesus many people in our society today know. The Jesus of history, contrary to modern “common sense” …was NOT a proponent of “FAMILY VALUES.” He urged his followers to ABANDON their homes and FORSAKE families for the sake of the Kingdom that was soon to arrive. He didn’t encourage people to pursue fulfilling careers, make a good living, and work for a just society for the L O N G H A U L; for him, there wasn’t going to be a L O N G H A U L. The END OF THE WORLD as we know it was ALREADY AT HAND. …People should sacrifice EVERYTHING for his coming. [Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of The New Millennium Dr. Bart Ehrman p.244 [#240]
Some Christians have refused to take the teachings of Jesus at FACE VALUE, denying that his words could MEAN what they say. (p.18) If we were to tally up these data to this point, we’d have a fairly compelling subtotal. EARLY TRADITIONS record apocalyptic teachings on the lips of Jesus. Later traditions generally MUTE this emphasis. And the latest of our early sources EXPLICITLY ARGUE AGAINST IT. I’d say we have a trend. (p.132) The EARLIEST souces that we have consistently ascribe an APOCALYPTIC message to Jesus. This message BEGINS TO BE MUTED by the end of the first century (e.g. in Luke), until it VIRTUALLY DISAPPEARS (e.g. in John), and begins, then, to be explicitly REJECTED and spurned (e.g. in Thomas). It appears that when the end NEVER DID ARRIVE, Christians had to take stock of the fact that Jesus said it would and CHANGED HIS MESSAGE accordingly. You can hardly blame them. (p.134) [Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of The New Millennium Dr. Bart Ehrman [#240]
But to mainline scholars, the transfer of these [eschatological] texts to a future time seems unwarranted. The only possible justification is the claim that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, and that therefore what it says about the end of the world will someday come to pass (for it cannot be wrong). Without this assumption, one would never think of transferring to our time these late first-century beliefs about the second coming. [Bible Review Marcus Borg August 1994 p.16 [#201] ]
Dear Brother Marko,
Your argument raises an important question, but it depends upon an assumption that must first be demonstrated rather than simply asserted: that everything Yahushua described in Matthew 24, including His “coming,” refers to His final, visible return to earth and the end of the physical world. That is precisely what the text itself does not require.
Yahushua’s disciples asked Him, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [age]?” (Matthew 24:3). The Greek aion can mean an age, not necessarily the physical world. The immediate context is the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.
Yahushua repeatedly placed the fulfillment of His warnings within the lifetime of His contemporaries: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”— Matthew 24:34
We agree that Yahushua meant what He said. The question is what “all these things” refers to.
Yahushua began with the temple: “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
— Matthew 24:2
He then described persecution, false messiahs, the abomination of desolation, the flight from Jerusalem, and the coming judgment. Matthew 24:29 follows with cosmic imagery: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light…”
But this language should not automatically be interpreted as a literal astronomical prediction. The prophets repeatedly used the sun, moon, stars, heaven, and earth as imagery for the collapse of kingdoms and political orders.
Isaiah, for example, described Babylon’s judgment by saying: “The stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened…”— Isaiah 13:10
Ezekiel used virtually the same imagery concerning Egypt (Ezekiel 32:7), showing that biblical references to the heavens being shaken or darkened must be understood within their prophetic context, rather than being forced into the modern heliocentric model of the cosmos.
So when Yahushua employs this established prophetic vocabulary, we should first interpret it in the same biblical manner.
What about the Son of Man coming on the clouds?
This is crucial. Yahushua says: “They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
— Matthew 24:30
The skeptic assumes that “coming” must mean Yahushua physically descending from heaven at the end of world history.
But the Old Testament provides another meaning.
Isaiah 19:1 says that Yahuwah comes “riding upon a swift cloud” against Egypt. This is prophetic language describing divine judgment, not a literal cloud-riding appearance.
Daniel 7:13–14 likewise describes the Son of Man coming with the clouds to the Ancient of Days. The direction is significant: He comes to the Ancient of Days, rather than descending from Him to earth. Yahushua Himself applied this language to His Jewish judges:
“Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”— Matthew 26:64
This is entirely consistent with the biblical concept of a “coming” in judgment and vindication.
What about “immediately”?
Milton Terry’s argument about “immediately” deserves consideration, but again his conclusion depends upon defining the “coming” as the final physical Second Coming. Matthew 24:29 says: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days…” The events Yahushua described were approaching in sequence. Nothing in “immediately” requires us to transform the prophetic cosmic imagery into a prediction of the literal destruction of the universe.
Yahushua was describing the approaching judgment upon Jerusalem using the established language of biblical prophecy.
And history confirms the chronological force of His words. Yahushua spoke before Jerusalem’s destruction.
Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in AD 70. The generation to whom He spoke was still alive.
