Uriah Smith 1832 – 1903
Uriah Smith was only twelve years old during the tense days of 1844, but the Millerite movement with its messages of Christ’s second coming made a sobering impression upon him. In 1853 he writes:
“In regard to the past I would say, that though quite young, I was in the messages of 1843-44, and have believed that they meant something. In all the scattering and dividing which followed the passing of that time, I gave but little attention til [sic] after the Washington, New Hampshire conference last fall.” — Uriah Smith, “A Letter to the Review and Herald,” Review, 4:2, June 9, 1853, p. 16.
Special Note: Ellen G White’s endorsements of Uriah Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation:
“I feel very tender toward Elder Smith. My life-interest in the publishing work is bound up with his. He came to us as a young man, possessing talents that qualified him to stand in his lot and place as an editor. How I rejoice as I read his articles in the Review—so excellent, so full of spiritual truth. I thank God for them. I feel a strong sympathy for Elder Smith, and I believe that his name should always appear in the Review as the name of the leading editor. Thus God would have it. When, some years ago, his name was placed second, I felt hurt. When it was again placed first, I wept, and said, “Thank God.” May it always be there, as God designs it shall be, while Elder Smith’s right hand can hold a pen. And when the power of his hand fails, let his sons write at his dictation.” {Lt47-1902.6}
In His Book, Looking Unto Jesus, 1898
“God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be,—a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity,—appeared the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness of time, was made flesh, and dwelt among us. His beginning was not like that of any other being in the universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s] only begotten Son” (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42. Thus it appears that by some divine impulse or process, not creation, known only to Omniscience, and possible only to Omnipotence, the Son of God appeared. And then the Holy Spirit (by an infirmity of translation called “the Holy Ghost”), the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the divine afflatus and medium of their power, representative of them both (Ps. 139:7), was in existence also.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, pg. 10.1){LUJ 10.1}
“The apostle, in this passage, is contrasting the original exaltation of the Lord Jesus with the humiliation he was willing to suffer for the sake of man; but one whole side of the contrast is lost, unless Christ was, before he undertook man’s redemption, in such a position of equality with God. That he did hold such a position, therefore, Paul must be understood as plainly affirming. He corroborates the declaration of John, that “the Word was God.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, pg. 11.1) {LUJ 11.1}
In this condition of glory, Christ Jesus antedated all things. In Rev.3:14, he calls himself by a title which the translators have rendered “the beginning of the creation of God,” and which some hold to mean that the work of creation was begun, not by, but with him, thus degrading him to the level of a created being; whereas, the meaning of the word would suggest rather the idea of “headship,” and present him, not as the “beginning,” but as the beginner, of the creation of God; and the demands of harmony with other scriptures hold us imperatively to this construction. No work of creation was accomplished till after Christ became an active agent upon the scene; for all this work was wrought through him. John says: “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” Paul to the Hebrews corroborates the words of John. He says that God hath appointed his Son “heir of all things:” that he is “the express image of his person,” the “brightness of his glory,” and that by him “he made the world.” Heb. 1:2,3. But to the Colossians he bears a still more definite testimony. In chapter 1:15-17, he says of Christ: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: 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: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, pg. 12.1){LUJ 12.1}
“With the Son, the evolution of deity, as deity, ceased. All else, of things animate or inanimate, has come in by creation of the Father and the Son – the Father the antecedent cause, the Son the acting agent through whom all has been wrought. (Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus 1898, pg. 13.1) {LUJ 13.1}
“As related to all else, animate and inanimate, all shining worlds that people space, all orders of intelligences, above and below, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers, visible and invisible, he antedated them all, as in uncreated being, derived from God, he took his place, as ‘the only begotten Son’ ‘of the Father’…” (Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus 1898, pg. 17.2) {LUJ 17.2}
“When Christ left heaven to die for a lost world, he left behind, for the time being, his immortality also. but how could that be laid aside? That it was laid aside is sure, or he could not have died; but he did die, as a whole, as a divine being, as the Son of God, not in body only, while the spirit, the divinity, lived right on; for then the world would have only a human Saviour, a human sacrifice for its sins; but the prophet says that “his soul” was made “an offering for sin.” Isaiah 53:10. But how this could be done, is a question like a hundred other questions that might be asked concerning this heaven-devised transaction, the answers to which the finite mind could never grasp. The nature, though not the manner, of this marvelous event, Paul partially reveals in 1 Timothy 3:16: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” “The Word,” says John, “was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 1:14. Again we read: “But
we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9), that is, that he might suffer death. (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, pg. 23.2) {LUJ 23.2}
Father, Son and Holy Spirit
“1. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Matt. 28:19. By this we express our belief in the existence of the one true God, the mediation of his Son, and the influence of the Holy Spirit.” (Uriah Smith, 1858, The Bible Students Assistant, pages 21, 22)
About trinity
“In 1 Cor. 15, I find that it is not the natural man that hath immortality; yet Paul assures the Romans that by patient continuance in well doing all could obtain immortality and eternal life. The doctrine called the trinity, claiming that God is without form or parts; that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the three are one person, is another. Could God be without form or parts when he “spoke unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto a friend?” [Ex. 33:11] or when the Lord said unto him, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live? And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen. Ex. 33:20, 22, 23. Christ is the express image of his Father’s person. Heb. 1:3.” (Uriah Smith, July 10, 1856, Review & Herald, vol. 8, no. 11, page 87, par. 33)
About the Holy Spirit
“Again, it is urged that God is omnipresent; and how can this be, if he is a person? Answer, He has a representative, his Holy Spirit, by which he is ever present and ever felt in all his universe. “whither shall I go,” asks David, “from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” Ps. 139:7. And John saw standing before the throne of God seven Spirits, which are declared to be “the seven Spirits of God,” and which are “sent forth into all the earth.” Rev. 4:5; 5:6.” — Uriah Smith, “The Image of God” Review and Herald – April 16, 1872, pg. 140
In the Question Chair
Answered by Uriah Smith
Review and Herald October 14, 1890
M. E. F. writes: 1. Is God everywhere? I do not find proof of it in the Bible. If he is, how can evil be in the world, as he cannot dwell with evil. 2. Does God’s Spirit prompt the good deeds of a person who is not a Christian?
