Just WHO is the God of Jesus Christ?

[LookingUp]

Throughout the Old Testament, the oneness of Yahweh is stressed to the Nth degree. 'God' is not a substance, 'God' is a person. 'God' is a unique identity: Yahweh. Several characteristics of Yahweh are what distinguish him as the one true God. Yahweh created alone, Yahweh judges, calling on the name of 'the LORD' (Yahweh) saves, Yahweh alone sits on the throne in heaven, etc. In the book of Isaiah, Yahweh alone is 'first and last' and Yahweh alone will have every knee bow and tongue swear allegiance to him. It is not just that Yahweh happens to assign these attributes to himself out of fancy: he alone is these things because he is the one and only God.

The New Testament regularly puts Jesus in the role of Yahweh. Jesus created, Jesus judges, calling on the name of 'the Lord' (Jesus) saves, the Lamb shares the throne in heaven. For Jesus to be the 'first and last', and for Jesus to have every knee bow and tongue swear allegiance to him, is not just a reapplication of some poetic device. Jesus is being included in the unique divine identity of Yahweh.

Jesus is not just 'filling the role' of Yahweh. Jesus is not just a divine agent (e.g. 'the first creation') of Yahweh. If that was the case, then Yahweh didn't 'alone' create all things, Yahweh isn't 'alone' first and last, having every knee bow to him. It would mean he's sharing his glory with someone not Yahweh.

Jesus is being included in the unique divine identity of Yahweh. The man Jesus is Yahweh, the one true God. But, 'God' is not a what... 'God' is a who. For the man Jesus to be Yahweh does not mean he is tangibly made up of 'God substance' and 'human substance'. It means that his identity is Yahweh.

Jesus is the person of Yahweh as a man. Yahweh as man is the Son of God. Yahweh as God is the Father. Jesus, being man, has a God, just like every other man. The Father is Jesus' God, just as the Father is our God.

Love your post. But Yahweh and God are interchangeable, right? You say, "Yahweh as man is the Son of God and Yahweh as God is the Father." That's a little confusing because it's the same as saying, "God as man is the Son of God (good so far) and God as God is the Father (not as clear).

Do you think it'd be better to say something like, "Yahweh/God as man is the Son of God and Yahweh/God as the infinite, transcendent One is the Father"?

[markedward]

Love your post. But Yahweh and God are interchangeable, right? You say, "Yahweh as man is the Son of God and Yahweh as God is the Father." That's a little confusing because it's the same as saying, "God as man is the Son of God (good so far) and God as God is the Father (not as clear).

Err, no, but that's partly my fault for my lack of clarity, but it is also partly the fault of contemporary English conventions on how we usually talk about Yahweh.

It would actually be more appropriate in English to refer to Yahweh as 'the God' instead of just 'God', since it would emphasize that 'God' is not a synonym for 'Yahweh', but that 'God' is a description of Yahweh. (Similiar to how 'the Christ' is more accurate in English than simply 'Christ', since it shows that 'Christ' is not a name for Jesus, but a title of Jesus.)

Here is an update to my previous post, to more accurately convey my meaning. Take the following on its own, apart from the less clear version that I had before.

Throughout the Old Testament, the oneness of Yahweh is stressed to the Nth degree. Yahweh is not a 'substance' that is shared among plural persons, Yahweh is a 'person'. Several characteristics are given in Scripture to distinguish Yahweh as the one true god. Yahweh created alone, Yahweh judges, calling on the name of 'the LORD' (Yahweh) saves, Yahweh alone sits on the throne in heaven, etc. In the book of Isaiah, Yahweh alone is 'first and last' and Yahweh alone will have every knee bow and tongue swear allegiance to him. It is not just that Yahweh happens to assign these attributes to himself out of fancy: he alone is these things because he is the one and only God.

Yahweh is a unique identity, who is portrayed as the one true god.

The New Testament regularly puts Jesus in the role and place of Yahweh. Jesus created, Jesus judges, calling on the name of 'the Lord' (Jesus) saves, the Lamb shares the throne in heaven. For Jesus to be the 'first and last', and for Jesus to have every knee bow and tongue swear allegiance to him, is not just a reapplication of some poetic device. Jesus is being included in the unique identity of Yahweh, even though he is a man.