Thus Matthew 24:34 does not need to be weakened or pushed thousands of years into the future. It can mean exactly what it says: the things Yahushua had been describing would take place before that generation passed away.
Now I address the point you raised from Bart Ehrman. His conclusion that Yahushua expected the end of the world immediately, that it failed to occur, and that Christianity subsequently modified His message—depends upon several assumptions: that “coming” means the final physical Second Coming, that the cosmic language must be interpreted literally, that “the end” means the end of Earth rather than the end of an age or covenantal order, that Matthew 24:34 refers to the end of world history, and that the destruction of Jerusalem cannot fulfill the prophecy. But none of these assumptions is self-evident.
Indeed, it is ironic to accuse Christians of refusing to take Yahushua’s words “at face value” while imposing a modern literalistic meaning on prophetic language that Yahushua inherited from Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
We do not have to choose between the claim that Yahushua predicted His final Second Coming in AD 70 and therefore failed, and the opposite claim that Yahushua predicted nothing concerning AD 70. There is a third, more biblically coherent possibility:
Yahushua was predicting the coming judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jewish covenantal order in Matthew 24, using the apocalyptic language of the Hebrew prophets, while the New Testament elsewhere teaches a future consummation and final return of Yahushua.
The destruction of Jerusalem therefore becomes not evidence that Yahushua failed, but historical confirmation that His warning came true.
So the question for any skeptic is not: “Why didn’t Yahushua return to destroy the world in AD 70?” The more fundamental question is: “Why assume that this is what Yahushua said He was going to do?” Once you remove that assumption, the alleged contradiction largely disappears.
Yahushua said that generation would see “all these things.” Jerusalem fell in AD 70. His prophetic warning was fulfilled to the letter.
The aion point is fair. “End of the world” in the KJV is a real overtranslation of a word that more naturally means “age” — that’s not special pleading, it’s just better lexicography.
The cosmic-imagery-as-political-collapse move is likewise mainstream, not just apologetic. Isaiah 13:10 and Ezekiel 32:7 are exactly the right parallels — this convention (sun/moon/stars darkened = a kingdom’s fall) is well documented across prophetic literature (Joel 2:30-31 is another standard citation), and plenty of non-preterist critical scholars grant that Jesus is drawing on that idiom rather than predicting literal astronomical events. Ehrman himself wouldn’t dispute that the imagery is conventional — his argument is about what it’s conventional for (the end, however imagined), not whether it’s literal.
The Daniel 7:13-14 directionality point is the strongest single move in the piece, and it’s correct as an observation about Daniel: the “one like a son of man” goes to the Ancient of Days, in a heavenly enthronement scene, not down to earth. And Matthew 26:64 is a genuinely awkward verse for a literalist reading — Jesus says the Sanhedrin will “see” this coming, which is a strange claim if it means the visible end of the world centuries later. Reading it as vindication-language said to a specific human audience makes real narrative sense of that verse. This is essentially N.T. Wright’s argument in Jesus and the Victory of God, and it’s taken seriously in the literature, not a fringe move.
The “third option” is framed as a fresh insight, but it’s just a name for a position that’s been debated since at least J. Stuart Russell’s The Parousia (1878) — partial preterism. And partial preterism has one well-known Achilles heel that this reply doesn’t touch: the discourse doesn’t stop at verse 34.
Matthew 24:36 through 25:46 keeps going with no textual seam — “of that day and hour knoweth no man,” a master who “delayeth his coming,” ten virgins whose bridegroom “tarried,” and it climaxes in a final judgment scene with “everlasting punishment” and “eternal life” (25:46). If verse 34 caps “all these things” as AD-70-bound, the reply owes you the location of the pivot to whatever “future consummation… taught elsewhere” means. It doesn’t give one. And locating that pivot anywhere in 24:36–25:46 is exactly the move Newton’s quote already condemned — splitting one continuous discourse into a near referent and a far one — just relocated two chapters down instead of at v.34 itself.
This discourse gives you almost no room to push the coming of the Son of Man past that generation. Verse 29 puts it “immediately after the tribulation of those days,” and verse 34 caps the whole preceding block — tribulation, cosmic imagery, the coming itself — within “this generation.” The preterist reply and the material you compiled actually agree on this point; nobody serious argues the plain grammar supports a multi-millennium gap here. That was never really the contested ground.
