James M. Stephenson
Stephenson wrote a series of articles on “The Atonement” in 1854. Dates they appear in the The Advent Review, and Sabbath Herald are as follows:
Aug 22, Sep 26, Oct 3, Oct 17, Oct 31, Nov 7, Nov 14, Nov 21, Dec 5
Click HERE for the full article in its entirety.
Christ, a “created being”?
J.M. Stephenson was the one of 3 authors (including Uriah Smith and JN Loughborough), who described Christ as a “created being”. Stephenson left Adventism very early (approx 1855) so he wouldn’t necessarily be regarded as an Adventist pioneer per se. We also do not have any further evidence whether he changed his views later.
“I will conclude the evidence upon this point by quoting one more passage. Paul says, “And again, when he bringeth the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Heb.i,6. He must have been his Son before he could send him into the world. In verse 2, the Father declares that he made the worlds by the same Son he is here represented as sending into the world. His Son must have existed before he created the worlds; and he must have been begotten before he existed; hence the begetting here spoken of, must refer to his Divine nature, and in reference to his order, he is the first-begotten; hence as a matter of necessity he must have been “the first born of every creature.” Col.i,15. “The first born of every creature.” Creature signifies creation; hence to be the first born of every creature, (creation) HE MUST BE A CREATED BEING; and as such, his life and immortality must depend upon the Father’s will, just as much as angels, or redeemed men: and as the Father has given his Son to have life in himself, so his Son will give this life to all his children. His invitation is to all, “Come unto me and I will give you life.” The glorious promise for all the pious dead is, that their lives are hid with Christ in God, and when he who is their life shall appear, then shall they appear with him in glory. {ARSH November 14, 1854, 106.4} (Atonement 132.2)
Compare above statement with an earlier portion of the same article:
“Again, in John i,1-3,14, we have the same class of evidence. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” “In the beginning,” evidently refers to the commencement of the series of events brought to view in these verses, which was the creation of all things. This gives “the only begotten of the Father” (see verse 14) intelligent existence BEFORE THE FIRST ACT OF CREATIVE POWER was put forth, and proves that it is his Divine nature here spoken of; and that too, in connection with the creation of all things. In verse 14, this Word, who was “in the beginning” “with God,” who “was God,” and by whom “all things were made, that were made,” is declared to be the “only begotten of the Father,” thereby teaching that in his highest nature he was begotten; and consequently as such, he must have had a beginning. Associate the many occurrences of the term, “only begotten Son of God,” with the person, nature, and time, brought to view in the foregoing verses; and if any doubts still remain, in reference to the Divine nature of the only begotten Son of God having had an origin, you may compare them with those texts which exclude the possibility of his being eternal, in the sense of his never having had a beginning of days; such as “The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords,: who only hath immortality.” 1Tim.vi,16. This cannot be understood in the sense of none having deathless natures, or being exempt from death, except the Father; for Christ at that time was immortal in this sense: so were all the angels who had kept their “first estate;” it must, therefore be understood in the same sense, that we all understand, his being the only Potentate; not that there are no other potentates; but that he is the only Supreme Ruler. There cannot be two Supreme Rulers at the same time. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.1}(The Atonement, p. 130.1)
Stephenson also wrote:
“To be the only begotten Son of God MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN A DIFFERENT SENSE THAN TO BE A SON BY CREATION; for in that sense all the creatures he has made are sons. Nor can it refer to his miraculous conception, with the virgin Mary, by the Holy Ghost; because he is represented by this endearing title more than four thousand years before his advent in the village of Bethlehem. Moreover, he is represented as being exalted far above the highest orders of men and angels in his primeval nature. He must therefore be understood as being the Son of God in a much higher sense than any other being. His being the only begotten of the Father supposes that none except him were thus begotten; hence he is, in truth and verity the only begotten Son of God; and as such he must be Divine; that is,
be a partaker of the Divine nature. This term expresses his highest, and most exalted nature. Neither the Father, the prophets, nor the apostles apply a higher term to him. The Son of God himself never claimed a higher title. The Jews accused him of blasphemy upon this high claim. John x, 36. This claim also excited their rage to the highest degree. John v, 18. and as has been shown, these passages refer to his primeval nature. And in this character he is represented as the Creator of the worlds. Hebrews 1:2, 3; John 1:1-3. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 105.7}(Atonement-1854 pg. 126)
Note: It’s worth noting that the expression, “created being,” which Stephenson used needs to be qualified. It appears that Stephenson may have used the term in a loose manner and in a more generic sense for “coming into being” instead of how it is more specifically defined today. For it is evident that Stephenson appears to distinguish Christ’s coming into existence from other created beings by stating that Christ was begotten “BEFORE THE FIRST ACT OF CREATIVE POWER WAS PUT FORTH.” and he further distinguishes by saying, “To be the only begotten Son of God MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN A DIFFERENT SENSE THAN TO BE A SON BY CREATION;”
It appears that the common thread between Stephenson and Uriah Smith is that “created” is only used in connection to the verse in Revelation which in the KJV reads “beginning of the creation of God”…
They were using Biblical language the same way Arius used “created” (εκτισεν) as it appears in the LXX of Proverbs 8:22.
