I have reserved to myself 144,000 who will not bow to the image
They have tore down thine altars O father, they have built an image of BAAL
Answers to objections
In “The Good News About God” series we have seen vital, and dynamic truths about God our Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and their Holy Spirit. While these studies have been truth packed, due to time constraints, we have not been able to deal with every Bible text that comes up in discussions concerning the subject of the Godhead. That is where this study fits into the series. It is here that we wish to carefully examine some texts that we have not had the chance to explore, yet that are commonly brought into the discussion, especially by those who accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and the various forms of it. To help examine some of these texts, we have assembled a panel of Bible students composed of:
Pastor David Clayton of
Brother Lynnford Beachy of Smyrna Gospel Ministries. Brother Beachy is a real student of the Scriptures. Lynnford is the editor of Present Truth magazine, a monthly publication with a special focus on presenting study materials on the plan of redemption. Brother Howard Williams, of
What says the Bible, the blessed Bible?
This, my only question should be.
The teachings of men do so often mislead me,
What says the book of God, to me?
The Father In prior studies in this series, we have found the Bible teaches that there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth and mercy; unchangeable and everywhere present by the Holy Spirit. This “one God” is not a unified committee of three beings, nor one being that takes on three different modes of existence either simultaneously or at different times. Neither is this one God “a trinity of three persons in one being. The Trinity doctrine stated in its simplest form is: “One God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal persons.” (Fundamental Belief #2 of the
Jesus Himself, praying to the Father said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)
Instead of the one true God that Jesus knew, the Trinity doctrine teaches that there is in reality three supreme individuals, who are co-equal, co-eternal, immortal, all worthy of worship, adoration, and service. This teaching destroys the sovereignty of God. This theology confuses people as to whom they worship, pray to, repent toward, and have faith in. As we will notice later, it also attempts to destroy the atoning death of Jesus.
Jesus Christ
In this series we have studied extensively about this one Lord and mediator, Jesus Christ. He is the only begotten Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom the Father created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he lived our example, died a total death on the cross for our sacrifice, and was raised on the third day by God the Father.
The Bible teaches that at some point in eternity past, only one divine Being existed. Then, this one divine being brought forth a Son, “not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person.” (Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895) The Bible does not try to explain how this process of begetting or birth occurred, yet it emphatically maintains the literal Sonship of Jesus Christ prior to His incarnation and birth in
Now let us review some of the Bible texts that clearly demonstrate the real truth about Jesus Christ.
That most loved, and best known of all Bible texts, John 3:16, states: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Instead of teaching that Jesus is the second person of a triune God, the Scriptures teach that He is the only begotten Son of the Father. This is also clearly brought out in Proverbs 8:24, 25. There Christ, speaking of Himself under the symbol of wisdom, says: “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.” The Bible teaches that God demonstrated His great love in giving His only begotten Son to die the death we deserve and then the Father raised His Son from the grave.
Speaking to the Jewish leadership after the healing of a lame man, the Apostle Peter declared, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.” (Acts 4:10) And Paul wrote: “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” (Galatians 1:1)
In John 14:28, Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I.” And along this same thought, the Apostle Paul writes, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) Paul continues in the same epistle and states that after all sin and evil have been put down and destroyed, “the Son also himself [shall] be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:28)
In John 5:26, Jesus said, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” This life of God flows out through His Son into all creation.
Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews writes, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:1, 2) No wonder we read in Philippians 2:10, 11, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Beloved, the false theories about Christ and God teach that the terms “Father” and “Son” are merely titles to help us to understand the “role” which deity acted out. This is actually deceiving people about God. This theology concludes with a belief that when God gives us His Son, instead of giving up a person who was once a literal part of Himself, He is giving us someone other than Himself; thus not giving of Himself at all. With this understanding, people are left without the knowledge of the supreme sacrifice and love of our heavenly Father.
The Holy Spirit
Before we go to our questions and answers, let us review a little on the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ said, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24) Beloved, we have seen that the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit is the non-bodily, personal presence of God himself. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit is the third being of a triune God.
In Genesis 1:26, the Bible says that Adam, (mankind), was made in the image of God. This is important because Paul, writing in 1 Corinthians 2:11, states: “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” In other words, man’s spirit is to man, as God’s Spirit is to God. When I say, “My spirit is grieved,” you would not think for a moment that I am speaking of someone other than myself. My spirit is my mind, character, and personality. It is the element that is really me. You can cut my hand away, and I am still me. Cut my arms off, I am still me. Cut my legs off and I am no less a person, even though I have less of a body.
It is by God’s Spirit that He is omnipresent. In Psalm 139:7, David writes, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” Here David uses Hebrew parallelism to express himself. This type of Hebrew parallelism expresses a thought one way, then uses a complementary thought to express it another way. In the first line he states, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit?” The second thought that is equivalent to the first is, “whither shall I flee from thy presence?” David is saying that God’s presence is equivalent to God’s Spirit.
Now we have just given a short sampling of some of the Bible passages used before in this series. I encourage you to go back and review and study more. Remember, hearing the truth again is not grievous, but safe.
Our format will be simple. A text, or a question based on a text that is often used to promote a false theory of God, will be presented and one or more of our panelists will respond with a Bible-based answer.
Bible texts that may seem
to support a Triune God
We’ll begin with a text that even Trinitarians have found difficult to fully explain, but one they believe supports their position. It’s found in 1 John 5:7, 8. It reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” Brother David, at first glance that would at least seem to support the Trinity doctrine. What can you tell us about that?
David Clayton
Most reputable authorities agree that a part of these verses was most certainly added to the Bible during the period known as the “Dark Ages.” Specifically, the part which reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” If the questionable portion were taken out, the verse would read:
For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Of all the questionable verses in the Bible this one has the most evidence against it being a legitimate part of Scripture. F.M. Blaiklock, in the Commentary on the New Testament, states:
…Erasmus omitted the passage from the first printed Greek Testament of 1516, but undertook to introduce the words if a Greek manuscript containing them could be produced. He was faced with a late manuscript which did in fact contain the passage, and against his judgment kept his promise. So, by way of Erasmus’ 1522 edition the interpolation invaded the text of the Greek New Testament. The action of the RV in cutting out the spurious words was tardy justice. We should treasure every word of the inspired record, but we want no invasion of that record by the addition of men, however sound the theology expressed.—F. M. Blaiklock, Commentary on the New Testament, p.246)
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary says basically the same thing:
The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus. It is said that Erasmus offered to include the disputed words in his Greek Testament if he were shown even one Greek MS that contained them. A library in
Some people would object strongly to the very suggestion that errors may have crept into the text of the Bible in any way whatsoever. However, it is interesting to note what Ellen White had to say concerning this in Early Writings, pages 220, 221.
