XXXI - 1 (98)
“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)
The Eternal Verities -1
THE GODHEAD
Page 2
The Great Controversy Motif
Page 7
Editor's Preface
Thirty
years have now passed since we published the first issue of WWN. Our original
objective for the publication has not always been realized. (See
"Footnote" on page 7) It is our intent as we continue to publish to
achieve a better balance between our original objective
with the need to comment on obvious events of importance to concerned members
of the Adventist Community.
In
this first issue of 1998, we introduce a series on the Eternal Verities. These
will be summations, with added comments, from the 1997 Seminar studies on these
verities. We would suggest that each reader take time to study this first
article with his Bible open, and read, not in a hurried manner, but carefully
and prayerfully, asking himself, do the suggested deductions tally with the
Scripture exegetically. If after reading, or while reading, you have questions,
please, either write or call us and we will be most happy to discuss with you
the question, or questions you have. If we do not know the answer, we will tell
you and seek to find the answer for you.
The
second article is the type we have in mind when we suggest the concept of a
"thought paper." The idea was not original with me. When taking
graduate work at
Page 2
The Eternal Verities – 1
THE GODHEAD
The
great divide between two eternities; the great divide in time, and in the
chronological reckoning of time, was the Incarnation. However, had there been
no God, there would have been no Incarnation; and if no Incarnation, there
would have been no atonement; and if no atonement, no Intercessor. Thus the
"eternal verities" - the Godhead, the Incarnation, and the Atonement
- are inseparably linked as a chain connecting and reconnecting earth with
Heaven, and Heaven with earth.
As
we study the Godhead, we shall note various verses of Scripture and seek to
exegetically analyze them. Having done so, we shall draw certain conclusions,
and where there is apparent mystery in reconciling the revelation, we shall
leave it as a mystery until other texts which we will consider illuminate that
mystery. It will be a progressive study with the sole objective to comprehend
truth as far as a mortal can.
Luke 1:35
The angel [Gabriel] answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy [One] which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Son of God.
{The word, "thing" is not in the Greek text, and we have substituted the word, "One" inasmuch as the word, "holy" is an adjective, and requires an object to modify. The word, "Spirit" could just as well be substituted. Such usage is found in the Writings. See 4BC:1147}
This
text reveals the following data:
1) To speak "after the manner
of men," the Holy Spirit was paternally related to Jesus Christ; thus the
Holy Spirit pre-existed
2) The "Holy One" born of
Mary "shall be called the Son of God." Twice Gabriel reiterated this
fact. In Luke 1:32, he declared that this Holy One "shall be called the
Son of the Highest." Gabriel, who had "firsthand" information of
relationships involving God, did not say, "was"
or "is" the Son of God, but "shall be" called the Son of
God.
3) There was to be conceived in the womb of Mary a unique Being, never
before known in the Universe from all eternity - a God-man. Yet this unique
Being inherits eternity through the Eternal Spirit. He had a pre-existence in
Spirit, and now would become "flesh."
Now
follow closely the conclusions which this data permits one to draw:
1) The Holy Spirit existed prior to
2) Jesus "had a beginning at
3) With God as a "given" factor, you have Two Beings - God and
the Eternal Spirit - before
One
further factor to the "mystery" - He who had a beginning at
John 1:1-3
In beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and God was the Logos. The same was in beginning with the God. All things through Him came into being, and without Him came into being not even one [thing] which has come into being. (Greek, literal translation)
From
these verses, we can observe the following data:
1) There were Two Beings - the Logos
(the Word) and God.
2) The Logos was of the same essence as God. He was as much God as God
Himself. "God was the Logos." The article is used to denote separate
Beings; and omitted when defining the nature of the Logos.
Conclusions
which can be drawn:
1) Since "God" is defined as "Spirit" (John
We
are "flesh" in our reality; God is "spirit" in His reality.
Paul could use the word, "form" to designate both the reality of God,
and the reality of man. (Phil. 2:6, 7)
2) The Logos created all things in
conjunction "with the God." Paul states that "God ... created
all things by Jesus Christ." (Eph. 3:9)
3) In John 1:1-2, the word "was" (hn) is used 4x.
This is in the Greek imperfect tense and denotes continuous action in past
time. John is simply saying that there never was a time when the Logos was not.
To Page 4
[On page 3
we have reproduced the Greek text of John 1:1-35 from the Analytical Greek
New Testament edited by Barbara and Timothy Friberg.