Below are various excerpts from Stephenson’s book, Atonement, as published in Adventist Review, and Sabbath Herald
The Advent Review, and Sabbath Herald, vol. 6
November 7, 1854
“In reference to his dignity, he is denominated the Son of God, before his incarnation. Hear his own language: “He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true.” John 7:18. “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphe
mest; because I said, I am the Son of God.” Chap. 10:36. “In this was manifest the love of God toward us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John 4:9, 10. The idea of being sent implies that he was the Son of God antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that a father can send his son on an errand before that son has an existence, which would be manifestly absurd. “To say that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” is equivalent to saying that the Son of God assumed our nature; he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation.” {ARSH November 7, 1854, page 99.10)
The Advent Review, and Sabbath Herald, vol. 6
November 14, 1854
(Continued.) ARSH November 14, 1854, page 105.6
To be the only begotten Son of God must be understood in a different sense than to be a Son by creation; for in that sense all the creatures he has made are sons. Nor can it refer to his miraculous conception, with the virgin Mary, by the Holy Ghost; because he is represented by this endearing title more than four thousand years before his advent in the village of Bethlehem. Moreover, he is represented as being exalted far above the highest orders of men and angels in his primeval nature. He must therefore be understood as being the Son of God in a much higher sense than any other being. His being the only begotten of the Father supposes that none except him were thus begotten; hence he is, in truth and verity the only begotten Son of God; and as such he must be Divine; that is, be a partaker of the Divine nature. This term expresses his highest, and most exalted nature. Neither the Father, the prophets, nor the apostles apply a higher term to him. The Son of God himself never claimed a higher title. The Jews accused him of blasphemy upon this high claim. John 10:36. This claim also excited their rage to the highest degree. John 5:18. In this glorious and dignified character he is presented as the true Messiah and Saviour of the world; and as the great object of faith, and the author of eternal life. John 1:18, 36; 6:69. In this character he is presented as the glorious object of worship by all the Host of heaven. Hebrews 1:6. In the last clause of the previous verse the Father says, “And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son:” and as has been shown, these passages refer to his primeval nature. And in this character he is represented as the Creator of the worlds. Hebrews 1:2, 3; John 1:1-3. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 105.7}
“But in the last place, on this point, What was the origin of this nature; or in other words, the origin of the Son of God. It is admitted by Trinitarians that the pre-existence, simply considered, does not prove his eternal God-head, nor his eternal Son-ship. Says Watson, a standard writer of the Trinitarian School, “His pre-existence, indeed, simply considered, does not evince his God-head, and is not therefore, a proof against the Arian hypothesis; but it destroys the Socinian notion, that he was a man only. For since no one contends for the pre-existence of human souls, and if they did, the doctrine would be confuted by their own consciousness, it is clear, that if Christ existed before his incarnation, he is not a mere man, whatever his nature, by other arguments may be proved to be.” This is an honest acknowledgment plainly expressed. And in reference to his nature, it has been shown to be Divine; and being such, it must have been immortal. Indeed this proposition is self-evident; for he who is Divine, must be immortal. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 105.8}
We cannot suppose that Christ was mortal, and, as such, would have been subject to death, had not the plan of redemption been devised; he must, therefore, in his original nature, have been deathless. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 105.9}
The question now to be considered, then, is not whether the only begotten Son of God was Divine, immortal, or the most dignified and exalted being, the Father only excepted, in the entire Universe; all this has been proved, and but few will call it in question; but whether this August Personage is self- existent and eternal, in its absolute, or unlimited sense; or whether in his highest nature, and character, he had an origin, and consequently beginning of days. The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the one, and the subsequent existence of the other. To say that the Son is as old as his Father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son, or the Son to be as old as the Father. If it be said that this term is only used in an accommodated sense, it still remains to be accounted for, why the Father should use as the uniform title of the highest, and most endearing relation between himself and our Lord, a term which, in its uniform signification, would contradict the very idea he wished to convey. If the inspired writers had wished to convey the idea of the co-etaneous existence, and eternity of the Father and Son, they could not possibly have used more incompatible terms. And of this, Trinitarians have been sensible. Mr. Fuller, although a Trinitarian, had the honesty to acknowledge, in the conclusion of his work on the Son-ship of Christ, that, “in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son.”But with this admission, he attempts to reconcile the idea of the Son’s being “properly eternal,” as well as the Father; two ideas utterly irreconcilable. The idea of an eternal Son is a self-contradiction. He must, therefore have an origin. But what saith the Scriptures? They speak right to the point. The apostle Paul says, speaking of Christ, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature.” Col. 1:15. Notice, 1st. This cannot refer to his birth of the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea, because millions of creatures, in connection with this world, had been born previous to that time. Cain and Abel had been born more than four thousand years previously. 2nd. The following verse makes his birth antecedent to the creation of all things in heaven and on earth, including all worlds, all ranks and orders of intelligences, visible and invisible. “For by him.” By whom? Ans. By the first born of every creature. The pronoun him refers to this being for its antecedent. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” Verse 16. All things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, evidently include all the orders of created intelligences. Now, he must have been born, i.e., had a real intelligent existence, before he
could exercise creative power. But all the works of creation are ascribed to him as the “first born of every creature;” hence the birth here spoken of, must have been previous to the existence of the first creature in heaven or in earth. To be such, it must refer to his Divine nature, unless he had two distinctive natures before his incarnation; for which no one contends. But the 17th verse fixes the priority of the birth here spoken of. “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Here the pronoun he refers to the same person for its antecedent, that the pronoun him does; and both refer to “the first born of every creature.” And the “all things, he is” before, in this verse, are evidently the “all things” named in the previous verse. Hence the point is fully established, that it is the Divine nature of our blessed Redeemer which is here spoken of; and that this nature was born: and in reference to his order, he was “the first born.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 105.10}
