At Issue Index
Trinity
Index   Table of
Contents   Previous
Next

The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian
Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G.
White Answer

by Erwin Roy
Gane

C H A P T E R   XIV

ELLEN G. WHITE ON THE ABSOLUTE DEITY OF
CHRIST

In this chapter the purpose of the writer is to trace in brief
outline the teachings of Ellen G. White on the pre-existence and
Deity of Christ. The two fundamental questions to be answered are,
(1) did Ellen G. White support the view of the Adventist Arians that
there was a time when Christ did not exist and, (2) did she concur
with their teaching that Christ as God, was, and is, subordinate to
the Father?

THE ETERNAL PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST

Ellen G. White stated categorically many times that there never
was a time when Christ did not exist. He was not brought into
existence by the Father either by a process of creation or of
eternal generation. He has always been with the Father. He did not
have a beginning. The following are just a few of the many
quotations that could be cited as proof that this was her view:

But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this
life from Him. "I lay it down of Myself." (John 10:18), He said.
In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.1

He is the eternal self-existent Son.2

But while God�s Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon
this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence.
The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of
God, in union and oneness with His Father.3

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . In
speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back
through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time
when he was not in close fellowship with the eternal God.4

Christ shows then that, although they might reckon His life to
be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be
reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His
incarnation is not measured by figures.5

From eternity Christ has been man�s Redeemer.6

The Adventist Arians had seen the Trinitarian position as
destructive of the truth of the atonement, but in 1898 Ellen G.
White demonstrated that their own view produced that unfortunate
result. She wrote:

In consenting to become man, Christ manifested a humility that
is the marvel of the heavenly intelligences. The act of consenting
to be a man would be no humiliation were it not for the fact of
Christ�s exalted pre-existence.7

Thus it was "Christ�s exalted pre-existence" that rendered the
incarnation a humiliation and qualified Christ to atone for human
sin. Beings whose existence was purely derived could never have paid
the price of human redemption.

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER BEFORE THE
INCARNATION

There are many statements in the writings of Ellen G. white which
effectively contradict any suggestion that prior to the incarnation
Christ was in any sense subordinate to the Father. Repeatedly she
stressed that Christ was equal with the Father in power, position
and authority, that in fact He was God in the highest sense:

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was
with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed
forevermore�.8

Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven,
one in power and authority with the Father.9

To save the transgressor of God�s law, Christ, the one equal
with the Father, came to live heaven before men, that they might
learn to know what it is to have heaven in the heart.10

The only way in which the fallen race could be restored was
through the gift of his Son, equal with himself, possessing the
attributes of God. Though so highly exalted, Christ consented to
assume human nature, that he might work in behalf of man, and
reconcile to God his disloyal subjects.11

Some have regarded this equality with the Father as having been
conferred upon Christ. His is said to be a delegated authority,
hence He is not the supreme God in the same sense as is the Father.
This, of course, could not be true since "Christ was God
essentially, and in the highest sense."l2
But those who have propagated this view find what appears to be
support for it in The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1:

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in
the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon His Son.
The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly
throng of Holy Angels was gathered around them. The Father then
made known that it was ordained by Himself, that Christ His Son
should be equal with Himself, so that wherever was the presence of
His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of His Son was to be
obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had
invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially
was the Son to work in union with Himself in the anticipated
creation of the earth. His Son would carry out His will and His
purposes, but would do nothing of Himself alone. The Father�s will
would be fulfilled in Him.13

There followed considerable altercation between the angels
supporting Lucifer and those supporting Christ. The loyal angels
sought to convince the disloyal of the justice of God:

They clearly set forth that Jesus was the Son of God, existing
with him before the angels were created; and that he had ever
stood at the right hand of God and his mild, loving authority had
not heretofore been questioned�.14

There are two interpretations to this whole passage. One is that
of the Arians who would contend that the Father had conferred
supreme power and authority equal to His own upon Christ. The other
is that the passage refers to an announcement to the angels of a
situation that had existed from the ages of eternity. According to
this latter interpretation Christ had always been in the position of
complete equality with the Father as the supreme Sovereign of
heaven, but because of the defection of Lucifer and because of his
subtle insinuations a special reiteration of Christ�s exalted
position was necessary. The very fact that the loyal angels urged
the unchanged status of Christ as an argument for accepting the
Father�s announcement proves that the announcement was not the
inauguration of something new, but a definition and declaration of
the position which Christ had always sustained.