ANS.-1. We understand that the Holy Spirit is God’s representative, and through that agency he is everywhere present in knowledge and power, though not personally present. There are two texts which sustain this view : Ps. 139:7 : Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” This shows that where God’s Spirit is, there his presence is said to be. Rev. 5:6 : “The seven Spirits of God [an expression to denote the Spirit of God in its fullness and perfection] sent forth into all the earth.” Thus it is everywhere present. 2. Yes ; just as the Spirit of God operates now to restrain men within certain limits, so that they are not permitted to plunge into too great depths of evil.
J. W. W. Asks: “Are we to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person, the same as the Father and the Son? Some claim that it is, others that it is not.”
Ans.—The terms “Holy Ghost”, are a harsh and repulsive translation. It should be “Holy Spirit” (hagion pneuma) in every instance. This Spirit is the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ; the Spirit being the same whether it is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. But respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present. Christ is a person, now officiating as priest in the sanctuary in heaven; and yet he says that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he is there in the midst. Mt. 18:20. How? Not personally, but by his Spirit. In one of Christ’s discoursed (John 14-16) this Spirit is personified as “the Comforter,” and as such has the personal and relative pronouns, “he,” “him,” and “whom,” applied to it. But usually it is spoken of in a way to show that it cannot be a person, like the Father and the Son. For instance, it is often said to be “poured out” and “shed abroad.” But we never read about God or Christ being poured out or shed abroad. If it was a person, it would be nothing strange for it to appear in bodily shape; and yet when it has so appeared, that fact has been noted as peculiar. Thus Luke 3:22 says: “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” But the shape is not always the same; for on the day of Pentecost it assumed the form of “cloven tongues like as of fire.” Acts 2:3, 4. Again we read of “the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.” Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6. This is unquestionably simply a designation of the Holy Spirit, put in this form to signify its perfection and completeness. But it could hardly be so described if it was a person. We never read of the seven Gods or the seven Christs. (Uriah Smith, October 28, 1890, Review & Herald)
Five months after this article appeared in the Review & Herald, Uriah Smith delivered a sermon before the General Conference. In this sermon he comes to a place where he realizes the necessity of explaining some things about the Spirit of God.
Note: Uriah Smith described the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. He referred to this Spirit using the word “it”rather than “He” sixteen times in this one paragraph. Just seven paragraphs later he makes the following statement.
