XXXII - 8(99)

“Watchman,

what of the night?”

"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!"          Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)

HISTORICAL DATA REVIEWED

-3-

Page 2

A SUMMARY ANALYSIS

Page 5

THE SECOND ADAM MOTIF

Jesus, the Son of God

Page 7

 

Editor's Preface

With the April issue of WWN when we discussed "A Fearful Warning" which called attention as to how God viewed the message His Messiah would speak, we began a review of the prophecy that Jesus gave concerning Jerusalem. Next, based on the premise that the truth as it is in Jesus cannot be separated from Jesus, the Truth, we noted the "Parallels" between how the Jewish Church related to Jesus, and how the Adventist Church has related to the truth entrusted to it. We continued this theme by reviewing in the June and July issues Historical Data from the last four decades. With this issue we conclude the review of the data noting how the events in the 1960s related ultimately to the major revision of the Church's Fundamental Statement of Beliefs in 1980. The second article, "A Summary Analysis" again relates the trust committed to the Church - the giving of the Three Angels' Messages - and the reality of the present in the light of the warning given in the Writings. The conclusion to be drawn is as abhorrent to the professed Church of God today as was the message of Stephen to the Jewish Church in AD 34. We need to ponder long the warning given in the final paragraph of the first article which is quoted from Christ's Object Lessons. No doubt there will be those who will state that we have placed a wrong interpretation on the history of the Church from 1950 through 1980. These will also deny that what Jesus prophesied has significance for us, and that His words should be given instead a "spiritualized" interpretation.

In the final article we continue to explore the meaning of Jesus as "the Second Adam." How the current anti-Trinitarians apply the Biblical Father-Son relationship to the Godhead is "earthy" and from a human perspective, while the Scriptures relate the Sonship concept to the Second Adam motif. We had also hoped, if space allowed, that we would be able to take the original 1872 Statement on the Godhead and compare the changes and the meaning of those changes in the following 1931 and 1980 Statements of Belief. Is the issue really "the Heavenly Trio" concept, or is it the Nicene Creed? This we plan to explore in the next issue of WWN.

Page 2

HISTORICAL DATA REVIEWED
-3-

The initiative which resulted in the 1980 Statements ot Belief was made in 1965. Bernard E. Seton, secretary of the Southern European Division wrote from Berne, Switzerland, to the General Conference administration expressing his conviction that the 1931 Statement "needed revision both from a theological and literary point of view." The response was negative, and temporarily dropped.

In 1965, as a result of contacts made, at Vatican II, an informal meeting consisting of Seventh-day Adventists, and representatives of the World Council of Churches (WCC) was held. Those chosen to attend were selected by the organizers of this informal meeting; for the Adventists by Dr. B. B. Beach, and for the WCC by Dr. Lukas Vischer, of the Faith and Order, Secretariat. In reporting this event in So Much in Common, Beach indicates that subsequent meetings held annually were authorized by the three European Divisions of the Church (p. 98). While the indications suggest that Bernard Seton was one of the Adventists chosen by Beach for the first informal meeting, attempts to verify this fact have been met with silence, neither affirmation nor denial. The question then arises, why would Bernard Seton make the initial request for a revision of the 1931 Statement the same year of the informal meeting?

Whether there was a record kept of what was discussed at the first informal meeting, is not known; but it would be obvious that the purpose and objectives of the WCC would be included in any initial discussion as well as what Adventists believe. The first problem arises from the requirement stated in the WCC Constitution. Eligibility for membership is based on the individual church's expression of "agreement of the basis upon which the Council is founded." This basis reads:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (ibid., p. 40)

The 1931 Statement of the Adventist Church does not state the doctrine of the Trinity in the terms of the Nicene Creed as is required by the WCC Constitution. Was this a factor in Seton's request? This we do not know, but events which followed do verify that the subject of Adventist membership in the WCC was at the top of the list of' items discussed and that the Adventist conferees did not negate this possibility. Neither did Seton forget his original suggestion made in 1965.

