When Did Yahuwah’s Son Come into Existence? (Part 1)

This is a non-WLC article. When using resources from outside authors, we only publish the content that is 100% in harmony with the Bible and WLC current biblical beliefs. So such articles can be treated as if coming directly from WLC. We have been greatly blessed by the ministry of many servants of Yahuwah. But we do not advise our members to explore other works by these authors. Such works, we have excluded from publications because they contain errors. Sadly, we have yet to find a ministry that is error-free. If you are shocked by some non-WLC published content [articles/episodes], keep in mind Proverbs 4:18. Our understanding of His truth is evolving, as more light is shed on our pathway. We cherish truth more than life, and seek it wherever it may be found.


Please consider the following key facts concerning Yahushua in relation to literal pre-existence:

  1. Relatively few Scriptures seem to indicate any literal pre-existence of Yahushua.
  2. The Son came into existence at his begetting in Mary’s womb.
  3. The Hebrew Scriptures portray the Messiah as one who was yet to exist, i.e. he was not yet in existence in Old Testament times.
  4. The Sonship of Yahushua was prophesied in the Old Testament and was therefore future.
  5. The Son was exalted to pre-eminence only after his resurrection.
  6. The Son did not speak prior to his recorded life.
  7. No biblical text says that the Son goes back to the Father.

1. Relatively few Scriptures seem to indicate any pre-existence of Yahushua. The vast majority of the Scriptures provide no support at all for a doctrine of “pre-existence.” For instance, from the entire Hebrew Bible only Genesis 1:26, Proverbs 8:22, 30 and Micah 5:2 have been advanced in any attempt at such proof.

In the Greek New Testament Scriptures there is no hint of pre-existence in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John or Jude.

Three-quarters of the books of the New Testament contain not the slightest indication that Yahushua existed as the Son of Yahuwah before his birth.

The Christian Scripture Sources for Pre-Existence

The primary book used for “proof” of pre-existence is the gospel of John. Additionally, Philippians 2:6-8, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:10-12, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Revelation 3:14 are viewed as evidence for the literal “pre-human existence” of Yahushua. However, two important questions must be asked: 1) Are these “pre- existence” statements literal or notional? By notional preexistence we mean that Yahuwah predicted and promised the coming of the Messiah and that the Messiah was always in Yahuwah’s mind. 2) Have the texts, which are supposed to teach literal preexistence, been correctly analyzed and translated?

The Synoptic Gospels and Acts Make No Mention of Pre-Human Existence

Luke 1:3-4: “I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.”

In spite of Luke’s tracing “all things from the start with accuracy,” he makes no mention throughout his gospel of Yahushua having existed in another form prior to his birth. If such an idea were true, then from his own words, Luke could not possibly have left out this vital information for Theophilus to know fully. Luke firmly and plainly places the coming into existence of the Son of Yahuwah at the time of his conception in Mary’s womb, as we shall see in the next section. What Luke describes is not a transformation of an existing person into subsequent human existence. Luke knows nothing of a Yahushua who had previously existed as a spirit. He records his one and only coming into actual existence as Son, born of Mary.

Acts 1:1: “The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all things Yahushua started to do and to teach.” Luke’s reference back to his first account, which included the statements concerning the coming into existence of the Son of Yahuwah (1:35), shows that the person Yahushua did and said nothing prior to his birth. This fact is also expressed in Hebrews 1:2, a verse which shows that Yahushua could not have had a pre-human existence.

The gospel of Matthew similarly gives no hint of a pre-human existence for Yahushua. It too explains Yahushua’ conception as his time of coming into existence, i.e. his begetting.

The gospel of Mark does not deal with the conception and birth of Yahushua at all, but begins with the events concerning the baptism of Yahushua. A thorough examination of this entire gospel reveals no hint of a pre-human existence for Yahushua.

The same applies to the entire book of Acts, Luke’s second volume. Here we must ask: Why did the only official New Testament meeting of the body of Christians, namely the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, discuss the major issue of whether or not Gentile Christians should keep the Mosaic Law, and yet make no mention of what would be a revolutionary revelation — that the Messiah had previously been an archangel in heaven?

Confirmation from Leading Scholars

Raymond Brown was America’s leading Catholic biblical theologian. In his, Birth of the Messiah, he stated that Matthew and Luke “show no knowledge of Yahushua’ pre-existence; seemingly for them the conception was the becoming (begetting) of Yahuwah’s Son” (p. 31).