“It may not then be out of place for us to consider for a moment what this Spirit is, what ITS office is, what ITS relation to the world and to the church, and what the Lord through this proposes to do for his people. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God; IT is also the Spirit of Christ. IT IS THAT DIVINE, MYSTERIOUS EMANATION through which they carry forward their great and infinite work. IT is called the Eternal Spirit; IT is a spirit that is omniscient and omnipresent; IT is the spirit that moved, or brooded, upon the face of the waters in the early days when chaos reigned, and out of the chaos was brought the beauty and the glory of this world. IT IS THE AGENCY through which life is imparted; it is the medium through which all God’s blessings and graces come to his people. IT is the Comforter; it is the Spirit of Truth; IT is the vital connection between us and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; for the apostle tells us that if we “have not the Spirit of Christ,” were are “none of his.” IT is a spirit which is tender; which can be insulted, can be grieved, can be quenched. IT IS THE AGENCY through which we are to be introduced, if ever we are introduced to immortality; for Paul says that
if the spirit of Him that raised up Christ from the dead dwell in you, he shall quicken also your mortal bodies by that Spirit which dwelleth in you; that is, the Spirit of Christ. Rom. 8:11. So there is no experience in the Christian life, there is no truth that can come into the heart of man, there is no good and holy resolve we can make, there is no prayer we can offer to Heaven, but that must be vivified and made potential by the influence of the Holy Spirit. And if this is the spirit from which these gifts come, then certainly it becomes us carefully and reverently to study this subject… You will notice in these few verses the apostle brings to view the THREE GREAT AGENCIES which are concerned in this work: God, the Father; Christ, his Son; and the Holy Spirit…. (Uriah Smith, “The Spirit of Prophecy and Our Relation To It; Sermon delivered on March 14, 1891; The General Conference Bulletin No. 11; March 18, 1891 pg 146.6-147.4). Source: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/GCSessionBulletins/GCB1891-11.pdf
Question Chair
Answered by Uriah Smith
Review and Herald – November 19, 1895
546.— THE LOVE OF GOD. Through what divine agency is the love of God imparted to us? A. J. A.
Ans.— God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the sinner himself, are all concerned in the work of conversion ; and when a person is converted, his heart is filled with love,— love to God and love to his fellow-men. God is love, and Christ is love, and they have promised to take up their abode with the believer ; and when they are dwelling in the heart, they of course bring perfect love with them. He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God. 1 John 4:16. Then again, it is said in Rom. 5:5 that the love of God “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.” God by his law convicts of sin ; the sinner yields ; Christ presents himself as the one great sacrifice through which forgiveness of sins and pardon are obtained ; and the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier of the soul. We can hardly separate their agencies in the work. For instance, Christ created the worlds ; but God created them through Christ. The Holy Spirit is the representative of God and Christ, sent forth into all the earth. Rev. 5:5. The Holy Spirit works ; but it is God and Christ working through it.
“DIVINE BEINGS’
“It Doth Not Yet Appear” Uriah Smith Review and Herald – December 5, 1899
“What marvelous love is manifested in this! We were not only strangers to God’s family, but rebels against his throne. But notwithstanding all this, he opens the way whereby we may change this relationship all over, as to its nature and quality, and be no more strangers and foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel, but “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,” and be raised to joint heirship with his only Son. To this extent do DIVINE BEINGS show their love to believers. The Father, in his abounding grace, adopts; the Son, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, humbled himself and became obedient to the death of the cross to redeem and deliver them; and the Holy Spirit witnesses that we are the children of God. In view of all this, can we be surprised at the touching sight of an aged man like John, suddenly changing the tone of calm reasoning and exhortation, to that of divine ecstasy, and breaking forth with the exclamation, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us’”
The Whole Family Uriah Smith Review and Herald – February 12, 1901 https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19010212-V78-07.pdf pdf p.9/16
Paul said that he was a citizen of no mean city (Acts 21: 39) ; so we can say that we are members of no mean family — God, Christ, angels, and men. Some of the family below, to be sure, are moral dwarfs and spiritual cripples; but those that walk the golden streets are such as we would be glad to associate with forever… The crowning word in the passage under notice is ” named” —” from whom the whole family . . . is named,”— named with a name that means everything, and includes everything,— the name Of the firstborn, the first-begotten of the Father, even Jesus Christ. Thus we are acknowledged to be sons as truly as was Jesus Christ; for we are called by His name. For this reason we are to honor Him, by glorifying His name, which we bear. And we are greatly honored by Him in being allowed to bear so august a name. This also suggests to us whom we are to imitate. We are to walk in His steps. “Looking unto Jesus,” says the apostle to the Hebrews. “the Author and Finisher of our faith.”… …In a higher sense God indulges in a divine hope in our calling. We are adopted as sons, that we may take a son’s place and do a son’s work in the family. God’s hope in calling us to be sons is that we may be witnesses for Him, teaching the truth to others, and be good soldiers of the cross. God hopes to have all His children with Him in His house at last, to be forever with Him. “Father,” says Christ, “will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they, may behold my glory.” John 17:24. The better we know God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the better we ‘shall understand His hope in making us sons and daughters. When we come fully into this state of mind, it will lead us to try sincerely not to disappoint the hope God has in us.
Doxology
Note: This statement is very interesting as it explains that the Pioneers understood the use of the term, “three great agencies” in a way that is in harmony with the teaching that the Holy Spirit is not a third, separate being, but rather the Spirit of the Father and His Son.
“Do the Scriptures warrant the praise or worship of the Holy Spirit? IF NOT, DOES NOT THE LAST LINE OF THE DOXOLOGY CONTAIN AN UNSCRIPTURAL SENTIMENT? D. H.