In 1970, he was elected as an associate secretary of the General Conference and as one of his duties served as secretary of the Church Manual Committee. In this capacity, he pressed for revisions in the Church Manual. Due to an action taken at the 1946 General Conference which stated that no change could be made in the Church Manual except as would be authorized by the General Conference in session, there was "Official reluctance to change a jot or tittle." Because of this attitude, Seton refrained from including the 1931 Statement in the initial suggested editorial changes.

After the 1975 General Conference session, Seton believed "the time seemed ripe for attention to the Fundamentals," however he found that the Fundamentals were "surrounded with an aura of untouchability," and that he was the only one on the committee "convinced of the need for revision." He prepared a one-man revision of the 1931 Statement, and presented it to the chairman who in turn appointed a subcommittee to prepare a revision. The outcome was that in 1978 an ad hoc committee was given the responsibility of preparing a statement for presentation to the 1980 GC Session with "minimal revisions in deference to the generally held idea of the sacrosanct nature of the Manual and the sensitivities of the church membership respecting any change that might appear to touch the doctrinal beliefs of the Church."

When In mid-1979 a preliminary draft was completed Seton suggested that this document be sent to the theologians at Andrews University for their input, rather than wait for their challenges at the 1980 Session. This was done, and the result was that the University prepared its own set of Fundamentals which were presented to the 1979 Annual Council for adoption at the 1980 General Conference.

A word might be of interest in regard to the draft of the ad hoc committee. It was sent under a cover letter by the chairman to the General Conference officers, division presidents and union presidents of North America. The chairman noted "that formal and substantive changes in the 1931 statement had been made." The substantive changes, besides the added sections, was that "the sections on the Trinity had been expanded from two paragraphs to four." This enlargement continued in all sub-

Page 3

sequent revisions and modifications of the document as well as the final draft as voted at Dallas. And in all the prepared Statements available to us, the Statement as approved by the 1979 Annual Council, the revised Statement given to the delegates upon their arrival it the Dallas Session, and the affirmed Statement voted at the Session all contained the definition of the Trinity as stated in the WCC Constitution in contrast to the 1931 Statement, in other words, the Nicene Creed.

Our knowledge of how the ad hoc committee's Statement read on various concepts is limited to evaluations of this Statement in a secondary source (Spectrum, Vol. 1, # 1, pp. 3, 4), as we do not have a copy of the original in the Library. One point noted in Spectrum would lead us to believe that the Nicene Creed was being closely followed in the section on the Trinity. Speaking of Jesus, it stated that He was born of the Virgin Mary," capital "V" the same as in the Nicene Creed. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, p. 59)

As the "finger print" evidence points to the contacts made at Vatican II with WCC representatives as the source of the suggestion for a new Statement of Beliefs, the conclusion can be drawn that the 1931 Statement on the Trinity did not reflect in the judgment of the representatives of the WCC the affirmation of the Nicene Creed as required in their Constitution so as to have a working relationship with the Council. Whether, the ad hoc. committee's statement reflected the exact language required would have to be determined from the source document itself. However, that all successive proposed Statements, as well as the affirmed Dallas Statement, did is a matter of fact.

In October 1979, the Annual Council adpted the Statement of Beliefs which was to be presented to the General Conference Session. These, reflected in principle the Statement prepared by "the Committee of Twelve" ' as the Andrews University theologians were called. It was sent immediately to division committies as well as to unions and overseas colleges. It was supposed to have been published in the Adventist Review, at the same time, but for "reasons never disclosed" did not appear till the February 21, 1980 issue. Reaction from the field, and alterations made in Washington at the General Conference level produced a document which was presented to the delegates on their arrival to the 1980 Session which differed from the one voted at the 1979 Annual Council. Thus for one to accurately assess the thinking within Adventism at that time, one has three written statements to compare - the Andrew's University Statement from "the Committee of Twelve;" the Statement presented to the Delegates upon their arrival at Dallas; and the Statement finally voted at Dallas in session. Besides this, the thinking of the deligates at Dallas, as they discussed on the floor the final draft, would need to be included as it reflected what bona fide Seventh-day Adventists believed.