I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed.
Even more interestingly, Ellen White, in all her thousands of pages of writing and thousands of Scripture quotations never once quoted 1 John 5:7, the text which we are presently considering.
However, even if we were to accept this verse as a legitimate part of Scripture, does it really teach three beings? In verse 8 we are told that there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood and that these three agree in one. That is, they bear a united witness.
Here we see that one does not have to be a living person to bear witness. The water bears witness and the blood bears witness, yet no one would suggest that the water and blood are persons. Why then should we insist that because the spirit bears witness in heaven it must be a living person?
There are three ways in which witness is borne to the truth in heaven. These witnesses are one, or they bear a united witness. It does not mean that they are one person, one being, or one God. Jesus explained what this oneness means when He prayed that we all might be one as He and His father are one. (See John 17:22.) Not that we might become one human, but simply that we might be in perfect harmony, even as He and His Father are in perfect harmony.
In heaven, God bears witness to the truth, so does Christ, and so does the Holy Spirit! However, while God and Jesus may witness audibly by the words they speak, the Holy Spirit, whether in heaven or on earth, witnesses by making impressions on the hearts of those who are willing to learn, giving them understanding of the truths of the plan of salvation.
In heaven there are three avenues of witness, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On the earth, there are three, the water, the spirit and the blood. Are the three on earth a Trinity because they are mentioned in the same breath, or because they agree in one? Certainly no intelligent person would claim this. By the same reasoning we would have to conclude that the Father, the word and the spirit are not necessarily a Trinity simply because they are one (or are in harmony) or because they are mentioned in the same breath.
Allen
I believe that David’s answer really made that very clear. Matthew 28:19 is another text used a lot to teach the doctrine of a triune God. Who would like to respond to that?
Lynnford
I would like to address that Brother Allen. This verse is probably used more than any other verse in the Bible to try to prove that God is made up of three persons. Let’s read this verse ourselves. Jesus said:
“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) What did the disciples think when they heard this? Did they understand Christ to be commanding them to baptize people into a trinity? If so, we would expect to find them using this formula whenever they baptized people.
Let’s turn in our Bibles to where this command of Jesus was obeyed for the first time. In Acts 2:38 Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Peter instructed these people to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, rather than in the names of three separate persons.
Just in case this was a slip on Peter’s part, let us take a look at some of the other places where people were baptized. In Acts 10:48 we read that Peter “commanded [Cornelius and his brethren] to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” From these verses it is plain that Peter didn’t understand Christ to have commanded him to baptize into a trinity.
must have understood the command of Jesus differently than most Trinitarians understand it today. As we continue in the book of Acts we find that Peter was not alone in his understanding of this command.
In Acts 8:16, when Peter and John came to
What about Paul? Keep in mind that he claimed to have received the gospel directly from Christ. How did Jesus teach Paul to baptize?
When Paul visited
There is no record in the Bible of anyone baptizing in three separate names of three individual persons. Now there are a few possibilities that could explain why the disciples always baptized in the name of Jesus.
- The disciples may have been in direct rebellion against Jesus.
- They may have misunderstood what He said.
- The text may be a gloss. Perhaps Jesus never gave this command.
Now, none of these sound reasonable. But there is another possibility.
- The disciples may have understood the command of Jesus differently than most Trinitarians understand it today.
Jesus commissioned us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Was Jesus trying to teach us that God is a Trinity? I do not think so, or He would have been contradicting other statements He made, and many statements made by other Bible writers. There is nothing in the verse that says that God is made up of three persons. There is nothing in the verse that says who God is. The word “God” is completely missing from the verse. We learn elsewhere in the Bible that the “one God” of the Bible is the Father. Paul wrote that there is, “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:6) The Bible uses the phrase, “God the Father” thirteen times, but it never says, “God the Son,” or “God the Holy Spirit.”
The word name in the Bible often refers to a person’s character. Jacob’s name was changed to
So we can see that Jesus was not giving a specific formula of words for the preacher to recite at a baptism. We know this because:
- There is no record in the Bible of anyone using that formula at a baptism.
- All the recorded examples of people baptizing after this command was given show that it was done in the name of Jesus.
- It would not be possible to literally baptize in the proper name of the Holy Spirit because the Bible makes no mention of such a name.
The word “name” in Matthew 28:19 has reference to the character rather than to proper names of individuals. Once we realize that Christ was commissioning His disciples to baptize into the character of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is easier for us to understand His words. This command is closely connected with the command to teach. Christ wants His disciples to understand the truth about God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three of these are vital in a Christians life. The Father loved us so much that He gave His Son to die for our sins, and He gave His Spirit to guide us in our lives. If a person lacks the knowledge of any of these aspects, his relationship with God will suffer. That is why Christ specifically mentioned all three.
From this we can see that Matthew 28:19 certainly does not prove a Trinity, nor does it prove that the Holy Spirit is a separate being from the Father and His Son. If we are to find proof of these doctrines in the Bible, we must look somewhere else.
Allen
Brother Howard, 2 Corinthians 13:14 has been dubbed by some as the most sublime text of all Scripture, especially in light of the supposed teaching of the Trinity. It says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” Doesn’t this seem to speak of three individuals in the Godhead?
Howard
These are Paul’s final words from his second letter to the Corinthian Christians.
Some say these words proves a Trinity, but I want you to examine these words with me, and let us see if Paul was, by these words, saying a Trinitarian farewell. The text speaks of:
- 1.) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
- 2.) The love of God.
- 3.) The communion of the Holy Ghost.
In this verse the title God is used only once and it is used in reference to a specific person. Obviously, it is God who loves us and, according to John 3:16, He loves us so much that He did something, and that was, He gave His Son to give grace to us that we can be drawn into communion with Them both through the Spirit. This is noted in John 14:23.