ANSWER.— WE KNOW OF NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE WHERE WE ARE COMMANDED TO WORSHIP THE HOLY SPIRIT, AS WAS COMMANDED IN THE CASE OF CHRIST (HEB 1:6) OR WHERE WE FIND AN EXAMPLE OF THE WORSHIP OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AS IN THE CASE OF CHRIST. LUKE 21:52. YET in the formula for baptism, the name ” Holy Ghost,” or “Holy Spirit,” is associated with that of the Father and the Son. And if the name can be thus used, why could it not properly stand as a part of the same trinity in the hymn of praise, ” Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ” (Uriah Smith, RH Oct 27, 1896)
Review and Herald – December 22, 1896, pg. 813
In the Question Chair
719.— READING OF 2 THESS. 1:10 — CHRIST’S IMMORTALITY.
1. An Age-to-come, ” Millennial Dawn” preacher here reads 2 Thess. 1:10 in the future tense, to make it apply to the future age. Will it bear that rendering? 2. Does 1 Tim. 1:14-16 teach that God only by nature has immortality, and that Christ did not have it till it was bestowed upon h
im by the Father? J. F. A.
Ans.— (1) The testimony of which the apostle speaks is not a testimony that is to be given and believed in a future age, and thereby people be enabled to secure salvation who did not secure it here…(2) The expression that God “only hath immortality,” in the sense of being originally the supreme fountain and source of all life, must be true in the very nature of the case if he antedates all other beings. Christ had a beginning. John 1:1. But that was not like the beginning of other intelligences in the universe, which are all creations of Christ himself. Col. 1:16. He was not a created being, but “proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:12. He is the only begotten Son of the Father. John 1:14, 18. By nature, then, he is co-equal with God. From the beginning of his existence he must have been as essentially, immortal as God; and yet it all came from God. So Christ says that, “As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. No others have immortality, except as God and Christ bestow it upon them.
Jesus, a Created Being?
“This view, and this only, is consistent with the scripture which represents CHRIST AS A CREATED BEING, [“the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev.iii,14], and that large class of texts which speak of Christ as distinct from the Father, in as plain terms as language can employ, and declare him to be subordinate to him, sent forth by him, dying to reconcile the world to him, etc., declarations utterly at variance with the popular idea of a triune God. {October 13, 1859 Uriah Smith, ARSH 164.3}
In his first book, Thoughts, Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation-1865 edition, Smith again described Christ as a created Being:
“Moreover he is the ‘beginning of the creation of God.’ Not the beginner, but the beginning, of the creation, the FIRST CREATED BEING, DATING HIS EXISTENCE BACK BEFORE ANY OTHER CREATED BEING OR THING, next to the self-existent and eternal God. On this expression Barnes makes the following significant admission: ‘If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact.’” (Uriah Smith, Thoughts, Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation-1865 edition, pg. 59)
Note: Regarding Uriah Smith’s (as well as Stephenson and Loughborough’s) usage of the term “created” may be the victim of evolving language. If you look up the etymology of the word, you’ll find:
create (v.) “to bring into being,” early 15c., from Latin creatus, past participle of creare “to make, bring forth, produce, procreate, beget, cause,” related to Ceres and to crescere “arise, be born, increase, grow,” from PIE root *ker- (2) “to grow.” De Vaan writes that the original meaning of creare “was ‘to make grow’, which can still be found in older texts ….” Related: Created; creating. (https://www.etymonline.com/word/create)
In the same book, Smith also wrote:
“To the Lamb, equally with the Father who sits upon the throne, praise is ascribed in this song of adoration. Commentators, with great unanimity, have seized upon this as proof that CHRIST CANNOT BE A CREATED BEING; for in that case, say they, here would be worship paid to the creature which belongs only to the Creator. How does it prove this? WE READ THAT CHRIST IS THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD, Rev. 3 :14, AND THAT ALL SUBSEQUENT CREATIONS OF CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENCES OR INANIMATE THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM. John 1 : 3 ; Heb. 1 : 2. To all beings, therefore, of a lower order than himself, Christ holds the relation of joint-creator. Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without its being idolatry on the part of the worshiper ? He has raised him to positions which make it proper that he should be worshiped, and has even commanded that it should be done; neither of which acts would have been necessary, had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. Christ himself declares that as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John 5 : 26. On another occasion he says, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt. 28 :18. Paul declares of Christ that the Father has highly exalted him and given him a name above every name. Phil. 2 :9. And the Father himself says, ” Let all the angels of God worship him.” Heb. 1 : 6. These testimonies show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the Father ; but they do not prove that with him he holds an eternity of past existence.” (Uriah Smith, A Clean Universe, The Signs of the Times, Nov. 7, 1878; pg. 332) (Thoughts, Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation-1865 edition, pg. 91, 92)
It appears that Smith may have been using “created” in a generic sense, as in “to bring into being”, “bring forth” or to “beget” as this was an early meaning for the word which was lost as it narrowed towards a certain type of coming into being. The fact that “created” is a part of the word “procreated” demonstrates this connection. But later, as he felt the “heat” over being misunderstood, Smith edited later version of his book to remove any ambiguity. Just as Arius used the LXX word for “created” as he read it in Proverbs 8:22, Uriah Smith was using “creation” in the sense he read it in Rev 3:14… The common thread between Uriah Smith and others (J.M. Stephenson, Loughborough) that the term, “created” is only used in connection to the verse in Revelation which in the KJV reads “beginning of creation of God. They were simply using Biblical language but clearly Smith, as with Stephenson, understood that Christ was not of the same “lower order” as any other created being that came into existence.