That this is the only tenable interpretation of the passage is
effectively demonstrated by reference to a parallel passage in
Patriarchs and Prophets:

The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was
represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was
also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels
could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would
accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to
secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which they had
hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute ruler had been
appointed them, and to his authority all must pay homage. Such
were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were
fast obtaining in the heavenly courts.

There had been no change in the position or authority of
Christ. Lucifer�s envy and misrepresentation, and his claims to
equality with Christ, had made necessary a statement of the true
position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the
beginning.15

This passage is in complete agreement with the former one. The
Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, was published in 1870 and
Patriarchs and Prophets in 1890, but the view of the question
as presented in both is identical. The proclamation by the Father of
the position of the Son was a necessary restatement of a situation
that had never been otherwise.  If Ellen G. White had intended
to convey that Christ was elevated by the Father to His position of
equality she would have been contradicting her other utterances to
the effect that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest
sense. he was God from all eternity, God over all blessed
forevermore�."16

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER DURING THE
INCARNATION

There is no intimation in the writings of Ellen G. White that
when He took on human nature, Christ ceased to be God equal with the
Father. On the contrary she abundantly testifies to Christ�s
complete equality with the Father at every stage of His earthly
existence. As a babe in the manger He was still the mighty God:

How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the
helpless infant in Bethlehem�s manger! How can we span the
distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the
Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fullness of the Godhead
bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far
higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity
and glory and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and
humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became
one.17

As a child Christ was still the mighty God equal with the
Father:

What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ!
The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the
world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary,
and without a place to lay His head! The Son of man, yet
infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His
divinity clothed with humanity. . . . 18

To the Jews Christ "announced himself to be the self-existent
one."19
He "claimed equal rights with God in doing a work equally sacred,
and of the same character with that which engaged the Father in
Heaven."20
Christ claimed equality with the Father and the prerogatives of
Deity in the highest sense.21
The mysterious unity that existed between Christ and the
Father prior to the incarnation was retained during the Saviour�s
life on earth. God was still one God: "From all eternity Christ was
united with the Father, and when he took upon himself human nature,
he was still one with God. He is the link that unites God with
humanity."22
Christ gave up heaven for the period of His earthly ministry, He
veiled His glory in humanity, He chose not to use certain aspects of
His divine power and knowledge, but He was still the supreme
Sovereign of the universe:

But although Christ�s divine glory was for a time veiled and
eclipsed by His assuming humanity, yet He did not cease to be God
when He became man. The human did not take the place of the
divine, nor the divine the human. This is the mystery of
godliness. The two expressions "human" and "divine" were, in
Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct
individuality. Though Christ humbled Himself to become inn, the
Godhead was still His own. His deity could not be lost while He
stood faithful and true to His loyalty. Surrounded with sorrow,
suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the
people to whom had been entrusted the oracles of heaven Jesus
could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven.23

What a subject for thought, for deep, earnest contemplation! So
infinitely great that He was the Majesty of heaven, and yet He
stooped so low, without losing one atom of His dignity and
glory!24

DID CHRIST USE HIS OWN DIVINE POWER DURING THE
INCARNATION?

Ellen G. White lays it down as an unvarying rule that Christ
never performed miracles on His own behalf. His divine power was not
employed to alleviate His own suffering, to supply His own needs or
to overcome temptation. In these respects Christ remained as a man
entirely dependent upon His Father. Speaking of the temptation in
the wilderness Ellen G. White wrote, "Neither here nor at any
subsequent time in his earthly life did he work a miracle in his own
behalf."25
In reference to His overcoming temptation she wrote, "he overcame in
human nature, relying upon God for power."26

The question arises as to whether Christ used His own divine
power in working miracles for others. Was this miracle working power
His own or was it given Him by the Father as it was later conferred
upon the Apostles? Ellen G. White wrote:

The world�s Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as
the authority of God. He declared that he had no existence
separate from the Father. The authority by which he spoke, and
wrought miracles, was expressly his own, yet he assures us that he
and the Father are one.27

On the other hand the following apparently contradictory
statement appears in The Desire of Ages:

In all that He did, Christ was co-operating with His Father.
Ever He had been careful to make it evident that He did not work
independently; it was by faith and prayer that He wrought His
miracles. 28

This latter statement appears in the chapter , "Lazarus, Come
Forth." This chapter presents the raising of Lazarus as the most
convincing evidence of Christ�s divinity. Throughout the chapter the
impression is given that the power of Christ manifested in this
remarkable way was not in any sense derived, but His own inherent
power as God, the Life-giver. Mary and Martha were not alone in
their time of trial when Lazarus was sick unto death. "Christ beheld
the whole scene, and after the death of lazarus the bereaved sisters
were upheld by his grace."29
The author proceeds:

Had He restored him from illness to health, the miracle that is
the most positive evidence of His divine character would not have
been performed.