Again, in John 1:1-3, 14, we have the same class of evidence. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” “In the beginning,” evidently refers to the commencement of the series of events brought to view in these verses, which was the creation of all things. This gives “the only begotten of the Father” (see verse 14) intelligent existence before the first act of creative power was put forth, and proves that it is his Divine nature here spoken of; and that too, in connection with the creation of all things. In verse 14, this Word, who was “in the beginning” “with God,” who “was God,” and by whom “all things were made, that were made,” is declared to be the “only begotten of the Father,” thereby teaching that in his highest nature he was begotten; and consequently as such, he must have had a beginning. Associate the many occurrences of the term, “only begotten Son of God,” with the person, nature, and time, brought to view in the foregoing verses; and if any doubts still remain, in reference to the Divine nature of the only begotten Son of God having had an origin, you may compare them with those texts which exclude the possibility of his being eternal, in the sense of his never having had a beginning of days; such as “The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords,: who only hath immortality.” 1 Tim. 6:16. This cannot be understood in the sense of none having deathless natures, or being exempt from death, except the Father; for Christ at that time was immortal in this sense: so were all the angels who had kept their “first estate;” it must, therefore be understood in the same sense, that we all understand, his being the only Potentate; not that there are no other potentates; but that he is the only Supreme Ruler. There cannot be two Supreme Rulers at the same time. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.1}
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; “For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son to have life (i.e., existence) in himself.” If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (.e., is self existent) just the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; or even if it did, I would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life. Would it not be much more reasonable, in such case, for the human nature of Christ to derive its life, and vitality, from its union with the Divine nature, instead of from its union with the Father? I understand this passage according to the natural import of the language: “For as the Father hath life (i.e., existence) in himself, (i.e., self-existent,) so hath he given to the Son to have life (i.e., existence) in himself.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.2}
I know I will be referred to the declaration of our Saviour, I have power to lay down my life, and to take it up again. John 10:18. Read the last clause of this verse: “This commandment (commission—Campbell) have I received of my Father.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.3}
I will conclude the evidence upon this point by quoting one more passage. Paul says, “And again, when he bringeth the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Heb. 1:6. He must have been his Son before he could send him into the world. In verse 2, the Father declares that he made the worlds by the same Son he is here represented as sending into the world. His Son must have existed before he created the worlds; and he must have been begotten before he existed; hence the begetting here spoken of, must refer to his Divine nature, and in reference to his order, he is the first-begotten; hence as a matter of necessity he must have been “the first born of every creature.” Colossians 1:15. “The first born of every creature.” Creature signifies creation; hence to be the first born of every creature, (creation) HE MUST BE A CREATED BEING; and as such, his life and immortality must depend upon the Father’s will, just as much as angels, or redeemed men: and as the Father has given his Son to have life in himself, so his Son will give this life to all his children. His invitation is to all, “Come unto me and I will give you life.” The glorious promise for all the pious dead is, that their lives are hid with Christ in God, and when he who is their life shall appear, then shall they appear with him in glory. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.4}
Having investigated the original nature, glory and dignity of our Lord and Master; having gazed a few moments upon the face of him who is the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely; having had a glance at the celestial glory he had with the Father, before the world was, and beheld that matchless form which is the image of the invisible God; and having looked with wonder and admiration upon this august personage, exalted far above angels and thrones and dominions, principalities and powers; we are prepared, as far as our feeble perceptions can comprehend, to appreciate that amazing love and condescension which induced our adorable Redeemer to forego all the glories and honors of heaven, and all the endearments of his Father’s presence. Although all his Father’s treasures were his, yet he became so poor, that, he had not wh
ere to lay his head; oft-times the cold, damp earth being his only bed, and the blue heavens his only covering; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief – scoffed at by the Jews, and mocked by the Gentiles; a houseless stranger, he wore out his life under the ignoble garb of a servant, and last of all “died, the just for the unjust,” and took his exit from the world under the infamous character of a malefactor. O! was ever love like this! Did ever mercy stoop so low? Well might the poet exclaim, {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.5}
“O for this love let rocks and hills
Their lasting silence break;
And all harmonious human tongues
Their Saviour’s praises speak.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.6}
In presenting this part of the subject I propose considering, {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.7}
1st. Those texts of Scripture which represent the Son of God in his highest nature as becoming man; as actually becoming flesh and blood. The first chapter of John places this matter in a clear light. He says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 1:1, 14. Notice, first. In the first verse, the Word and God are used interchangeably: “the Word was with God – the word was God.” Second, the Word, and the only begotten of the Father, are also used synonymously: “And the Word was made flesh, etc., and we beheld his glory, (i.e., the Word’s glory,) the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.8
By this we learn that our Lord did not lose his personal identity in his transition from God to man, from the Word to flesh: “and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” It is the same person all the way through; and Peter, James and John beheld the glory as of the only begotten Son of God, when they were with him in the holy mount. 2 Peter 1:17, 18. Third. “The Word,” “God,” “the only begotten of the Father,” was made flesh; not flesh made, and the Word put into it; or united with it, but “the Word was made flesh.” The natural import of this language is, that the only begotten of the Father, was actually converted into flesh, and as flesh denotes the real nature of the beings for whom he became a substitute, we may reasonably suppose that he became flesh; that the Divine nature was made human; nay, that the very substance of which he was originally composed was converted into flesh; otherwise he would not be a real man, a real substitute for man. To be such, he must represent man’s nature, as well as his condition. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.9}