Please observe that Paul did not say we would commune with the Holy Ghost, but he speaks of “the communion of the Holy Ghost.” What does he mean by this? When Paul spoke of the communion of the Holy Ghost, he was showing how our communion would be. It would be by the means of the Holy Spirt that we would commune or fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:3 states, “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”
According to John, we have fellowship with the Father and his Son, through the Holy Spirit. So Paul wanted to have this experience remain with these Christians in
Allen
Pastor Clayton, Matthew 3:16, 17 describes the baptism of Jesus. The Father spoke and the Spirit descended. What does this really mean?
David
Let me read the text: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Trinitarians insist that in these verses we see a clear demonstration of the Trinitarian nature of God. Without adding human bias or wishful thinking, what may we discover from reading the passage?
Ellen White sheds light on this point in the Review and Herald of January 21, 1873. She says,
Never before had angels listened to such a prayer as Christ offered at his baptism, and they were solicitous to be the bearers of the message from the Father to his Son. But, no! direct from the Father issues the light of his glory. The heavens were opened, and beams of glory rested upon the Son of God and assumed the form of a dove, in appearance like burnished gold. The dove-like form was emblematical of the meekness and gentleness of Christ. While the people stood spell-bound with amazement, their eyes fastened upon Christ, from the opening heavens came these words: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Answers to Objections
(Concerning the truth about God as often given by Trinitarians, “Jesus Only”, and others who oppose the truth about God.)
Part 2
As many of our readers are aware, we have been producing a series of video and audio cassette tapes on the truth about God. We have entitled this series, “The Good News About God.” “Answers to Objections” is taken from our latest study in this series.This study carefully examines some Bible texts that are used to object to the truth about God. To help examine some of these texts, we assembled a panel of Bible students composed of: Pastor David Clayton and Brother Howard Williams of
Last month we covered the introduction of the study which included a short outline on the truth about God. After the outline we examined questions on the following texts: 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; and Matthew 3:16, 17. This article continues the study.
Allen
Genesis 1:26 states, “And God said, Let us make man in our image.” Brother Beachy, who is the “us” in this verse and doesn’t this teach a triune God?
Lynnford
That’s a very good question, Brother Allen. Some people suppose that we can find the Trinity doctrine in the first chapter of the Bible. They make this claim because the Hebrew word elohim that was translated “God” is plural, and they believe the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 help to support the Trinity doctrine as well.
The Hebrew word elohim is plural, but it never indicates plurality when referring to the true God. Every time elohim is used referring to the true God it has a singular meaning. Gesenius’ Lexicon calls it “the plural of majesty” and the Brown-Driver’s Brigg’s Hebrew Lexicon says that when it refers to the true God it is “plural intensive” with a “singular meaning.” There are a few places in the Bible where elohim has a singular meaning even when it refers to men or false gods. For example read Exodus 7:1 and 1 Kings 11:5.
Also, whenever New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament they used the singular Greek word theos to denote the true God as a translation of the word elohim. This proves that elohim has a singular meaning when referring to the true God. If elohim really indicated a plurality in the true God, then the New Testament writers should have been consistent and used the plural form of theos when speaking of God. Instead, they used the singular every time, even though they used the plural form 8 times when referring to men or false gods. (You can read these for yourself in John 10:34, & 35; Acts 7:40; 14:11; & 19:26; 1 Corinthians 8:5; and Galatians 4:8.)
Regarding the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26, the pronouns are plural in the original Hebrew, forcing it to be translated, “God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”
Those who claim this verse teaches a Trinity point out that elohim is plural and the pronouns are plural, therefore there must be a plurality in God. If we’re to take this explanation we would have to translate it, “Gods said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” This translation would do injustice to the true meaning of elohim, and it would have several Gods speaking in unison, saying, “Let us make man in our image.” Is that what God is trying to tell us? Did several Gods create man, or was there just one?
Those who promote the idea that Gods said, “Let us make man,” run into a big problem in the next verse, because all of a sudden the pronouns switch to singular, both in Hebrew and in English, while the plural elohim is still used. Why was there a change? The next verse says, “So God made man in His own image, in the image of God created He him.” If we’re expected to believe that Gods are speaking in verse 26, to be consistent we must believe that Gods are being referred to in verse 27, but instead of plural pronouns the Bible changed to singular pronouns as if only one person was referred to.
Now, there is a very simple explanation for this. The use of plural pronouns after a singular noun doesn’t indicate that the singular noun should really be plural. For example, let us suppose the president said to the attorney general, “let us make a law.” This wouldn’t indicate that there are two presidents just because he used a plural pronoun. The plural applies to the two who will be involved in making the law rather than to the president. In like manner, the “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26 applies to the Two who were involved in the creation of the world rather than to the one who is speaking.
The Bible says, “God… created all things by Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 3:9) It is obvious that the God in this verse is someone other than Jesus Christ. And according to Hebrews 1:2, God the Father created all things by His Son.
Now we can know for sure who is speaking in Genesis 1:26, and to whom He is speaking. God the Father said to His Son, “let us make man in our image.” Remember, Christ is “the express image” of the Father, so anyone created in the Father’s image is automatically created in His Son’s image.
Commenting on Genesis 1:26, Ellen White wrote:
“After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God says to his Son, ‘Let us make man in our image.’” (The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, pages 24, 25)
Allen
Brother Lynnford’s answer demonstrates the principle of exegesis, that of allowing the text to speak for itself and taking the truth from the text instead of reading our own ideas into the text, a procedure the theologians call eisegesis.
Brother David, Jesus said in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one.” The advocates of the “Jesus Only” doctrine use this text to teach there is only one person, who is both a Father and a Son as well as the Holy Spirit. What can you tell us about it?
David
There really should be no difficulty in understanding the true meaning of this text if we simply go by the rule that Scripture should be used to explain Scripture. In three verses in John, chapter 17, Jesus prayed for unity among His disciples and in all three places He compared the unity that He desired among His people to the unity which exists between Himself and God the Father. Note His words in the following passages:
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11)
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21)
“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:22)
Nobody would be foolish enough to suggest that Jesus wanted His disciples to become one person, or even one being. His meaning is that He wants them to be united, to be in perfect harmony, to enjoy a unity of thought, purpose and action such as He enjoyed with His Father. This text no more indicates a unity of substance between the Father and the Son, than the unity between Christians suggests that all Christians are of one substance.
Allen
Thank you, David. Brother Lynnford, Isaiah 9:6 is another text that some people are confused on. Both the “Jesus only” and the Trinitarians use this text to show the oneness of God and Christ. What can you share with us that can clarify this verse?