That said, looking at the statements again, if you compare the above statements with statements below, especially how he qualifies the “beginning” and the “beginner,” he appears to have had a much stronger leaning towards Christ having been “created” (very similar to JWs) in the earlier statements, not unlike how we typically understand the word today. In the earlier statements, he does distinguish the disparity that exist between Christ and that of the rest of the creation which came after Him, and that the quality of Him as a “created being” was noted as clearly superior than all the subsequent created beings which He co-created along with God the Father. In all of the statements, U. Smith denotes the difference between the “beginner” and the “beginning;” the “beginning” being the anterior part of creation whereas the “beginner” being the “agent” of creation. Thus we are incline to think that to a greater extent, that his latter statements are a repudiation of his earlier statement:
“To the Lamb, equally with the Father who sits upon the throne, praise is ascribed in this song of adoration. Commentators, with great unanimity, have seized upon this as proof that Christ must be coeval with the Father; for otherwise, say they, here would be worship paid to the creature which belongs only to the Creator. But this does not seem to be a necessary conclusion. THE SCRIPTURES NOWHERE SPEAK OF CHRIST AS A CREATED BEING, BUT ON THE CONTRARY PLAINLY STATE THAT HE WAS BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER. (See remarks on Rev. 3:14, where it is shown that Christ is not a created being.) But while as the Son he does not possess a co-eternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John 1:3; Heb. 1:2. Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without its being idolatry on the part of the worshiper? He has raised him to positions which make it proper that he should be worshipped, and has even commanded that worship should be rendered him, which would not have been necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. Christ himself declares that “as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. The Father has “highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” Phil. 2:9. And the Father himself says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Heb. 1:6. These testimonies show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the Father; but they do not prove that with him he holds an eternity of past existence.” (Uriah Smith, 1882, Daniel And The Revelation, page 430)
“These Things Saith the Amen.—This is, then, the final message to the churches ere the close of probation. And though the description of their condition which he gives to the indifferent Laodiceans is fearful and startling, nevertheless it cannot be denied; for the Witness is “faithful and true.” Moreover, he is “the beginning of the creation of God.” Some attempt by this language to uphold the error that Christ was a created being [It appears that US understood that this was the view which he himself previous held], dating his existence anterior to that of any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God. But the language does not necessarily imply that he was created; for the words, “the beginning of the creation,” may simply signify that the work of creation, strictly speaking, was begun by him. “Without him was not anything made.” Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word to mean the “agent” or “efficient cause,” which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ, is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that the Son came into existence in a different manner, as he is called “the only begotten” of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of that term. For “beginning,” read “beginner,” (Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation 1897; pg. 371.2) (bracket supplied)
“God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be,—a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity,—appeared the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness of time, was made flesh, and dwelt among us. His beginning was not like that of any other being in the universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s] only begotten Son” (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42. Thus it appears that by some divine impulse or process, not creation, known only to Omniscience, and possible only to Omnipotence, the Son of God appeared. And then the Holy Spirit (by an infirmity of translation called “the Holy Ghost”), the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the divine afflatus and medium of their power, representative of them both (Ps. 139:7), was in existence also.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, pg. 10)
“The apostle, in this passage, is contrasting the original exaltation of the Lord Jesus with the humiliation he was willing to suffer for the sake of man; but one whole side of the contrast is lost, unless Christ was, before he undertook man’s redemption, in such a position of equality with God. That he did hold such a position, therefore, Paul must be understood as plainly affirming. He corroborates the declaration of John, that “the Word was God.”
