(Last modified: 2 months ago)
- And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh YaHuWaH of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of YaHuWaH
- Even he shall build the temple of YaHuWaH; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
YaHuWshuaH's Ruach | Given To Us!
Ruach haQodesh | WHO IS HE?
Bruce Bivens has devoted the major portion of three years (of his life) to the intense study of the person of the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit). He has been pleasantly surprised by the depth, beauty and simplicity of what YaHuWaH has to say concerning the mysteries of the Godhead and the person of the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit). And so will you. "Are We Missing Something Here?' is the product of his study and is refreshingly straightforward, logical, challenging, Bible-based and empowering. If you're tired of all the propaganda floating around the Church concerning the trinity and the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) ... If you're tired of belonging to a "Powerless" Church ... If you're tired of the absence of "Victory" in your own life ... If you would like to know for sure just what the truth is concerning the Godhead and the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) ... Then this book is for you!
Elohiym would like nothing more than to pour out the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) upon us and to give us POWER - but the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) cannot be given in its full "Power" until we have a much truer understanding and appreciation of "Who" He is, "How" He has come to be offered to us and "Why". The answers to these questions will not only astound you, they will also empower you (and your church) as never before. This book will give you those answers in a straightforward, understandable and powerful way.
"Are We Missing Something Here?" is written primarily for Adventists but is worthy of the study of Natsariym (Christians) from ALL denominations. If you're ready for "meat" instead of "milk", substance instead of ideas, the Word of Elohiym instead of human interpretations - if you would dare to know the Truth - then this book is what you have been looking for.
Bruce and his wife Judy were resident in northern Georgia at this time. Judy is a practicing nurse and midwife. Bruce studied Theology at Andrews University and holds a degree in Business Administration from the University of Northern Iowa. He has served the church as a teacher, Personal Ministries Director, Deacon, Head Elder, and Lay Pastor. Bruce is an avid Bible Student and enjoys writing and speaking. He has devoted the major portion of ... three years to the intense study of the person of the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit). His book, the product of this study, is refreshingly straightforward, logical, Biblical and empowering.
This Web-page is based mostly, though not entirely, on Pastor Bruce Bivens' book . We have attempted to give you an appetizer here. Lay hold of this most important and timely book and begin this most sacred of studies. Remain blessed as you do. Amein.
Ruach haQodesh | Pioneers' Belief
You will seriously struggle to find a single word of support for the Trinity by any of Adventism's Pioneers including Ellen G. White. Why? Because the "Trinity" does not exist in Scripture! You cannot find the Trinity in the Bible. But, you ask, how about 1 Yahuwchanon 5:7-8.? And we say to you, 'have another look'.
For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
And there are three who bear witness on the Earth: The Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are to the one.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Ruach haQodesh: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit), and these--the three--are one; (Yahuwchanon 5:8 YLT) and three are who are testifying in the Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
Because there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And the three are in agreement.
This text in 1 Yahuwchanon 5:7 - 8, is the central text on which the trinity doctrine is based both for the Catholic Church for whom the trinity is their central doctrine on which all other Catholic doctrines are based, and the Adventist Church that has carbon-copied this Catholic doctrine! You should know that the italicized part of this text are not in the Bible but added by men! Notice the translation according to the The Scriptures 1998+ . It is the most accurate as emphasized below.
... there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And the three are in agreement.
Everything else you find in this Scripture beyond the rendering of the The Scriptures' Version, were added by translators during the 11th century!!! As the italicization in the King James' Version shows. Perversion!!!
Now you know why there was not one word by any of the Pioneers of Adventism in support of the Trinity. The Statements of Belief as made before 1931 did not contain anything supporting the Trinity. None. Elder Froom did not hide their designs: "they had to wait until the last one of the Pioneers had "passed from the scene"!. Only then could they smuggle this monstrosity into the Adventist Church, relatively unchallenged!Back to top
Adventism: Mirrors Catholic Belief in the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit)!
The 1931 Fundamental belief Statement on the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit), reads: "Elohiym the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled the Messiah's (Christ's) life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of Elohiym. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Messiah (Christ) , and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Genesis 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Kepha (Peter) 1:21; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; Yahuwchanon 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)
This doctrine of the trinity was inserted in the 1931 Statement. This Statement on the trinity is worded exactly as required for membership in the World Council of Churches. Adventist Pioneers did not address the doctrine of the trinity because they were not seeking ecumenical ties with Babylon.
“The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church.
The current edition of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Adventist Church on the Trinity reads as follows:
There is one Elohiym: Father, Son, and Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit), a unity of three co-eternal Persons. Elohiym is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.