On content, here’s where I land: the preterist reading does real work on the front half of the discourse — the cosmic imagery, the directional logic of Daniel 7, the aion point. That’s not apologetics, it’s good philology. But it runs out of road by the time you hit 24:36–25:46, which is the same uninterrupted speech. A householder who “knoweth not what hour,” a bridegroom who “tarrieth,” and a final scene where “all nations” are gathered for judgment resulting in “everlasting punishment” or “eternal life” — that’s not the register of a localized, first-century political judgment on one city. Reading all of that as AD-70 typology is a move only full preterism is willing to make consistently, and full preterism carries the baggage of being the “resurrection already past” position Paul explicitly names as an error in 2 Timothy 2:17-18. If you’re not willing to go there, you need a seam somewhere in Matthew 24-25 where the referent shifts from Jerusalem to something larger — and the text doesn’t mark one. That’s the same structural problem the Bishop Newton quote raised against splitting the discourse; it just resurfaces one chapter later instead of at verse 34.
There’s also corroborating evidence outside this discourse that cuts the same direction. Mark 9:1 / Matthew 16:28 — “there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” — makes the same “within this generation” claim about dramatic eschatological action, and it’s spoken before Jesus has predicted the temple’s fall at all in the narrative sequence. And Paul, writing in the 50s, well before AD 70, still expects to be among “we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15) — with no reference to Jerusalem whatsoever. That suggests the imminent-expectation strand in the earliest tradition wasn’t originally hung on the temple’s destruction as its content; the temple’s fall gave later interpreters (and possibly Matthew’s redaction) a hook to explain why the expected climax could be pointed to as having happened, but the expectation itself seems to have run wider and more cosmic than “Rome sacks Jerusalem” from the start.
Dear Brother Marko,
I appreciate your careful engagement, and I agree that Matthew 24:36–25:46 deserves direct attention. But I think your argument assumes the very point that needs to be demonstrated: that because Yahushua continued speaking after verse 34, everything He subsequently said must refer to the same event.
Matthew 24:34 does not say that everything Yahushua would ever say in the discourse would occur within that generation. He says, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” The natural question is therefore: What are “these things”? The preceding discourse has focused explicitly on the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and verses 29–34 form a coherent prophetic unit culminating in that first-century judgment.
Then comes a significant transition: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man” (Matthew 24:36). Yahushua moves from the things whose signs He has been describing to a day and hour whose timing cannot be known. That distinction is based on Yahushua’s own wording and is not an arbitrary division of the discourse. In fact, it makes excellent sense of why Yahushua could give His disciples identifiable signs concerning Jerusalem while warning them that the ultimate day and hour would remain unknown.
The same distinction explains the parables that follow. The householder, the delayed bridegroom, and the servants being required to remain watchful all emphasize uncertainty concerning the timing of the Master’s return. They do not require us to make every preceding statement part of one chronological event. And Matthew 25:31–46 unquestionably takes us to the final judgment of the nations. That is precisely why partial preterism does not need to force Matthew 24–25 entirely into AD 70.
Nor is this “full preterism by another name.” Full preterism requires the resurrection, final judgment, and all eschatological fulfillment to have already occurred. That is not the position being defended. We can affirm that Yahushua’s warnings concerning Jerusalem were fulfilled in the first century while still affirming the future bodily resurrection, final judgment, and literal return of Yahushua. Paul’s warning in 2 Timothy 2:17–18 therefore remains completely relevant against full preterism but does not refute partial preterism.
Your appeal to Mark 9:1 and Matthew 16:28 is also important, but “coming in His kingdom” does not necessarily mean the final destruction of the present heavens and earth. Yahushua could be referring to the powerful manifestation of His kingdom, His enthronement and vindication, and the judgment that would demonstrate to that generation that the rejected Messiah had indeed received kingdom authority. That interpretation fits remarkably well with Daniel 7, where the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days and receives dominion.
As for 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Paul certainly expected Yahushua’s coming and included himself among those who might still be alive when it occurred. But that does not prove that every New Testament reference to an imminent “coming” refers to exactly the same manifestation or event. The New Testament itself uses “coming” and related language in different contexts, including coming in judgment, coming in kingdom authority, and the ultimate return and resurrection.
So I would turn the “no seam” objection around. The burden is not on the partial preterist simply to prove that a shift occurs; the text itself gives us a reason to distinguish “these things” from “that day and hour.” Matthew 24:34 explicitly limits “all these things” to that generation, while 24:36 introduces an event whose timing is unknowable. The subsequent parables reinforce watchfulness precisely because the timing is uncertain.
The real choice, therefore, is not between forcing the entire discourse into AD 70 or abandoning the words of Yahushua. The better reading is that Yahushua first answered His disciples’ question concerning the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, using the prophetic language of Israel’s judgment, and then turned their attention toward the ultimate, future consummation for which they must remain watchful.
That preserves both halves of the evidence: Yahushua’s unequivocal statement that “all these things” would occur within that generation, and the New Testament’s equally unequivocal teaching concerning a future resurrection, final judgment, and return of Yahushua.
In other words, we do not solve the problem by making Yahushua’s first-century prophecy fail. We solve it by allowing Yahushua to mean exactly what He said about that generation, while allowing the rest of Scripture to mean exactly what it says about the final consummation.