Distinguished Greek scholar F.C. Baur says: “The idea of pre-existence lies completely outside the Synoptic [Matthew, Mark and Luke] sphere of view.”1

Professor William Sanday of Oxford noted that “there is not a single reference in the Synoptic Gospels to Yahushua having been the Son of Yahuwah before his birth.”2


Professor William Sanday of Oxford noted that
“there is not a single reference in the Synoptic Gospels to Yahushua
having been the Son of Yahuwah before his birth.”2

2. The Son of Yahuwah came into existence at his begetting in Mary’s womb. Sonship begins no earlier than his conception. Protestant theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg states: “In Luke the divine Sonship is established by the almighty activity of the divine spirit upon Mary...In Luke 1:35 Yahushua’ divine Sonship is explicitly established by his miraculous birth...Yahushua’ virgin birth stands in an irreconcilable contradiction to the Christology of the incarnation of the pre-existent Son of Yahuwah.”3

Luke 1:35: “For that reason [the creative miracle in Mary] what is born will be called holy, Yahuwah’s Son.” The Greek dio kai means “precisely for that reason.” Holy spirit at Yahushua’ conception was the cause of his becoming Yahuwah’s Son. Therefore Yahushua was never Yahuwah’s Son at any time prior to his birth. Thus no only-begotten Son existed before this point in time. You cannot come into existence if you are already in existence!

Luke 1:32: “This one...will be called Son of the Most High.” Matthew 5:9 and Luke 6:35 demonstrate that “will be called sons of Yahuwah” means exactly the same as “will be sons of the Most High.” In Luke 6:35 Christians “will be sons of the Most High” and yet they did not pre-exist.

The Origin of Yahushua

A person is what he is according to his origin. In his detailed birth narrative Matthew uses the word genesis in 1:18. This word means beginning, origin or birth. In Bauer’s Greek/English Lexicon genesis is defined as: “One’s coming into being at a specific moment, birth.” Also “state of being, existence” and “of ancestry as point of origin.” Matthew 1:18: “The origin [Greek genesis] of Yahushua Christ was like this...”

The next thing stated is that “Mary...was found to be pregnant by holy spirit.” So the word genesis, as used here, has less to do with the actual birth than with the conception which was Yahushua’ point of coming into existence — his “beginning.” Associate Professor of Religious Studies Dr. Bart Ehrman states that “the earliest and best manuscripts agree in introducing the passage with the words: ‘The beginning of Yahushua Christ happened this way.’”4

pregnant mary

This text alone demonstrates that Yahushua was not in existence at any time prior to his conception. At no time do either of the Matthew or Luke accounts indicate that Yahushua was only coming into existence as a human, as though he was first alive and then merely passed through Mary rather than originating in her as Matthew 1:20 states.

Messiah’s Origin as “Ancestry”

The word genesis meaning “origin” is used also in Matthew 1:1. This verse is translated by Darby as: The “Book of the generation of Yahushua Christ.” The reference is to Yahushua’ ancestry — his origin, because of his line of descent from Abraham through David. Yet logically Yahushua only comes into actual existence at the end of that line — his conception.

Micah 5:2: “And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin [goings forth] is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.” Or from ancient days (see Hebrew interlinear, NAB, ESV, NRSV, ROTH, REB, and NIV).

Firstly it must be noted that we find in Micah 7:20 a similar phrase used to point back only as far as the Hebrew forefathers, not to a time beyond the world’s creation. Micah 7:20: “The loving-kindness given to Abraham, which you swore to our forefathers from days of long ago.”

Also Amos 9:11: “In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen...I shall build it up as in the days of long ago.”

The New American Bible study notes explain Micah 5:2 as a reference to the Messiah’s descent from the ancient Davidic dynasty: “The tiny city and clan of Bethlehem-Ephrathah, from which comes the ancient Davidic dynasty (whose origin is from old, from ancient times) with its messianic king, one who is to be ruler in Israel.” Additionally, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says that “origins” in Micah 5:2 refers to the Messiah’s descent from the ancient Davidic family.

So “origin” in Micah 5:2 refers to Yahushua’ line of descent which would include the prophecies concerning Messiah as coming through the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10) and his being an Israelite (Num. 24:17-19) and a male heir to David and at the same time Yahuwah’s Son (2 Sam. 7:14).