But, Jesus is not just 'filling the role' of Yahweh. Jesus is not simply an agent (e.g. 'the first creation') of Yahweh. If that was the case, then Yahweh did not 'alone' create all things, Yahweh is not 'alone' first and last, having every knee bow to him. It would mean he is sharing his glory with someone who is not Yahweh.

Jesus is being included in the unique identity of Yahweh. The man Jesus is Yahweh. But 'Yahweh' is not a what... 'Yahweh' is a who. For the man Jesus to be Yahweh does not mean he is tangibly made up of 'god substance' and 'man substance'. It means that his identity is Yahweh.

Yahweh as [the] 'god' = the Father

Yahweh as [the] 'man' = the Son of [the] God = the Son of the Father = Jesus the Christ

Jesus, being man, has a god, just like every other man. The Father is the god of Jesus, just as the Father is the god of us.

[LookingUp]

Err, no, but that's partly my fault for my lack of clarity, but it is also partly the fault of contemporary English conventions on how we usually talk about Yahweh.

It would actually be more appropriate in English to refer to Yahweh as 'the God' instead of just 'God', since it would emphasize that 'God' is not a synonym for 'Yahweh', but that 'God' is a description of Yahweh. (Similiar to how 'the Christ' is more accurate in English than simply 'Christ', since it shows that 'Christ' is not a name for Jesus, but a title of Jesus.)

Here is an update to my previous post, to more accurately convey my meaning. Take the following on its own, apart from the less clear version that I had before.

This is what I hear you saying. Substance doesn’t define identity. Identity is identity regardless of substance. So, what was wrong with my conclusion: Yahweh (title: God) as man is the Son of God and Yahweh (title: God) as the infinite, transcendent One is Father?

[markedward]

Oh, your conclusion there was fine. I was saying, 'err, no' to the other thing, which you rightly pointed out as confusing. (The 'God as man is the Son of God (good so far) and God as God is the Father (not as clear).' thing.)

[LookingUp]

Oh, your conclusion there was fine. I was saying, 'err, no' to the other thing, which you rightly pointed out as confusing. (The 'God as man is the Son of God (good so far) and God as God is the Father (not as clear).' thing.)

OK, thanks. I'm still trying to absorb. This point of yours is the most significant in leading me to the conclusion that Jesus can't be simply a representative like we see with the representatives in the OT:

But, Jesus is not just 'filling the role' of Yahweh. Jesus is not simply an agent (e.g. 'the first creation') of Yahweh. If that was the case, then Yahweh did not 'alone' create all things, Yahweh is not 'alone' first and last, having every knee bow to him. It would mean he is sharing his glory with someone who is not Yahweh.

[markedward]

It was the tension between the 'Yahweh alone did/is X' passages and the 'Jesus did/is X' passages that overcame my struggles with unitarianism, among other things.

For me, this brought me to stand before only two options: the New Testament teaches that Jesus is Yahweh and it is true, or the New Testament is to be rejected.

In the words of the author of Hebrews, I had already tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the holy spirit, and tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come... so the latter option was untenable.

[LookingUp]

It was the tension between the 'Yahweh alone did/is X' passages and the 'Jesus did/is X' passages that overcame my struggles with unitarianism, among other things.

For me, this brought me to stand before only two options: the New Testament teaches that Jesus is Yahweh and it is true, or the New Testament is to be rejected.

In the words of the author of Hebrews, I had already tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the holy spirit, and tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come... so the latter option was untenable.

How I do relate to your conclusion of the latter option being untenable! Was He alone or not? Yes, He was alone. Jesus is Yahweh.

[guestman]

Due to the Watchtower shining new light on previous doctrines/prophesies (now making them obsolete), how do you know that what you have been taught about the trinity is accurate when the organisation may tell you something else in a few years?

Immediately following the mutiny in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1-7), Jehovah God told Satan that "I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel."(Gen 3:15) Only over a period of 4000 years was the meaning of this prophecy gradually revealed until Jesus arrived as the Messiah in 29 C.E..

The apostle Paul wrote that "in accord with the good news I declare and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the sacred secret which has been kept in silence for long-lasting times but has now been made manifest and has been made known through the prophetic scriptures among all the nations in accord with the command of the everlasting God to promote obedience by faith."(Rom 16:25, 26)

The refining understanding of Scriptural prophecies will continue. Proverbs 4:18 says that "the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." Just as understanding concerning all sorts of fields are increasing, so likewise is grasping more clearly the Bible and it's prophecies.