Does the new testament teach that there will be a significant delay between 70 AD and the Second Coming?
“But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ [Side Note} Literally: “is DELAYING TO COME”] and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. [Luke 12: 45-46 ]
For in just a very little while, He who is coming will come and will not delay. [Hebrews 10:37 NIV [#16] ]
And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will QUICKLY grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” [Luke 18:6-8 NRSV [#17] ]
The Lord does not delay his promise [to come again], as some account of delay, but is longsuffering towards you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. [2 nd Peter 3:9 Darby Bible [#21] ]
And now in loud voices they cried out, saying, “How long, O Sovereign Lord, the holy One and the true, dost Thou DELAY judgment and the taking of vengeance upon the inhabitants of the earth for our blood?” And there was given to each of them a long white robe, and they were bidden to wait patiently for a short time longer, until the full number of their fellow bondservants should also complete–namely of their brethren who were soon to be killed just as they had been. [Rev. 6:10-11 Weymouth [#2] ]
This is a stronger version of the argument, and it deserves an honest response on two counts: it locates a real linguistic candidate for the seam, and it correctly separates itself from full preterism. But I think the seam claim still has a real problem once you follow the vocabulary rather than just the paragraph breaks.
Credit where due. “Peri de” (“but concerning…”) at verse 36 is a genuine topic-transition formula in Koine Greek — Paul uses it constantly in 1 Corinthians to move between subjects (7:1, 7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1). So this isn’t an arbitrary line drawn to save the theory; there’s a real grammatical marker there. And the distinction from full preterism is legitimate and correctly stated — 2 Timothy 2:17-18 is specifically aimed at denying a future resurrection, and partial preterism doesn’t deny that, so the rebuttal does land differently against the two positions. I should have been more careful to keep those separate in my last message.
Where I still push back. “Peri de” marks a new topic, but the question is what the new topic is — a different event, or a different question about the same event (its precise timing, as opposed to its general signs). And here the vocabulary argues against a different event: “parousia” — the specific term the disciples use in their opening question (“what shall be the sign of thy parousia,” 24:3) — recurs at verse 27 (“so shall the parousia of the Son of man be,” inside the pre-36 block) and then again at verses 37 and 39, describing the days of Noah, right after the supposed seam. That’s the same technical term spanning both sides of verse 36. If Matthew meant to shift referents at v.36 — from a first-century judgment-coming to a separate, still-future final return — you’d expect that shift to show up in the terminology, not just vanish, especially since “parousia” is a loaded, already-technical word in the early church by the time Matthew was writing (it’s how Paul consistently designates the one eschatological return he expects — 1 Thess 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23; 1 Cor 15:23). The more natural reading of “peri de” here is “now, as for the day and hour of that same parousia I just described — nobody knows it,” not “now, an unrelated third event.” Signs are knowable; the date isn’t. That’s a distinction within one event, not evidence of two.
That also affects the 1 Thessalonians point. You’re right in principle that “coming” language can refer to different things in different contexts — but “parousia” isn’t a generic word for “arrival” that Paul happens to reuse; by the 50s it’s already his standard term for the one return he’s teaching churches to expect. If Matthew (writing later, to communities that would have known Pauline usage) deploys the same specialized term four times for something categorically different, that’s a heavier lift than the argument acknowledges.
One concession, in the interest of not overstating my own side. I leaned on Mark 9:1 / Matthew 16:28 as corroborating evidence last time, but I should flag a complication I passed over too quickly: in both Gospels that saying is immediately followed by “and after six days” — the Transfiguration. A very old interpretive line (patristic, and still held by a fair number of non-preterist commentators) reads “some standing here shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God come with power” as fulfilled in the narrative right after it — Peter, James, and John seeing the Transfiguration — rather than pointing forward to AD 70 or anything else. If that’s right, the verse isn’t really load-bearing evidence for either of our positions; it’s not about the far future at all. I shouldn’t have leaned on it as heavily as I did without naming that alternative.
Where that leaves it: the ch. 25 judgment scene is real, and you’re right that it has to go somewhere if you’re not a full preterist. But locating the boundary at v.36 runs into the fact that “parousia” doesn’t stop there — it’s the word used both before and after the supposed break, attached to the same flood analogy that’s explicitly about timing, not about a different referent. The stronger version of your case would need to explain why the identical technical term for “the coming” persists across a line you’re arguing separates two different comings — and that’s the piece the argument hasn’t yet supplied.
Dear Brother Marko,
Yes—the New Testament does teach a significant interval between the first-century judgment associated with Yahushua’s coming and the final resurrection and judgment. The key issue is that “coming” language is not automatically a reference to one single event simply because the same Greek vocabulary is used. Scripture itself uses coming language for different divine interventions, including Yahuwah’s coming in judgment, without implying that every such coming is the final Second Coming.