Since the Session, a book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... was published seeking to amplify these beliefs as well as to harmonize divergent views. Now there is being prepared for publication a 12th Volume for the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary series which in its 1000 planned pages will seek to accomplish the objective. The release date is set for 2000 in time for the General Conference Session. What can be done in a seven page issue of WWN? Nothing except to note a few major changes in thought as expressed in the wording of various statements. What can the Adventist in the pew do, or the dissdent who recognizes that something has gone wrong? Take the time to study carefully the differences between the 1872, the 1914, the 1931, and the 1980 Statements of Belief, then take the Bible and know for himself, "What saith the Lord?" Coupled with this study experience must be the personal desire to know not only what is truth, but also Him who is the truth.

In the remaining space allotted for this article, we shall cite examples of changes made, and the significance of those changes as they relate to what basic Adventism once was.

"Only" or One Among Others?

The Statements of Beliefs as published through 1914, including the original 1872 Statement declare "That the Holy Scriptures, of the Old & New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, [and] contain a full revelation of His will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice." (emphasis supplied) The 1931 Statement alter the phrases, "a full revelation" to " an all-sufficient revelation;" and "only infallible rule" to "only unerring rule," retaining the word, "only." The 1980 Statement indicates that "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoratative revealer of doctrines, the trustworthy records of God's acts in history." Gone is the critical word, "only." Why?

In #17, the 1980 declared of Ellen G. White: "As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing source of truth." The word, "author-

Page 4

itative" had been used in reference to "the Holy, Scriptures." The word, "only," cannot be used when a declaration is made that there are "two." The pioneers also addressed the subject of spiritual gifts in the 1872 Statement declaring "that these gifts are not designed to supersede, or take the place of, the Bible, which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation." They also noted that the Bible cannot take the place of the Holy Spirit whose work is to lead to an understanding of the Scriptures it had inspired, and that to "deny to the Spirit its place and operation," is to "deny that part of the Bible which assigns to it this work and position." (XVI)

The pioneers were, however, emphatic in their differentiation between the Bible and the Gifts of the Spirit. James White plainly declaired:

Every Christian is duty bound to take the Bible as the perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. (R&H, April 21, 1851)

From the view point of the pioneers of Adventism the 1980 Statement takes "an extremely dangerous position." Interestingly, those who now consider themselves "historic Adventists" take the same position as is stated in the 1980 Statement. Some of these voices even go so far as to declare that "the acceptance of the prophetic gift in the ministry of Sister White is essential ... to the acceptance of the Scriptures as inspired." (Our Firm Foundation, April 1989, p. 15) This is not "historic" Adventism, but rather "dangerous" teaching!

It should be noted that in all published Statements of Belief during the lifetime of Ellen G. White, her name did not appear in any statement, not even in the original 1931 Statement until amended in 1950 in a General Session of the Church. Even then, the added sentences only indicated that "the gift of the Spirit of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church ... and was manifest in the life and ministy of Ellen G. White." Not until 1980 did the Church exalt her Writings as a third canon of Scripture - "a continuing and authoritative source of truth."

Some questions naturally follow: Do the Writings of Ellen G. White contain truth? The answer is, Yes. Are portions of that truth not specifically stated in the Holy, Scriptures? Again, the answer must be, "Yes." One could possibly perseve of it as simply an amplification of Scripture. However, in one area cited in the previous issue of WWN [7(99), p. 5, col 2] this would be difficult to substantiate. There can be no question that through the teaching ministry of Ellen G. White, the "great controversy motif" of Scripture was expanded with "new light" introduced. (I am not speaking of, nor referring to, the book The Great Controversy) How then could this be worded in a Statement? Possibly, one could say that in the Writings is to be found "new light", insights which enlarge the perceptions of truth revealed in the Scriptures.

Additions and Omissions

The 1872 Statement and the Statement which had been published in the Yearbook till 1914 both defined the papacy as "the man of sin." (#13). The 1980 Statement of Fundamental Belief as well as the 1931 Statement omitted any reference to the papacy. Yet all the Statements set forth the necessity of the proclimation of the messages "symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14." It is impossible to proclaim the Third Angel's Message without reference to the papacy as "the man of sin."