The same objections may be urged against the duplex entity of Christ, as that of man; nor does the Bible anywhere represent him as such a being, but invariably as a being having but one personality. If so, he could not have been Divine and human, mortal and immortal, at the same time. Hence he must have been Divine and immortal as a whole being, and human (flesh) and mortal as a whole being. But how can that be? Ans. By the power of God. Or according to the apostle Paul, our Lord was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power,” etc. Romans 1:3, 4. Third. As a real unit, being composed of flesh, he dwelt among them. Paul expresses the same sentiment in his quotation from Psalm 40. He says speaking of the advent of Christ: Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” Hebrews 10:5. The pronoun me refers to his previous nature. Hear his language: “Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.” Verse 7. Do not all these pronouns refer to his previous nature? And is not the declaration, “a body hast thou prepared me,” synonymous with that of the Word’s being “made flesh?” Then it would read, Thou hast converted me into a body, i.e. “a body hast thou made me;” “the Word was made flesh.” The body and flesh, in this case, would be convertible terms. This view is greatly strengthened by verse 7, where all the efficacy of the atonement is associated with the sacrifice of this body: “By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” And in verse 12, this very body is denominated this man: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God;” thereby teaching that body and man are convertible terms in these texts; hence it would express the Apostle’s meaning in full to render the last clause of verse 5: a man hast thou prepared, or made me: “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:8. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.10}
Again in Romans 1:3, 4. “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power,” etc. Here it is emphatically declared that “Jesus Christ our Lord” in his highest nature, i.e., as the Son of God, “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” David, as a whole being was flesh; hence he could entail no other nature upon his offspring; consequently when the Son of God was made of the seed of David, he must have been made flesh. In his Divine nature he was the Root (i.e., the Father by creation) of David. Revelation 5:5. In this sense he is both the Lord and Son of David. Acts 2:34. But all that was David’s Lord, before his incarnation, became his Son afterward. No intimation that any part of his original nature was excepted when he “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” or when he “was made flesh.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.11}
Also in Philippians 2:6-9. “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” That this verse refers to his highest nature will be admitted by all; and it is declared in the verse following, that in his nature he became man. Mark the explicit language: “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of m
en: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” That taking “the form of a servant,” and being “made in the likeness of men,” is synonymous with his becoming a real man, from the fact that in the very nature he described, he died “the death of the cross.” What nature died? Ans. The human. Then the exalted being brought to view in verse 6, actually became a mortal man, and died. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.12}
I will quote one more text on this point. Hebrews 2:14. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil.” Here he is represented as taking part of flesh and blood, as, or in the same manner, children do. The obvious meaning is, For as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part with them in the same; that is, he was a being composed of flesh and blood the same as the children. This view is confirmed by the last clause of this verse, taken in connection with the verse following, in which nature, he is represented as dying; and as the result of which delivering “them, who through the fear of death, were all their life time subject to bondage.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.13}
What nature “was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities?” Was it not his flesh, as the “seed of the woman?” What blood was shed “for the remission of sins?” Was it not the identical blood which had flowed through the veins of Mary his mother, and back through her ancestry to Eve, the mother of all living? Otherwise he was not the “seed of the woman,” of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David; but that he was the literal seed of Abraham is evident from verse 16: “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels;; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” The reason why he chose the nature of Abraham in preference to that of angels, is plainly stated in the following verses: “Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren; that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 106.14}
Observe first. He is represented as taking part of (in) flesh and blood. Second. The same being is represented as dying to deliver them who were all their lives under fear of death. Third. The same person took not on him the nature of angels, but the nature, or seed of Abraham. Fourth. It was necessary he should take the nature of Abraham, 1st. To qualify him for being a merciful High Priest, one who from his near relationship to man, can sympathize for him as angels could not do. 2nd. It is necessary “to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. This implies that no other nature could make reconciliation. The nature of angels, nay his own original nature, would not be a substitute for man; would not make an atonement “for the sins of the people.” Man must die to redeem man. 3rd. It was necessary he should suffer, and be tempted as man, to be “able to succor them that are tempted.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.1}
“Touched with a sympathy within,
He knows our feeble frame;
He knows what sore temptations mean,
For he hath felt the same.” {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.2}
Herein is our only hope, our only plea, Jesus Christ not only took our nature and died in our stead, but is now representing our nature, with all its infirmities, and with all its heart-rending woes in the upper Sanctuary. Yes, blessed be his holy name for ever and ever! he is now pleading our cause, before his Father’s throne, with all the melting love which caused his agonies of death. “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an hight priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities: but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:14-16. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.3}
Having shown by plain Bible testimony that the Son of God in his highest nature became man, “was made flesh,” I next propose to consider that portion of Bible evidence which represents him as a real man. In fact, everything connected with his history, from his birth to his resurrection, proves that he was a real human being. Read the prediction, “For unto us a child is born;” [Isaiah 9:6;] also its fulfillment. Matthew 1:20-25; 2:11; Luke 1, 2. From this account, of his birth, we learn that he was begotten by the “power of the Highest,” and was born of Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea, in the reign of Augustus Caesar. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.4}
He came into the world as helpless, and as much dependent upon his parents for support, and instruction, as any child that had ever been born. He derived his sustenance from his mother’s breast, and his vitality from breathing the vital air. He “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Luke 2:52. He had all the sensations flesh is heir to. He was susceptible of heat or cold, hunger or thirst, the same as any other man. If he fasted he was afterward an hungered; if he journeyed long he was fatigued. He was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He had all the innocent human passions; such as desire: “And he said unto them with desire, I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” Luke 22:15. Joy: “Who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame,” etc. Hebrews 12:2. Fear: He “was heard in that he feared.” Hebrews 5:7, last clause; a peculiar human love: “The disciple whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23. Sorrow: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death.” Matthew 26:38. And as a mortal, human being, he suffered, died, and was buried; and as a lifeless man he was raised from the dead, on the third day, by the power of the Father: “Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus.” Hebrews 13:20. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.5}