In this condition of glory, Christ Jesus antedated all things. In Rev.3:14, he calls himself by a title which the translators have rendered “the beginning of the creation of God,” and which some hold to mean that the work of creation was begun, not by, but with him, thus degrading him to the level of a created being; whereas, the meaning of the word would suggest rather the idea of “headship,” and present him, not as the “beginning,” but as the beginner, of the creation of God; and the demands of harmony with other scriptures hold us imperatively to this construction. No work of creation was accomplished till after Christ became an active agent upon the scene; for all this work was wrought through him. John s
ays: “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” Paul to the Hebrews corroborates the words of John. He says that God hath appointed his Son “heir of all things:” that he is “the express image of his person,” the “brightness of his glory,” and that by him “he made the world.” Heb. 1:2,3. But to the Colossians he bears a still more definite testimony. In chapter 1:15-17, he says of Christ: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: 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: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, pp. 11, 12)“When Christ left heaven to die for a lost world, he left behind, for the time being, his immortality also. but how could that be laid aside? That it was laid aside is sure, or he could not have died; but he did die, as a whole, as a divine being, as the Son of God, not in body only, while the spirit, the divinity, lived right on; for then the world would have only a human Saviour, a human sacrifice for its sins; but the prophet says that “his soul” was made “an offering for sin.” Isa. 53:10.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, pp. 23, 24)
The same sort of thing probably was at play in the Arian controversy. In one of the few extant statements of Arius as quoted by his opponents, he used several synonyms for the idea of coming into being, one of which was the term for “created”. He really taught a begotten Christ, but later neo-Arians may have taken his ideas to extremes or his opponents may have over-emphasised a narrow meaning of the word.
The same can be true of Ellen White who used the term “made” regarding Christ and even John and Hebrews which use ginomai referring to Christ (often translated “made”)
The common thread between Stephenson, Smith and Loughborough is that “created” is only used in connection to the verse in Revelation 3:14 which in the KJV reads, “beginning of the creation of God”… It appears that they were using Biblical language the same way Arius used “created” (εκτισεν) as it appears in the LXX of Proverbs 8:22.
The same sort of thing probably was at play in the Arian controversy. In one of the few extant statements of Arius as quoted by his opponents, he used several synonyms for the idea of coming into being, one of which was the term for “created”. He really taught a begotten Christ, but later neo-Arians may have taken his ideas to extremes or his opponents may have over-emphasised a narrow meaning of the word.
The same can be true of Ellen White who used the term “made” regarding Christ and even John and Hebrews which use ginomai referring to Christ (often translated “made”)
J.M. Stephenson was only other author (besides U. Smith), whom we are aware of who was part of the early advent movement, who also described Christ to be a creation. But he left Adventism very early (approx 1855) so he wouldn’t necessarily be regarded as an Adventist pioneer. We do not have any further evidence whether he changed his views later.
The common thread between Stephenson and 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”… It appears that they were using Biblical language the same way Arius used “created” (εκτισεν) as it appears in the LXX of Proverbs 8:22.
On divinity of Christ
“Antichrist is one that denies Christ, or opposes the doctrines of christianity; now these mediums and believers in spirit teachings do this openly. They teach that the soul is immortal; a doctrine which is not taught in the Bible; and they positively deny the divinity of Christ. So they answer exactly the description given by Peter, when he says that they “shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.” (Uriah Smith, Youth’s Instructor, June 1854, ‘The Last Time’)
The Substance and Test of Christianity Uriah Smith Review and Herald – June 3, 1902
“…The holiness referred to must be the holiness of CHRIST. “Be ye holy; for I am holy;” and, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your FATHER which is in heaven is perfect,” is the standard held up for us by the TWO HIGHEST BEINGS in the universe. I Peter 1:16; Matt. 5:48.”
Did Uriah Smith change his views on Trinity?
Misunderstanding of Uriah Smith’s statement explained
“Do the Scriptures warrant the praise or worship of the Holy Spirit?… in the formula for baptism, the name ” Holy Ghost,” or “Holy Spirit,” is associated with that of the Father and the Son. And if the name can be thus used, why could it not properly stand as a part of the same trinity in the hymn of praise, ” Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ” (Uriah Smith, RH Oct 27, 1896)
Some have used the above statement to claim that Uriah Smith has changed his position on the doctrine of Trinity. But the full context of the noted statement which originally appeared in the Review and Herald Oct. 27, 1896 (as a response to a question) proves to be otherwise. The omitted portions in the above statement are emphasized by the words in caps below:
“Do the Scriptures warrant the praise or worship of the Holy Spirit? IF NOT, DOES NOT THE LAST LINE OF THE DOXOLOGY CONTAIN AN UNSCRIPTURAL SENTIMENT? D. H.
ANSWER.— WE KNOW OF NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE WHERE WE ARE COMMANDED TO WORSHIP THE HOLY SPIRIT, AS WAS COMMANDED IN THE CASE OF CHRIST (HEB 1:6) OR WHERE WE FIND AN EXAMPLE OF THE WORSHIP OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AS IN THE CASE OF CHRIST. LUKE 21:52. YET in the formula for baptism, the name ” Holy Ghost,” or “Holy Spirit,” is associated with that of the Father and the Son. And if the name can be thus used, why could it not properly stand as a part of the same trinity in the hymn of praise, ” Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ” (Uriah Smith, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald | October 27, 1896 digital library pdf 9/16)
Note: The entire context of the statement should leave no doubt as to what Uriah Smith’s view was at the time he wrote this statement. But even so, the use of the expression, “trinity” is certainly notable and one has to wonder why he used this term as it relates to the doxology. Smith used the word “trinity” because that word, when used with a little “t,” simply means a group of three, as it will be demonstrated from inspiration:
It is interesting to note that while some claim Ellen White to be a trinitarian, she only use the expression, “trinity” once, in her approximate 25 million words of testimony.