The churches have always remained stagnant, and hence remained "in the dark". Would you use the medical knowledge at the beginning of the 20th century to combat the serious illnesses and diseases that are still plaguing mankind today ? Knowledge has grown exponentially, and so has an understanding of the Bible among Jehovah 's Witnesses, until "the day is firmly established."

Furthermore, the Psalmist wrote that "light itself has flashed up for the righteous one, And rejoicing even for the ones upright in heart. Rejoice in Jehovah, O you righteous ones."(Ps 97:11, 12) It is very apparent that the churches never see past their noses regarding "new light" of the Bible, but those who "rejoice in Jehovah" are the ones to whom "light itself has flashed up", with the Bible being unveiled more and more "until the day is firmly established."

Within just the last fifteen years computer technology has exponentially accelerated, so likewise has a clearer Bible understanding now came, such as grasping the time period we are living in, called Jesus (invisible) "presence".("presence", Greek parousia, Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39) The churches are still waiting on the "second coming of Christ" (through a misunderstanding of the Greek word parousia), being unable to "mentally put the pieces together" (Greek syniemi) regarding the time frame we are living in. (see Matt 16:1-4)

Concerning the trinity, this does not take being in these "last days" to understand that Jesus is not God. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) refuted the trinity, as well as Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), famous chemist and discoverer of oxygen, as well as John Milton (1608-1674), the great poet. Prior to this, not accepting the trinity was a life and death issue. Michael Servetus (1511-1553) was burned alive at the stake, with one of his books tied to his thigh, for his denouncing the trinity, having written a book entitled On the Errors of the Trinity (at 20 years of age), a work that made him a principal target of the Inquisition.

Protestant Reformer Sebastian Franck (1499 ?-1542 ?) wrote: “The Spaniard, Servetus, contends in his tract that there is but one person in God. The Roman church holds that there are three persons in one essence. I agree rather with the Spaniard.” Nevertheless, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Protestant churches ever forgave Servetus for challenging their central doctrine of the trinity.

[glad4mercy]

Immediately following the mutiny in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1-7), Jehovah God told Satan that "I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel."(Gen 3:15) Only over a period of 4000 years was the meaning of this prophecy gradually revealed until Jesus arrived as the Messiah in 29 C.E..

The apostle Paul wrote that "in accord with the good news I declare and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the sacred secret which has been kept in silence for long-lasting times but has now been made manifest and has been made known through the prophetic scriptures among all the nations in accord with the command of the everlasting God to promote obedience by faith."(Rom 16:25, 26)

The refining understanding of Scriptural prophecies will continue. Proverbs 4:18 says that "the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." Just as understanding concerning all sorts of fields are increasing, so likewise is grasping more clearly the Bible and it's prophecies.

The churches have always remained stagnant, and hence remained "in the dark". Would you use the medical knowledge at the beginning of the 20th century to combat the serious illnesses and diseases that are still plaguing mankind today ? Knowledge has grown exponentially, and so has an understanding of the Bible among Jehovah 's Witnesses, until "the day is firmly established."

Furthermore, the Psalmist wrote that "light itself has flashed up for the righteous one, And rejoicing even for the ones upright in heart. Rejoice in Jehovah, O you righteous ones."(Ps 97:11, 12) It is very apparent that the churches never see past their noses regarding "new light" of the Bible, but those who "rejoice in Jehovah" are the ones to whom "light itself has flashed up", with the Bible being unveiled more and more "until the day is firmly established."

Within just the last fifteen years computer technology has exponentially accelerated, so likewise has a clearer Bible understanding now came, such as grasping the time period we are living in, called Jesus (invisible) "presence".("presence", Greek parousia, Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39) The churches are still waiting on the "second coming of Christ" (through a misunderstanding of the Greek word parousia), being unable to "mentally put the pieces together" (Greek syniemi) regarding the time frame we are living in. (see Matt 16:1-4)

Concerning the trinity, this does not take being in these "last days" to understand that Jesus is not God. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) refuted the trinity, as well as Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), famous chemist and discoverer of oxygen, as well as John Milton (1608-1674), the great poet. Prior to this, not accepting the trinity was a life and death issue. Michael Servetus (1511-1553) was burned alive at the stake, with one of his books tied to his thigh, for his denouncing the trinity, having written a book entitled On the Errors of the Trinity (at 20 years of age), a work that made him a principal target of the Inquisition.