On this text we have circled the verb
hn (was), and designated the absence
of the article before
arch and qeoV with arrows. The letters under
hn tell you that it is
verb ( V ) in the indicative mood ( I ) of the imperfect tense ( I ), active in
voice ( A ), third person ( Z ) and singular ( S ) ]
_files/image002.jpg)
Page 4
Genesis 1:1-2, 26
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. ... And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
The Hebrew for "God" in these verses is Elohim, plural in form. It is used with singular verbs and adjectives, and thus perceived as the "pluralis majesticus" or majestic plural. However, in verse 26, the Elohim concur in "Let us." The question arises - How do you obtain a singular force from a plural word? Here is where the Shema of Israel enters the picture. It reads - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord God our God is one Lord." (Deut 6:4) [See page 3 for Hebrew text] The key word is the compound word (two words), Elohenu - "Gods" and the suffix, a plural pronoun, "our." "The masculine plural [In this case Elohim] has before all suffixes the ending ay. ... But certain modifications in the form of this ending take place, due to the character of the following consonants: ... b. The original form ay is contracted to e (הֵי) before all plural suffixes." (Elements of Hebrew, Wm. R. Harper, p.144) This is the case in the Shema of Israel. Thus it reads literally, "Jehovah, our Gods is one Jehovah."
The
word for "one" (Echad) expresses oneness in duality. The word appears
in Genesis 1:5 - "There was evening; there was morning, day one (echad)"
It is also used in Genesis
Let
us return now to the text in Genesis 1:2 - "And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters." The Hebrew word translated,
"moved" is merahepheth - brooded. Gesenius in his lexicon,
observes that this word in the Piel Hebrew form (as
used here) implies "to cherish one's young, to brood over, as the eagle
its young (Deut 32:11) ... of the Spirit of God as thus brooding over and
vivifying the chaotic mass of earth. Gen. 1:2" (p.976)
Does
this suggest the conclusion that the Spirit of God which "vivified"
the mass at creation is the Logos of John 1:1-3, by which nothing was created
except by Him?
Exodus 3:13-14
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto
the children of
The
Hebrew word translated, "I AM" is the imperfect form of the verb, hahyah,
"to be." Most of us have names which are classified as nouns. Not so
the name chosen by God to designate Himself. Further the verb is in the
imperfect tense denoting unfinished action. Gesenius suggests in his Lexicon
that the meaning of "I Am that I Am" is that
God "will never be other than the same" and is. (p.384) In other
words, by this name God designates Himself as eternal and immutable. This word
is the root for the name Jehovah. Jesus in His humanity claimed this name for
Himself. (John 8:58)
A
comparison of various verses in Revelation (
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given . . . and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
Young's
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible,
following closely the Hebrew, renders the titles of the prophesied God-man, as:
"Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of
Eternity, Mighty God." The expression, "the
Father of Eternity" is the best that human language can find to express
the eternal pre-existence of the Logos. Eternalness is an attribute of Deity,
and thus "eternity" is synonymous with God, and not a creation of
God. It is the "time" frame of God's ever-existence which the human
mind, limited as it is by time as we know it, cannot comprehend.
The
same thought is given in Micah 5:2 where the Messianic prophecy, revealing the
place of the birth of the Coming One, describes His "goings forth" as
being "from everlasting." The word translated "everlasting"
(gohlahm)
is the same word used in Psalm 90:2 - "From everlasting to everlasting,
thou art God." Again, the eternalness of God cannot be limited because of
the limitations of human language and thought to express or comprehend what
"everlasting" really is. He who has existed from all eternity comes
forth in time from that incomprehensible reality.
Zechariah 6:12-13
Thus saith 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.
The
literal Hebrew reads that "the counsel of peace shall be between the Two
of Them." It was "through our Lord Jesus Christ" that man could
be once more at peace with God. (Rom. 5:1) He, as the great High Priest, sits
upon His "throne of grace" (Heb.
Page 5
Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest; but He who said unto Him, Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee. As He saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the Order of Melchisedec.
The
"Sonship" came to Christ in the same way that the High Priesthood
came to Him - by the calling and decree of God. This calling is emphasized in
the context of Hebrews 1. The rhetorical question is asked - "For unto
which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a
Son?" (1:5) The first question is drawn from
Psalms 2:7, and the second from II Samuel 7:14.
The
Messianic second Psalm speaks of Christ by three titles or offices: the
"Anointed" One (ver. 2); the "King" (ver. 6); and the
"Son" (ver. 7). He who became the Anointed One (Messiah), and the
Son, and who will come as King of kings, emanated from times eternal as the
Logos. It is clearly stated in language that should not be misunderstood by
anyone, that the "Sonship" was by "decree." Peter set forth
to Cornelius that He who is "Lord of all" was "anointed ... with
the Holy Spirit and with power" at His baptism. (Acts 10:36-38) While He
is now a priest upon His throne, He anticipates His return as King of kings and
Lord of lords. (Rev. 19:16) In this prophetic picture of Revelation, He is
called "the Word (Gr. Logos) of God."