That Jesus Christ did not lose, or change his real p
ersonality, in becoming man, or in the transition from his Divine to his human nature, is evident, first, from the fact that the same term is applied to his human nature, which had previously denoted his Divine nature; and that too, in its most exalted position, and most endearing relation to the Father. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.6}
The Father publicly acknowledged him as his beloved Son on the bank of Jordan. “And lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17. At his transfiguration: “And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son; hear him.” Luke 9:35. “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16. Paul “preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.” Acts 9:20. Not only did the Father, the Son and the apostles, acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God, but the devils acknowledged him to be such. “Thou art Christ the Son of God.” Second. That he had the same personality, during his incarnation, that he had before, is equally manifest, from the use of the same singular pronouns to denote both natures; or in other words, pronouns denoting the same identical personality, in both natures. “A body hast thou prepared me.” Here the pronoun, me, represents both natures, before and after his incarnation: there being two distinct natures, but only one personality. Again in his prayer to the Father: “Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” I, before the world was, and I, who was then praying, refer to the same personality; but to the nature he had before the world was, and to the nature he then had. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.7}
Again, “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor.” Here the same he who was rich became poor. In this case, we have only one personality, yet two natures and conditions. But how could he change his nature, and yet retain his personality? Ans. Just as easily as our nature can be changed from mortality to immortality; from flesh to spirit, without losing our personal identity. Just reverse the process of making a mortal being immortal, and it would make an immortal being mortal. God can just as easily do the one as the other. In changing man’s nature from mortality to immortality, from flesh to spirit, God will simply change the mode of his existence, without changing his personal identity. Just so in reference to the Son of God, the Father changed his nature, and, as a natural consequence, the manner of his existence, without changing his personal identity. Hence, it is the same person, who had glory with the Father before the world was, who was born of Mary, in the days of Augustus Caesar, who was condemned by Pontius Pilate, crucified by the Jews, buried in Joseph’s new tomb, rose again the third day, and who is now exalted on the right hand of the throne in the heavens, a Prince and Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins. {ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.8}
(To be Continued.) ARSH November 14, 1854, page 107.9
The Advent Review, and Sabbath Herald, vol. 6
November 21, 1854
(Continued.) ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.2
“WE have failed to find in the entire history of the Son of God, from his origin, as “the first born of every creature,” to his death, one intimation of the duplicity of his nature; but on the contrary, he is invariably presented as a unit being, having but one personality. It having been shown, in a previous part of this work, that man is a unit, in the sense of his being but one man, it follows, as a matter of course, that if the Son of God became a real man, he must have been a unit being. Indeed this was actually necessary in order to his becoming a real substitute for man. One nature cannot be a substitute, in fact, for another and entirely different nature; hence to have any analogy between the means employed, and the end to be attained, Christ must have been a real man, having but one nature, and personality. He must also have died a literal death, as a whole being; for thus were those for whom he became a substitute, condemned to die. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.3}
It has been shown that the penalty of God’s law, for personal transgression, is the literal death of the whole man; hence for Christ to die in the sinner’s stead, as the Scriptures plainly teach he did, he must have died a literal, and matter of fact, death: the intelligent part of his nature must have died. This brings me to investigate, as the next important event in the history of our Lord, the Bible record of his death. Read the entire history of his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, and you will not find an intimation, of any part of his intelligent, or unintelligent nature, surviving death; no intimation of a soul or spirit which escaped. But did that being, who “was in the beginning with God,” die? Mark his reply to the men who said, We seek, “Jesus of Nazareth.” He said “I am he;” that is, I am Jesus of Nazareth. Is it not the same I that prays to the Father, “Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was!” {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.4}
When expiring on the cross, he said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, (life,) and having said thus, he gave up the ghost” – died. Luke 23:46. Joseph of Arimathea, “went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapt it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.” Verses 50-53. This identical personage arose from the dead. “Upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, came the women to the sepulchre, to anoint the body of their Lord; and they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre, and they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold two men stood by them in shining garments; and they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen. Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And it came to pass, that while they communed together, and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them… . And he (Jesus) said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, … how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him. And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself st
ood in the midst of them, and said unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see, for a spirit (or an apparition as they supposed him to be) hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” Luke 24. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.5}
Is there any transition in this whole history, from one person to another? or any intimation of any part of Christ’s nature being exempted in this simple narration? Does not the pronoun I, represent the same being, when our Lord says, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself,” that it does where he says, “I lay down my life for the sheep?” and does it not mean the same when he says, “I came down from heaven?” Does not Jesus of Nazareth refer to the same person after his resurrection, that it did before? {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.6}
The apostles bear united testimony to the literal death of Christ as a unit being. Hear the bold and decisive language of Peter on the day of Pentecost: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. Him … ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain whom God hath raised up.” But we are told that this was only the body of “Jesus of Nazareth” which was “crucified and slain;” that his soul did not die: it went to Paradise on that very day. This theology which teaches that Christ had two distinct natures, at the same time, the one of which died, and the other escaped to realms of bliss, has no foundation in the word of God. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.7}