Further, the 1980 Statement added a paragraph not found in any previous statement on "The Church." Not only does the Constitution of the World Council of Churches demand a "belief" in God according to the Nicene Creed, but also an acknowledgment of the WCC as "a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures." (So Much in Common, p. 40) Dutifully, this concept was witten into the 1980 Statement declaring " the church is a community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour." (#11). In #12 a distinction is made between this "universal church" and a remnant whose commission was to proclaim the Three Angel's Messages of Revelation 14. What does the Secoud Angel's Message mean? Is not Babylon composed of those who make profession of Christ, and yet have rejected the First Angel's Message? Is this position which made Adventism unique no longer valid?

First, we compromise in the 1955-1956 conferences with the Evangelicals our doctrinal positions on the Incarnation and the Atonement, and modify our concept of the "remnant" and redefine, "Babylon" so as to exclude the Evangelicals. (See Questions on Doctrine, pp. 188-189, 201) Then as a result of conversations with representatives of the World Council of Churches we

Page 5

adopt an ancient creed, and enlarge our concept of 'church" so as to permit a working fellowship with "the man of sin." This may be perceived as an unwarranted conclusion, but consider the following data:

In a section of the joint publication, So Much in Common, B. B. Beach has listed the results obtained from the contacts with the WCC. He wrote:

Since 1968 the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has been actively represented at the annual meeting of "Secretaries of the World Confessional Families." This participation is largely the result of the WCC/SDA Conversations and contacts made at the time of the Uppsala Assembly [of the WCC]. (p. 100)

Actually the Secretaries of these various church bodies have been meeting together annually since 1957. Though not directly connected with the WCC, they are recognized as a vital link of the ecumenical chain. In the World Council of Churches Yearbook 1995, the, various communions whose secretaries meet together annually are given. In this listing is not only the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (p. 54), but also the, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church (p. 55). The Adventist Church sits in council with "the man of sin"! It was through this organizational means that B. B. Beach was able to place in the hands of Pope Paul VI, the gold medallion, as a symbol of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We could continue to contrast the Statements of Belief from 1872 to 1980, but sufficient evidence has been given above to establish the fact that the Second Angel's Message is no longer believed in practice even though lip service is given to it. By setting aside its significance, the church is not prepared to give the Third Angel's Message which in its simple essence of truth, pure and and unadulterated, will declare that an image has been formed to "the man of sin." God knows this, and this is why He acted in permitting the prophecy of Jesus in Luke, 21:24 to be fulfilled. That is what Luke 21:24 is all about.

Again, there is a "parallel" between ancient literal Israel, and modern spiritual Israel. "The Jewish people cherished the idea that they were the favorites of heaven, and that they were always to be exalted as the church of God. They were the children of Abraham, they declared, and so firm did the foundation of their prosperity seem to them that they defied earth and heaven to dispossess them of their rights. But by lives of unfaithfulness they were preparing for the condemnation of heaven and for separation from God." (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 294)

A Summary Analysis

The prophecy of Jesus as given in Luke 21:20-24 is a unit of thought involving the literal city of Jerusalem after it ceased to be the earthly "holy city" of God. Jesus, indicated that the events connected with its history were to be signs to His followers - those who truly believe His word.

The first event which Jesus noted was a sign that would mark its destruction. He said - "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." The abomination that maketh desolate would be standing at its gates. Those who saw this sign and believed the words of Jesus were to flee not only the city but all Judea. This counsel would have no affect on the one still steeped in Judaism. He, with his fellow adherents, defied earth and heaven to be dispossessed of their assumed status before God.

Likewise the second sign evolving out of the history of Jerusalem would have little meaning to the worldling whose philosophy is aptly described by Peter - "since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:4). The fulfilling of "the times of the nations" would have meaning to those to whom God had given a responsibility to the nations. This would mean those to whom God entrusted the giving of the Three Angels' Messages "to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (Rev. 14:6). This trust with its significance is plainly stated in the Writings:

In a special sense Seventh-day Adventists have been set in the world as watchmen and light-bearers. To them has been entrusted the last warning to a perishing world. On them is shining wonderful light from the word of God. They have been given a work of the most solemn import, - the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels' messages. There is no other work of so great importance. They are to allow nothing else to absorb their attention.