The passages you cite actually make an important distinction. Luke 12:45–46 warns the servant against saying, “My master delays to come.” The emphasis is on the servant’s expectation and conduct during the master’s absence. Likewise, Hebrews 10:37 says, “Yet a little while, and He who is coming will come, and will not delay.” In its immediate context, Hebrews is speaking to believers who were enduring persecution and awaiting the fulfillment of what Yahuwah had promised. The language of imminence is real, but it does not require us to collapse every eschatological expectation into the final resurrection.
The same applies to Luke 18:7–8. Yahushua asks whether Yahuwah will “delay” in bringing justice to His elect and then says He will avenge them “speedily.” That is a promise of divine intervention, but it does not establish that the intervention must be the final, universal Second Coming.
And 2 Peter 3:9 actually presents one of the clearest reasons why an apparent delay cannot simply be treated as evidence that the promise failed. Peter says that Father Yahuwah is not delaying His promise but is being patient, desiring repentance. Then Peter distinguishes the coming “day of the Lord” from the present heavens and earth and ultimately speaks of “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Peter 3:10–13). Whatever one makes of the chronology of that passage, it certainly demonstrates that divine patience and eschatological fulfillment can involve an interval.
Revelation 6:10–11 is especially interesting. The martyrs cry, “How long?” and are told to rest “for a little season” until the full number of their fellow servants is completed. The passage itself therefore establishes an interval between one stage of judgment and its consummation. “A little while” is theological language of certainty and divine purpose, not necessarily a stopwatch specifying that the final consummation must occur within a few years.
Regarding Matthew 24:36–39, I agree that peri de (“but concerning”) is a genuine topic-transition formula. And I agree that parousia deserves serious consideration. But the presence of parousia on both sides of verse 36 does not settle the question by itself. A word can identify a coming without telling us that every passage using that word refers to every aspect of that coming or that no chronological distinction exists within the eschatological program.
In fact, Matthew himself gives us reason to distinguish events. Earlier in the discourse Yahushua says, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34). Yet immediately afterward He says concerning the “day and hour” that no one knows (24:36), and then compares the coming to the days of Noah, when people were unaware until judgment came upon them. That is precisely why the transition at verse 36 deserves careful attention rather than being dismissed simply because parousia occurs on both sides.
There is also an important distinction between the signs of a coming and the timing of a coming. A parousia can have identifiable characteristics without the exact day and hour being known. But that does not prove that everything Yahushua discusses from Matthew 24:4 through 25:46 must refer to one single moment in history. We must consider context, audience, fulfillment, and the nature of the events described.
So I would turn your question around slightly: Does the New Testament teach that there can be a significant interval between first-century prophetic fulfillment and the final resurrection? Absolutely. Does the use of “delay,” “quickly,” “soon,” or parousia prove that there can be no such interval? No.
The New Testament repeatedly holds together two truths: some prophetic judgments were genuinely near for the first-century generation, while the ultimate resurrection, final judgment, and consummation remained future. Recognizing both does not require full preterism, nor does it require forcing every occurrence of “coming” into exactly the same event.
The question, therefore, is not simply, “Does the Bible use parousia?” It is: What event does each passage place in view, what did its original audience expect, and how does that passage fit with the New Testament’s teaching about the resurrection and final consummation? That is where the real exegetical work has to be done.
Thank you, Galal Doss, for your explanation. I think it helps clarify an important part of WLC’s position, and it leads me to another question that I’m interested in hearing your answer to.
I also appreciate very much the link to your resources on the Godhead. I’m slowly making my way through them, particularly the articles.
If I understand you correctly, WLC does not believe that there was a pre-existent divine Being alongside Yahuwah. Rather, Yahuwah Himself was the only Being, while His “Word” refers to Yahuwah’s thought, wisdom, purpose, and self-expression. These ultimately manifested in the human Messiah Yahushua.
If that is an accurate understanding, I’m wondering how you see some of the Old Testament encounters with Yahuwah God, especially considering:
John 1:18’s “No man has seen God at any time.”
John 5:37 saying of the Father, “You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.”
John 6:46’s “Not that any man has seen the Father, except He who is from God.”
In the Old Testament we read things such as:
Genesis 18:1 “Yahuwah appeared to him [Abraham]…”
Exodus 33:11 “Yahuwah spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.”
Exodus 3:4 says that “God called to him from the midst of the bush.”
There are also the encounters involving Jacob in Genesis 32, Gideon in Judges 6, and Manoah and his wife in Judges 13.
So, if no man has seen the Father, and the Father Himself is the only personal divine Being who existed, who was appearing to and speaking with these people in the Old Testament?