Protestant Reformer Sebastian Franck (1499 ?-1542 ?) wrote: “The Spaniard, Servetus, contends in his tract that there is but one person in God. The Roman church holds that there are three persons in one essence. I agree rather with the Spaniard.” Nevertheless, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Protestant churches ever forgave Servetus for challenging their central doctrine of the trinity.

Guestman, the Word of God has never changed. It is only man's interpretations of His Word that have changed. The problem with the Watchtower is that they place themselves on an equal or even higher level of authority than the Bible. This is evidenced by the documented statement made by the Watchtower that if a man studies the Bible without their study aides, they will go into spiritual darkness within two years. Secondly, if the Bible is the ultimate authority, then you would say that everyone who is taught of God from the Bible and is obedient to the true Gospel is saved, yet instead you say that one must receive the teachings of the Bible through the filter of Watchtower teaching in order to be saved . This is placing the ultimate authority of God's Word on man instead of on the Bible, which is God's Word.

[LookingUp]

It was the tension between the 'Yahweh alone did/is X' passages and the 'Jesus did/is X' passages that overcame my struggles with unitarianism, among other things.

For me, this brought me to stand before only two options: the New Testament teaches that Jesus is Yahweh and it is true, or the New Testament is to be rejected.

In the words of the author of Hebrews, I had already tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the holy spirit, and tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come... so the latter option was untenable.

Mark, why do you think John wrote that the Word was "with" God? Why didn't he simply say the Word was God? What's the distinction about?

edit to add: Would you say that the Transcendent One knows what it's like to be a man but the man, Jesus, with the finite, human brain does not know what it's like to be transcendent?

[markedward]

Mark, why do you think John wrote that the Word was "with" God? Why didn't he simply say the Word was God? What's the distinction about?

At different points in the book of Job, Yahweh's plan (10.13), wisdom and strength (12.13,16), and decree (23.14) are each said to be 'with' Yahweh. These aren't saying that Yahweh's plan and wisdom and strength and decree are each different 'persons' apart from each other and from Yahweh in order to be 'with' Yahweh... but that they are a part of who Yahweh is and are integral to his being. Saying that these things are 'with' Yahweh, from what it looks like, is just a type of Hebrew idiom.

The 'word of God' is Yahweh's self-expression, his word and thought and plan. Yahweh's plan, his self-expression has been with him 'since the beginning'. He revealed himself through the Prophets, meaning the Prophets spoke the word of Yahweh, making Yahweh and his will and plan known to his people. And, in a new way, Yahweh revealed himself through his Son, meaning his Son was the physical manifestation of the 'word of God'. (See Hebrews 1.1-4.) In this way, Jesus is Yahweh as man.

edit to add: Would you say that the Transcendent One knows what it's like to be a man but the man, Jesus, with the finite, human brain does not know what it's like to be transcendent?

I really couldn't say.

[LookingUp]

At different points in the book of Job, Yahweh's plan (10.13), wisdom and strength (12.13,16), and decree (23.14) are each said to be 'with' Yahweh. These aren't saying that Yahweh's plan and wisdom and strength and decree are each different 'persons' apart from each other and from Yahweh in order to be 'with' Yahweh... but that they are a part of who Yahweh is and are integral to his being. Saying that these things are 'with' Yahweh, from what it looks like, is just a type of Hebrew idiom.

The 'word of God' is Yahweh's self-expression, his word and thought and plan. Yahweh's plan, his self-expression has been with him 'since the beginning'. He revealed himself through the Prophets, meaning the Prophets spoke the word of Yahweh, making Yahweh and his will and plan known to his people. And, in a new way, Yahweh revealed himself through his Son, meaning his Son was the physical manifestation of the 'word of God'. (See Hebrews 1.1-4.) In this way, Jesus is Yahweh as man.

I really couldn't say.