When
one reviews the second quotation from II Samuel 7:14 in context, he can see, if he has eyes to see, that it is a literal promise made
to David concerning Solomon. No stretch of the imagination can perceive of
Solomon as having been "conceived" or "generated" by God.
It was a commitment by God to David to make his son, Solomon, His son. Paul,
recognizing this as an apt illustration of the relationship of the Logos to God
in the redemptive process, lifted it from context and applied it to the
"Sonship" of Jesus Christ.
In
this same setting of Hebrews 1 there is another word, firstbegotten (prwtotokoV), which has been misrepresented so
that its true meaning is misunderstood. The same word is used of Christ in
Colossians
To
this same Son by decree, pre-eminent in every way, God speaks - "Thy
throne, 0 God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
(Heb. 1:8) He "forever" will be as He "ever" has been, the I AM. He "laid the foundation of the earth; and the
heavens are the works of His hands." (v.10)
Romans 9:4-5
My kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; ... and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God, blessed for ever. Amen.
In
these verses, Paul is contrasting the origin of the Messiah - from the
"flesh" of
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at anytime; the only begotten Son; which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.
This
verse is the final verse of the preface to John's gospel, which is recognized
as one of the last, if not the last book written of the books in the New
Testament. Textual evidence is divided as to whether this verse should read -
"only begotten Son" or "only begotten God." It must be
understood, which ever reading is chosen, that John is writing from his
viewpoint in time. He is saying that He who had declared Him in the flesh
(verse 14), was then, at the time of the writing, in the "bosom of the
Father."
The Greek word, monogenhV, is translated by two words in the KJV, "only begotten." This is a faulty translation and thus a false interpretation is drawn by those promoting the neo-Gnosticism.
In
analyzing this word, we will first give every reference in the New Testament
where this word is used and how it is translated in each verse:
Luke 7:12- the only son of his mother
John
Heb. 11:17- offered up his only
begotten (son),
I
John 4:9 - God
sent his only begotten Son
A
careful comparison of the use of monogenhV
in the New Testament indicates that only John uses the word in
reference to Jesus. To translate it as "only begotten" places the
Scrip-
Page 6
tures in error as seen by its use in
Hebrews 11:17. Isaac was not the "only begotten" son of Abraham; but
he was uniquely begotten, a son of promise by the intervention of God. The
Greek word,
monogenhV is from two words meaning
"only" and "kind," thus could be translated "only
(one) of a kind," or unique.
The
translation "only begotten" in John's Gospel and First Epistle,
originated with the Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. It entered early
English translations of the Bible through the influence of the Latin Vulgate,
the official Bible of the Roman Church. Various Old Latin manuscripts which
preceded 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, about one hundred years later, was the first to use gegennemenon, the correct Greek word for "begotten" if used in reference
to Christ to affirm that He was "begotten of God before all ages."
This Greek word is never used in the Bible in reference to the pre-incarnate Christ.
"The idea that Christ was 'begotten' by the Father at some time in
eternity past is altogether foreign to the Scriptures." (See Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol.5, p.902)
To Be Continued
The Great Controversy Motif
Perhaps
one of the greatest contributions, if not the greatest, to Adventist thinking,
which God introduced through His "messenger," was the concept of the
great controversy between Christ and Satan. Through the Writings we learn that
the plan and purpose of God for the creation of man was the spark that ignited
a rebellion which had been long - we do not know how long - simmering in the
heart of one of the highest of the angelic orders - Lucifer.