I have believed that these encounters in the Old Testament were with He who later became Yahushua the man. I’m trying to understand what your model does with these Old Testament appearances and with the distinction Scripture seems to make between the Father and the One who was actually seen or heard.
To me, this question is important for understanding what Scripture means by Yahuwah’s “Word,” His visible manifestations, and the identity of the One interacting with humanity before Yahushua entered the picture.
Brother Willy,
Thank you, brother, for taking the time to work through these things so carefully. I especially appreciate that you are not merely trying to defend a position, but are asking, “What does the whole testimony of Scripture actually say?” That is exactly the right Berean-like approach.
You have identified one of the most important questions surrounding the Godhead, and I agree that these Old Testament passages deserve a careful answer.
The first thing I would say is that WLC does not believe the Old Testament encounters with Yahuwah should simply be dismissed as imaginary, symbolic, or unimportant. These were genuine encounters in which Yahuwah revealed Himself and communicated with human beings. The question is how He did so.
We believe Scripture gives us an important distinction between Yahuwah Himself and the messengers or manifestations through whom Yahuwah made Himself known.
Consider Exodus 3. Verse 2 says:
“And the angel of Yahuwah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.”
But then verse 4 says:
“And when Yahuwah saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.”
Notice what is happening. The passage speaks of the angel of Yahuwah and then immediately of Yahuwah speaking through that manifestation. This kind of representation recurs throughout Scripture. The messenger speaks with Yahuwah’s authority because Yahuwah has sent him.
There is an especially interesting passage in Exodus 23:20–21 where Yahuwah says:
“Behold, I send an Angel before thee… Beware of him, and obey his voice… for My name is in him.”
That helps explain how a heavenly messenger can speak with the authority of Yahuwah Himself without being Yahuwah—the Father—personally appearing in His unveiled glory.
We see the same pattern with several of the encounters you mentioned.
Gideon encountered “the angel of Yahuwah” in Judges 6, yet the narrative moves between the angel speaking and Yahuwah speaking.
Manoah and his wife encountered “the angel of Yahuwah” in Judges 13. Manoah subsequently said, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.” Yet the text identifies the one they encountered as the angel of Yahuwah.
With Jacob, Genesis 32 describes his mysterious encounter as being with a “man,” while Hosea 12:3–4 later interprets the encounter in terms of an angel. Again, we have a heavenly representative through whom Yahuwah interacted with a human being.
So the Bible itself gives us a category that is very important to this discussion: Yahuwah can reveal Himself through His appointed messengers without those messengers being Yahuwah Himself.
Genesis 18 is perhaps the most interesting of all because it says, “Yahuwah appeared unto him [Abraham].” Abraham then sees three men. One of them speaks with extraordinary authority, and the narrative refers to Yahuwah. WLC understands this within the same biblical pattern of divine manifestation and representation. Yahuwah was genuinely communicating with Abraham, but that does not necessarily mean Abraham literally saw the Father’s unveiled divine being.
And this brings us back to the passages in John that you raised.
John 1:18 says:
“No man has seen God at any time.”
John 5:37 says of the Father:
“You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.”
And John 6:46 says:
“Not that any man has seen the Father, except He which is of God.”
Those statements are very difficult to reconcile with the idea that people in the Old Testament literally saw the Father Himself in His divine form.
But they make sense if we recognize the biblical distinction between Yahuwah Himself and Yahuwah’s manifestations and representatives.
There is also an important point in Exodus 33. Verse 11 says:
“Yahuwah spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend.”
Yet only a few verses later Yahuwah says:
“You cannot see My face: for there shall no man see Me, and live” (Exodus 33:20).
So “face to face” cannot mean that Moses literally looked upon the full, unveiled essence of Yahuwah. It describes an extraordinarily direct and personal encounter. Scripture itself establishes the limitation.
This is why I would be cautious about making the next step and saying, “Therefore, the One Moses or Abraham encountered must have been a pre-existent Yahushua.”
I understand why you have reached that conclusion. It is a very understandable reading, particularly when we connect these passages with John 1. But the question is whether Scripture requires that conclusion.
WLC believes it does not.
The remarkable thing is that the Old Testament already gives us a perfectly biblical mechanism for Yahuwah communicating visibly and audibly with humanity: His angels, His messengers, His Spirit, His word, His glory, His fire, His cloud, His voice, and other manifestations appointed by Him.
And this is where the meaning of “Word” becomes particularly important.
When John says, “In the beginning was the Word,” WLC does not understand “the Word” to mean that another divine Being was standing alongside Yahuwah from eternity. Rather, Yahuwah’s Word is His own thought, wisdom, purpose, declaration, and self-expression. Yahuwah speaks, creates, reveals, commands, promises, and accomplishes His purposes through His Word.
Then, in the fullness of time, that Word became flesh (John 1:14) in the man Yahushua.