Had Christ been in the sickroom, Lazarus would not have died;
for Satan would have had no power over him. Death could not have
aimed his dart at Lazarus in the presence of the Life-giver.
Therefore Christ remained away.30

This miracle was to be the greatest evidence to the skeptical
contemporary Jew of the Deity of Christ:

This crowning miracle, the raising of Lazarus, was to set the
seal of God on His work and on His claim to divinity.31

This miracle which Christ was about to perform, in raising
Lazarus from the dead, would represent the resurrection of all the
righteous dead, By His word and His works He declared Himself the
Author of the resurrection.32

But how could all this be true unless the power Christ displayed
in raising Lazarus were His own power as God, equal with the Father?
How do we reconcile the statement that it was by faith and prayer
that Christ performed His miracles with the apparently contradictory
one that "The authority by which He spoke, and wrought miracles, was
expressly His own"?33

The Desire of Ages provides us with other evidence of
Christ�s use of His own underived, divine, miracle working power.
For instance, the chapter "Thou Canst Make Me Clean" deals with
Christ�s forgiving and healing the paralytic who was let down
through the roof of the house. Ellen G. White speaks of the
Saviour�s previous work for this man:

The Saviour looked upon the mournful countenance, and saw the
pleading eyes fixed upon Him. He understood the case; He had drawn
to Himself that perplexed and doubting spirit. While the paralytic
was yet at home, the Saviour had brought conviction to his
conscience. When he repented of his sins, and believed in the
power of Jesus to make him whole, the life-giving mercies of the
Saviour had first blessed his longing heart. Jesus had watched the
first glimmer of faith grow into a belief that He was the sinner�s
only helper, and had seen it grow stronger with every effort to
come into His presence.

Now in words that fell like music on the sufferer�s ear, the
Saviour said, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven
thee."34

The power manifested here was not such that any man is able to
derive from God. Under no circumstances can mere man forgive sins.
The Saviour used His healing power on this occasion as evidence of
His power to forgive sins. Prior to this he had exercised His divine
power to bring conviction to the heart of this soul. Here we have
Christ using His power as the Deity for a lost and physically ill
individual. The healing power that Christ displayed was the
identical power that He used In the original creation of man:

It required nothing less than creative power to restore health
to that decaying body. The same voice that spoke life to man
created from the dust of the earth had spoken life to the decaying
paralytic.35

On the other hand The Desire of Ages contains indications
that some of Christ�s miracles were performed by faith in and
dependence upon His Father rather than by the exercise of His own
authority as Deity. For instance when He stilled the storm on
Galilee He is said not to have done so by exercise of His own
power:

When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect
peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was
in His heart. But He rested not in the possession of almighty
power. It was not as the "master of earth and sea and sky" that He
reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down and He says, "I can
of mine own self do nothing." John 5:30. He trusted in the
Father�s might. It was in faith—faith in God's love and care—that
Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm
was the power of God.36

In one instance we have Christ using His underived, creative
power to heal a dying paralytic. In another instance the power of
the Father, available to Christ because of His faith, was the source
of the miracle. Whatever conclusion is drawn must take two factors
into account. First, all Christ�s miracles were performed by "faith
and prayer." The statement in The Desire of Ages declaring
this is a general one.37
It comes within a chapter which narrates the raising of Lazarus, a
miracle which above all others was evidence of Christ�s power as
Deity. Then even this miracle was in some sense performed by "faith
and prayer." Second, some of Christ�s miracles resulted from the
exercise of His own power as God. Others resulted from the exercise
of the Father�s power in response to Christ�s faith.