For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit); and these three are one.(Yahuwchanon 5:8 LITV) And there are three who bear witness on the Earth: The Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are to the one.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Ruach haQodesh: and these three are one. (Yahuwchanon 5:8 KJV) And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit), and these--the three--are one;
And three are who are testifying in the Earth , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
Because there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And the three are in agreement.
This text in 1 Yahuwchanon 5:7 - 8, is the central text on which the trinity doctrine is based both for the Catholic Church for whom the trinity is their central doctrine on which all other Catholic doctrines are based, and the Adventist Church that has carbon-copied this Catholic doctrine!
You should know that the italicized part of this text are not in the Bible but added by men! Notice the translation according to the The Scriptures 1998+ is the most accurate.
How the 'Trinity' Entered Adventism!
Pastor Bruce Bivens' Overview
The source of the content here is the Booklet titled " Are We Missing Something Here?" Written by our Brother, Bruce Bivens. You are of course free to go directly to his website Enjoying the spirit-filled life.com You are certain to find even greater depth in the treatment of this most Holy Subject.
This overview of the "Trinity" doctrine's entrance into the Seventh-day Adventist Church is written to provide impetus for you to dig into the studies that follow on the topic of the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit). The prevalence of the doctrine of the trinity is the reality of mainstream Christianity! Most any popular Christian does not even discern any issues here let alone question. We have found that a surprising number of Seventh-day Adventists have practically no knowledge of how we have come to believe in the Trinity and even believe that this doctrine was one of the "Fundamental" beliefs of our founding Pioneers and of Ellen White herself. It was not. I myself was not aware of its complete history within our denomination nor the surprising fact that "one man" was primarily responsible for its introduction into the Church until my book "Are We Missing Something Here?" also downloadable here , was nearing completion. It will become clear why this doctrine is dangerous and why we need to "reconsider" our belief in it. It is my hope that this information will be helpful in creating a better-informed audience and provide a "reason" for our looking into this study of the Godhead - and more specifically, the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit).
It is important for us to note that the Catholic Church considers the doctrine of the Trinity to be the "central doctrine" of their faith: "The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church." (Handbook for Today's Catholic. Pg. 16).
So how did the "central doctrine" of the Catholic Church make its way into, and end up as a central doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist faith? It may come as a surprise to many that LeRoy Edwin Froom (perhaps our Church's most prominent historian) was primarily responsible for introducing the Trinitarian doctrine to the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, and very purposefully set about to promote its acceptance and institute it into the beliefs of the Church.
In his book "Movement of Destiny", which was published in 1971, he tells us how he came to write about the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) and how he came to believe in the "Trinity." His brief account of this is very enlightening in terms of both his history and his method. Here is what he has to say concerning this:
May I here make a frank, personal confession? When back between 1926 and 1928 I was asked by our leaders to give a series of studies on "The Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit)"... I found that aside from priceless leads found in the Spirit of Prophecy, there was practically nothing in our literature setting forth a sound, Biblical exposition in this tremendous field of study. There were no previous path-finding books on the question in our literature."
I was compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside of our Faith ... for initial clues and suggestions, and to open up beckoning vistas to intensive personal study. Having these, I went on from there. But they were decided early helps. And scores, if not hundreds, could confirm the same sobering conviction that some of these other men frequently had a deeper insight into the spiritual things of Elohiym than many of our own men had on the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) and the triumphant life. It was still a largely obscure theme ...
It was then that I again saw the peerless pre-eminence of the Spirit of Prophecy portrayals that not only supported but greatly enhanced the choicest gems of truth glimpsed in part by these other writers ...
Mr. Froom then exuberantly exclaims: "Thank Elohiym, that time of reticence and misunderstanding has passed ... This is the supreme hour ... Thank Elohiym, that final awakening is definitely underway.
Froom goes on to state that the "Truth of the Trinity" was an inevitable evolution in our theology stemming from the 1888 Conference and message:
When once the sublime truth of the complete Deity of the Messiah (Christ) ... was affirmed by a growing number at, and after the Minneapolis session, emphasis on certain inseparably related truths followed inevitably.
Thus the Truth of the Trinity was set forth in Tract form by the Pacific Press ... in February, 1892 ... It was not written by one of our own men, but by "the late Dr. Samuel Spear." ... This sound and helpful tract by Spear ... was simple, but adequate, as the first step in recognition and declaration. It was the logical aftermath of 1888.
Mr. Froom concludes his brief account by claiming that the book "The Desire of Ages" presented an "inspired depiction" of the trinity doctrine and because of this it has become our denomination's "accepted position." Froom also boasts that the "Desire of Ages" was even publicized in a prominent Catholic journal (as if this adds credibility to the book). Here it is in his own words:
...The Desire of Ages, of course, presented an inspired depiction, and was consequently destined to become the denominationally accepted position ... The Desire of Ages ... is one of the most highly esteemed books of the Denomination - a recognized classic, even publicized in such a Catholic journal as the "Universal Fatima News" for September 1965."
