UNIQUELY BEGOTTEN GOD
EXPLANATORY
INTRODUCTION
When I attended Brother [JN's] Home Church on Sabbath,
October 11, [2004?,] in anticipation of hearing presentations by Elder Wm. H. Grotheer,
I brought with me a copy of the following e-mail letter, for possible reference
to some quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy Writings. Sure enough, I
had occasion to use two quotations on the subject of the primacy of the
Bible. Those who were present will recall that I declined an offer by
Brother [N] to copy the document for general
circulation. In retrospect this was a correct decision because
circulation of the document then would have anticipated Elder Grotheer’s
afternoon presentation, although I did not realize it at the time. By the
end of the day it appeared to me that after the presentation this document may
be helpful when read with the article “The Heavenly Trio” in WWN 4(02),
which I hope will be available by e-mail or in print.
The afternoon
presentation by Elder Grotheer was, in my opinion, a classic example of sound doctrine
established from the Bible alone as our rule of faith and practice. Those
enlightened terms from the Writings, “the heavenly trio,” “the three great
powers of heaven” etc. are firmly anchored in the Bible. Perhaps because
of the determination of two antagonists to prove the contrary of what was
presented, there was no general organized discussion of the subject
matter. During an expansive exhortation by Brother
[N]
to read the Spirit of Prophecy on the subject, I expressed a
disagreement. Methinks I “raised some hackles” by objecting to the use of
the Writings where the doctrine had been established with perfect clarity by
biblical exegesis alone. My objection may not have been stated in the
clearest terms, but it is supported by seven quotations from the Writings in
the following document that are powerfully persuasive, and indeed should be
conclusive. I invite careful consideration of the following language,
which is selected from the seven quotations within:
The
Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to
take the place of His Word. . . ..--
Letter
130, 1901. (3SM 29.2; emphasis supplied)
The
Spirit was not given-- nor can it ever be bestowed--to supersede the Bible; for
the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which
all teaching and experience must be tested. . . . --The
Great Controversy, Introduction, p. vii. (3SM 30.5; emphasis supplied)
I
recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and
practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word,
promised to give visions in the "last days"; not for a new rule of
faith . . .--A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen
G.White, p. 64 (1851). (Reprinted
in Early Writings, p. 78.) (3SM 29.1; emphasis supplied)
"Thus
saith the Lord" is the strongest testimony you can possibly present to the
people. Let none be educated to look to Sister White, but to the mighty
God, who gives instruction to Sister White.--Letter 11, 1894. (3SM 29.3;
emphasis supplied.) (It is clear that by “Thus saith the Lord” Sister
White means the Bible.)
There was a
specific reason for my concern about consulting the Writings on the subject of
the eternal pre-existence and equality of Christ with the Father. There
are those, including the brother to whom the following e-mail letter was
written, who point to statements in the Writings that seem to support their
contentions to the contrary. I happen to think that their reasonings are superficial, but why argue on their ground
when the Bible makes the case with perfect clarity?
E-mail letter to a brother who had been bombarding Wm.
H. Grotheer with offensive postal letters and e-mail messages contending that
the pre-existent Christ was begotten of God:
This e-mail document has evolved over the course of a week, from
one directed to you alone to one which will serve the purpose of another e-mail
that I was committed to send to [AS] and [DC]. I am also
including “Berean,” to whom you have copied at least
one past e-mail to Elder Grotheer, and my comrade-in-arms, [SR.
You ask at the beginning of your e-mail, who is your
Webmaster? Permit me to reply that I am just an
"unknown,"
but endowed by God like every human being with powers of perception. I
know that Elder Grotheer has informed you of my observation that you are
arrogant, and not a little confused. I can perceive arrogance when it
manifests itself, and recognize superfluity of confused argumentation when I
see it. I am undertaking a reply to your e-mail without prior
consultation with Elder Grotheer, and without having seen all of his letters to
you.
Your suggestion that in Rev. 1:11 Jesus Christ as the Word is
spokesman for the Father is an example of free-thinking argumentation running
amok. The textual evidence and the weight of authority are against you.
John clearly identifies the Father in verse 4, and makes a distinction
between Him and Jesus Christ:
John to the seven churches
which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and
which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are
before his throne; And from Jesus
Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead,
and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us
from our sins in his own blood . . . (Rev. 1:4-5)
The phrase “first begotten
of the dead” is of profound significance, bearing on the contention that the pre-existent
Christ was begotten of God (more on this later in this letter.) John
proceeds to describe the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, and it is absolutely
clear that it is he who quotes the words of the Father:
I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and
which is to come, the Almighty.
The Father speaks
for Himself, and it is reported by John. Now John begins his report on
the appearance and words of Jesus Christ: I was in the Spirit on the
Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying,
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. . .And I turned to see the
voice that spake with me. . . . And in the midst of the seven
candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, . . .