The present writer concludes that Christ�s use of His divine was
always within the context of faith in the Father. In some instances
the power He used was His own, but He had accepted the limitations
of man and thus imposed upon Himself limitations in regard to the
direction of its use. As man He was a dependent human being. On
occasions He exercised His own creative power, that which was His as
God, which was "unborrowed and underived," and which in the
beginning He had used in the creation of the world. The direction as
to the use of this power came from the Father because Christ had
accepted the limitations of humanity. Perhaps the fact that the
stilling of the sea was the Father�s act in response to Christ�s
faith, rather than an instance of exercise of Christ�s own authority
as Deity, is to be explained by the fact that the miracle was to
some extent for His own benefit and, as previously pointed out,
never did He perform a miracle for His own benefit.

At all events the evidence is overwhelmingly opposed to the view
of the Adventist Arian that the divine in Christ during the
incarnation was an inferior divinity entirely subordinate to that of
the Father.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CHRIST�S DEITY WHEN HE DIED?

This question was a crucial one for the Adventist Arian. He
rejected Trinitarianism because it taught that the divine in Christ
did not die, but that it ascended to the Father when the human
Christ expired on the Cross. The Arian saw this as an inadequate
human sacrifice. He believed the Deity did die. This was possible
because the divine in Christ was an inferior delegated divinity. It
would have been impossible, so the Arian declared, for the supreme
Father to have died in this way.

Ellen G. White emphasized on a number of occasions that the Deity
did not die:

Humanity died; divinity did not die.38

The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary,
yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world, that He
gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish but have everlasting life."39

When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died.
Deity did not sink and die; that would have been
impossible.40

Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over
the rent sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the resurrection, and the
life."41

It is true that there are certain statements in the writings of
Ellen G. White which may appear to teach otherwise. For instance,
"nature sympathized with the suffering of its author. the heaving
earth, the rent rocks, proclaimed that it was the Son of God who
died."42
Some would interpret this to mean that the divine in Christ died.
Since it was the Deity who was the Author of nature, it was the
Deity who was suffering and dying. The following page of the same
work refers to the "sacrifice which was made by the Majesty of
Heaven in dying in man�s stead."43
Earlier in the same work Ellen G. White wrote, "the divine Son of
God was fainting, dying."44

One suggested reconciliation of the apparent contradiction
between these two sets of passages would be that Christ did not die
in the normal sense of the term. His life was not taken from Him,
for He possessed a divine self. He gave up His life
voluntarily.45
Therefore He was really and absolutely dead in His human and divine
natures, but the act of giving up His own life is to be regarded as
something distinct from death. Therefore, some would suggest, it is
still true to say that the Deity did not die."

The present writer objects to this position on the grounds that
the Deity is immortal and therefore cannot die in any sense. It is
impossible for an immortal being to give up life. Immortality is
deathlessness. To argue that the Deity did not die, but was in fact
dead, is to involve oneself in unnecessary manipulation of language.
If as Ellen G. White says, it was impossible for Deity to die then
undoubtedly she meant just that.

Christ during the incarnation was a God-man. He is referred to
many times in the writings of Ellen G. White as the divine Son of
God, and as the Majesty of Heaven. These terms are used to refer to
the God-man. The human element of Christ�s nature was not divine and
had never existed in heaven. But since Christ was God in human
flesh, terms which technically refer only to His divine nature are
used to refer to the total Being including His human nature.
"Majesty of Heaven" technically refers to the divine, but Ellen G.
White uses it to refer to the totality of His existence including
the human. It would not therefore be incorrect for Ellen G. White to
use the terms "divine Son of God" and "majesty of heaven" in the
untechnical sense when speaking of the death of Christ. The very
name "Christ," when used to refer to His earthly existence, involves
both the human and the divine. She speaks of Christ being hungry,
thirsty and weary.46
In these instances obviously the emphasis is on the human aspect of
his nature, the term "Christ" being used in the sense of the total
Being. Just so, when she speaks of the death of the "majesty of
heaven" it would appear she is using the term in an untechnical,
accommodated sense. Since elsewhere she categorically denies the
possibility of the Deity dying it seems reasonable to conclude that
when she speaks of the death of the "divine Son of God" she is using
the general term which, in this particular context, has special
reference to the death of the human in Christ.