I must admit that the reason for Mr. Froom's obvious pride in its endorsement and publicity in a "Catholic Journal" puzzles me. One can hardly conclude that this inclusion adds anything to the credibility of the book, or proves that The Desire of Ages supports the doctrine of the Trinity!
The very first thing I would like to note about LeRoy Froom's account of how he came to believe in the Trinity is the method he obviously employed in arriving at his conclusions. Mr. Froom did not start his study with the Bible and then move on to the writings of Ellen White before turning to "outside" sources. Indeed, Mr. Froom did his study in the exact opposite order! He began with the writings and theologies of "men outside our faith" and worked his way back to the writings of Ellen White in order to find support for his conclusions. Even if Ellen White had been alive and had agreed with his conclusions, I believe that she would NOT have approved of his method in arriving at his position. Our denomination would most certainly never have been brought into existence if we had begun our study of such topics as the Sabbath, the State of the Dead, the Sanctuary, and others if we had conducted our study of these subjects in the manner that Mr. Froom employed! And when it comes to the Trinity doctrine the fact is that Ellen White never used the term "Trinity" in any of her writings, and as we will see, she did not actually support this doctrine.
The REASON LeRoy Froom could not find anything he considered "Pathfinding" written by any of our Pioneers - or by men within our faith on the subject of the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit); is NOT because there had been nothing written on the subject but because NONE of our pioneers were "Trinitarians" and therefore did not agree with Elder Froom's conclusions or opinions! Mr. Froom states that even the Spirit of Prophecy had only "priceless leads" to offer him as he began his study. Yet he later declares that the Desire of Ages set forth an "inspired depiction" of the Trinity. If the Desire of Ages truly sets forth an inspired depiction of the "Trinity" and was the "Denominationally accepted position" of the Trinity, why didn't Mr. Froom acknowledge this to start with as he began his study of this subject in 1926? And if Mrs. White had truly set forth an inspired depiction of the Trinity as far back as 1898, why couldn't He find much more material to support his position within the rest of the pages of the Spirit of Prophecy? If Mrs. White truly believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, why is it that she NEVER used the term "Trinity" to describe the Godhead in any of her writings?
The fact is that LeRoy Froom "discovered" what he believed was the "truth of the Trinity" and the Holy Spirit from writers "not of our faith", and then set out to support it with statements from the Spirit of Prophecy. LeRoy Froom wrote a book called, "The Coming of the Comforter" as a result of, and shortly following his study during 1926-1928.
Mr. Froom, talking about the publication of his book in a letter to Dr. Otto H. Christiansen on October 27, 1960; stated that:
May I state that my book, The Coming of The Comforter, was the result of a series of studies that I gave in 1927 - 28, to Ministerial institutes throughout North America. You cannot imagine how I was pummeled by some of the old-timers ...
And speaking of his Trinitarian views he states:
Some men denied that ... still deny it, but the book has come to be generally accepted as standard.
It should be noted that this book is still widely used and is available in our Adventist Book Centers' bookstores.
In 1969, Russel Holt, in a term paper entitled "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination: Its Rejection and Acceptance" (Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary), divides our denominational history on the subject of the Trinity into three periods: During the first period, which he delineates as 1844-1890, he says: "the field was dominated by those who saw the trinity as illogical, unscriptural, pagan and subversive of the atonement. .... anti-trinitarianism is the evident denominational stance.
He next refers to the time period of 1890-1900, saying: "Roughly within this period, the course of the denomination on the trinity was decided by statements from Ellen G. White." (Ibid. Emphasis Mine).
Finally, He states of the period between 1900-1930: "This period saw the death of most of those pioneers who had championed and held the anti-Trinitarian position. Their places were being taken by men who were changing their thinking, or had never opposed the doctrine...." (see http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm ).
Russell Holt, commenting on Froom's publication of "The Coming of the Comforter (and the subsequent writing of others) states that:
The trinity began to be published, until by 1931 it had triumphed, and had become the standard denominational position. Isolated stalwarts remained who refused to yield, but the outcome had been decided.
In 1931, F.M. Wilcox included the term "trinity" in the SDA Yearbook's 22-point "Statement of Beliefs" and this was the first time that this term was seen in any Adventist Statement of Beliefs. Immediately following, in 1932, this pro-trinitarian Statement of Beliefs was added to the first "Church Manual" and all succeeding "Adventist Yearbooks" and began to appear in nearly all the Church books. It had not been voted on by the Church at large, by the General Conference, nor even by a representative body of the leaders of the SDA Church. The 1931 Statement of Beliefs read as follows:
That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; Lord YaHuWshuaH the Messiah, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit), the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. MattithYahuw 28:19.