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon
me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am
he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen;
and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev. 8-18; Emphasis supplied)
Jesus Christ is speaking of and for Himself. The I am that “liveth, and was dead” is the same I am who is
“Alpha and Omega.” Later, in the last chapter of Revelation, He repeats
the description of Himself as “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the
first and the last,” in the context of His second coming. There is not a
shadow of doubt that Jesus is speaking of Himself in Rev. 22:12-13. The
same applies to Rev. 1:11&18.
Your strange reasoning on the foregoing passages of Rev. 1 was so
glaring that I had to deal with it first. Now I want to make some
observations, beginning with the first paragraph of your letter. This
paragraph is all argumentation and no documentation. What is wrong with
the following texts of Scripture as evidence that the death of Jesus Christ on
the Cross was divine as well as human:
Yet it pleased the LORD to
bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul
an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and
the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isa. 53:10)
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal. 4:4)
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace
of God should taste death for every man. (Heb. 2:9)
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might
take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of
myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:17-18)
I am going to turn next to the subject of the authority of the
Writings of Ellen G. White in relation to the Bible, because this is the huge
obstacle to a reconciliation of views between you and Elder Grotheer. I
ask you to analyze the following statements of Sister White very carefully.
They are all copied directly from the Ellen G. White Estate website:
Little
heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the
greater light.--The Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903. (Quoted
in Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.) (3SM
30.4; emphasis supplied)
I know that you are familiar with this statement; but please note
the phrase that I have emphasized. Continuing with the quotations:
The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light
to take the place of His Word. This light is to bring confused minds to His
Word, which, if eaten and digested, is as the lifeblood of the soul.
Then
good works will be seen as light shining in darkness.--
Letter
130, 1901. (3SM 29.2; emphasis supplied)
The Spirit was not
given-- nor can it ever be bestowed--to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures
explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and
experience must be tested. . . . Isaiah declares, "To the law and to
the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is
no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).--The Great Controversy,
Introduction, p. vii. (3SM 30.5; emphasis supplied)
I recommend to you, dear
reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice.
By
that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions
in the "last days"; not for a new rule of faith, but
for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth.
Thus
God dealt with Peter when He was about to send him to preach to the Gentiles.--A
Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G.White,
p. 64 (1851). (Reprinted in Early Writings, p. 78.)
(3SM
29.1;
emphasis supplied)
"Thus saith the
Lord" is the strongest testimony you can possibly
present to the people. Let none be educated to look to Sister White,
but to the mighty God, who gives instruction to Sister White.--Letter 11, 1894.
(3SM
29.3;
emphasis supplied.) (It is clear that by “Thus saith the Lord” Sister White means the
Bible.)
Brother
J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear
that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to
the Word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen
fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His Word, to give them a
clearer understanding of it.
The Word of God is
sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by those
who have any desire to understand it. . .
(3SM 30.6-31.1;
emphasis supplied)
But don't you quote
Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your
vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible.
It is
full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life,
and you will know more Bible than you know now. You will have fresh matter - O,
you will have precious matter; you won't be going over and over the same
ground, and you will see a world saved. You will see souls for whom Christ has
died. And I ask you to put on the armor, every piece of it, and be sure that
your feet are shod with the preparation of the gospel. (SpM 174.1;
emphasis supplied)
Lay Sister White right to
one side: lay her to one side. Don't you [ever] quote my words again as long
as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you
take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make
that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better
how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word,
exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what "Sister
White said"-- "Sister White said this," and "Sister White
said that," and "Sister White said the other
thing." But say, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," and then
you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says . . .
(SpM
167.2; emphasis supplied)
There is much, much
food for thought in these statements of Ellen G. White, for all of us, and
especially for those who turn to the Writings as the first source, and
sometimes the only source, of doctrine, reproof, correction, and
instruction in righteousness. Here is the cause of deadlock between you
and Elder Grotheer. He presents to you doctrinal points that are based on
sound principles of Bible exegesis. Time and time again you try to
counter with statements from the Writings; and worse, you eisegetically read into
the Scriptures what you believe such statements mean. As quoted above,
Sister White said, “The Word of God is sufficient to enlighten
the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by those who have any desire to
understand it.” With this counsel of wisdom in mind, let us “lay
Sister White right to one side” and truly study a couple of
passages of Scripture that are in contention between you and Elder Grotheer.
First,
Psalm 2:7, which you want to wrench from its context and place at the beginning
of the great controversy in heaven. Contextually, this psalm is not
connected with the angelic host in the way that, for example, Dan. 7:10
is. This is set entirely in the context of God’s controversy with
rebellious humanity:
Why do the heathen (nations) rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth
set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD,
and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast
away their cords from us. (Ps. 2:1-3; emphasis supplied.)