Ellen G. White explains at least in part what happened to the
Deity element of Christ�s nature when He died on Calvary:

When He closed His eyes in death upon the Cross, the soul of
Christ did not go at once to heaven, as many believe, or how could
His words be true�"I am not yet ascended to my Father"? The Spirit
of Jesus slept in the tomb with His body, and did not wing its way
to heaven, there to maintain a separate existence, and to look
down upon the mourning disciples embalming the body from which it
had taken flight. All that comprised the life and intelligence of
Jesus remained with His body in the sepulcher; and when He came
forth it was as a whole being; He did not have to summon His
spirit from heaven.47

The precise condition of the Deity aspect of Christ�s nature
during the brief period of His incarnation in the tomb is
undoubtedly one of the deepest mysteries of the Gospel. The Arians
were right in denying that the divine Christ ascended to heaven when
the human expired on the Cross, but they were wrong, according to
Ellen G. White, in postulating the death of Deity.

As further evidence, the circumstances of the resurrection may be
cited. Ellen G. White speaks of Christ as a prisoner in the tomb.
Only the Father could release Him:

He who died for the sins of the world was to remain in the tomb
the allotted time. He was in that stony prison house as a prisoner
of divine justice. He was responsible to the judge of the
universe. He was bearing the sins of the world, and His Father
only could release Him.48

It was the angel who called Christ in the name of the Father to
rise from the tomb.49
It was the "spirit which raised jesus from the dead."50
But nonetheless Jesus came forth "to Life that was in Himself:"

When the voice of the angel was heard saying, "Thy Father calls
Thee," He who had said, "I lay down My life, that I might take it
again," "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it
up," came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Deity
did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the rent
sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the Resurrection, and the Life." In His
divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of
death.51

The passage clearly implies that Christ�s coming forth "to life
that was in himself" was in view of the fact that "Deity did not
die."

How then is answered the objection of the Adventist Arian that
the sacrifice was a purely human one and therefore no atonement for
human sin? Any answer can only be tentative and partial for here we
are delving into the deep mysteries of the atonement.  Ellen G.
White wrote of the intense suffering of Christ in view of the
separation from His Father, resulting from human sin being laid upon
Him.  Twice before Calvary He almost died as a result of the
imputation of human guilt and the consequent separation from His
Father.  These two occasions were in the wilderness of
temptation and in Gethsernane.52
Finally this separation broke the heart of the Son of God:

The sins of the world were upon him, also the sense of his
Father�s wrath as he suffers the penalty of the law transgressed.
It was these that crushed his divine soul. It was the hiding of
his Father�s Face—a sense that his own dear Father had forsaken
him—which brought despair.53

The separation of Christ from the Father involved the separation
of absolute God from absolute God. It involved the temporary
severing of the mysterious unity that is God. Of the Gethsemane
experience Ellen G. White wrote, "as Christ felt His unity with the
Father broken up, He feared that in His human nature He would be
unable to endure the coming conflict with the powers of
darkness."54
Finally the severing of this divine unity broke the heart of the Son
of God:

But now with the terrible weight of guilt He bears, He cannot
see the Father�s reconciling face. The withdrawal of the divine
countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish
pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood
by man. . . .

It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father�s wrath upon Him
as man�s substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and
broke the heart of the Son of God.55

The severing of the mysterious divine relationship between Father
and the Son involved suffering far greater than death, suffering
which all heaven knows to have been an abundant provision for the
guilt of a lost race.56
What mere man has the temerity to demand the death of the immortal
Deity to the infinite price paid for human redemption?

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER AFTER THE
INCARNATION

The writings of Ellen G. White contain no suggestion that since
the incarnation Christ has been delegated a subordinate position in
the courts of heaven. There is no intimation that as God He resigned
forever any of the prerogatives of God when He died for the sins of
man. On the contrary, in unmistakable language it is stated that
Christ was restored to His former position in heaven. Referring to
Christ�s prayer recorded in John 17:1-5 Ellen G. White wrote:

He is praying to His Father in regard to a glory possessed in
His oneness with God. His prayer is that of a mediator; the favor
He entreats is the manifestation of that divine glory which was
possessed by Him when He was one with God. Let the veil be
removed, He says, and let My glory shine forth�the glory which I
had with Thee before the world was.57

This prayer for the complete restoration of His former status in
heaven was answered:

Thus the prayer of Christ was answered. He was glorified with
the glory which He had with His Father before the world was. . .
.

No words can describe the scene which took place as the Son of
God was publicly reinstated in the place of honor and glory which
He voluntarily left when He became a man.