Holt comments on this change in our Fundamental beliefs by noting: "A comparison of statements of faith issued at various times by the denomination shows a marked change in the opinion of the church concerning the trinity...." He observes that: "... Separate statements appeared in 1874, 1889, 1894 and 1931. The first three of these are, for all practical purposes, identical in the articles dealing with the deity. A comparison of the statements of 1874 and 1931 shows the change."
Please note that there was no change in the Statement of Beliefs in regard to the "Trinitarian" viewpoint while Ellen White was alive.
J. S. Washburn (1863-1955; a retired Adventist minister and contemporary of Ellen White -- who was converted by J. N. Andrews at age 11, baptized by James White at age 12 and began preaching Adventism at the age of 21), opposed this change in the strongest possible terms writing:
The doctrine of the trinity is a cruel, heathen monstrosity, removing YaHuWshuaH from His true position of Divine Saviour and mediator ... This monstrous doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman, papal church is seeking to intrude its evil presence into the teachings of the Third Angel's Message.
Washburn goes on to say:
If we should go back to the immortality of the soul, purgatory, eternal torment and the Sunday Sabbath, would that be anything less than apostasy? If however we leap over all these minor, secondary doctrines and accept and teach the very central, root doctrine of Romanism, the trinity, and teach that the Son of Elohiym did not die, even though our words seemed to be spiritual, is this anything else and anything less than apostasy and the very omega of apostasy?"
Benjamin Wilkinson, the man who wrote the book entitled "Truth Triumphant", wrote a letter to Dr. T.S. Teters in 1936, saying:
Replying to your letter of October 13 regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, I will say that Seventh-Day Adventists do not, and never have accepted the dark, mysterious, Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.
In 1941, the Baptismal Vow was revised to include the trinitarian statement (Mr. Froom was involved in this action as well). So that, NOW, in order to become a to belief in the trinity.
In a letter written to Roy Allan Anderson, J. L. Schuler, Denton Reebok, A.W. Peterson, W.G. Turner and J.E. Weaver; November 22,1966; LeRoy Froom says:
I am writing to you brethren as a group for you are the only living members of the original Committee of 13, appointed in 1931 to frame a uniform baptismal covenant. Elder Branson was the chairman and I was Secretary. The task of this Committee was to formulate a uniform baptismal covenant and vow based on the 1931 Fundamental Beliefs statement in the yearbook and Manual ... to point up a bit more sharply, the first, second and third persons of the Godhead.
In 1945, all the standard Adventist books were edited, and all the anti-trinitarian statements taken from them. In his book Movement of Destiny, LeRoy Froom states:
The next logical and inevitable step in the implementing of our unified Fundamental beliefs, involved revision of certain standard works, so as to eliminate statements that taught, and thus perpetuated erroneous views on the Godhead. Such sentiments were now sharply at variance with the accepted Fundamental beliefs set forth in the Church Manual.
The "official" acceptance of the "Trinity" into our Fundamental Beliefs did not come until 1946.
when the statement had gained general acceptance, the General Conference session of 1946 made it official, voting that "no revision of this Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, as it now appears in the[Church] Manual, shall be made at any time except at a General Conference session.
In 1946 the book 'Evangelism' was compiled from the writings of Ellen White. LeRoy Froom (along with others) was instrumental in the choice and compilation of statements from Ellen White's writings, which seemed to support the Trinitarian viewpoint. This book contains the quotes most often used now (from the writings of Ellen White), to support the trinitarian doctrine within our denomination.
Here's what Froom had to say about this in a letter he wrote to Roy Allan Anderson on January 18, 1966:
I am sure that we are agreed, in evaluating the book 'Evangelism', as one of the great contributions in which the Ministerial Association had a part back in those days. You know what it did with men in the Columbia Union who came face-to-face with the clear, unequivocal statements of the Spirit of Prophecy on the deity of Christ (the Messiah), the personality of the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit), the trinity and the like." "They either had to lay down their arms and accept those statements, or else they had to reject the Spirit of Prophecy. I know that you and Miss Cluser and I had considerable to do with the selection of those things under the encouragement of men like Elder Branson, who felt that the earlier concept of the White Estate brethren on this book on 'evangelism' was not adequate.
Note: I fear that this is still the attitude of our Denomination and that it is based largely on the Ellen White quotes that were chosen to be included in the book 'Evangelism'. The book you now hold in your hands will seriously challenge the assumptions that have been made because of the narrow and carefully selected use of Ellen's writings on this subject."