Lynnford
You’re right Brother Allen, a lot of people get confused by this verse because Jesus is called “the everlasting Father.” Let us turn there and read it. It says,
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
Now, is this verse teaching that Christ is God the Father? If so, how can He be the Son? And if He is both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity, for a trinity is three. This verse certainly doesn’t support a trinity doctrine. And, as we compare Scripture with Scripture, we can be sure that neither does it support the “Jesus only” doctrine.
Jesus is referred to as the Father, not the Father of Himself, but the Father of the children which His Father gave Him.
In Hebrews 2:13 Paul quoted from Isaiah 8:18 and applied it to Christ. Here Christ says, “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me.”
Christ is called everlasting, and that is appropriate, since He will last forever. He is also called Father, not of Himself, but of the children which God has given Him.
Many Trinitarians have said that the word everlasting in this verse means that Christ always was, and that He never had a beginning. Yet when the term “everlasting life” is applied to us they all admit that it simply means that we will live forever in the future, not that we always were in existence.
Notice also that Isaiah 9:6 says that “His name shall be called… The mighty God.” Some use this phrase to mean that Christ is the supreme God. This might be a good argument if the verse had referred to Christ as the Almighty God, but it uses the term mighty God. In the Bible we read of mighty men, but never of Almighty men. It is certainly appropriate to refer to the Son as mighty, for He is powerful. It is also appropriate to refer to Him as God, for the Most High God Himself refers to His Son as God in Hebrews 1:8. Therefore the terms “everlasting Father” and “The mighty God” can rightly apply to the Son.
Allen
Brother Lynnford, along this same line of thought, concerning the oneness of God and Christ, some people have misunderstood Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 1:17 where we find the terms, “The first and the last.” What does the Bible say about this?
Lynnford
I’m glad you brought that up, Brother Allen. Some people link these two verses together to try to prove that Jesus is the one God of the Bible.
Let us read them for ourselves and see what God is trying to tell us.
Isaiah 44:6 says, “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
Because the term “I am the first, and I am the last” is used by Jesus in Revelation, some people conclude from reading this verse that Jesus is the one and only God of the Bible, or at least part of the one God.
Let us read a couple places in Revelation where Jesus applied this term to Himself. When John saw Christ in vision, he said, “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.” (Revelation 1:17)
Jesus didn’t end His conversation here. In the next verse, He went on to say, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.”
Jesus used the term again when He spoke to the church at
Therefore we must conclude that the person speaking in Isaiah 44:6 was someone other than Jesus Christ. There are other titles and names in the Bible that are shared by both the Father and the Son, and the title, “the first and the last” must be one of these titles.
Let us go back to Isaiah 44:6 and find out for sure who is speaking. The speaker says, “beside me there is no God,” and in verse 8 He says, “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” This is very precise language to indicate that the speaker is alone. All of the pronouns are singular, indicating that only one person is speaking. Who is this one person? The New Testament clarifies this.
In 1 Corinthians 8:4, Paul wrote, “we know… that there is none other God but one.” And to make it abundantly clear who he was referring to as the God beside which there is none other, Paul continued. In verse 6 he wrote, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” Paul understood the one God of the Bible to be God the Father and no one else.
Jesus had the same understanding. After Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 a scribe told Him, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.” (Mark 12:32) Who is the one God the scribe was referring to? Was he referring to Jesus as the one God? Certainly not! He was referring to God the Father, and Jesus knew it.
At another time, while Jesus was talking to the scribes and Pharisees, He said, “If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God.” (John 8:54) Jesus knew that when the scribes and Pharisees said “God,” they were referring to His Father. When this scribe said, “there is one God; and there is none other but he,” Jesus knew that he was talking about His Father.
Did Jesus correct the scribe by saying, “You’ve got it wrong, I am really the one God of the Bible”? Not at all! To the contrary, Jesus complimented him for his good answer by exclaiming, “Thou art not far from the
Friends, I’d like you to notice something. To the best of my knowledge, every time singular pronouns are used of God or Christ, such as “he,” “him,” “his,” “I,” “me,” etc., they always refer to one person. Whenever a Bible writer wanted to speak of both the Father and Son, they always use plural pronouns like, “them,” “they,” “us,” “we,” “our,” etc. So far, I have not found any exceptions to this rule. When the scribe said, “there is one God; and there is none other but HE,” he was referring to only one person, God the Father.
With this clarification from the New Testament, we can be completely sure who is speaking in Isaiah 44:6. He is God the Father and no one else. He is the ultimate first and last, even though He allowed His Son to carry this title as well.
Allen
Thank you Brother Lynnford. Brother David, in Revelation 1:8 we find these words, “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.” In many Bibles, the first part of this text is in red letters. Is Jesus the “Almighty”?
David
This text is sometimes used to suggest that Jesus is called the Almighty, a term which is used several times in the book of Revelation, but always with reference to the Father exclusively. The mistake in believing that this verse refers to Christ stems from faulty reading and carelessness on the part of some Bible publishers. In red letter editions of the Bible, this verse is usually printed in red, indicating that it is Christ who is speaking. This misleads many readers. The publishers, and many others, come to this conclusion because of reading verse 11, where Jesus states, “I am alpha and omega, the first and the last.” The terms used in this verse, “alpha and omega,” and “first and last” seem to correspond with the identical term, “alpha and omega,” and the similar term, “beginning and the ending” in verse 8 and seem to indicate that it is Jesus who is speaking in verse 8. A closer examination of the passage, however, reveals that this is not so.
Let us begin a little earlier in the passage, in verses 4 and 5, where a greeting is given from the Father, from the seven spirits and from Jesus Christ. We read:
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.” (Revelation 1:4-5)
Now notice that a definite description or designation is given to each of them. The one who sits on the throne is definitely described as Him “which is, and which was, and which is to come.” The seven spirits simply as being before His throne, while Jesus is “the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth.”
There is no mistaking the Father’s description. He is the one “which is, and which was, and which is to come.” Nobody else is given that description. In fact, this description is in definite contrast to Jesus who is “the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead…”
So when, a few verses later, we come upon this statement, “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,” to whom should we legitimately apply it? Clearly, it refers, not to Jesus, but to the Father. He is the one who “is and was, and is to come.”