It is in this context that the decree is declared. Now I
notice that you do quote from the S.D.A. Bible Commentary when it suits
you. Do you recognize that in spite of the apostasy
there is still some authority there; especially in an edition dated
1954. On “I will declare” I quote as follows:
Jesus, the Anointed One,
the Word, God’s spokesman, speaks in turn, interpreting God’s great declaration
of His Sonship. He is no usurper; He holds His office as Messiah by His
Father’s decree. This decree implies (1) that Jesus is to be acknowledged
as the Son of God, and (2) that His reign is to be universal (vs. 8,9; cf. Eze.
21:27.) (S.D.A. Bible Commentary (1954), Vol. 3,
P. 634.)
The name used is Jesus, not Christ, because Jesus Christ was
anointed on earth. This is not the pre-existent Christ. So the
Commentary goes on to state on “Begotten thee,” “This statement must not be
construed as implying an original generation.” (Ibid.)
Then comes that quotation from the Writings that you have difficulty in
accepting because of your mental bias, “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived
(DA 530.)” (Ibid. emphasis added) Mark well the sentences that
follow:
The Bible is its own best
interpreter. Inspired writers must be permitted to make the precise
application of OT prophecies. All other applications are human opinion,
and as such lack a plain “Thus saith the Lord” (see on Deut. 18:15.)
The
inspired apostle’s comment on the prophecy of this text makes the psalmist’s
words a prediction of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 13:30-33.) The
resurrection from the dead in a unique way proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of
God (Rom. 1:4.) (Ibid.; emphasis supplied.)
Now here are Paul’s own words:
But God raised him from
the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from
Galilee to
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of
holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4; emphasis
supplied.)
How much more plainly can the Scriptures explain the decree?
Think about it.
Before turning next to Deut. 6:4, 5, I have some comments to make
about respect for authority. We do not accept what any individual or
group of individuals teach because of their educational qualifications and/or
scholarship. That is Romanism, and sad to say this has become the norm
within the corporate body of Seventh-day Adventists. However, there is
another extreme that is prevalent in the ranks of the “Independent Ministries,”
in which a cacophony of conflicting “voices” all set themselves up as
authorities on biblical exegesis. In past years roles of leadership were
exercised by people who were thoroughly trained in the exposition of Bible
doctrines, and even the laity measured up to a high standard of knowledge and
understanding. It is a tragic phenomenon of these times that laymen who
are ill-equipped to go to original sources for understanding of exactly what
difficult texts of Scripture are saying, have assumed the role of expositors;
and these have the audacity to challenge qualified and experienced Bible
scholars. Today the leadership in Israel stands discredited,
administrators and teachers alike; and many concerned Adventist laymen have
turned away from scholarship to the simplistic repetition of what they think
was taught before apostasy corrupted the Church. These forget the warning
from Ellen G. White that, “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to
unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible.” (TM
30.) The “Old Paths” will certainly help to anchor us to the
foundation pillars of our faith; but then we must advance, as Mrs. White
counseled:
The truth is an advancing
truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." (R&H, March 25, 1890; emphasis supplied)
I am appalled at the disrespect that is shown by you and your
friends at Smyrna Gospel Ministries, to a man who has faithfully and resolutely
stood up to the apostate leadership for nearly fifty years since the
Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956. Elder
Grotheer is not found in this role by chance. Among his true
peers, he is recognized for his intellect and learning, with well-honed
expertise in biblical exegesis, solidly based upon an understanding of the
grammatical nuances of ancient Hebrew and Greek. It is only the ignorant
who dare to lecture him and dismiss his work with derision. As Paul
counseled, a man should not “think of himself more highly than he ought . . .”(Rom. 12:3.)
What I have just written is of particular significance in the
exegesis of Deut. 6:4. It is indicative of the importance of what Moses
said in Deut. 6:4,5, that Jesus quoted these two verses, the first one verbatim
and the second with only a slight difference, in Mark 12:29-30. What does
the Shema of Israel tell us about the Godhead? We who are laymen resort
to Strong’s concordance for understanding of Hebrew and Greek words. We
accept as correct the translation of the Hebrew characters for “Gods” as
“Elohim.” Even so, I would not try to argue from that, as you have done,
that this does not really mean more than one God. However,
there is more to be considered here than is apparent to the layman without
training in ancient Hebrew. Elder Grotheer points out (1) that there are
many errors in Strong’s, and (2) there is a glaring error here. The word
“Elohim” is not in this text. The correct word is “Elohenu.” Davidson’s The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon explains that this is the masculine
plural. The proper translation is “Gods” plural. In written helps
which accompany his seminar on the Godhead, Elder Grotheer quotes yet another
authority, Elements of Hebrew, Wm R. Harper, p. 144, to support the
rendition of the masculine plural, based upon the suffix. (I am not
setting out the quote, because it includes Hebrew characters which my computer
is not equipped to reproduce.) The matter does not rest on this
alone. The word properly translated “one” is “‘echad,”
which essentially means one in duality, as for example husband and wife - “one”
(‘echad) flesh (Gen. 2:24.) Again, in Gen. 1:5,
“And the evening and the morning were the first day.” “First” is ‘echad – evening and morning in duality, one day. So
the Shema of Israel reads, “Jehovah, our Gods is one Jehovah.” Do you
understand what Jesus was saying in Mark12:29,30?