One Cannot Have Two Points of Origin

If origin in Micah 5:2 referred to a pre-Bethlehem, real existence of the Son, it would be in contradiction to Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:32, 35 which give details of the origin of Yahushua as his begetting by holy spirit to become Yahuwah’s Son, i.e. his conception in Mary.

Referring to Micah 5:2, James Dunn, professor of divinity at Durham University, comments that the Hebrew does not suggest pre-existence. Cross-referencing shows that it likely was Micah 5:2 that the first-century Jews had in mind, when they said in John 7:42: “Has not scripture said that the Christ is coming from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem the village where David used to be?”

Therefore the Messiah, as the final descendant of the Davidic dynasty, is part of a dynasty that is ancient. In context it would be incorrect to assume that this meant that the Messiah existed before the world’s creation. An essentially non-human or pre-human Yahushua is not the Messiah of the New Testament but alien to its pages.

Similarly, in trying to assess who Yahushua is in John 7:40-41: “Some of the crowd...began saying: ‘This is for certainty the prophet.’ Others were saying: ‘This is the Christ.’”

And when asked by Yahushua in Matthew 16:13-14, “‘Who are men saying the Son of Man is?’ They [the disciples] said: ‘Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’”

John 1:49 gives Nathaniel’s recognition of Yahushua as: “Rabbi, you are the Son of Yahuwah, you are king of Israel.” In no case does anyone suggest that Yahushua was a pre-existent spirit.

The Son Was Begotten Once

Matthew 1:20: “That which was begotten [generated] in her.” Gennao = to beget. The dictionary definition of beget is to originate, to cause to exist. James Dunn comments in Christology in the Making:

Begetting...the coming into existence of one who will be called, and will in fact be the Son of Yahuwah, not the transition of a pre-existent being to become the soul of a human baby or the metamorphosis of a divine being into a human fetus” (p. 51).


Every single individual described in the Scriptures as having been literally begotten came into existence only at the time of his/her conception. It is incorrect to say that it was only as a human that Yahushua was begotten at his conception. It is the person — the individual — who first came into existence at that time. It is illogical to propose that anyone could be begotten twice! Christians are “born again,” that is, spiritually begotten:

1 John 5:18: “Everyone having been begotten of Yahuwah sins not, but the one begotten of Yahuwah keeps him” (Marshall’s Interlinear).

“Anyone born of Yahuwah does not practice committing sin, but the One who was begotten of Yahuwah carefully watches over and protects him” (Amplified Bible. See also NAB, Darby, and Young).

The phrase “having been begotten” is in the perfect tense in the Greek text, indicating an ongoing condition in the case of Christians, i.e. spiritual begetting. However, the phrase “the One who was begotten” with reference to Yahushua, is in the aorist tense in the Greek and refers to a once only and never to be repeated event of the past — a physical begetting. Hence the begetting of Yahushua occurred according to Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 only on the one occasion when he was supernaturally conceived/begotten in Mary’s womb.

The terms “only-begotten of a Father,” “only begotten Son,” and “only begotten Son of Yahuwah” occur in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 and 1 John 4:9. They all refer to Yahushua’s uniqueness as a son and in particular the uniqueness of his virginal begetting in Mary and in having no human father. This means that Yahushua, although fully human, is never to be viewed as a “mere man” — he is a uniquely generated human person.

Because “begotten” means “brought into existence,” the idea of a transformation from one life form to another is logically excluded.

No Existence Prior to Birth According to Paul

The apostle Paul expresses Yahushua’ coming into existence in the same terms as Matthew and Luke:

Galatians 4:4: “When the full limit of the time arrived, Yahuwah sent forth his Son, who came to be [genomenon] out of [from] a woman.”

The Greek word genomenon is from the verb ginomai = to come into existence. This excludes the idea of one who came through Mary as would be the case with someone who had a pre-human existence. Ginomai is defined as:

1) to come into being through process of birth (Gal. 4:4). (Bauer’ s Lexicon).

2) to come into existence (Bauer’ s Lexicon).

To become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being (Thayer’ s Lexicon).

If there was a pre-existence, then terms such as incarnation or transmigration or transformation would be appropriate. But in the case of the Son of Yahuwah, the Bible describes the beginning of a new person, exactly as prophesied in Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14.

Prophecy of Future Begetting

Psalm 2:7: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” (NASB).