Isaiah, speaking of his death, says, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin.” Isaiah 53:10. How did the Father make his soul a sacrifice for sin? Ans. “Because he hath poured out his soul unto death.” Our Saviour said in his agony in the Garden, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” And in this prophecy we are told that his soul was made a sacrifice for sin, that it was poured out unto death, or that it died. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.8}
David saw his soul in death, and the grave, and predicted that it should not see corruption, nor be left in the grave. Psalm 16:10. “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, (Sheol, the grave,) neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” Peter quotes this prophecy on the day of Pentecost, and applies it to Christ. Acts 2:27. “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, (Hades, the grave,) neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” Here we are emphatically taught that the soul of Christ died, and was buried; and by reference to verse 31, we learn that it had a resurrection. “He (David) seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, (Hades, the grave,) neither his flesh did see corruption.” {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.9}
In these passages, soul, Christ, and flesh, are convertible terms. Observe, 1st, His soul must have been mortal or it could not have died. 2nd. As such, had God withheld his power, his flesh must have seen corruption, the same as that of any other dead man. But lest some should deny that his soul is characteristic of his highest nature, I will select a few passages, in which, in the highest character ascribed to him in the Bible, he is represented as humbling himself and becoming obedient unto death: where the same identical being who had glory with the “Father before the world was,” is represented as dying. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.10}
“Paul, speaking of Christ’s highest nature, says, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Phil. 2:6. That this verse refers to his Divine nature, all admit, who believe he had a Divine nature; yet it is emphatically declared in the two verses following, that he “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.” Here it is expressly declared that this exalted being who was “in the form of God,” humbled himself, 1st, by becoming man; 2nd, by becoming “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 113.11}
. . .We are prepared at this point of the investigation, to understand the relation the sacrifice of Christ, or the atonement, sustains to the law of God. In presenting this part of the subject, I shall compare what I understand to be the Bible view, with the two theories upon this point, believed by most of Christendom. They are the Unitarian and Trinitarian views. These views occupy the two extreme points. Many of the most eminent writers, in the Unitarian school, deny the pre-existence of the Son of God, as a real personality; but take the position that he was a good, yea, a perfect man. I would look with the highest degree of admiration upon the magnanimity and self-sacrifice of a king of spotless purity, just and good, and loved by all his subjects, who, for the forfeited lives of a few rebellious subjects in a remote province of his kingdom, would voluntarily descend from his throne, and exile himself in the garb of the meanest peasant, wear out his life in acts of kindness toward them, and last of all, die the most infamous and ignominious death, to save their lives, and bring them back in allegiance to his throne. Such an act of disinterestedness and love would fill the world with the loudest songs of praise and admiration; but, however great and praise-worthy such an act might justly appear, it falls almost infinitely below the claims of Jehovah’s abused and violated law. I cannot conceive how the life of one man, however good or perfect, or benevolent, could render an equivalent for the forfeited lives of all the millions of the human race, whose characters, in case of perfect obedience, would be equally exceptionless. I cannot conceive how the death of one good man could render an adequate atonement for the lives of so many millions. But, according to the views of these writers, we have only the death of a good man’s body, while all that is noble, dignified, responsible, and intelligent, survives death, nay, by this very act, is exalted to higher degrees of bliss and glory. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 114.1}
The Trinitarian view, I think is equally exceptionable. They claim that the Son of God had three distinct natures at the same time; viz., a human body, a human soul, united with his Divine nature: the body being mortal, the soul immortal, the Divinity co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal with the everlasting Father.&nbs
p;Now, none of the advocates of this theory, claim that either his soul or Divinity died, that the body was the only part of this triple being which actually died “the death of the cross;” hence, according to this view (which makes the death of Christ the grand atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world) we only have the sacrifice of the most inferior part—the human body—of the Son of God. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 114.2}
But it is claimed that his soul suffered the greater part of the penalty—yet it did not suffer “the death of the cross:” it deserted the body in its greatest extremity, and left it to bear alone the death penalty; hence, the death of the cross is still only the death of a human body. But even admitting that in his highest nature as a human being, he suffered, all of which his nature, as such, was susceptible, during his whole life, and then died the ignominious death of the cross—even then, such a sacrifice would come almost infinitely short of the demands of God’s just and holy law, which has been violated by all of Adam’s race, (infants excepted,) and trodden under foot with impunity, for so many thousands of years. Of this Trinitarians themselves are sensible; hence, they represent his Divinity as the altar upon which his humanity was sacrificed; and then estimate the intrinsic value of the sacrifice by that of the altar upon which it was offered. But if I understand the theory under consideration, the Divine nature of Jesus Christ had no part nor lot in this matter; for this nature suffered no loss, indeed, made no sacrifice whatever. Suppose a king to unite the dignity of his only son with one of his poorest peasants, so far as to call him his son; and then should subject this peasant under the character of his own son, to a life of poverty, privation and suffering, and then crucify him under the character of a malefactor, while his real son enjoyed all the blessings of life, health, ease, honor and glory of his father’s court—would any one contend in such case, that because he was called after the name, and clothed with honorary titles of the king’s son, and died in this character, that therefore his suffering and death would be entitled to all the dignity and honor of his real son? In this case, all the sacrifice is made by the peasant. The son has no part nor lot in the matter. It is emphatically the offering of a peasant, and worth just as much as he is worth, had just as much dignity, and no more. The same is true in reference to the sacrifice of Christ, according to the above view. His humanity suffered all that was suffered, made all the sacrifice that was made; his privation, suffering and death are, therefore, entitled to all the value, dignity and honor, this nature could confer upon it, and no more. Hence, according to this theory, we have only a human sacrifice; and the question still remains to be answered, How can the life of one human being make an adequate atonement for the lives of thousands of millions of others? {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 114.3}