This is wholly consistent with what He said in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was I
AM.”
In your e-mail to Elder Grotheer dated February 28, you said, “As
to Isa. 44:6, I do not read it the way you do; I see ‘his redeemer’ as
‘Israel’s redeemer’.” Your novel interpretation of necessity requires
that we drop the word “his” – no question about it. That flies in the
face of the translation of this text by every version that I have looked at,
not least of all Young’s Literal Translation. Let us look at the text
again as translated by Young:
Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God. (Young’s Literal Translatioin.)
Here are not only the words “And his,” but also the description of
His Redeemer, “Jehovah of Hosts.” Since this text does not stand in
isolation in establishing that Christ is “Jehovah” as God the Father is
“Jehovah,” your reasoning is flawed. Two persons are identified here, and
this makes the rest of the text speak volumes – two persons, one God.
Now, let us look at some more texts from the Old Testament:
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
(Micah 5:2; emphasis supplied.)
Here is another confirmation that Christ had no beginning:
And speak unto him, saying,
Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the
man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he
shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build the temple of the
LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and
he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between
them both (Zech. 6:12-13; emphasis supplied.)
Here is another confirmation that there were Two.
In fact, the Interlinear Bible and the RSV render the phrase “between the
two of them”
And one shall say unto him,
What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall
answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of
my friends. Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against
the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and
the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little
ones. (Zech. 13:7; emphasis supplied.)
The term “man that is my fellow” signifies a level of equality, not a father and son relationship:
For a Child hath been born
to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder,
And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty
God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. (Isa. 9:6; Young’s Literal
Translation; emphasis supplied.)
This is not how a being whom you contend came into existence by
generation would be described? If He is “Mighty God” and “Father of
Eternity” He could not have had a beginning.
The Old Testament establishes with perfect clarity that prior to
In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the
beginning with God. (John 1:1, 2.)
Did you have this text in mind when you stated to Elder Grotheer in the e-mail now under consideration, “What you are denying is, that Christ ever had a beginning from God?” Obviously not, for the text is saying plainly that the Word was in the beginning with God, and indeed was God. We should not have to debate this point. This is the plain, objective meaning of the text:
And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14.)
“The only begotten of the Father” - here we come to what I perceive
to be one of the two pillars of your doctrine. The other is that Christ
“proceeded and came forth from the Father.” However, there is nothing in
the text to support the contention that it refers to any time prior to the
Incarnation; rather the contrary. Because Scripture is explained by Scripture,
it has already been made clear from the Bible that it cannot refer to the
pre-existent Christ. “The glory as of the only begotten of the Father”
was beheld in the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ.
Once more we come to an issue of the authority of scholarly works that
are supported by weighty documentation. I am going to quote passages on
“the only begotten” from the S.D.A. Bible Commentary, and Problems in
Bible Translation, (1954,) published by the Committee on Problems in Bible
Translation, which was appointed by the S.D.A General Conference
Committee. The Bible Commentary passages are excerpts from the
notes on John 1:14; and the other passages are from the chapter on John 3:16 in
Problems in Bible Translation. I have reason to believe that your
friends at Smyrna Gospel Ministries are already prejudiced against the analysis
that ensues, and I presume that you are of the same mind; but I urge you all
to reconsider carefully, because of the weighty responsibility that rests upon
you for misleading those who follow your doctrine:
Gr. monogenēs,
from two words meaning “only” and “kind,” and thus properly translated
“unique,” “only,” “only one of a kind.” As with the title Logos
(see on v. 1), only John uses the word monogenēs
of Christ (See John 1:18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Absence of the definite
article in the Greek either makes monogenēs
indefinite, “an only one,” or makes it an expression of quality, in which case
John would be saying, “glory as of an only one [who had come] from beside the
Father.” This seems evidently the sense here. . . .
The translation “only begotten,” here and elsewhere, apparently originated with
the early Fathers of the Catholic Church, and entered early English
translations of the Bible under the influence of the Latin Vulgate, the
official Bible of the Catholic Church. Accurately reflecting the Greek,
various Old Latin manuscripts which antedate the Vulgate read “only” rather
than “only begotten.” The idea that Christ “was born of the Father
before all creation” appears first in the writings of Origen, about A.D.
