I’m at least glad to know that the discussion in Uganda is centering on the third person (imposter). The issue of Jesus being both the Son and the Father, is an obvious error from what I can see. I don’t know if that has ever entered any Adventist debate, but I still hear it in the Sunday denominations (mainly some Pentecostal churches). The real trouble for our future is the third person imposter. I’m sad that Ellen White was so emphatic on a heavenly trio. Unless I’m reading the Bible wrong, I don’t see a heavenly trio.
The reason I wrote about “Jesus the Mother of all living” is because I see that when He made man, He made two persons, which had a way of becoming spiritually one, and thus in a corporeal way demonstrate Ephesians 3:9, God created all things through Jesus Christ. Ellen White clearly says that this world and its race were designed to reveal the Godhead in a new way that the angelic hosts didn’t have before our creation. And extension of that thought is that our planet with all of its abundance and its innumerably diverse species represented the kingdom of God, the universe. Christ formed Adam to represent God the Father, and Christ made Eve to represent Himself. He formed Eve from Adam’s heart, as the Son came from the Father’s bosom and ever dwelt there. Women have His gentleness and they focus on tenderly instructing the children, while the fathers tend to larger issues. God the Father tends to the issues of the whole kingdom and universe, while His Son had focused on instructing and being the voice of God to the intelligent universe. And since the controversy in heaven, His focus has been mainly upon redeeming this race, who, as it turns out, is a major player in the whole great controversy issues of God’s character.
In my mind, only two created beings represented the Godhead of two persons. The “council of peace between them both” of Zechariah 6:13 really is not talking about the Godhead at all. Its speaking to the dual role of the Messiah as Prince and Priest. He would sit as a Priest upon His throne. That is why Peter preached Acts 5:31, “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and foregiveness of sins.” The concept is that Christ would be the new King of His chosen elect, being their Judge, as Prince; and He would also be their Advocate as High Priest. “Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9:25) is His double role title. In Christ alone is there a theocracy, and that a heavenly one, not the papacy’s earthly theocracy. No one else in heaven and earth can wield the Father’s absolute power without abusing the power. If the Vatican would study the biblical truths instead of their encyclicals, and if the Jews would study their holy scriptures instead of their rabbis, everyone would be in agreement that there should never again be a theocracy on earth. And even the Old Testament Israelite theocracy was only united in the Lord God above. The kings did not wield spiritual power, and the high priests never wielded secular power. Church and state were separated in Israel.
So, the “council of peace” between them both is not the Holy Spirit, and “them” is not the Father and Son, but the Kingship and High Priestly work, even though it can sound like the Father and Son without taking the context into account. Even still, the council is not a third person. Nevertheless, using that phrase out of context, the council would be the union of the Father and Son. It is their Spirit that intertwines like a husband’s love does with his wife’s love in the human race. My question now is, Is it possible that we have overlooked something in this mystery council? Could there be more to the union and interaction between Them? I hope not, because I would have to toss out a lot of writing. But, I would toss it all out if my antitrinitarianism were not true. My big fear is misleading others like Jeroboam did. But, until someone can show me a better way to interpret Romans 8, and other references to the Spirit, as not being the influence, the radiant life and spiritual power of God and His only begotten Son, I must hold to the plain reading of texts regarding the Spirit.
My first question came up in my mind decades ago. It as seen from John 3:34, which contradicted a trinity where the Father gives not the Spirit by measure to His Son. The Father loves the Son, and has given all “things” into His hand. First, I wondered, How could one person of the trinity give a third person to the second person? The plain reading communicated to me that the Father was giving His personal presence, His sealing, His blessing, His reward to His Son for perfect service and His perfect 30 year preparation for the ministry, His new strength and authority needed to fulfill the new appointment, and last of all, a visible laying on of the Father’s hands so that the human race, and especially Israel, could know who the new leader was. It was similar to Eleazer taking the High Priest vestments and assuming the responsibilities of Aaron when his father gave up the ghost. The dove-like packet of glory from Father to Son was like Moses publicly bequeathing all authority to Joshua. “And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.” (Deut. 34:9).
Something that I just now saw reminds me of John 14:16-18. “And he [Moses] gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.” (Deut. 31:23). “And I will be with thee”. That is what Jesus told His disciples at the ascension and also in the upper room. “And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Hhim; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” (John 14:16-18).
Did Moses have an inkling that he would be resurrected? And even though Moses was resurrected, could he come to Joshua by a spirit? Or was Moses saying that all that he had written would have his thoughts and counsel and advice for Joshua to refer to and remember his great mentor/master? Its the same thought the Adventists wondered about as Ellen White aged and there was no sign of a successor prophet. She told them that the Lord had given her no word of a successor, but that all that she had written would be enough to guide the Advent movement safely to the second coming of Jesus. And her counsel has proven true. I’ve come to believe, and I’ve written it into my book on Revelation, that the Spirit that we know is the words of Christ which He said are spirit and life. (John 6:63). In John 14:15-23 three times Jesus explains to His disciples how He would return to them—if they would “keep” [Gr. tēreō, “guard against the loss of”] His words/commandments. If they would “guard against loss” of His words, then they would continue to love Him and be loved of His Father, and therefore both Father and Son would come to the apostles. The Spirit is Them using Christ’s written word as a medium of preparing the human mind and heart to receive Them both through Their spiritual medium. If the written truth is not present, then Spirit of truth is not present. This is the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:2). Jesus reiterated this counsel a fourth time, “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:7).
I’ll let you go. Take care brother, and thank you for being so faithful to the Spirit of God and to His written word.
David
No comments:
Post a Comment