Allen
Brother Williams, 1 John 5:20 says, “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” Is this text saying that Jesus is the “true God”?
Howard
Friends, I would like for you to follow me through a closer examination of the text in question.
After looking at the text, what would we say the subject of the text is?
I would say, and I’m sure you will agree, that the subject of the verse is “him that is true.”
The one who has come to give us an understanding of “him that is true” is the “Son of God.”
His purpose in giving us an understanding is that we may know “him that is true.”
Thus to know “him that is true” we have to come to Jesus.
Jesus himself said, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18)
Here Jesus shows us that, for us to be in “him that is true” we have to go through the Son.
Paul understood this quite well, let us look at what he wrote to the Christians in
By being in Christ we are in “Him that is true,” who is the true God, or the original God, and eternal life.
This is what Jesus himself says in another place, and I think the meaning of both passages are the same, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)
David
Titus 2:13 is another text which seems to speak in a similar manner. It says, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
The question is, should this verse be read to say, “the appearing of the great God who is our Saviour Jesus Christ,” or should it be read as saying, “the appearing of the great God, as well as of our Saviour Jesus Christ?” Some Bible Commentaries state that, “The Greek of this expression is ambiguous, hence uncertainty exists as to whether Paul is speaking of both the Father and the Son or of Christ only…” On the surface it would seem to be speaking of Jesus Christ only, since when He returns the Father is not expected to return with Him. The verse would then suggest that Jesus is the great God referred to. This would be puzzling, to say the least, especially in the writings of Paul who regards Jesus as being a divine being, but who consistently insists that “there is but one God, the Father.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)
The problem is solved when we realize that the Greek rendering of the text suggests that the text is referring not so much to the appearing of either Christ or of God or even of them both, but rather to the appearing of the glory of them both. The literal translation of the Greek in the passage is, “the appearance of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
This idea, that the text refers to the appearing of the glory of God rather than to the appearing of God Himself, is supported by many different translations of the Bible. Some of them are; The Revised Standard Version which says, “awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Young’s Literal Translation says the same thing basically, “waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Likewise, the Modern King James Version as well as The Bible in Basic English. These translations have been faithful to the Greek text in recognizing that the “appearing” has reference to the glory of God, rather than to God Himself.
This interpretation of the verse is in perfect harmony with the statement that Jesus made that when He returns it will be with His glory as well as with that of the Father. His exact words, found in Luke 9:26 are:
“For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.”
Once we understand this, the meaning of the text becomes clear and is in perfect harmony with the rest of Scripture.
Allen
Brother Williams, John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This text is used a lot to prove the Trinity doctrine. How does it harmonize with the body of Scripture?
Howard
Bro. Allen, I’m happy we got a chance to look at this verse.
Friends, you know that this verse has been used by many to advance the idea that Jesus is God Himself.
Look at this text with me, and let us examine the message of the text to see what God wants us to understand from it.
My first question then would be, “Who is the Word referred to here in this text?”
I am sure you will all agree that the Word that was made flesh, and dwelt among us, in verse 14 of the same passage, is Jesus. Substituting Jesus for Word, the text would read this way: “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.” The next question I would ask is this, “Was Jesus the same God He was with?” Think about this friends!
In other words, is the text trying to tell us that in the beginning Jesus was with himself? I don’t believe this is what the text is telling us, and I know you’ll agree with me, so let us look at the verse very carefully to see what it is really saying.
Clearly Jesus, at the beginning, was with someone else, and this person he was with is God. The second time the term God is used, it is used in a descriptive way and not in reference to the person called God.
Let me give you an example I heard Pastor Clayton use before. Let us say that Adam, in the beginning was called “the human” and Eve was just referred to as “the woman.” Listen to this and ask yourselves whether the verse in question is not structured in the same way.
“In the beginning was the woman, and the woman was with the human, and the woman was human.”
Clearly the first time the word human is used it is speaking directly about the person the woman was with. The second time the word human is used it is used in a descriptive way to describe the nature of the woman.
I am suggesting that this is the same way the text we are looking at should be viewed.
“In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God [(by nature) or], and Jesus was divine”
The second verse tells us this, “The same (Jesus) was in the beginning with God (the Father).”(John 1:2)
What is obvious from the passage, is that there were two Beings at the beginning, God and Jesus, and Jesus has the same nature that God has, a divine nature. So here we see, friends, that Jesus is fully divine as God, His Father is divine. But Jesus is not the Father, He is the Son of the Father. A Greek rendering of the text supports this conclusion.
Allen
Brother David, in the second chapter of Philippians is a verse that speaks of Jesus “being in the form of God.” Where is that verse and what can you share with us on it?
David
The text is Philippians 2:5-9, which says, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.”
The question here is, what does the phrase, “being in the form of God,” mean? Does this mean that Jesus was God Himself? This phrase is evidently set in opposition to the phrase, “took upon him the form of a servant.” The intent of the passage is to show the degree of the condescension of the Son of God by highlighting the immensity of the humiliation which He embraced when He took humanity upon Himself. The difference between humanity and divinity is vast, with divinity being at the pinnacle of existence, and humanity being far down on the scale. What was the position of Christ before He came to earth? Was He human? Was He angelic? Where would He fall in the classification of beings? Clearly, He was divine; He was in the category of divinity. He was in the form of God. It was from this position that He descended to the level of humanity. In other words, it was not an angel who came, it was not a human being, but rather one who was at the utmost height in terms of the classification of beings, even one who was divine, and in this respect, equal with God.
Let us note that it is not the divinity of Christ which is in question. It is not the fact that He is equal with the Father in nature, which is in question. Rather, the problem is that concept of the Godhead which makes Jesus God Himself, thereby destroying the truth that the Father is the highest authority in the universe, the source of all, and that Jesus is His true begotten Son, in the giving of whom the Father demonstrated the immensity of His love for mankind.
What many find it difficult to come to grips with is the concept that Jesus could be a divine being, one who is God by nature, yet not the most high God Himself. However, this is the clear teaching of the Bible and it is only as we pursue our studies upon the basis of what the Bible clearly teaches that we can arrive at a proper understanding of biblical truth.
The true position of Jesus in relation to the Father is brought out in two verses in Colossians, which make the matter clear in a very simple way.