In 1955 there were meetings of the leaders of the Adventist Church (primarily Roy Allan Anderson and LeRoy Froom) with Dr. Walter Martin and Dr. Barnhouse, two Evangelical theologians who felt that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was a cult, and as a result of these meetings the book "Questions on Doctrine" (a book in which LeRoy Froom played a leading role) was produced in 1957 in an attempt to show that Adventists were NOT a cult and that we were quite "mainstream" in our beliefs - including the doctrine of the Trinity. [This book, unfortunately, also contained statements that say that we do not believe the atonement is taking place in Heaven right now, that Christ (the Messiah) came with an "unfallen" human nature, and other untrue and misleading statements regarding Seventh-day Adventist beliefs].
In 1980, the General Conference voted on a new set of "27 Fundamental Beliefs" in which the Trinity doctrine was upheld. Fundamental belief number 2 now read: "2. The Trinity: "There is one Elohiym: Father, Son, and Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit), a unity of three co-eternal Persons". The concept delineated here, that there are "three co-eternal Persons", is in complete harmony with the Catholic Church's teaching regarding the "Trinity" and, as we shall see, is incorrect.
In 1988 the book "Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Beliefs" was published and included the doctrine of the Trinity. This book was highly promoted for use as an evangelistic tool to explain to non-Adventists what we believe our core doctrines to be.
It seems clear to me, as I review the history of the "Trinity" doctrine and its acceptance into the Seventh-day Adventist Church, that something has gone seriously amiss within our denomination. We have not critically considered the "Truth" (or non-Truth) of this doctrine in light of the Great Controversy, and we have certainly not considered the serious implication this doctrine has on the sacrifice, mediation, and ministry of YaHuWshuaH the Messiah! Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity - with its focus on the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) as a "third co-eternal person" of the Godhead - has successfully caused us to lose our focus on Christ (the Messiah), His Sacrifice, and His ministry in the lives of all believers since the Cross. It effectively limits the Messiah's (Christ's) ministry to that of "Justification" only, while leaving the work of "Sanctification" to the "Third" person of the Godhead - the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit). This is, frankly, unbiblical - and is why we must earnestly examine this subject. I pray that you will find, as a result of your prayerful consideration of these studies, that your focus is returned to the person of our Master, YaHuWshuaH and Savior YaHuWshuaH the Messiah, and that your understanding of His great sacrifice in the plan of redemption will be broadened and enriched beyond words.
These studies are, in fact, about YaHuWshuaH the Messiah and the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) and are not meant to be a refutation our denomination's "Trinity" doctrine per se, but rather a study that will open up to you the enormity of the sacrifice of the Messiah on your and my behalf. A clear understanding of this sacrifice will enable you to refute quite adequately the "Trinity" doctrine on your own.
Having said all this, let me state that I do believe that there are "three" persons in the Godhead (today). How there came to be three is the subject of the studies that follow. The "TRUTH" about the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) will astound you! It is a beautiful and important truth for Elohiym's Remnant people. My promise to you is that, by the time you have finished these studies, you will understand why an understanding of all this is vitally important. You will clearly understand "who" the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) really is and where He came from. You will have a much deeper appreciation of the "inconceivable" sacrifice made by YaHuWshuaH the Messiah in order to redeem you and me. And you will be able to intelligently "pray with understanding" for the outpouring of the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) in Latter Rain power. That said; I invite you now to delve into a careful, and prayerful study of the remainder of these Studies.
Back to tab top
Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) | The Truth
A few Questions First, Please:
Why is it that when the “Throne of Elohiym” is spoken of, in both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, there are only TWO personages ever associated with it — the Father and the Son (the Messiah)? Why aren't there three spoken of? Why does Ellen White consistently speak only of the Father and the Son when she speaks of the “Councils of Elohiym”, the origin of the “Plan of Salvation”, or of the plan to “create” man?
Here are a few examples:
... The Messiah, the Word, the only begotten of Elohiym, was one with the eternal Father — one in nature, in character, in purpose — the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of Elohiym ... The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings. “The Father and the Son engaged in the mighty, wondrous work they had contemplated — of creating the world.” “After the Earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the Earth and every living thing upon it. And now Elohiym says to his Son, “Let us make man in our image.” E. G. White, 'Signs of the Times', Jan. 9, 1879; par. 13. “In the beginning the Father and the Son had rested upon the Sabbath after Their work of creation.” E. G. White, 'Desire of Ages', p.769, par.2. “The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. the Messiah did not stand alone in this wondrous undertaking for the ransom of man. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to Elohiym, the Messiah, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him.” “There is a personal Elohiym, the Father; there is a personal Messiah, the Son.” (RH November 8, 1898; par. 9). “ ... the Messiah and the Father would redeem the fallen race.” (ST Feb. 17, 1909; par. 9). “His death had answered the question whether the Father and the Son had sufficient love for man to exercise self-denial and a spirit of sacrifice.”