In
one of the earliest of the recorded visions on the great controversy motif,
Ellen White wrote:
The Lord has shown me that Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Jesus Christ ... And I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus ... He wished to be the highest in heaven, next to God, and receive the highest honors. Until this time all heaven was in order, harmony and perfect subjection to the government of God. (Spiritual Gifts, Vol.1, p.17)
Scripture
reveals that Satan, as Lucifer before his fall, was one of "the anointed
cherub(s) that covereth," and was so set by God
(Eze. 28:14). Sanctuary symbolism reveals that there were two cherubs that
stood in the presence of God. At this point, we must introduce a suggestive
thought which cannot be documented. Michael was the other covering cherub as
His first step of condescension, made mandatory because of His exercise of the
Divine prerogative and power to create. From what is revealed, this
condescension was not of the magnitude of what would be the ultimate. "God
is spirit" (John
It
is also reasonable to assume that Lucifer was party to the conversation between
God and the Logos (John 1:1). The plan of the Elohim was to create a "new
order" of beings. The exact language used by the Lord's messenger is
thought provoking; "Human beings were a new and distinct order." (R&H, Feb.11, 1902) "God created
man a superior being; he alone is formed in the image of God, ..." (R&H, April 21, 1885) Then in 1895,
Ellen White wrote - "Man is the crowning act of the creation of God, made
in the image of God, and designed to be a counterpart of God; ..." (R&H, June 18) Yet man was created
flesh, not spirit. The difference between "flesh" and
"spirit" is spelled out in Scripture. Jesus said - "A spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39) Yet God who is
"spirit" has a form which has been reflected in the image of man
(Phil. 2:6). Further, the resurrected body of Jesus, while no longer limited as
in the incarnate state, is referred to as a "glorious body," into
which likeness all the saved will be imaged (Phil. 3:21).
At
this point some interesting questions can arise, the answers to which we do not
have. Did Lucifer question the feasibility of creating a being of flesh rather
than one of spirit? What was the purpose of creating a being of flesh and one
of that flesh becoming "a counterpart of
God"? How far into eternity was God planning and thinking? When man
sinned, was one basic element in the accusation, the suggestion that God did
not create one capable of withstanding the power of a "spirit" being?
It needs to be kept in mind that the incarnation is described as "a divine
spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh." (YI,
It
is at this point that a problem behind the incarnation comes into focus. Adam
was created a mature being, not a baby, and did not have a childhood, nor an adolescence. It was with this mature being of flesh with
which Satan contended and won. All that the Logos needed to demonstrate was
that in the flesh in which Adam was created, He could conquer. However, the
Logos did more than that. He took the flesh of fallen man and conquered, and
then even submitted to death itself as a ransom for many.
At
this point another question arises. How could the Logos get to the mature state
of Adam, so that the contest could be unquestioned? If God created another body
of flesh, it would not be of the line of Adam, and perhaps on the second try,
He could do a better job, or at least it could so be alleged. So He came taking
our flesh and blood, which meant He would begin the contest handicapped from
where the first Adam stood. So coming as a baby,
Page 7
how could He be preserved, till as an accountable being He could make His
own decisions?
Various
theories and assumptions have been made to circumvent the reality of the
condescension. The Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception is the basic
concept from which all other concepts are but variation in degree. The
evangelical position is that only a part of the womb of Mary was sanctified
from which Jesus was conceived. Certain "historic" Adventist voices
are speaking of Jesus coming as a born again, converted person. Let us let that
which is hidden remain hidden, from the developing fetus through the babyhood
of Jesus. Jesus did make a decision when at twelve years of age, and that is
recorded. He declared to His mother, "Wist ye
not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Luke 2:49) The same
Father whose business He perceived, kept Him till His hour was come.
The
response is that Jesus then had an advantage over us. Yes and No. Let us
consider the "No" first. When I, a sinner, accept "the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.
Furthermore,
while Jesus emptied Himself at the incarnation, laying aside the
"form" of God, would it be too much to suggest that at His baptism,
He laid aside the use of His powers as God manifest in the flesh, and accepted
what we each have to accept when we are placed on vantage ground - the guidance
of the Holy Spirit. To perceive of the incarnation and its objective outside of
the motif of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, is to fail to take
in the whole of God's plan and purpose in the original creation of man.
Further, this failure has blurred our perception of what the judgment scene in
Daniel is telling us.
A Footnote
This
issue of WWN begins our 31st year of publication. The original idea and
objective in publishing was to produce a monthly "thought paper,"
with articles to stimulate thinking - articles which might on occasion raise
some questions and challenges. Over the years, the issues of WWN have tended to
report events within the community of Adventism of a questionable nature and
comments on these events. We plan to veer the issues of 1998 toward the
original objective, and make secondary the reporting of events within the
community of Adventism which are of a questionable nature. The above article on
the great controversy motif is an example of the "thought paper" type
of articles we have in mind. We do not expect the readers to agree with every
thought expressed, but we would hope that all who read would do some thinking.
We will preface each such article with the intent of its being written, or will
make a notation even as we are doing now.
As we have written on other occasions, not only are the youth in their studies to be trained to be thinkers, but adults as well need to come to grips with concepts which require more than surface thinking. Traditionalism under the guise of "historic" Adventism, only keeps us Laodicean bound. One may break away from the corporate structure, but still not open the door for Jesus to come in and "sup" with him.