Colossians 2:9 says, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Here we see that the fullness of the godhead exists in Christ. But as Colossians 1:19 explains, “...it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.” Here we see that it is the Father who has ordained that this fullness of the godhead should dwell in Christ. This makes it clear that the Father is greater than Jesus and is the one who has ordained the status of Christ.
This is in perfect harmony with Matthew 28:18 where Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” All power is His, but it was given unto Him by one who is evidently greater than He. The same truth is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 where it says,
“For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
Answers to Objections
Part 3
As many of our readers are aware, we have been producing a series of video and audio cassette tapes on the truth about God. We have entitled this series, “The Good News About God.” “Answers to Objections” is taken from our latest study in this series. This study carefully examines some Bible texts that are used to object to the truth about God. To help examine some of these texts, we assembled a panel of Bible students composed of: Pastor David Clayton and Brother Howard Williams of
The last two months we printed the introduction study and several answers to questions. This study will conclude the presentation.
Allen
In Hebrews 1:8, the Father calls His Son, “God.” Does this mean that Jesus is the Supreme Being?
Howard
Let’s read the text. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”
Let us note carefully that the Father, the Supreme Sovereign of the universe gave this title to Jesus, so obviously Jesus is not the Supreme Being.
Jesus was coroneted by the Father because of who he was. Jesus is divine by His very nature of being the Son of God. In comparison to the angels, Jesus hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they, because He is God’s own Son.
The Father exalted the Son to the same plateau as Himself, thus making His Son worthy of worship. “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6)
Here we see that even the angels of God were instructed to worship the Son even as the Father is worshipped.
The Father himself ordained that the Son should bear the title of God. Let us look at the next verse, “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”(v. 9) The Son was elevated to this position by the Father himself, who has rightfully used the title of God, and then added that He was the God of His Son.
Look at who Jesus says made Him to be the God and Father of us, “…Behold I and the children which God hath given me.” (Hebrews 2:13)
It is the Father who is ultimately responsible for all things, and He it is that has given to Jesus the position He now holds, including the children He has, which are you and me.
If this sounds a little far-fetched and out of sync with the rest of scripture, let us read 1Corinthians 15:27, 28 and we will see that the same sentiments are expressed there.
“For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1Corinthians 15:27-28)
These verses clearly show that God the Father has put all things under Jesus’ feet, and that He, God, is not under Christ, but when all things shall be given back to the Father, then shall Jesus be subject to the Father that God may be all in all.
Thus when Jesus is given the title of “God,” it is in reference to His divine nature and in reference to His relationship to us, His children. However, He, is not the Father himself.
Allen
Howard, that certainly agrees with Ephesians 1:17 where the Father is called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” While the Father is called the God of Christ, Jesus is never called the God of the Father.
Let’s now look at a few texts that seem to speak of Jesus in a manner that would make it impossible for Him to be the literal begotten Son of God. Lynnford, let’s get back to you. Micah 5:2 is a well-known verse. How do you explain it?
Lynnford
This verse is used by many people to try to prove that the Son of God wasn’t literally begotten of His Father. They claim that it proves that Christ is a co-eternal companion of the Father. The interesting thing is that this verse actually proves the opposite. In the King James version it reads,
“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.”
The key point of this verse that’s used to try to prove that Christ has always existed as a separate individual from the Father, is the statement that says, His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Some people claim that this text proves that Christ never had a beginning.
But, before we jump to conclusions, let’s examine the verse a little more carefully. The margin has a note for the word “everlasting,” saying the original Hebrew literally means “the days of eternity.” Christ’s “goings forth have been from the days of eternity.” The truth comes out more clearly when we look at the definition for the Hebrew word that was translated “goings forth.” The word is mo-tsah-aw and it literally means “origin,” or as the Strong’s Dictionary puts it, “a family descent.”
The Revised Standard Version translated this text,
“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of
So the verse that’s so often used to prove that Christ had no beginning actually proves that He had an origin in the days of eternity, before anything was created.
As we compare this with Proverbs 8, we learn how Christ originated. In verses 23-25 Christ says “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.”
According to the Bible, Christ was literally begotten, or birthed, from His Father before the world was created.
Howard
Brother Lynnford, there is also a New Testament passage that says, “…Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58)
There are some that believe that this text shows that Jesus was the Great God himself, but is this the meaning of the text?
Let’s examine this text, friends, to see if this is the meaning of it. What was the context of these words?
The Jews heard the words of Jesus, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” (John 8:51) They then took Him to task about whether He was greater than their ancestor Abraham. Jesus answered and said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” (John 8:56)
The Jews were amazed at the fact that Jesus was not even 50 years of age and yet He spoke of Abraham seeing His day. Jesus hastened to tell them that He was before Abraham, in other words, what Jesus said was, “The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!”
This passage definitely speaks to the pre-existence of Christ. The message Jesus wanted the Jews to get was that He Himself existed at the beginning with the Father. The fact that He claims existence before Abraham can attest to that.
I do believe that Jesus existed before all things, based partially on the passage Brother Lynnford just read from in Proverbs 8:22-30, and I accept the testimony of the scripture that says, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3) This is the truth of all the scripture.
Allen
Thanks for those simple, straightforward thoughts Howard. What can you tell us about Isaiah 43:10?
Howard
Let’s read that passage. It says, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
This passage is somewhat similar to a previous passage that was examined by Brother Lynnford earlier, and I think the meanings are the same.
That this passage is speaking exclusively of God the Father, there is no doubt.
This passage speaks of the children of
What was it that led
In other words, the text is saying, “First I predicted your deliverance; I declared what I would do, and then I did it—I saved you. No foreign god has ever done this before. You are witnesses that I am the only God,” says the LORD.”
Allen
Thank you, Brother Howard. Brother Lynnford, John 10:17, 18 is often used to support the idea that Jesus didn’t really, truly, and fully die, and that He was able to raise Himself from the dead. How can we harmonize this text with texts such as Isaiah 53:12 that says that Jesus “poured out his soul unto death,” as well as over thirty texts in the New Testament that teach that Jesus was raised from the dead by the Father?
Lynnford
Well, Brother Allen, let’s read these verses carefully and the truth will become very plain. Jesus said,
“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.”
According to the Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, the Greek word that was translated “I might take,” also means: “to receive (what is given), to gain, to get, to obtain, to get back.” The same Greek word was used in verse 18, but it was translated “received.” Christ laid down His life that He might receive it again. The Greek word that was translated “power” means power in the sense of “authority,” or “permission,” rather than physical force.