Where is the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) in all these? If there have always been THREE members of the Godhead, then why do we see so many key instances where only TWO are mentioned?
YaHuWshuaH also made this remarkable statement:
no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Luke 10:22 puts it this way:
no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Are we to believe that the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) doesn't know the Father or the Son? Are we to believe that the third member of the Godhead doesn't even know who the Father and the Son are? Sounds ludicrous doesn't it? Was YaHuWshuaH lying? Didn't YaHuWshuaH know what He was talking about? Are we willing to say: “Yes, that is what the Messiah said ... but this is what He meant.” Are we so presumptuous that we would suggest that we know better than He what He meant to say? There are a couple of statements in the Spirit of Prophecy that have intrigued me, even bugged me, like an itch that you can't reach to scratch. Here is one of them:.
The man haMashiach YaHuWshuaH was not YaHuWaH Elohiym Almighty.”
Or this one that was made concerning what Elohiym did when Lucifer had rebelled and had insisted that he be included in the councils of Elohiym. Elohiym responded in this way:
The Great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the Angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that the Messiah, his Son, should be equal with himself.
And if you add to that quote, this one —
To the Messiah had been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father.
— it ought to really leave you scratching your head!
In discussing the “Godhead” (exactly who and what it comprises) we must go back to the “Beginning” — before the “Creation” of Heaven and Earth, and everything that exists save Elohiym Himself. This is necessarily important because Elohiym is eternal and omniscient (all knowing — knowing the “end” from the “beginning”). Anything and everything Elohiym has done, is doing, or will do has a purpose — and if His purposes are not to be thwarted or overthrown in any way, He must have made provision for every contingency.
So let's consider for a moment, as much as is humanly possible, the plans of Elohiym and the predicament in which those plans placed Him. Sometime in eternity past Elohiym purposed to Create intelligent life — Life that would exist not only “by” Him, but also “for” Him and “with” Him. Because Elohiym is an Elohiym of “LOVE” (because “Elohiym IS Love” (1 Yahuwchanon 4:8)) His special, intelligent, created beings would not only be capable of Love themselves — they must also be granted “free will” (because Love cannot be “forced” or “imposed” on anyone or anything). This poses certain problems because with the capacity to Love also comes the capacity, or power NOT to Love. Love must be Chosen. In other words: Love can be given, but “giving” love does not insure that it will be received, accepted, or returned!
If Elohiym were to create Beings capable of experiencing, expressing and returning love (sharing in His very “essence” which is love) they must also be created as intelligent, “Free” moral agents — capable of acknowledging and returning Elohiym's Love but also capable of deciding to reject that Love. Elohiym wanted intelligent beings to share His life and essence. He wanted beings that were capable of appreciating HIM and who would acknowledge Him AS Elohiym — the source of Love.
He wanted, more than anything else to be the recipient of love as well as the giver of it! But this brought with it the risk (just as it does with us when we choose to love another) of rejection — the risk of being hurt — the risk of not having His love returned and thus, the inevitable consequences of that rejection. Which, in the case of Elohiym, meant not only pain and suffering — but also ultimately DEATH for those who would reject His Love.
A life devoid of love; devoid of Elohiym; a life chosen to be lived apart from Him; a life in which His creatures would assert themselves to be superior to Him could not be allowed to continue, for it would ultimately be a “Life” or existence worse than “Death.” Elohiym, the consummate author and sustainer of life, could not allow HIS creatures (creations) of love to continue living apart from His love. Because Elohiym is Love those beings choosing to reject love (and therefore HIM) would, of necessity, cease to exist. Death for these beings would, in reality, be the ultimate act of Love on Elohiym's part for they would NEVER be happy, joyous and fulfilled apart from Him! That could be the subject of entire study in itself but, sufficient for the one at hand, it brings into focus the problem Elohiym faced in creating intelligent, free, moral beings!
This brings up another conundrum. How could a Elohiym who IS LOVE and who's very Being is SO PURE that it would consume anything impure instantly, create other beings that had the “potential” to become imperfect? Elohiym knew that He would create everything “perfect,” albeit with the capacity for growth. But in the case of free, moral agents, beings with the capacity to choose to become something other than He desired, how was He to exist in their presence — or they in His? What was He to do? Elohiym would have to make a way possible for created beings not only to exist in His presence but also to interact with Him (even those who would make the mistake of doubting Him).