The most solemn truths ever entrusted to mortals have been given us to proclaim to the world. The proclamation of these truths is to be our work. The world is to be warned, and God's people are to be true to the trust committed to them. (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 9, p. 19)

You will observe that the trust is not generalized, but all three angel messages are specified - "the first, second, and third." You will also note that the word "entrusted" is used twice, as well as the word, "trust."

Page 6

One cannot be true to the "trust" of the second angel's message, and sit in council with Babylon. Neither can one be preparing to give the third angel''s message with a "loud cry" and fellowship with "the man of sin" in ecumenical dialogue to "realize the goal of visible Church unity" - the goal of Rome as well as the WCC.

It is not that the Church has been left without warning. Using the same weighty word, "entrusted," the messenger of the Lord warned that “in the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to be weighed." If the appropriation of "the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her ... have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her [the giving of the first, second, and third Angel's messages] on her will be pronunced the sentence, 'Found wanting. '"(Ibid.,Vol. 8, p. 247)

Jarmes Edson White in his colporteur circulated book, The Coming King, called attention to the meaning of Luke 21:24. He wrote in 1898:

We also read that "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Luke 21:24. Jerusalem has never again come into possession of the Jews, and will not until "the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." This will be when the work of the gospel is finished." (p. 98)

This definitive statement was set aside in two paperback publications in the 1940s, one of which was used as a "Book of the Month" by the Voice of Prophecy. These books indicated that Israel would never be a nation again. Yet in 1948, the State of Israel was re-established. The Church corrected its position at the 1952 Bible Conference. Arthur S. Maxwell in the paper he presented to the Conference - " The Imminence of Christ's Second Coming" - noted this prophecy of Luke 21:24 as one of "three significant areas of unfulfilled prophecy which deserve close attention." (Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 2, p. 228) Observing that in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, their armies were unable to recapture Jerusalem, he asked, "What could be the reason?" and replied to his own question - "Only that the times of the Gentiles are not yeti fulfilled." (p. 230; emphasis supplied) Applying a Biblical principle (Gen. 15:16), Maxwell then concluded, " If so, then Jerusalem is to remain trodden down by Gentiles till the probationary time of all Gentiles be run out" (p. 231.) In this, Maxwell re-affirmed Edson White's conclusion.

June 1967 came and with it the restoration of the control of Jerusalem to the State of Israel. Probation did not close for the inhabitants of earth. What was to be done, jettison the words of Jesus, or take another look to see if we had misread them. In context, the KJV translates the word, "gentiles" as "nations" (τα εθνη) when used the first time in 24, and also in verse 25. This is a more accurate translation. "The times of the nations" (corporate bodies, not individuals) were coming to an end. What did we do? We betrayed the trust committed to the Church; we negated the second angel's inessage by our actions.

Still time lingered, Jerusalem though under the control of the State of Israel, remained only an occupied city. Then in 1980, the Church in General Session openly voted the positions required for ecumenical fellowship. On April 25, 1980, the new Statement of Beliefs were affirmed. Three months later, July 30, 1980, the Knesset of Israel voted that "Jerusalem united in its entirety is the capital of Israel." The prophecy of Jesus was completely fulfilled. God was saying something to the Church. It had betrayed its trust; its trust was revoked.

In AD 34, the Jewish Church as a corporate body fulfilled the 490 prophetic days allotted to it (Dan. 9:24), but the judgment on Jerusalem lingered another 36 years. Why, so that the individual Jew could decide whether the judgment of the Sanhedrin was correct, or whether it had indeed worked the execution of the Messiah. Every Seventh-day Adventist faces the same question only in a different form. Was the 1980 Statement of Beliefs a denial of the trust entrusted to the Church in the giving of the Three Angels' Messages? Was it the crucifixion of truth? The book of Acts outlines what the correct reaction of the individual Jew to the decision of the Sanhedrin in regard to Jesus should have been. Its recorded experiences speak to us today.