230. Arius, nearly a century later, is the first to use gegennemenon, the correct Greek word for “begotten,”
when speaking of Christ, and to affirm that He was “begotten of God before all
ages” (see Additional Note at the end of chapter). This Greek word is never
used in the Bible concerning the preincarnate
Christ. The idea that Christ was “begotten” by the Father at some time in
eternity past is altogether foreign to the Scriptures. (B.C.5, P.902;
emphasis supplied.)
The Greek term that has been translated “only begotten” in the KJV is used nine times in the New Testament. As applied to Jesus Christ, it occurs only in John’s writings, five times in all (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). It also occurs in the New Testament in referring to others than Christ (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17). In the LXX it is found in Ps. 21:20 (Ps. 22:20); Ps. 24:16 (Ps. 25:16); Ps. 34:17 (Ps. 35:17); Judges 11:34. The Greek word is a compound one, and is generally used of an only, therefore, unique, very precious, child, the emphasis being on only, and not on kind.
The best Greek authorities bear out the above. Under monogenēs, the Greek word we are discussing, we read in the Greek-English Lexicon: “The only member of a kin, or kind; hence generally only, single.” Henry George Liddell, and Robert Scott, a Greek-English Lexicon, Vol. 2, p. 1144.
Monogenēs “is literally ‘one of a kind,’
‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus).” James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, pp.
416, 417.
Further, in classical Greek (See Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon for
numerous examples), the term “beloved,” agapetos,
denotes an only, therefore very precious, child. Again in the LXX we find
the Greek word monogenēs of John 3:16
used as the translation of the Hebrew adjective yachid
“beloved,” and translated in the KJV as follows: Ps. 22:20 “darling,” 35:17 “my
darling”; and in Ps 25:16 “desolate,” 68:6 “solitary.” In harmony with
the last two examples, see the Apocrypha, Tobit 3:15;
6:9; 8:12; “only” meaning dear, beloved. It is evident then that in
classical and Koine Greek, the word monogenēs has the meanings of unique, dear,
precious, beloved, only, the only member of a kin or kind. . .
In addition to the statement of Moulton and Milligan, we find the following in Thayer: “. . .(Sic. unigena; Vulg. [in Lk., unicus, elsewh.] and in eccl. writ. unigenitus), single of its kind, only . . .; used of Christ, denotes the only son of God.” – Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 417.
Thayer’s statement in parentheses above is interesting, that monogenēs has been translated unigenitus
in ecclesiastical writings, a translation that is incorrect. In this
connection we give the statement found in the International Critical
Commentary on John 1:14: “Some of the O.L. texts (a e q) render monogenēs here by unicus, which is the
original meaning, rather than unigenitus, which became the accepted
Latin rendering so soon as controversies arose about the Person and Nature of
Christ.” – J. H. Bernard, “The Gospel According to St. John,” International
Critical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 23. (Problems in
Bible Translation, Pp. 197-199; emphasis supplied.)
There follows more history of the
corrupted (my term) rendering of monogenēs.
Then logical conclusions are drawn, including the following:
Jesus Christ, pre-existent God, the divine creative Word, at His incarnation became in a unique sense the Son of God. That is why He is designated monogenēs, the only one of His kind, altogether unique in many aspects of His being and life. No other child of the human race was so compacted in His being, had so unequaled a relation to the Godhead, or did such a work as is true of Him. So monogenēs describes a relation between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as separate Persons of the Godhead. This is a relation that belongs to Christ’s complex, divine-human personality, in connection with the economy of the plan of salvation.
Generative production and identity of essence are implied in filiation. Ordinarily the word “son” conveys the
ideas of derivation, and of inferiority, both in dignity and in time. The
term “son” includes a relative idea which implies priority of existence in the
father and subsequency of existence in the son,
therefore contradicting absolute eternity. Christ is divine, and
therefore necessarily self-existent, existent in absolute and separate
independency. (Ibid. P. 202.)
Can you not see that you and your friends are perpetuating an
assault upon the divinity and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ? Can you
not see that you are violating Holy Ground.
The main burden of this letter is to establish the duality of God
in the Old Testament, and the equality and co-existence of Christ and the
Father (“Jehovah, our Gods is one Jehovah.”) The limitations of time, and
the increasing length of this letter, make me hesitant to embark upon the
subject of the relationship between Christ and the Holy Spirit. I am
similarly hesitant about the texts revealing three persons of the Godhead since
the Incarnation. However, in the latter case, there will be quotations
from the Writings, and I am loath to rely solely on the Writings to prove a
Bible Truth. Therefore, the following is a limited sampling of what the
Bible reveals on these two points of doctrine:
Of which salvation the
prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace
that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the
Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1
Peter 1:10-11; emphasis supplied.)
Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19.)
For through him [Jesus
Christ] we both have access by one Spirit [the Holy Spirit] unto [God] the
Father. (Eph. 2:18; parenthesis supplied.)
The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (2 Cor. 13:14;
emphasis supplied.)
John to the seven churches
which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and
which was, and which is to come [God the Father]; and from the
seven Spirits which are before his throne [the Holy Spirit]; And from Jesus Christ . . . (Rev.
1:4-5; parentheses and emphasis supplied.)
One comment I must make: it is self-evident that Jesus
Christ did not exist before the Incarnation. The
divine-human being came into existence in the Incarnation. It
follows that from two before the Incarnation, the Godhead became three after
that event. It is so obvious that I cannot understand why so many
Adventists fail to see it, especially in the light of Ellen G. White’s
statements which will be quoted below. There is no excuse either for
contending that there is only one God in the Old Testament, or for embracing
the Roman Catholic dogma of the Trinity just because of the clear evidence that
there are now three persons of the Godhead.
I have followed Ellen G. White’s counsel to “Lay Sister White right
to one side” to prove God’s revelation of Himself from the Bible and the Bible
only. The chapter of Problems in Bible Translation from which I
have quoted above, concludes with a compilation of quotations from the
Writings. I am going to do the same. Nowhere in Sister White’s
statements will you find anything like the formulation of E. J. Waggoner in Christ
and His Righteousness:
There was a time when
Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John
8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to
finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. (Pp. 21-22)
This is a gross misapplication of Jesus Christ’s words, albeit sincerely
made. There is nothing in the context to place His meaning earlier than
the Incarnation. He, the Incarnate Word, did indeed proceed forth and
come from the Father, and there the matter should rest. One should
remember that, unless there was a last-minute change of mind, Waggoner died
sincerely believing that there was no significance in the October, 1844,
date. The evidence shows that his doubts began as early as 1891, during
his “Studies in the Book of Romans.” You would not follow him over that
particular precipice; why follow him over this one?
Sister White definitely does not support Waggoner. However,
when one turns to the Writings it is clear why she warns against quoting her
before we know what the Bible teaches. I have almost six pages of
quotations (with some overlapping) before me. In general they do not
conflict with the exposition of the Scriptures that I have set out above.
However, there are five which contain words and phrases that come close to, but
not over, the line that you have crossed. In the interest of full
disclosure they are presented first. If you and your friends choose to
rely on a tiny percentage of words and phrases against the overwhelming weight
of evidence within the Writings as well as in the Bible, you bear a
heavy responsibility for the souls of those who are not given the opportunity
to decide from all of the evidence what the Bible really
teaches. All five of the following quotations contain countervailing
words and phrases that tilt the balance to the side of the vast majority of
Sister White’s statements. Keep in mind that “everlasting” means without
beginning or end:
Christ, the Word, the
only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature,
in character, in purpose,--the only being that could enter into all the
counsels and purposes of God. "His name shall be called Wonderful,
Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
peace" (Isa. 9:6). His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting"
(Micah 5:2).--Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34. (7ABC 437.2)
But
while God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also
speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine
being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His
Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in
whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him,
were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God"
(John 1:1). Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was
God. (R&H April 5, 1906; 7ABC 441; 1SM 247; emphasis supplied)
Note the balance between the clauses that I
have emphasized in this quotation. Mrs. White’s statement clearly
concerns the plan of redemption. It does not convey the same meaning as
that of Waggoner. She is also not saying that Christ had a beginning from
God. Continuing to quote.
However much a shepherd may
love his sheep, he loves his sons and daughters more. Jesus is not only our
shepherd; He is our "everlasting Father." And He says, "I
know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the
Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father." John
10:14, 15, R.V. What a statement is this!--the only-begotten Son, He who is
in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be "the Man that
is My fellow" (Zech. 13:7),--the communion between Him and the eternal
God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the
earth!--The Desire of Ages, p. 483. (7ABC 438.4)
This statement really does not present a problem. It clearly applies to Jesus Christ, and the phrase “only-begotten Son” simply follows the KJV:
Before the entrance of sin
among the angels: Christ the Word, the only-begotten of God, was one
with the eternal Father, --one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--the
only being in all the universe that could enter into
all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ, the Father wrought in the
creation of all heavenly beings.--The Great Controversy, p. 493. {7ABC
440.1}
See the similar statement above, which contains more countervailing phrases.
The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son
of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father.
He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly
intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His
right. This was no robbery of God. "The Lord possessed me in the
beginning of his way," He declares, "before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no
fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the
hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the
world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon
the face of the depth" (Prov. 8:22-27). There
are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the
foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark
place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth,
infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise
unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and
incomprehensible.