Let’s read the verses again with a more consistent translation of the words. Jesus said,
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might receive it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
Christ had the authority, or permission, to lay down His life so that He could receive it again from His Father. Christ could not, and did not, raise Himself from the dead, or else He wouldn’t have been dead to begin with. In the prophecy of Christ’s complete death, recorded in Psalm 88:8, Christ says, “I am shut up, and I cannot come forth.”
To make the claim that Jesus Christ raised Himself from the dead would be to directly contradict the words of Christ, for Christ said, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” (John 5:30) It would also contradict at least 30 verses in the New Testament that say that Christ was raised from the dead by His Father.
In Galatians 1:1 Paul said, “God the Father… raised him from the dead.”
The testimony of the Bible that Christ died completely, and that His Father raised Him from the dead, is overwhelming.
As Allen pointed out, Isaiah 53 speaks of the complete death of Christ. Verse 10 says, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” and in verse 12 it says, “he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
According to the Bible, the soul of Christ died; it was His soul that was made an offering for sin. A dead person can’t even think, let alone raise himself from the dead.
So we can see that John 10:17 and 18 doesn’t support the idea that Christ resurrected Himself from the dead, and, if it did, it would contradict many other verses in the Bible.
David
Lynnford, there is another verse which is also used to support this idea that Jesus raised Himself from the dead. This is John 2:19, where Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The difficulty with this verse is that, as Allen stated, there are more than thirty texts in the Bible which state that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. In fact, all the apostles went out and taught that Jesus was raised from the dead by the Father. Can one text override the testimony of thirty? When we encounter seeming contradictions in the Bible, how do we normally deal with it? We go with the weight of evidence, don’t we? The first point is that on the basis of the weight of evidence, we would have to say that it was the Father who raised Jesus from the dead, rather than that He raised Himself. Even in the Old Testament we have the testimony of Psalm 16:10: “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”
Doesn’t this make it clear that it was the Father who was responsible for the resurrection of Christ? It was He who did not leave Christ’s soul in hell. But, let us examine the text more closely and see if there is further evidence to support this conclusion:
The context of this verse is that the Jews had asked Jesus for a sign, seeing that He was doing all these works. Their exact words were, “…What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?” (John 2:18) It was in response to this question that Jesus stated, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Jesus was telling them to look for a certain sign. This sign would demonstrate His messiahship, His authority: it would establish His credentials. In context, this is the point of His statement.
Now, did the Jews conclude that Jesus raised Himself from the dead? Did they receive such a sign? The fact is that the Jews had absolutely no evidence that Jesus had raised Himself from the dead and, in fact, they could not have had any evidence to that effect from the apostles, who all went out and preached that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. The question is, did they receive the sign which Jesus had promised? If Jesus had made a valid point when He replied to their question then they must have had their answer. This demonstrates the fact that the point of Jesus was not that He Himself would raise Himself from the dead. The emphasis was, rather, on the fact that He would be resurrected in three days, not on who would do the resurrecting.
In Ephesians 1:19 and 20 Paul emphasized that “the exceeding greatness” of the Father’s “mighty power” was demonstrated “when he raised” Christ “from the dead.” If Christ had actually raised Himself from the dead, then Paul’s words could not have been true. It would not have been the Father’s power, but the power of Christ which would have been demonstrated.
The question then, is, why did Jesus say, “I will raise it up.” Jesus, at times, spoke in a way that may best be described as cryptic. In light of the overwhelming testimony of the rest of Scripture that it was the Father who raised Jesus from the dead, this verse must be looked at in a similar light as, for example, the passage where God claims that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart, or the passages which state that the Lord’s purpose in giving parables was to prevent the people from understanding lest at any time they should repent and turn and be saved. In these cases we do not look at the precise meaning of the words spoken, but rather accept that God is speaking of the consequences of certain actions as though He were the one who was the cause of those consequences. In light of all the evidence, we must conclude that Jesus is speaking in a similar manner in this verse.
Allen
Let’s now move on to some texts that deal with the Holy Spirit. As you all know, there are some texts that are used to try to demonstrate the personhood of the Holy Spirit apart from the Father and the Son. One of those texts is Romans 8:26 where it says, “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Brother Howard, come to our aid on this text.
Howard
Brother Allen, as you mention this passage, I remember some years back I was talking to some people, about who the Holy Spirit really is, and there was this woman who opposed me strongly, and she said, “Of all the references in the Scripture of the Holy Spirit, none of them refers to him as ‘it,’ only ‘he!’ I asked her if she was sure about what she just said, she said, “Positive.”
I asked her to turn to the passage we just read, and she read that over and over again in utter amazement, and she kept silent for the rest of the conversation.
The text is speaking of how the Holy Spirit assists or helps us when our hearts are heavy and we know not what to pray for, as we ought.
Don’t you know how sometimes we are so burdened and distressed that we can’t even speak a word, we can but sigh or groan, the Spirit is able to relate to that feeling and God understands.
“The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us.” How could the Scriptures refer to the Spirit as “it,” if the Spirit is God?
We are made in the image of God– body and spirit.
We could refer to our body or our spirit and it would be okay to refer to any of these by using the term “it,” but when there is a union of body and spirit, we are now dealing with a person, thus it would be inappropriate to refer to a person as it.
The Scripture tells us that we have only one that mediates on our behalf, “For there is one God, and one mediator (or intercessor) between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1Timothy 2:5)
According to 1Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:5, we are told that there is one Lord, who is Jesus Christ. Now let’s look at another eye-opening verse, it is 2Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
So we see here friends, that Jesus, is that Spirit that maketh intercession for us, but because He is in a non-bodily form, He can be referred to as “it,” and it would not be inappropriate. I suggest that this is the real reason for using the term “it.” Ellen White noted:
“We have only one channel of approach to God. Our prayers can come to him through one name only,—that of the Lord Jesus our advocate. His Spirit must inspire our petitions. No strange fire was to be used in the censers that were waved before God in the sanctuary. So the Lord himself must kindle in our hearts the burning desire, if our prayers are acceptable to him. The Holy Spirit within must make intercessions for us, with groanings that cannot be uttered.” (Review and Herald, February 9, 1897, emphasis supplied)
Allen
Thanks for that help, Howard, but stay with me for a minute though. In Acts 5 there is the story where Ananias was struck down as a judgment of God. The verses in question are 3 and 4, which state: “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” In verse three Peter says that Ananias lied to the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, but in verse 4 Peter says Ananais lied unto God. Using some simple logic from algebra, it would seem that God is equated with the Holy Spirit. Does this text teach that the Holy Spirit is God?