He would have to make it possible for intelligent beings to be able to approach and learn from Him. He would have to make it possible for them not only to receive His Love, but also provide a way for them to share it — a way for them to return and express their love for Him and a way for them to grow in it. He would have to have a way to communicate with them in a way that they would understand (He would have to come down to their level if you will). A go-between will be required. There would HAVE to be some sort of “go-between” or mediator between Himself in His Total Consuming Purity and those with whom He wished to commune. Someone capable of communing in HIS physical presence while also being able to commune in the presence of His created beings (even those who would become “imperfect” and separate from Him through sin).
He would need someone through whom He could reveal Himself while maintaining the opportunity for mercy and forgiveness if and when that should become necessary. That “Someone” could NOT be one of the beings He intended to create. No, that “Someone” would have to be someone who was like Him. Indeed, someone who was ONE with Him — someone who shared His very essence. That someone would have to be (in human terms) “Flesh of His Flesh,” “Bone of His Bone,” Blood of His Blood”; while at the same time, being capable of partaking of the nature of the beings He intended to create. Elohiym would need someone who could communicate His love to created beings AND could communicate their love back to Him in return. It would have to be someone that could serve as a mediator, if you will, between Him and His creation when Sin would appear so that they would not simply be consumed and immediately cease to exist. Where was Elohiym to find such a being?
Elohiym was not alone: The Bible informs us in Yahuwchanon 1:1 that; “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohiym, and the Word was Elohiym.” That this “Word” was the person of YaHuWshuaH the Messiah in His pre-incarnate form is made evident by verse 14 of the same chapter: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” This could only refer to the person of YaHuWshuaH. The phrase “with Elohiym” in Yahuwchanon 1:1 carries the meaning of being “by the side of Elohiym” and expresses a uniqueness or individuality from Elohiym (the Father). The phrase “was Elohiym” indicates a state of being and expresses the nature that YaHuWshuaH had at this time.
So YaHuWshuaH co-existed “with” Elohiym the Father as a separate or individual being, and He shared the Father's nature of “being” Elohiym. The Messiah (Christ) was in fact Elohiym AND existed with the Father Elohiym before the creation of intelligent life.
The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of Elohiym, in union and oneness with his Father ... Before men or Angels were created, the Word was with Elohiym, and was Elohiym.
The fact that the Father Elohiym was not alone and that He had someone else who existed with Him who shared all of His attributes is what actually made it possible for Him to create intelligent life in whom would be imbued the capacity and freedom of choice. Had He been alone in His creation of intelligent beings possessing the freedom to choose whom they would serve Elohiym or “self”, those beings whom He created who would choose to serve themselves would have been incapable of existing in His presence and would have been instantly destroyed by His absolute purity. This is why the Father created (and had to create) all things through the Son, the Messiah YaHuWshuaH.
There had to be a mediator between Himself and His created beings. Someone who could fully reveal the Father's character and purposes to His created beings and who could interact directly with them and with Himself. Someone who could serve as a “buffer”, if you will, between the Father's absolute and consuming purity and the beings He wished to create who would fall short of His ideal — while they were learning to serve Him, and when some would choose not to serve Him. YaHuWshuaH was that person.
- “From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant”.
- “Christ (the Messiah) is mediating in behalf of man, and the order of unseen worlds also is preserved by His mediatorial work.”
- “It was for them [unfallen worlds and Angels] as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Mashiach's victory.”
- “The Messiah (Christ) was appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of Elohiym, set up from everlasting to be our substitute and surety.”
The Bible clearly reveals that:
All things came into being through Him (the Messiah), and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
( Yahuwchanon 1:3 — see also Hebrews 1:1).
The Spirit of Prophecy (referred to as the “SOP” in the remainder of this book) confirms this in a most concise and clear way —
The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings.
The revelation of their being the Father and the Word from Eternity, is beyond question. Most of us have no problem accepting and acknowledging this fact. However, right here is where we have missed an important and vital Truth concerning the Godhead, the Creation, and the plan of Salvation. Here is what we have missed: BEFORE Elohiym could create intelligent “free-willed” beings through His Son, there had to be a change in the Nature of the Son and of the Godhead. Had YaHuWshuaH maintained His “pure Elohiym” nature, the same problem would have existed as has been outlined above. The Messiah's pure “Elohiym Nature” would have consumed imperfect beings and sinners just as surely as the Father's pure nature would!
So what was the change that took place? What change had to take place in order for Elohiym to accomplish both the work of creation and the plan of redemption? What was the change, and how would this change affect what is called, the Godhead?
... We are told that: “ ... the Messiah, the Word, the only begotten of Elohiym, was one with the eternal Father — one in nature, in character, in purpose — the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of Elohiym ... . The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings.” (Patriachs & Prophets, p.34, par. 1-2). In this statement, the word “nature” must refer to the Messiah's physical substance — His physical “being” — because she makes the distinction between His “nature” and His “character”.