This is also why John 1:18 is so beautiful. Yahushua, the human Messiah, is the One who has made the Father known. He did not need to have been another divine Being standing beside the Father throughout the Old Testament in order to reveal Him perfectly when He came into the world.
In fact, Yahushua repeatedly directs us to the Father.
“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
“I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God” (John 20:17).
And, as we discussed in your previous question, Yahushua says:
“No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).
That distinction between the Father as the one true God and Yahushua as His Messiah, Son, and appointed Mediator is fundamental to WLC’s understanding.
That said, I think your question exposes something very valuable: the Old Testament really does contain mysterious divine manifestations, and we should not pretend they are easy passages. There is no need to be embarrassed by that complexity.
I would encourage you to continue comparing the passages rather than beginning with either conclusion and forcing every text into it.
Ask:
Who is identified as Yahuwah?
Who is identified as the Father?
Who is identified as the angel or messenger?
Who is actually seen?
Who is speaking?
And what does the New Testament later tell us about those Old Testament encounters?
When those questions are allowed to remain distinct, I believe many of the apparent contradictions begin to disappear.
And I especially appreciate your statement that you are “trying to understand.” That is exactly what we want people to do. WLC does not ask sincere seekers to accept a doctrine merely because WLC teaches it. Search the Scriptures. Test everything. Hold fast to what is true.
May Father Yahuwah continue to lead you into truth, step by step. 🙏❤️
That Godhead page has a ton there. One question I have is regards to John 14:6 ‘No one comes to the Father but through me.’ If God is ultimate source then why this going through Yahushua? I am good with what is written in John 14:6 it sometimes feels confusing to me. Like how much wood can a wood chuck wood can a wood chuck chuck wood? I am not trying to disgrace the Word trying to understand it. So much to dig into.
Brother Ryan,
Thank you for asking such a sincere question. ❤️ There is absolutely no disgrace in wrestling with a passage of Scripture because we genuinely want to understand it. In fact, Yahushua Himself said, “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine” (John 7:17).
I think John 14:6 becomes clearer when we distinguish between the ultimate Source of all things and the appointed Mediator through whom the Father brings us back to Himself.
Father Yahuwah is indeed the ultimate Source. Yahushua never presented Himself as replacing the Father or being the ultimate Source. Rather, He repeatedly directed people to His Father. He said, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and He also said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).
So Yahushua is the way to the Father, not the destination instead of the Father.
Think of it this way: If Father Yahuwah is the One we ultimately seek, Yahushua is the divinely appointed Way by which we approach Him. Yahushua reveals the Father’s character, teaches His truth, calls us to repentance, and gives His life for us. That is why Peter could say, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).
And there is something beautiful about the very wording of John 14:6. Yahushua does not say, “No one comes to **God except through Me.”” He says, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” The relationship He is describing is profoundly Father-centered.
The rest of the New Testament reinforces this distinction. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Yahushua” (1 Timothy 2:5). And ultimately, Yahushua Himself is described as delivering the Kingdom to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24–28).
So I wouldn’t be troubled by the question. You’re actually noticing something important: If Yahuwah is the ultimate Source, why did He establish Yahushua as the Way? Scripture’s answer seems to be that this was the Father’s chosen plan for reconciling humanity to Himself.
And yes—there is certainly “so much to dig into”! 😄 The woodchuck question made me smile. Sometimes Scripture study feels exactly like that: one question opens three more doors!
Keep asking the questions, brother. Don’t be afraid of them. We believe truth can withstand honest examination. May Father Yahuwah guide you into truth as you continue searching His Word. 🙏❤️
Dear WLC:
There is a typo towards the end of this article. It is near the end saying:
“Today, WLC looks back upon August 7, 2029, not as the day we lost Yahushua. We look upon it as the day we began to understand him more truly.”
The year 2029 is still future relative to the Gregorian Calendar. It has not occurred yet.
To try to highlight the error, the typo:
“Today, WLC looks back upon August 7, ([2029)],…”
Should be:
Today, WLC looks back upon August 7, ([2019]),…”
Looking like:
“Today, WLC looks back upon August 7, 2019,…”
The year then on the Gregorian Calendar was 2019.
Sincerely in Yahuwah’s service and love, 🥰 ❤️
Tony Bruni
Praise Father Yahuwah’s Name, beloved Tony, for your sharp eyes. The typo is now fixed.🥰❤️
Dear WLC:
I believe you that you fixed it. As I just mentioned in an email I just sent you with the snapshot showing what I see on my side of the Internet. When might the correction show up?
I can try restarting my smartphone and see if that will work.
Happy Sabbath to the WLC Team and to the WLC community and your families! 🥰❤️
In Yahuwah’s service and love, 🥰 ❤️
Tony Bruni
It is fixed, beloved Tony, and I can see it correctly on my end now.