#

NOTE:   Manuscripts documenting the prophecy of Jesus and its fulfilment, along with the documentation on the Statements of Beliefs from 1872 to 1980 as well as the ecumenical activities of the Church in connection with the WCC are available through the Foundation office. Those interested may write, and we will return to you an "Order Form with the precise documents marked, and you Can make your own choice of which you wish to order. Send the request for the "Order Form" to P. 0. Box 69, Ozone, AR 72854.  [This service is currently unavailable; but some of the documents can be found on this website.]

Page 7

The Second Adam Motif
Jesus the Son of God

Adam was a "son of God" (Luke 4:38). In the previous issue of WWN - 7(99), p. 5, as we discussed the great controversy, we noted God's design in the creation of man. He was a new order of created being "designed to be a counterpart of God" (R&H, June 18, 1895). As the representative of the new race, Adam stood at its head as a "son of God."

This designation of status or position is held by the head of each created world. The Lord asked Job where he was when He "laid the foundations of the earth,"   "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (38:4-7). Even allowing for the parallelism which marks Hebrew poetry, this concept of "sonship" as designating the representative of each world of beings is strengthened in the prelude to Job's experiences. "There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them" (1:6). Satan was not "a son of God" but he came among them as representative of earth, having usurped Adam's dominion. When asked for his credentials, he asserted this dominion - "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (11:7), implying that he was its undisputed sovereign.

In highly symbolic language, the prophet Micah declares that the "tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion" shall retake "the first dominion" (4:8); for out of Bethlehem would "He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting" (5:2) Gabriel from the very throne of the Godhead declared that He who was to be born of Mary "shall be [future tense] called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35) He would be "the second Adam" and stand at the head of the race even as Adam had stood, "a son of God."

In the formulation of the covenant by which redemption would be assured to all who would renounce their allegiance to Satan, it was agreed that the Word in becoming flesh would rescue the lost dominion and in doing so would stand as the corporate head of the redeemed race, a son of God. To as many as would receive Him, to them He would give "authority to become sons of God" (John 1:12, Gr.) It would be a costly venture, for in "bringing many sons to glory ... the Captain of their salvation" would be made "perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10)

In the Messianic second Psalm, the coming One is designated as the Lord's "anointed" (Messiah), and in His kingship He will break those arrayed against Heaven with a "rod of iron" (Ps. 2:6, 9; Rev. 19:15). But who is this "anointed" One? None other than the "to be" second Adam, the Son of God designate. Wrote the Psalmist, "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (2:7). Paul in Hebrews tells us that these words became reality when God brought "the first in preeminence into the world" and commanded the angelic host to worship Him (1:5-6). Gabriel who knew the Beings of Heaven declared that that "holy One shall be called the Son of God."

Why should we continue to reason according to the flesh - an earthly Father-Son relationship - instead of searching the Scriptures so as to reason according to the Spirit of Truth, Who searcheth the deep things of God? (1 Cor. 2:10). At Bethlehem, God was manifest in the flesh. That God was the Word who had been with God from "the days of eternity" and Who from the time of the formulation of the "counsel of peace" became the Son of God designate, the second Adam. When He wrested the dominion from the power of Satan becoming "obedient unto death" (Phil. 2:8), that He might "through death destroy him who had the power of death" (Heb. 2:14), "God ... raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts. 13:33).

Having been raised from the dead, Jesus, the second Adam, ascended into highest Heaven there to be enthroned at the right hand of God as the Paracletos with the Father (1 John 2:1; Gr.) symbolized in Revelation as "a Lamb as it had been slain (5:6). He becomes the "surety of a better covenant" (Heb. 7:22) which "hope we have an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever after the order of Melchizedec." (Heb. 6:19-20)

That which was lost by the first Adam will be completely restored by the second Adam, and with Him on His throne will finally sit those who overcome "even as (He) also overcame" (Rev. 3:21); for they too, "loved not their lives unto death" (12:11).

 

WEBSITE

Adventistlaymen.com

E-MAIL
webmaster@adventistlaymen.com