According to Hebrews 1:5 and Acts 13:33 this was fulfilled when Yahushua was born. However, there is a translation issue with Acts 13:33. The phrase “raised up” was mistranslated in the KJV and later in the NWT as “raised up again,” or “resurrected.” The literal translations and the NKJV and NIV have corrected this. F.F Bruce states with reference to Acts 13:33:

“The promise of v. 23, the fulfillment of which is described in v. 33, has to do with the sending of the Messiah, not his resurrection (for which see v. 34). Verse 34 reads in the original, ‘from the dead.’”

So we are obliged to differentiate the word raise up in verse 33 from raise from the dead in verse 34.

Yahushua’ Genealogy

In the gospel of Matthew the genealogy of Yahushua runs back through David to Abraham. The genealogical record given by Luke takes things even further back to Adam (Luke 3:38). Both Matthew and Luke had ample opportunity for mentioning, if they had believed in preexistence, a pre-human Son, but no such thing is described in their detailed accounts. Closely linked with Matthew’s genealogical list is the statement that Yahushua came into existence in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20). The time and the location of the origin of the Son of Yahuwah are made transparently clear. Luke also tells us that the Son of Yahuwah came into existence in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:32, 35). Throughout the synoptic gospels Yahushua is called “son of David.” He is never called or linked with Michael or any other spirit being. An angelic identity for the Son of Yahuwah is plainly excluded.


Throughout the synoptic gospels Yahushua is called “son of David.”
He is never called or linked with Michael or any other spirit being.
An angelic identity for the Son of Yahuwah is plainly excluded.


If Yahushua had really pre-existed as Michael he could not by definition have been the lineal and biological descendant of David. To speak of a pre-human existence contradicts the Scriptures, which show Yahushua as coming into existence only at his conception in Mary. One cannot exist before one exists. Such an idea is illogical.

John warned believers to accept only a “coming as human” Yahushua, i.e. the human historical Messiah. Other ‘Christs’ were to be avoided as dangerous counterfeits. “By this you know the Spirit of Yahuwah: every spirit that confesses Yahushua the Christ having come in the flesh is from Yahuwah; and every spirit that does not confess [that] Yahushua is not from Yahuwah” (1John 4:2-3).

3. The Hebrew Scriptures portray the Messiah as one who was yet to exist.

Did any of the Hebrew Scriptures direct Jews of the first century to expect a Messiah who had to give up conscious life as an Archangel or heavenly being? Please note the following Messianic prophecies.

Numbers 24:14-17: “Let me advise you what this people will do to your people afterward in the end of the days...The utterance of the one hearing the sayings of Yahuwah...‘I shall see him [Messiah], but not now; I shall behold him but not near, A star will step forth out of Jacob, And a scepter will indeed arise out of Israel.’”

Deuteronomy 18:18: “I will raise up a prophet from among their brothers like you [Moses].” This was fulfilled in Acts 3:22, 7:37 and John 6:14.

Genesis 3:15: “Enmity...between your [the serpent’s] seed and her [the woman’s] seed” (“who is Christ,” Gal. 3:16).

In none of these prophecies is there a hint of origination from angelic stock. But rather this ultimate prophet would originate from human stock.

2 Samuel 7:14-16: “Your [David’ s] seed...will establish his kingdom to time indefinite. I shall become his father, he will become my son.” This is quoted in Hebrews 1:5. And 2 Samuel 7:19 says it is “down to a distant future time.”

Revelation 22:16: Yahushua defines his identity: “I am the shoot and descendant of David and the bright star of the morning.”

Just as the fully human Moses had not pre-existed, so too, the Messiah would be a person who was fully human and one promised to be Yahuwah’ s and David’ s son at a future time. He was the seed of human persons — “the woman,” Abraham and David. The overshadowing of Mary by holy spirit did not alter his identity as a human being. Yahuwah’s son Adam was fully human too (Luke 3:38).

Psalm 22:10: “From the belly of my mother you have been my God.” This Psalm is a prophecy of the Messiah as proved by its quotations in the gospels. So this verse strongly indicates that Messiah had Yahuwah as his God and Father only from his birth. He could therefore not have been the only-begotten Son before that time. (to be cont.)

1 Church History of the First Three Centuries, p. 65.

2 Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, p. 576.

3 Jesus – God and Man, pp. 120, 143.

4 The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 75.

This is a non-WLC article written by Ray Faircloth.

We have taken out from the original article all pagan names and titles of the Father and Son, and have replaced them with the original given names. Furthermore, we have restored in the Scriptures quoted the names of the Father and Son, as they were originally written by the inspired authors of the Bible. -WLC Team