“This warning now comes to you, and what will you do with it? Will you say, “Have no fear of me?” But beware of that which the old writers called the world’s trinity—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. If you trifle and tamper with these, they will prove your ruin….{Lt43-1898.25}
Note: The expression, “world’s trinity” was used to merely list 3 types of sinful desires in the world – the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life. Thus, the expression, Mrs. White use did not refer to the doctrine of trinity rather it was simply use to denote a group of 3 and it’s quite probable that this was also the case with her contemporaries.
So the point here, considering what position he clearly held with regard to the doctrine of Trinity, when Uriah Smith wrote of the name of the Holy Spirit being found in the baptismal formula as his reason for it to “properly stand as a part of the same trinity in the hymn of praise”, he was talking about a trinity (a group of three) in the context of a song. He was not in anyway endorsing the doctrine.
As to the question, “DOES NOT THE LAST LINE OF THE DOXOLOGY [Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost] CONTAIN AN UNSCRIPTURAL SENTIMENT?” The original source does not show Smith addressing this particular question.
More on the doxology:
Those who believe Ellen White’s position changed from non-trinitarian to trinitarian, say Mrs. White was “already speaking of the Spirit as worthy of worship” in 1881. What they are referring to is Mrs. White’s reference to the doxology:
“I appeal to the congregation that regularly assemble at our Tabernacle: Will you not bring in your offerings to lift the debt from the Lord’s house? I appeal to those who send their children to Battle Creek, where they unite with us in the worship of God: Will you not assist us to lift this debt? I invite all to be especially liberal at this time. Let cheerful freewill-offerings be brought to the Lord, let us consecrate to Him all that we are, and all that we have, and then may we all unite to swell the songs, {RH January 4, 1881, Art. C, par. 18}
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise him, all creatures here below;
Praise him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” {“The New Year” RH January 4, 1881; Art. C, par. 19}
Now, if Mrs. White was “speaking of the Spirit as worthy of worship” by quoting the doxology hymn then this was actually the case in Seventh-day Adventism going back to 1849 via James White.
Back in 1849 James White published the hymn book “Hymns for God’s Peculiar People, that Keep the Commandments of God, and the Faith of Jesus.” It contained 53 hymns and what concerns us is the 53rd.
“HYMN 53.
Praise God from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him all creatures here below;
Praise Him, above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
AMEN!”
Again, if Mrs. White’s mention of the doxology is to be understood as her endorsing the trinity doctrine then there is just as much evidence to suggest that James White was also endorsing the idea of the Spirit as worthy of worship. Maybe that is possible but not probable knowing that James White was a clear anti-trinitarian.
In 1886 a SDA Hymnal was produced that was called “The Seventh-day Adventist Hymn and Tune Book.” And while the hymn “Holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty” found on pg 99 was edited to remove the God in three Persons reference (the church was non-trinitarian) the Doxology on pg 256 still read “Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” Thus it was just like James White’s original 1849 hymnbook. And guess who was the secretary for the committee that was in charge of making this 1886 hymnbook? You guessed it! Uriah Smith! Quoting now from the relevant GC minutes:
“The committee on new hymn book reported as follows:–
“We, your committee to consider plans for the production of a new hymn book, would submit the following report:–
“1. That a committee of twenty-five, of whom Elder George I. Butler shall be chairman and Elder U. Smith secretary, shall be chosen to gather up both hymns and music, and each individual, after due examination of what he collects, shall send it to the secretary of the committee. (GC Minutes Fourteenth Meeting, November 19, 1884, 2:30 P.M.)
The point here is that Uriah Smith, somewhere in the interim between 1884 to 1886, approved the usage of the doxology as a part of this committee! The hymns were sent to him. That was clearly his position back in at least 1886 and, arguably, maybe even going back so far as 1849! There does not appear to be any real change in his doctrine here at all.
While some may argue that doxology may contain elements of trinitarian sentiments and therefore those who sang it must believed trinity. But historical evidence shows that the SDA non-trinitarian church had no problem with praising the holy Spirit in a song… and that did NOT make them believers in the doctrine of the trinity. Unfortunately there are some who try to argue for SDA doctrine based off of hymnals but that is not really a sound argument to make. If it were the case then you could prove that they were trinitarians back in 1849!