So, after all that has been said and written by these two schools, it appears that there is no real difference in their respective theories, in reference to the atonement; both have, in fact, only a human sacrifice: but with reference to their views of the highest nature of the Son of God, they are as far asunder as finitude, and infinitude, time and eternity. The former makes the “only Begotten of the Father,” a mere mortal, finite man; the latter makes him the Infinite, Omnipotent, All-wise, and Eternal God, absolutely equal with the Everlasting Father. Now, I understand the truth to be in the medium between these two extremes. I have proved, as I think conclusively, 1st, that the Son of God in his highest nature existed before the creation of the first world, or the first intelligent being in the vast Universe; 2nd, that he had an origin; that “he was the first born of every creature;” “the beginning of the creation of God;” [Rev. 3:14;] 3rd, that, in his highest nature, all things in heaven and in earth were created, and are upheld, by him; 4th, in his dignity, he was exalted far above all the angels of heaven, and all the kings and potentates of earth; 5th, in his nature he was immortal, (not in an absolute sense,) and Divine; 6th, in his titles and privileges, he was “the only begotten of his Father,” whose glory he shared “before the world was;” the “image of the invisible God;” “in the form of God;” and “thought it not robbery to be equal with God;” “the likeness of his Father’s glory and express image of his person;” “the Word” who “was in the beginning with God” and who “was God.” This was the exalted, and dignified, personage, who was sacrificed for the sins of the world—these are the privileges he voluntarily surrendered; and although “rich, for our sake he became poor:” “he made himself of no reputation,” and became man; and “being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” to declare the righteousness of God, “that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 114.4}
Here was real humility; not a mere pretense or show; here, we behold the amazing spectacle of the well-beloved and “only begotten Son of God,” “the first born of every creature,” voluntarily divesting himself of “the glory he had with the Father before the world,” coming down from heaven, his high and holy habitation, and though “rich” becoming so poor that he had “not where to lay his head,” the blessed Word who “was in the beginning with God,” and who was God, actually becoming flesh, in the ignoble garb of a servant—subjecting himself to all the privations, temptations, sorrows, and afflictions, to which poor fallen humanity is subjected; and then to complete this unprecedented sacrifice, we see this once honored, but now humbled—this once exalted, but now abased personage, expiring, as a malefactor, upon the accursed cross; and last of all descending into the depths of the dark and silent tomb—a symbol of the lowest degree of humiliation. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 114.5}
This, this, is the sacrifice, the “only begotten of the Father” offered as an atonement for the sins of the world; this is the being who was actually sacrificed, and this the price the Son of God actually paid for our redemption. Hence, in reference to its dignity, it is the sacrifice of the most exalted and dignified being in the vast empire of God; nay, the sacrifice of the King’s only begotten Son. In reference to its intrinsic value, who can estimate the worth of God’s darling Son? It is, to say the least of it, an equivalent for the dignity, the lives, and eternal interests of the whole world; nay further, it is equal in value to all the moral interest of the whole intelligent creation, and equal in dignity and honor to the moral government of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. In reference to its nature, it is Divine; hence we have a Divine sacrifice, in contradistinction to the Trinitarian and Unitarian views, which make it only a human sacrifice. In reference to its fullness, it is infinite, boundless. Yes, thank God, there is enough for each, enough for all, enough for ever more; enough to save an intelligent Universe, were they all sinners; and lastly, in reference to its adaptation to man’s conditions and necessities, it is absolutely perfect. {ARSH November 21, 1854, page 114.6}
The Adventist Review , and Sabbath
Herald, vol. 6
December 5, 1854
…The same principle is brought to view by Paul in his first epistle to Timothy, chap 4:10: “Who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” In the sense of having made an atonement, or provisions for the salvation of all men, he is the Saviour of all men; but in the personal or individual application of this remedy, he is only the Saviour of them that believe. Hence we may plainly see that the atonement, so far from justifying the sinner by virtue of Christ’s death in his stead, only places him in a condition whereby God may grant pardon upon any conditions whatever, much less, to grant a free and full pardon to the incorrigible and impenitent, without any conditions whatever. Those who so fondly cling to this theory as their only hope, will justify in the only wise God, that which they would condemn in any earthly judge. These objections, therefore, are invalid with every friend of the Bible, because they contradict the whole scope of that blessed Book, and only guide for the Christian traveler, o’er this world’s dark maze. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.14}
To sum up the evidence upon this point, it has been proved conclusively, {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.15}
1st. That Christ actually made an atonement for the whole world. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.16}
2nd. That the application of this atonement to the individual salvation of the sinner, is made conditional. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.17}
3rd. That all those who comply with these conditions shall be pardoned, or have their sins actually remitted. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.18}
4th. And that all, without exception, who do not comply with the conditions specified, will never receive the pardon, or remission of their sins, but will suffer the penalty for their personal sins, in their own persons. Then flee O sinner to Christ as thy only refuge against the gathering storm! Hasten, while mercy may yet be found, pardon obtained, and salvation secured, Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation. To-day if ye will hear his voice harden not your heart, as the Israelites did, in the day of their provocation, and perished. Soon shall the door of mercy be closed against you for ever. Soon the decree shall go forth, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.19}
b. The position I have taken in reference to the nature, origin, and incarnation of the Son of God, will be objected to by many. I am willing to suspend all the Bible objections, which may be urged against these views, upon the evidence therein adduced, except one; that is the supposed evidence of his being absolutely equal with the Father, the Supreme and only true God. This view is urged, {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.20}
1st. From the fact that the highest titles the Father ever claimed are applied to the Son. If this were true, it would be unanswerable; but that it is not, is evident from the following titles of supremacy which are never applied to the Son. I will quote the following from Henry Grew’s work on the Sonship, p.48. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.21}
“Although the Son of God … is honored with appropriate titles of dignity and glory, he is distinguished from ‘the only true God,’ by the following titles of supremacy which belong to the ‘invisible God’ alone. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.22}
Jehovah, Whose name alone is Jehovah. Psalm 83:18.