Thanks, Mark, you could be right. What do you think Jesus meant when he said he had glory with the Father before the world was (John 17:5)? It sounds personal, and he uses the word "with" as if they were two beings before the world was.

When Jesus did something during his ministry, like casting out demons or healing the sick, wouldn't it be accurate to say, "Yahweh cast out demons and healed the sick"? "'Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for you.' So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him'" (Luke 8:29). Wouldn't you agree that whether the Father did something or Jesus did something, it was Yahweh doing something?

So, here's my point. What keeps you from considering that Jesus existed before his birth as a divine being. If Yahweh can exist as transcendent and a human being at the same time, Yahweh can exist as transcendent and a divine being at the same time. It's still one identity even though He is existing in two ways.

Also, I was wondering how you understood Jesus praying to the Father. As you said, Jesus wasn't just representing Yahweh, he was Yahweh by identity. But his prayer life and dependence on the Father seems to suggest that Yahweh truly limited Himself to all the limitations a man experiences (i.e. finite brain, human will, etc.). Would you say that anything that Jesus knew about his identity was only to the extent that the Father revealed to him? Jesus wasn't born with any memory of being transcendent, right? I mean, how could a finite brain have any grasp on that experience?

[markedward]

Thanks, Mark, you could be right. What do you think Jesus meant when he said he had glory with the Father before the world was (John 17:5)? It sounds personal, and he uses the word "with" as if they were two beings before the world was.

'Two beings' suggests... two gods. This is why I object to thi type of language, because when it is used it in the context of any other religion, we would immediately point and say 'that is polytheism'.

Follow the train of thought found in the gospel of John:

3.14-15: Jesus must be lifted up, so that all who have faith in him may receive eternal life.
7.39: The holy spirit had not yet come because Jesus was not yet glorified.
8.28: When Jesus is lifted up, we will know that he is the Messiah, and that all things he does, he does because the Father directed him to.
12.23-24: Jesus says that the hour is coming for his glorification.
12.32-33: When Jesus speaks about being 'lifted up', he is referring to his crucifixion.
13.31-32: When Jesus speaks of his crucifixion, he is referring to his glorification.

When Jesus is 'lifted up', he will bring salvation. Jesus will bring salvation through his crucifixion. In his crucifixion, Jesus is glorified. The 'glory' Jesus refers to is the declaration of his glory via his crucifixion, which was 'foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times', since Jesus is 'the Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world'. It is through Jesus' crucifixion for the salvation of humanity that Jesus is declared in his glory to be King. This is the crux of the gospel message. And, that is how Jesus 'already' had his glory: through the foreknowledge of God, according to his eternal plan (i.e. according to the 'word of God', which was manifested in the person of Jesus).

Wouldn't you agree that whether the Father did something or Jesus did something, it was Yahweh doing something?

Yes, though I would point out, when Jesus did something, it was his Father's spirit working through him (e.g. Acts 2.22: 'Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him').

If Yahweh can exist as transcendent and a human being at the same time, Yahweh can exist as transcendent and a divine being at the same time.

Yahweh being 'divine' is Yahweh being 'transcendent'. Within this context, they refer to the same thing: transcendent = divine = god.

Also, I was wondering how you understood Jesus praying to the Father.

The Son praying to the Father; man praying to god.

Would you say that anything that Jesus knew about his identity was only to the extent that the Father revealed to him?

Yes. Jesus openly admits to his limited knowledge on at least a couple of things. It makes no sense for Jesus to effectively say 'I do not know X' if alongside his limited human knowledge he simultaneously has unlimited divine knowledge. That would be like me holding a red ball in one hand and a yellow ball in the other hand, and saying, 'I am not holding a red ball'. Even if on the one hand I'm not holding a red ball, on the other hand I am, and to deny as much would be a lie. Jesus' knowledge, including how he understood himself and what he was supposed to do as the Messiah, the Son of God, derives wholly from God; the Son is wholly dependent upon the Father.

There's an excellent paper by N.T. Wright* on this subject, and I'll quote the sum of his thought process:

Let me be clear, also, what I am not saying. I do not think Jesus “knew he was God” in the same sense that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and say to himself “Well I never! I’m the second person of the Trinity!” Rather, “as part of his human vocation grasped in faith, sustained in prayer, tested in confrontation, agonized over in further prayer and doubt, and implemented in action, he believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be.”