{1SM 247.4-248.1}
This
statement, a little baffling at first, begins to make sense when it is observed
that Mrs. White identifies “the divine Son of God” as “The Lord Jesus
Christ.” Our finite minds cannot comprehend eternity, and the everlasting
foreknowledge involved in “all the counsels and purposes of God.” Well
therefore, does Sister White write of “This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself.” We had best not take this statement and run
with it where we are not sent.
I can find no statements of Ellen G. White that come any closer to the doctrine that you advocate than the preceding five quotations. I am setting out below almost the entirety of the quotations in Appendix A – Christ’s Place in the Godhead, from ABC7a, copied directly from the Ellen G. White Estate website. Four of the last five quotations have been extracted from the compilation. Otherwise, I have done no editing at all, except the emphases, which are all supplied by me. The compilation, minus the extracted four, follow the next quotation which comes from Selected Messages. Now, observe carefully the general tenor of the Writings:
God
and Christ [note that these are two]
knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of
Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was
designed to redeem the fallen race, to give them another trial. Christ was
appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of God,
set up from everlasting to be our substitute and surety. Before the
world was made, it was arranged that the divinity of Christ should be
enshrouded in humanity. "A body," said Christ, "hast thou
prepared me" (Heb. 10:5). But He did not come in human form until the
fullness of time had expired. Then He came to our world, a babe in Bethlehem. (1SM 250.1; parenthesis and
emphasis supplied.)
I. Deity and Nature of Christ
The Jews had never before heard such words from human
lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity
flashed through humanity as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one."
The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that
he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.--The
Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54. {7ABC 437.3}
Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in
power and authority with the Father.--The Great Controversy, p. 495.
{7ABC 437.4}
To
save the transgressor of God's law, Christ, the one equal with the Father,
came to live heaven before men, that they might learn
to know what it is to have heaven in the heart. He illustrated what man must be
to be worthy of the precious boon of the life that measures with the life of
God.--Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 179. {7ABC 437.5}
The only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of his Son, equal with himself, possessing the attributes of God. Though so highly exalted, Christ consented to assume human nature, that he might work in behalf of man and reconcile to God his disloyal subject. When man rebelled, Christ (438)
pleaded his merits in his behalf, and became man's substitute and surety. He undertook
to combat the powers of darkness in man's behalf, and he prevailed, conquering
the enemy of our souls, and presenting to man the cup of salvation.--The
Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1892, p. 690. {7ABC 437.6}
The world was made by him, "and without him was not anything made that was
made." If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words
spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt.
Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all
eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. . . . {7ABC 438.1}
There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father
before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a
dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth,
infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise
unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and
incomprehensible. --The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8.
{7ABC 438.2}
The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their
presence He might set forth the true position of His Son, and show the
relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the
Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both.-- Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 36. {7ABC 438.3}
Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, "I am
the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.
"He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ
is the believer's assurance of eternal life.--Ibid.,
p. 530. {7ABC 438.5}
Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been (439) claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity."--Ibid., p. 469. {7ABC 438.6}
The
world's Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the authority of God.
He declared that he had no existence separate from the Father. The
authority by which he spoke, and wrought miracles, was expressly his own, yet
he assures us that he and the Father are one.--The Review and Herald,
Jan. 7, 1890, p. 1. {7ABC 439.1}
Jehovah,
the eternal, self-existent, uncreated One, Himself the source and sustainer of
all, is alone entitled to supreme reverence and worship.--Patriarchs and
Prophets, p. 305. {7ABC 439.2}
Jehovah
is the name given to Christ. "Behold, God is my salvation,"
writes the prophet Isaiah; "I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord
Jehovah is my strength and my song; He also is become my salvation. Therefore
with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.