The eternal God. Deuteronomy 33:27.
Most High God. Mark 5:7; Daniel 5:18.
God alone. Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 37:16.
Lord alone. Nehemiah 9:6.
God of heaven. Daniel 2:44.
Besides me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6.
Who only hath immortality. 1 Timothy 6:16.
The only true God. John 17:3.
The King eternal, immortal, invisible. 1 Timothy 1:17.
The only wise God. 1 Timothy 1:17.
Lord, God Omnipotent. Revelation 19:6.
Blessed and only Potentate. 1 Timothy 6:15.
One God and Father of all. Ephesians 4:6.
The only Lord God. Jude 4.
There is but one God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.23}
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:31.” {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.24}
2nd. He exercised power and prerogatives which belong to the supreme God alone. I cannot answer this objection more forcibly than by presenting the Trinitarian view, and Bible view, in contrast. In doing this, I will avail myself of a list of quotations presented by the same author. pp.66,67. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 123.25}
CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLESTRINITARIANSTo us there is but one God the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6.To us there is but one God, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost.My Father is greater than I John 14:28The Son is as great as the Father.Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature Colossians 1:15Who is the invisible God, the uncreated JehovahThe Son can do nothing of himself John 5:19.The Son is omnipotentBut of that day, etc., knoweth no man, no not the angels, etc., neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32.The Son is omniscient, and knew of that day as well as the Father.
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Matthew 28:18.No given power can qualify the Son of God to give eternal life to his people.As thou hast given him power over all flesh,, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John 17:22.God who created all things by Jesus Christ. – Ephesians 3:9Jesus Christ created all things by his own independent powerThe revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him. Revelation 1:1The revelation of Jesus Christ from his own omniscienceFor there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5.There is one Mediator between God and man; who is also the supreme God and man in our personDenying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4.Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also the only Lord God, and a distinct person.Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and signs, and wonders which God did by him. Acts 2:22Jesus performed his miracles by his own omnipotenceFor as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John 5:26.He is self-existentI live by the Father. John 6:57.The Son lives by himselfThis is my Son. Matthew 3:17This is the only true God, the same numerical essence as the Father.That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. John 17:3.That they might know thee, who art not the only true God in distinction from the Word whom thou hast sent.That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, … and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10, 11That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow; and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to his own glory
3rd. He is called God. It has been shown that the term Son of God is expressive of his highest nature. Now, that the Son should be called by the Father’s name is not at all unreasonable. By reference to Psalm 82; also, Exodus 7:1; 22:28; John 10:34, 35, you will find this term applied to mortal men. Moreover the Son of God in this character calls his father God. Hebrews 1:9; John 20:17; Revelation 3:12. And in this character, as has been shown, he was begotten and died. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 124.1}
4th. I will consider a few of those passages of scripture which are so frequently, and confidently quoted to prove that Jesus Christ in his essential nature, is the very and eternal God. In Colossians 2:9, we are told, that in Jesus Christ “dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” But a few verses before this, the same Apostle tells us, “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Chap 1:19. This same Apostle represents even the saints as being “filled with all the fullness of God.” Ephesians 3:19. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 124.2}
Again in Colossians 1:15. “Who is the image of the invisible God.” The last clause of the same verse says of this very being that he is “the first born of every creature.” Also Philippians 2:6. “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The two verses following declare that this very personage became man and died. “I have power to lay it (my life) down, and I have power to take it again.” John 10:18. This is considered one of the strongest proof texts; and yet our Saviour confesses in the very next words he utters: “This commandment have I received of my Father.” I will submit this subject to the investigation of the candid reader, by quoting one more proof text. Revelation 1:8. “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.” By reference to verses 17 and 18, of this chapter, we may learn that this identical being was dead. “I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold I am alive forevermore. Amen.” {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 124.3}
Truth is the flour that seeds the Garden of Heaven and candor the workman who tills it. {ARSH December 5, 1854, page 124.4}