* (Note: N.T. Wright advocates the trinitarian perspective. I don't. I simply agree with the bulk of what he wrote in this paper.)

[LookingUp]

'Two beings' suggests... two gods. This is why I object to thi type of language, because when it is used it in the context of any other religion, we would immediately point and say 'that is polytheism'.

How is it different than saying the identity of Jesus is Yahweh? Two beings, one identity.

Follow the train of thought found in the gospel of John:

3.14-15: Jesus must be lifted up, so that all who have faith in him may receive eternal life.
7.39: The holy spirit had not yet come because Jesus was not yet glorified.
8.28: When Jesus is lifted up, we will know that he is the Messiah, and that all things he does, he does because the Father directed him to.
12.23-24: Jesus says that the hour is coming for his glorification.
12.32-33: When Jesus speaks about being 'lifted up', he is referring to his crucifixion.
13.31-32: When Jesus speaks of his crucifixion, he is referring to his glorification.

When Jesus is 'lifted up', he will bring salvation. Jesus will bring salvation through his crucifixion. In his crucifixion, Jesus is glorified. The 'glory' Jesus refers to is the declaration of his glory via his crucifixion, which was 'foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times', since Jesus is 'the Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world'. It is through Jesus' crucifixion for the salvation of humanity that Jesus is declared in his glory to be King. This is the crux of the gospel message. And, that is how Jesus 'already' had his glory: through the foreknowledge of God, according to his eternal plan (i.e. according to the 'word of God', which was manifested in the person of Jesus).

How confident do you feel about this?

Yes, though I would point out, when Jesus did something, it was his Father's spirit working through him (e.g. Acts 2.22: 'Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him').

What I mean is that even though it was the human being, Jesus, who physically did it, the identity, Yahweh, gets the credit for doing it. One identity does not equal two Gods. It’s one God existing in two different ways: transcendent and human.

Yahweh being 'divine' is Yahweh being 'transcendent'. Within this context, they refer to the same thing: transcendent = divine = god.

OK, let’s change the wording. If identity is identity regardless of substance (as we see with the Father who is Yahweh and the Son who is Yahweh), why couldn’t Yahweh have chosen to do this before the world was? Not as a human being, but as another kind of being that later became Jesus? For example, as the Father who is Yahweh and the Word who is Yahweh? I’m unable to see why this can’t be possible.

[markedward]

How is it different than saying the identity of Jesus is Yahweh? Two beings, one identity.

It's the combination of the words 'two' and 'beings'. Scripture is adamant in its declaration that 'Yahweh is one'. In whatever way the Father and Son share the same identity of 'Yahweh', the Father and Son are one, not two.

How confident do you feel about this?

I haven't heard any explanations that satisfy my desire to know the truth on the issue. This resonates with me the most: the theme that the gospel of John presents is that Jesus was getting moving onward to glorification, and that glorification came through his death, which took place at 'the foundation of the world'. Jesus was not literally crucified at the time the world began, it's a figure of speech that describes how his death was 'foreknown' by the God from the world's beginning. All this together, I see the 'glory' that Jesus had 'before the world began' in the same way: he's speaking figuratively, regarding his death that was 'foreknown' by the God from the world's beginning.

What I mean is that even though it was the human being, Jesus, who physically did it, the identity, Yahweh, gets the credit for doing it.

The Father receives the credit; the Father is not Jesus. If we say that 'Yahweh gets the credit for doing it', one could say that Jesus was performing the miracles on his own, or that he raised himself from the dead. The unanimous attestation of Scripture is that the Father did the miracles through his Son, and that the Father raised his Son from the dead. The rest of what you said, I agree with.

OK, let’s change the wording. If identity is identity regardless of substance (as we see with the Father who is Yahweh and the Son who is Yahweh), why couldn’t Yahweh have chosen to do this before the world was? Not as a human being, but as another kind of being that later became Jesus?

Would that be... three substances?

For example, as the Father who is Yahweh and the Word who is Yahweh? I’m unable to see why this can’t be possible.

The 'word' was not a person. The 'word' was the Father ('the God'), insofar as it was the Father's self-expression. The 'word' became flesh; God's self-expression took on the form of the man, Jesus, which is why he was able to say 'He who sees me has seen the Father'.