Additional thoughts on doxology-Argument for worshipping the Holy Spirit
“Now a little point. As the saints in the kingdom of God are accepted in the beloved, they hear: “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And then the golden harps are touched, and the music flows all through the heavenly host, and they fall down and worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And then what? What next did I see? One meets another; and they say, as they fall right upon their necks with their faces shining with the glory of God, “It was you, it was you that brought the truth to me, and I would not hear it at first, but, O I am so glad.” Now that will be acted all through the heavenly courts, thanksgiving and praise to God for those that have been the means of winning others to the truth, that they should come and have an interest for them, and then they are united among the saved. O what a meeti
ng! what a meeting! {Ms 139-1906.32}
As the quote above states there is worship of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit that Mrs. White mentions among the saved in heaven. This is the only direct quote in the SOP that speaks to the issue. However the issue is also indirectly broached via the doxology. In order to understand this we need to understand this first.
“Music forms a part of God’s worship in the courts above. We should endeavor in our songs of praise to approach as nearly as possible to the harmony of the heavenly choirs… {ST June 22, 1882, par. 18}
“As a part of religious service, singing is as much an act of worship as is prayer… {Ed 168.3}
As the quotes above indicate music is a part of the worship of God in heaven above. And singing, when a part of religious service, is as much an act of worship as is prayer. With that established we now must consider these quotes:
“As I ceased speaking Brother Hoskins started the doxology, and the whole congregation rose to their feet and poured out their voice in {Ms39-1892.36}
“Praise God from whom all blessing flow,
Praise Him all creatures here below,
Praise Him above ye heavenly host,
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” {Ms39-1892.37}
It seemed a fitting response. I never listened to words in sacred song that came forth with more earnestness and power. I know that many were fed with rich morsels from the treasury of God. {Ms39-1892.38}
Putting two and two together we see that Mrs. White taught that singing/music was a form or worship and she endorsed the doxology, which includes ascribing praise in song to the holy Ghost along with the Father and Son.
On Matthew 28:19
“We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Matt. 28:19. By this we express our belief in the existence of the one true God, the mediation of his Son, and the influence of the Holy Spirit” { U. Smith, The Bible Students Assistant, pp. 21, 22. 1858}
“It is too late in the day to be insuch doubt and confusion as this. We call the Bible a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, and Peter exhorts us to be ready always “to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”. 1 Peter 3s15. Then we ought always to be of the same mind and be joined together in same judgment, keeping the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” We have been sorry to see or hear of questions arising in the minds of any in regard to the “personality of God”, the work of the “Holy Spirit”, the sanctuary and its ministrations. By extreme views on some of these points, we hear of half a conference being turned away from what we as a people have esteemed to be settled and well-established truths of the Bible, and we fear that more will be turned away if the same spirit of disregard of the instruction and exhoration of those we have every reason to believe have been led in their study and conclusions by the Spirit of God, continue to be indulged.” (Letter to the General Conference of S. D. A. by Uriah Smith just prior to his death. ) Click HERE for the original letter.
About Angels
“Angels are real beings. They are described in the Bible as possessing face, feet, wings &x. Ezekiel says of the cherubim, ‘Their whole body and their backs and their hands and their wings,’ &c. Eze. 10:12. Angels appeared unto Abraham. Gen. 18:1-8. They talked and ate with him. They went on to Sodom and communed with Lot, who, entering into his house baked unleavened bread for them and they did eat. These person were called angels. David speaks of the manna as the corn of Heaven and angel’s food. Ps. 78:23-25.”
“The case of Balaam, Num. 22:22-31, is an interesting incident.The angel appeared to Balaam with a sword drawn in his hand. The question is sometimes asked how angels can be material beings since we cannot see them. This case illustrates it. The record says the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam and he saw the angel. The angel did not create a body for that occasion. He was just the same as he was before Balaam saw him; but the change took place in Balaam. His eyes were opened, then he beheld the angel. It was the same with the servant of Elisha when he and his master were brought into a straight place, surrounded by the army of the king of Syria. 2 Kings 6:77. Elisha prayed that the eyes of his servant might be opened; and he immediately saw the whole mountain full of horses and chariots round about Elisha.”
“This may be further illustrated referring to things which we know are material and yet which we cannot see. Air is material, light is material, even thought itself is only the result of material organizations — matter acting upon matter — and yet we can see none of these things. Just so with the angels.”
“It is further objected to the materiality of the angels that they are called spirits. Heb. 1:13, 14. But this is no objection to their being literal beings. They are simply spiritual beings organized differently from these earthly bodies which we possess. Paul says, 1 Cor. 15:44, “There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.” The natural body we now have; the spiritual body we shall have in the resurrection. “It is raised a spiritual body.” Verse 44. But then we are equal unto the angels, Luke 20:36; then we have bodies like unto Christ’s most glorious body. Phil. 3:4 and Christ is no less a spirit than the angels. We read that God is a spirit, that is, simply a spiritual being.” {James White and Uriah Smith, The Biblical Institute}