Thanks for spotting the typo.
Happy and blessed Sabbath to you, too.🥰❤️
Dearest Galal Doss:
Due to limitations using only mobile devices prevents me from seeing the correction you made. Please note I believe you did fix the typo. Thanks for fixing it up! 🥰♥️
This is due to problems with the technology that causes such glitches on my end of the Internet. I’m just going to have to live with it. It goes with using only mobile devices. You fixed the typo. Again thanks for fixing it up! 🥰♥️
Anyway happy Sabbath again!🥰♥️
In Yahuwah’s service and love, 🥰♥️
Tony Bruni
Thanks, beloved Tony, for the explanation. Do not worry. All is well. Have a blessed Sabbath.🥰♥️
Hi,
I’m trying to understand your position and I want to represent it as accurately as possible, so I don’t want to put words in your mouth that you aren’t actually saying.
Your article states that Yahushua is the human Messiah whom Yahuwah sent, raised, and exalted.
With that in mind, I’m particularly interested in how you understand John 1:1–14.
Who or what do you understand “the Word” to be in John 1:1?
Do you believe that the Word in John 1:1 is the same person who became flesh in John 1:14?
If that person is Yahushua, what do you understand John to mean by “the Word was God” and “the Word became flesh”?
If you do not believe the Word in John 1 is Yahushua, who or what do you believe the Word is, and what does “the Word became flesh” mean?
I’m also interested in Revelation 19:13. The person described there is the glorified Messiah, whom I assume you identify as Yahushua, yet he is described as being called “The Word of God”.
Do you understand the “Word of God” in Revelation 19:13 to be the same Word referred to in John 1? If so, how do you reconcile John 1:1-14 with your rejection of Yahushua’s divinity? If not, what is the distinction between the two uses of “Word”?
I’m not asking these questions as rhetorical traps. I’m trying to understand which passages led WLC to its conclusion and how you interpret passages that are commonly understood as presenting Yahushua in divine terms.
Hi Brother Willy, and thank you for asking these questions so sincerely and carefully. We genuinely appreciate that you are trying to understand WLC’s position rather than simply arguing against a position you may not have fully understood. ❤️
You have identified one of the most important passages we had to wrestle with when we began reconsidering the traditional doctrine of Yahushua’s divinity.
Regarding John 1:1–14: WLC understands “the Word” not as a second divine Being who existed alongside the Father, but as the Word, thought, wisdom, purpose, and self-expression of Father Yahuwah. Yahuwah spoke, and His Word accomplished His will. Scripture repeatedly presents Yahuwah’s spoken Word as powerful and effective (Psalm 33:6, 9; Isaiah 55:11).
We do understand the Word of John 1:1 to be the same Word referred to in verse 14. However, we do not understand this to mean that a preexistent divine Son literally changed into a human body.
Rather, the Word became flesh in the sense that Yahuwah’s Word, purpose, and saving plan came into human expression and fulfillment in the man Yahushua—the Messiah whom Yahuwah sent. Yahushua perfectly represented His Father’s Word and accomplished the Father’s will.
The phrase “the Word was God” is therefore understood in relation to its source: the Word was of Yahuwah, expressed Yahuwah’s character and authority, and came from Yahuwah. It does not require us to conclude that the Word was a second Person who was Himself the Most High Yahuwah.
This is consistent with Yahushua’s own testimony. He repeatedly said that His teaching and works originated with the Father. For example, He said, “I have not spoken from Myself; but the Father who sent Me, He gave Me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (John 12:49).
Revelation 19:13 presents Yahushua as the glorified Messiah whose name is “The Word of God.” We believe this connects with John 1. But again, we understand the title to describe Yahushua as the one who perfectly embodies, declares, and carries out the Father’s Word—not as proof that Yahushua is the Almighty Himself.
In fact, Revelation continually distinguishes the glorified Yahushua from “His God and Father” (Revelation 1:6), even after His resurrection and exaltation.
These passages were not easy for WLC. We examined many objections and difficult texts before reaching our present understanding. We certainly do not claim that we can settle every question in a few paragraphs.
For that reason, we have assembled a Godhead resource addressing the major objections and Scriptures that we ourselves had to confront before abandoning the traditional doctrine of Yahushua’s divinity:
WLC Godhead Study — Biblical Beliefs
That page may be a helpful place to go deeper, but please don’t take our sharing it as a way of avoiding your questions. Quite the opposite. We genuinely welcome further questions, comments, and challenges. If there is a passage that you believe presents a serious difficulty for our understanding, please bring it forward. We would much rather examine it together in the Scriptures than simply tell you what you should believe.
Our own journey has taught us that truth does not need to fear honest questions.
May Father Yahuwah guide us all by His Ruwach as we continue searching the Scriptures with humility and an open heart. ❤️🙏