And today Christ, glorified, and yet our brother, is our
Advocate in the courts of heaven.58

There are repeated declarations in the writings of Ellen G. White
to the effect that Christ�s position today is one of complete
equality with the Father and of supreme authority in heaven and
earth. As previously intimated Christ�s oneness with the Father was
broken up because of sin, but this oneness was entirely restored.
Today Christ stands in precisely the same relationship to the Father
as He did before the incarnation:

God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To
Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal
with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to his
Son.59

According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from
heaven to His followers, as a token that He had, as priest and
king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the
Anointed One over His people.60

Ellen G. White effectively answered Uriah Smith�s contention that
Christ is the Alpha and Omega only in a subordinate sense. She
wrote, "Christ Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the Genesis of the
Old Testament, and the revelation of the new."61
In commenting on Revelation 1:18-20 Ellen G. White stated:

These are wonderfully solemn and significant statements. It was
the Source of all mercy and pardon, peace and grace, the
self-existent, eternal, unchangeable One, who visited His exiled
servant on the isle that is called Patmos.62

Of course these verses in Revelation have obvious reference to
Christ. He then is the "self-existent, eternal, unchangeable one."
That being so, a change in His status as God is manifestly an
impossibility.

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER AFTER THE END

Some of the Adventist Arians used 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 as
evidence that at the end Christ assumes a subordinate position to
the Father. Unfortunately Ellen G. White makes no comment on the
central problem of the passage, but nowhere does she give any hint
that a change in the status of the Son will be effected at the end
of time. On the other hand, she does say much about the exalted
position Christ will occupy at the conclusion of the millennium:

In the presence of the assembled inhabitants of earth and
heaven takes place the final coronation of the Son of God. And
now, invented with supreme majesty and power, the King of Kings
pronounces sentence upon the rebels against His government, and
executes upon those who have transgressed His law and oppressed
His people.63

There can be no reasonable doubt that the King of Kings who at
the conclusion of the Millennium is invested with supreme majesty
and power before the assembled hosts of the saved and the unsaved is
Jesus Christ the Son of God:

As if entranced, the wicked have looked upon the coronation of
the Son of God. . . . They witness the outburst of wonder, rapture
and adoration from the saved; and as the wave of melody sweeps
over the multitudes without the city, all with one voice exclaim,
"Marvelous areThy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy
ways, Thou King of Saints." (Rev l5:3) and falling prostrate, they
worship the Prince of Life.64

The hour has come when Christ occupies His rightful position
and is glorified above principalities and powers and every name
that is named.65

Nowhere in the writings of Ellen G. White is there any suggestion
that Christ adopts a position subordinate to the Father at any time
subsequent to His coronation.66

ENDNOTES

1E. G. White,
Selected Messages, Book One (Washington, D. C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, l958), p. 296. Citing The Signs of
the Times, April 8, 1897.

2E. G. White,
Evangelism (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1946), p. 615. Citing Manuscript 101,
1897.

3E. G. White,
Selected Messages, Book One (Washington, D. C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1958), p. 247. Citing Review and
Herald, April 5, 1906.

4E. G. White,
Evangelism (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1946), p. 615. Citing The Signs of the Times,
August 29, 1900.

5Ibid., p.
616. Citing The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899.

6E.G. White,
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. IX (Mountain View, Cal.:
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1909), p, 220.

7E. G. White,
Selected Messages, Book One (Washington, D. C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1958), p. 243. Citing The Youth�s
Instructor, October 13, 1898.

8E. G. White, "The
Word Made Flesh," Review and Herald, LXXXIII (April 5, 1906),
8. Cited by 5 BC, 1126.

9E. G. White,
The Great Controversy (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1888), p. 495.

10E. G. White,
Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville, Tenn.:
Southern Publishing Association, 1923), p. 179. Citing Review and
Herald, November 17, 1891.

11E. G. White,
"Imperative Necessity of Searching for Truth," Review and
Herald, LXIX (November 8, 1892), 690.

12E. G. White,
"The Word Made Flesh," Review and Herald, LXXXIII (April 5,
1906), 8. Cited by 5 BC, 1126.

13E. G. White,
The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. I (Battle Creek, Steam Press of
the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1870) pp. 17,
18.

14Ibid., p.
18.

15E. G. White,
Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1890), pp. 37, 38.

16E. G. White,
"The Word Made Flesh," Review and Herald, LXXXIII (April 5,
1906), 8. Cited by 5 BC, 1126.

17E. G. White,
"Child Life of Jesus," The Signs of the Times, (July 30,
1896), 5.