And in that day ye shall say, Praise the Lord, call upon His name, declare His
doings among the people, make mention that His name is exalted." "In
that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city;
salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. Open ye
the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth
the truth may enter in. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is
stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee. Trust
ye in the Lord forever; for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength."--The
Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899, p. 2. {7ABC 439.3}
The heavenly gates are again to be lifted up, and with ten thousand times ten
thousand and thousands of thousands of holy ones, our saviour will come forth
as King of Kings and Lord of lords. Jehovah Immanuel "shall be King
over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one."--Thoughts
From the Mount of Blessing, p. 160. {7ABC 439.4}
This is the reward of all who follow Christ. Jehovah Emmanuel --He
"in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," in whom
dwells "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"
(Col. 2:3, 9)--to be brought into sympathy with Him, to know Him, to possess
Him, as the heart opens more and more to receive His attributes; to know His
love and power, to possess the unsearchable riches of Christ, to comprehend
more and more "what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and
to know
the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye
might be filled with all the fulness of God"
(Eph. 3:18, 19)--"This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and
their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord."--Ibid., p. 57. {7ABC
439.5}
If
men reject the testimony of the inspired Scriptures concerning the deity of
Christ, it is in vain to argue the point with them; for no argument,
however conclusive, could convince them. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14. None who hold this error can have a true
conception of the character or the mission of Christ, or of the great plan of
God for man's redemption.--Ibid., p. 524. {7ABC
440.2}
II. Eternal Pre-existence of Christ
The Lord Jesus
Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet
one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the
commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels
was received by him as his right. This was no robbery of God.--The Review
and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8. {7ABC 440.3}
In
speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless
ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close
fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then
listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--The Signs of
the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {7ABC 440.4}
Here Christ shows them that, although they might reckon His life to be less
than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human
computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured
by figures.--The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899. {7ABC 440.5}
From all eternity Christ was united with the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature, He was still one with God.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 2, 1905, p. 10. (441) {7ABC 440.6}
When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the
adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy
Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed
glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all
eternity.--The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 38, 39. {7ABC 441.1}
A
human being lives, but his is a given life, a life that will be quenched.
"What is your life? It is even vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth
away." But Christ's life is not a vapor; it is never-ending,
a life existing before the worlds were made.--The Signs of the Times,
June 17, 1897, p. 5. {7ABC 441.3}
From
the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was
"the image of God," the image of His greatness and majesty,
"the outshining of His glory."--The Desire of Ages, p. 19.
{7ABC 441.4}
He
was one with the Father before the angels were
created. --The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 17. {7ABC 441.5}
Christ
was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all
eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.-- The Review and Herald,
April 5, 1906, p. 8. {7ABC 441.6}
The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence,
had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself
to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel,
"whose goings forth have been from of old, from
the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. --The Desire of Ages,
pp. 469, 470. {7ABC 441.7}
In
it [God's Word] we may learn what our redemption has cost Him who from the
beginning was equal with the Father.-- Counsels
to Parents and Teachers, p. 13. {7ABC 441.8}
III. Three Persons in the Godhead
There are three living persons of the heavenly trio;
in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and
these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their
efforts to live the new life in Christ.-- Evangelism,
p. 615. {7ABC 441.9}
The
Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out
of the plan of redemption.--Counsels on Health, p. 222. {7ABC 442.1}
Those who proclaim the third angel's message must put on the whole armor of
God, that they may stand boldly at their post, in the face of detraction and
falsehood, fighting the good fight of faith, resisting the enemy with the word,
"It is written." Keep yourselves where the three great powers of
heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, can be your efficiency.
These powers work with the one who gives himself unreservedly to God. The
strength of heaven is at the command of God's believing ones. The man who takes
God as his trust is barricaded by an impregnable wall.--The Southern
Watchman, Feb. 23, 1904, p. 122. {7ABC 442.2}
Our sanctification is the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It is the fulfilment of the covenant that God has
made with those who bind themselves up with Him, to stand with Him, with His
Son, and with His Spirit in holy fellowship. Have you been born again? Have
you become a new being in Christ Jesus? Then co-operate with the three great
powers of heaven who are working in your behalf. Doing this you will reveal
to the world the principles of righteousness.--The Signs of the Times,
June 19, 1901. {7ABC 442.3}
The
eternal heavenly dignitaries--God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit--arming
them [the disciples] with more than mortal energy, . . .
would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin.--Evangelism,
p. 616. {7ABC 442.4}
We
are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven, --the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost,--and these powers will work through us, making us
workers together with God.-- Ibid., p. 617.
{7ABC 442.5}
Those who are baptized in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, at the very entrance of their Christian life declare publicly
that they have forsaken the service of Satan and have become members of the
royal family, children of the heavenly king.--Testimonies, vol. 6, p.
91. {7ABC 442.6}
As stated above, all of the emphases are supplied by me. If
the words and phrases are considered carefully, as they ought to be, it will be
seen that there are powerful statements which explode the myth that Christ had
a beginning. Ellen G. White’s statements do not affirm the doctrine of
the Trinity; but neither do they affirm one God and His son by generation
before the Incarnation. On the contrary, her references to “God and
Christ,” and the name Jehovah attributed to Christ, are completely in harmony
with the Old Testament revelation of two Gods, one Jehovah; and in the New
Testament the declaration of a “Heavenly Trio,” and “three great powers of heaven,”
“one God – ‘Jehovah Immanuel ‘shall be King over all the earth; in
that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one.” God was one in
duality before the Incarnation. He has become three persons as one God
since the Incarnation. Here a careful distinction must be made between
the biblical revelation of the New Testament as expressed by Ellen G. White,
and the eternal “God in three persons” of the Trinitarians.
Yours in defense of the increasing light of Truth,
Webmaster