Howard
Let’s see whether it does!
The promise of the Holy Spirit to the apostles was something they looked forward to with great anticipation, and especially so because they had overcome self and were now converted. As the Spirit came they remembered the words of Jesus, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (John 14:23)
When the Spirit came on the day of Pentecost they knew that indeed the Father and the Son were with them. In fact, the entire book of Acts tells of the marvelous works they had accomplished because the Spirit gave them power to work in building up the
Peter knew full well who the Holy Spirit was, so when Ananias lied about the sale of the land, Peter could use the terms Holy Ghost and God interchangeably and not be wrong.
If I say to you, “you grieve my spirit!” do I mean you have grieved my friend, no, I mean you have offended me, on the inward level!
In John 11 we have a similar example at the death of Lazarus. In verse 33 we read this, “When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled.” Notice the term used was, “he groaned in the spirit.”
A few verses later we read, “Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave...” (verse 38)
First it says He “groaned in the spirit,” and again speaking of the same person with the same experience it now says, “Jesus therefore again groaning in himself.”
So we see the term, “groaned in the spirit” and, “groaning in himself,” means the same. It is an experience of an individual.
Peter knew that the Holy Ghost was God Himself, personally present with His disciples in a non-bodily form.
Allen
Thanks for the help on that, Howard. David, there are a few places in the discourse from the last supper where Jesus seems to speak of the Holy Spirit as a personal individual, separate and apart from the Father or Himself. Could you discuss these texts and harmonize them with the plain passages that teach that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God?
David
Well, one of these passages is John 14:16-18. This is typical of many of the passages which are often so misunderstood. It reads,
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”
In these verses we seem to have a contradiction. First in verse 16 Jesus says He will send “another Comforter.” This seems to indicate that it is someone other than Jesus Himself who will come. However, a few verses later, in verse 18, Jesus says, “I will come to you.” Now what does He mean? Does He mean He will send another, or that He will come Himself? We have equal reason for believing either one of those two things. However, Jesus adds something in verse 17 which makes the issue clearer. He speaks of this “Comforter” and says, “Ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” He makes it plain that the person whom He will be sending is already dwelling with them, but in the future would be in them. Was He speaking of a third person called the Holy Spirit? This could not be because the Holy Spirit was not yet given according to John 7:39, and according to verse 16 of the same chapter (John 14), the Father would give this other Comforter sometime in the future, but at the time when Jesus was speaking he was not yet given.
So then, who was the one who was then with them, and would, in the future, be in them? It seems evident that this person was Jesus. There can be no other conclusion. This conclusion is strengthened when we notice that in verse 17 Jesus says, “He dwelleth with you and shall be in you.” Then in verse 20 He says, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” He clearly says that it will be He who will be in us, making it very clear that this Comforter will be Jesus Himself.
As we read further in the passage this conclusion becomes even more evident.
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (John 14:21-23)
As Jesus explains, the time would come when the world would not recognize Him and would see Him no more. However, the disciples would see, or recognize Him. Why is it that the world would not recognize Jesus? Because He would return in another form with which they were not familiar. The world evidently would think of the comforter as another person, while Jesus’ disciples would recognize and know that it was He. Hence, His seemingly contradictory statements that He would send “another Comforter,” and at the same time that He would come again.
When Judas asked how it would be possible for Jesus to show Himself to the disciples and not to the world, Jesus did not state that He would be present by means of a third person, His representative. He stated that He and His Father would make their abode with the one who loved Him. This was the means by which He would be present with His people. This is an important point because Jesus was answering the specific question of how. He was speaking of the method by which it would be possible, and if there were a third person involved who would simply bring their presence as he (the third person) came, this was the moment to say it. But Jesus mentioned no third person. He simply stated that He and the Father (nobody else) would come and make their home with the believer. This makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is not a third person, but rather is the actual personal presence of Jesus, by means of His Father’s omnipresent Spirit, in a form devoid of human personality and unrecognized by the world.
Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as though it were another person in several places, as, for example, in John 16:12-14, where He says,
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.”
But this was simply because He would be returning in an unfamiliar form and, in a sense, as a different personality, because there would be no bodily form, no audible voice, no physical contact. Nevertheless, as we have seen, it would truly be He Himself who would return because by means of His Father’s omnipresent Spirit, His mind, character personality and power would be literally present with His people in all places as He noted in John 17:23: “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.”
Allen
Friends, I want to thank you for taking the time to review this study. I realize that it hasn’t been exhaustive. Each and every verse of Scripture we’ve looked at could be studied for years and never exhausted. We don’t claim to have done full justice to the two dozen or so references we have discussed today. But please keep in mind these words of Jesus. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) What we should desire, and must have, is the pure truth of God’s Word. As Ellen White noted, “the righteousness of Christ, [which we all desire] … is pure, unadulterated truth.” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 65) She also noted:
“God does not compel men to give up their unbelief. Before them are light and darkness, truth and error. It is for them to decide which they will accept. The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. God designs that men shall not decide from impulse, but from weight of evidence, carefully comparing scripture with scripture. Had the Jews laid by their prejudice and compared written prophecy with the facts characterizing the life of Jesus, they would have perceived a beautiful harmony between the prophecies and their fulfillment in the life and ministry of the lowly Galilean.
“Many are deceived today in the same way as were the Jews. Religious teachers read the Bible in the light of their own understanding and traditions; and the people do not search the Scriptures for themselves, and judge for themselves as to what is truth; but they yield up their judgment, and commit their souls to their leaders. The preaching and teaching of His word is one of the means that God has ordained for diffusing light; but we must bring every man’s teaching to the test of Scripture.” (Desire of Ages, pp. 458, 459)
In 2 Timothy 2:15 the Bible says to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God.” Beloved, whoever will prayerfully study the Bible, desiring to know the truth that he may obey it, will receive divine enlightenment. God has promised it. In John 7:17, Jesus said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Finally, let me leave you with this counsel from the Apostle Paul as found in 1 Thess. 5:21, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” May God bless you lots, and lots, and lots.