18E. G. White,
"God Manifest in the Flesh," The Signs of the Times (April
26, 1905), 8.

19E. G. White,
The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Publishing
Association, 1898), p. 469.

20Ibid.,
pp. 207, 208.

21Ibid.

22E. G. White,
Selected Messages, Book One (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1958), p. 228. Citing The Signs of
the Times, August 2, 1905.

23E. G. White,
"Christ Glorified," The Signs of the Times, XXV May 10,
1899), 2. Cited by 5 BC, 1129.

24E. G. White,
"Tempted In All Points Like As We Are," The Signs of the
Times, XXIV (June 9, 1898), 2.

25E. G. White,
The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1898), p. 119.

26E. G. White,
"After the Crucifixion," The Youth�s Instructor, XLIX (April
25, 1901), 130.

27E. G. White,
"Christ Revealed the Father," Review and Herald, LXVII
(January 7, 1890), 1.

28E. G. White,
The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1898), p. 536.

29Ibid., p.
528.

30Ibid.

31Ibid., p.
529.

32Ibid., p.
530.

33E. G. White,
"Christ Revealed the Father," Review and Herald, LXVII
(January 7, 1890), 1.

34E. G. White,
The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1898), p. 268.

35Ibid.,
pp. 269, 270.

36Ibid., p.
336.

37Ibid., p.
536.

38E. G. White,
Selected Messages, Book One (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, l958), p. 301. Citing The Youth�s
Instructor, August 4, 1898.

39E. G. White,
Manuscript 140, 1903. Cited by 5 BC, 1129.

40E. G. White,
Letter 280, 1904. Cited by 5 BC, 1113.

41E. G. White,
Manuscript 131, 1897. Cited by 5 BC, 1113.

42E. G. White,
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. II (Mountain View, Cal.:
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1869), p. 211.

43Ibid., p.
212.

44Ibid., p.
206.

45E. G. White,
Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 1898), p. 484.

46Ibid., p.
118.

47E. G. White,
The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. III (Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam
Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1878) pp.
203, 204.

48E. G. White,
Manuscript 94, 1897. Cited by 5 BC, 1114.

49E. G. White,
Manuscript 115, 1897. Cited by 5 BC, 1110.

50E. G. White,
"Beware of Imitations," The Youth�s Instructor, XLIII
(February 7, 1895), 44.

51E. G. White,
Manuscript 131, 1897. Cited by 5 BC, 1113.

52E. G. White,
The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Publishing
Association, 1898), pp. 131, 693.

53E. G. White,
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. II (Mountain View Cal.:
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1869), p. 214.

54White, op.
cit., p. 686.

55Ibid., p.
753.

56Revelation 5:11,
12.

57E. G. White,
"Christ Glorified," The Signs of the Times, XXV (May 10,
1899), 2. Cited by 5 BC, 1146.

58Ibid.

59E. G. White,
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. VIII (Mountain View, Cal.:
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1904), pp. 268, 269.

60E. G. White,
The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, 1911), p. 38.

61E. G. White,
Manuscript 33, 1897. Cited by 5 BC, 1092.

62E. G. White,
Manuscript 81, 1900. Cited by 5 BC, 955.

63E. G. White,
The Spirit of Prophecy Vol. IV (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review
and Herald Publishing Co., 1884), p. 480.

64Ibid., p.
484.

65Ibid., p.
486.

66As a suggested
interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28 the present writer would offer
the following. The text cannot refer to the subordination of the
human in Christ to the Father. According to 1 Corinthians 15:24 the
change that takes place comes at "the end." The human in Christ is
subordinate now just as it has always been since the birth of the
Saviour. This change does not occur at the "end" or "when all things
shall be subdued unto Him." Since the Son is co-equal with the
Father, "in the Father," and the "express image of the Father," He
is included in "God" who is "all in all." God cannot be subject to
God. Therefore Christ cannot be subject to the Father, in the
ordinary sense. The Son becomes "subject unto Him" in the sense that
the Son ceases to carry out a distinct mediatorial work for man, and
all that He bought back by the vicarious sacrifice is now entirely
subordinate to God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The distinctive work
of the Son ceases and God becomes "all in all." The Son is no longer
a separate functionary within the Deity and the plan of redemption
is acknowledged to have been the achievement of a unified
God.

At Issue Index
Trinity
Index   Table of
Contents   Previous
Next