And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5)
This verse is often used as one of the strongest texts in the Bible to support the doctrine that Jesus personally pre-existed his conception and birth, a doctrine that is held by most within the broad Christian spectrum. However, there have been some individuals and groups, both historically and in modern times, that teach that Jesus did not personally pre-exist, but only pre-existed notionally (i.e., on the “mind” or “plan” of God [AKA “ideal pre-existence]). One of the leading advocates for this Christology (in theological circles, it is labelled as “Socinian Christology” though some adherents prefer the term “Biblical Unitarianism”) is Sir Anthony Buzzard. In his 2007 book, Jesus was not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus, he writes (emphasis in original):
In John 17:5 Jesus requests that he now receive the reward of his ministry then accomplished, the glory "which I had with You [the Father] before the foundation of the world. This is glory in prospect, glory promised in advance. He says nothing about regaining glory, temporarily forsaken, but of winning that glory for the first time.
In the very same context the same glory is promised by Jesus to disciples not even alive when Jesus spoke these words: I pray "for those who are to believe in my through their [the Apostles'] word" (v. 20). "I have given them the glory which You have given to me" (v.22). It is glory promise but not yet conferred. In the New Testament rewards are regularly promised as existing now in heaven as treasure stored up for the future. If you "parade your uprightness in public to attract attention," Jesus said in Matthew 6:1 (NJB), "you have no reward with your Father," i.e. stored up for the future with the Father.
Do the examples Buzzard presents to off-set the “personal pre-existence” reading of John 17:5 satisfactory?
The term translated as "had" in John 17:5 is εἶχον, an indicative imperfect active of the verb εχω, "to have." The imperfect tense means that "the action is portrayed as being in progress or as occurring in the past time" (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 542 [emphasis in original]). This would mean that Jesus had glory, gave it up, and was requesting glory again from the Father (we know from Phil 2:5-11, he received greater glory than what he had in his pre-existence). The long-standing reading of this text is exegetically sound.
Matt 6:1 does not use the imperfect tense of εχω; instead, is uses εχετε, the second personal plural indicative present active of the verb; grammatically, there is no meaningful parallel with John 17:5.
As for John 17:22, the term translated as "I have given them" is δεδωκα, the first person singular indicative perfect active of διδωμι, "to give." Again, a different tense is used vis-a-vis the promised future rewards of the believer; there is no meaningful parallel to John 17:5.
So, as we see from the above, Buzzard’s examples are not true, meaningful parallels to John 17:5.
Duncan Heaster, a Christadelphian apologist whose Christology matches Buzzard's, wrote a volume entitled The Real Christ, a defence of Christadelphian Christology. On the topic of John 17:5, he wrote, under the sub-heading, "Jewish Perspective":
We need to remember that the Lord was speaking, and John was writing, against a Jewish background. The language of 'pre-existence' was common in Jewish thinking and writing. To be 'with God' didn't mean, in Jewish terms, to be up there in heaven with God literally. Mary had favour para God (Lk. 1:30) in the same way as Jesus had glory para God, but this doesn't mean she pre-existed or was in Heaven with God with her "favour"
Firstly, it should be noted that the preposition παρα, while used in John 17:5, is not the only preposition used to denote the relationship between the Father and the Son; for instance, προς, coupled with the accusative τον θεον, giving it the spatial meaning of "with" is used in John 1:1 (cf. 17:11; 20:17); such a preposition in this and similar verses, does not have the meaning of a mere notional relationship.
Furthermore, παρα can, and does, have the meaning of “with” denoting a spatial relationship between objects or persons. In Louw-Nida's lexicon, under the entry for παρα, we read:
παρά: a position near another location or object, usually with the implication of being alongside or close to - 'at, by, alongside, beside.' εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ 'standing beside Jesus' cross' Jn 19.25; ἔστησεν αὐτὸ παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ 'he stood him at his side' Lk 9.47; δύο τυφλοὶ καθήμενοι παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν 'two blind men who were sitting beside the road' Mt 20.30; τῇ τε ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων ἐξήλθομεν ἔξω τῆς πύλης παρὰ ποταμὸν οὗ ἐνομίζομεν προσευχὴν εἶναι 'on the Sabbath we went out of the city gate to a place beside the river where we thought there would be a place of prayer' Ac 16.13.
Another difficulty with the “notional pre-existence” reading of John 17:5 is that it makes no sense—in such a Christology, the glory promised to Jesus was just as prospective in the eternal past when he only pre-existed in the mind of God, never having any glory personally, and that the time he uttered the words recorded in John 17:5, and yet, the historical-grammatical method of exegesis would force us to conclude that Jesus personally had something in the past that he lacked at the time he said these words, which he desired to receive at a future point.
Latter-day Saints and the vast majority of those within the broad Christian spectrum are on sound exegetical footing for accepting the personal pre-existence of Jesus.