If the “nature” being referred to here consisted of His “character” then the statement would be nonsensical — it would read like this: “the Messiah ... was one with the eternal Father — one in character, in character, in purpose ...”. I believe that in using the word “nature” (in this instance) she is referring to the Messiah's existence prior to creation in which He existed as one with the Father in Spirit form. This “Spirit” form, or “nature”, would include His physical form as well as the attributes that make Elohiym, Elohiym.
These attributes include His Omniscience, His Omnipotence, and His Omnipresence. These three are attributes of His “being”, not simply of His character per se. For example, Omnipotence is an attribute of being “ALL-POWERFUL” and is a physical attribute (if you will) not one of character (as are “Love, Mercy, and Justness”). It implies the ability to create and to “act” upon both the animate nature (the physical dimension of matter) as well as on the inanimate nature (the spiritual dimension) of beings ... "I asked YaHuWshuaH if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He".
If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist.
E. G. White, "Early Writings", p. 54.2
The point is that YaHuWshuaH once shared the Father's “Spirit form” (with Elohiym) and as Elohiym and enjoyed all the attributes of Elohiym including Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence.
This is not entirely the case now.
Before the creation of other intelligent life forms — when the Messiah existed solely with the Father — there would have been no need for the Messiah to exist in any other form than that of “Spirit”. In this “Spirit” form, the Messiah and the Father were most fully, completely, and totally ONE! They were still individuals yet they were united in form, character, and purpose. It was only as the Father and the Son began their work of creation that the necessity for a change in this nature (or state of “being”) arose.
Some will argue that Elohiym does not and cannot change. They will cite:
Mal'akiy 3:6 “For I, YaHuWaH, do not change”, as “proof” of this. But the context of this text shows that Elohiym is speaking of His character and not of His form or nature — the word “therefore” indicates this: “For I, YaHuWaH, do not change; therefore [because of this fact] you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
Elohiym indicates that He is willing to change His stated purposes based on our reaction and relationship to Him:
At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
Elohiym's character does not change and is not subject to change. Elohiym could not change His Law, for instance, in order to accommodate man in his sinful condition or in order to save him.
The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. the Messiah did not stand alone in this wondrous undertaking for the ransom of man. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to Elohiym, the Messiah, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him.” “ ... the Messiah and the Father would redeem the fallen race.” “The great contest that had been so long in progress in this world was now decided, and the Messiah was conqueror. His death had answered the question whether the Father and the Son had sufficient love for man to exercise self-denial and a spirit of sacrifice.” “There is a personal Elohiym, the Father; there is a personal Messiah, the Son.”
Concerning The “Throne” of Elohiym: There are at least 66 verses in the Bible that refer to the “Throne of Elohiym” (23 in the Old Testament and 43 in the New Testament. 24 references to the “Throne” are found in the Book of Revelation alone!). Only two persons are ever named in connection with Elohiym's Throne — the Father and the Son! In the Spirit of Prophecy there are over 2,000 references to the “Throne of Elohiym”, and while I cannot claim to have read every one of these I have read many and have found only two persons mentioned in relation to Elohiym's Throne. Never have I come across a reference in either the Bible or the SOP where three persons are associated with the Throne of Elohiym, OR where the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) is specifically identified (as a person) in connection with it ... Surely, if there were three persons in the Godhead there would be three persons mentioned regarding Elohiym's Throne, or regarding His Creation, or regarding the councils of Elohiym and the development of the Plan of Redemption. Why isn't the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) mentioned, named, and included in these references to the Godhead? There is an important reason why we do not find the “Third Person”—the “Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit)” — mentioned in any of these critical references to the “Godhead.” And it all has to do with the “change” that took place in the Godhead prior to the creation in order to accommodate the eventuality and entrance of Sin and in order to provide a means by which sinners could be redeemed and reconciled to Elohiym.
YAHUWSHUAH | BEFORE & AFTER CREATION
YaHuWaH possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the Earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was brought forth; While He had not yet made the Earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world. When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the Earth; Then I was beside Him, as a master workman.
It is clear then, that before the beginning of creation, the Son's form was transformed from HIS eternal SPIRIT form which HE shared with the FATHER, into HIS 'Brought-forth' form.
YaHuWshuaH had existed as Elohiym and with Elohiym from the depths of eternity past. This is confirmed in Proverbs 8:22 above, and in Yahuwchanon 1:1-2. When He existed as Elohiym and with Elohiym, before the Creation of intelligent life, He existed as/with Elohiym in “nature [form], character, and purpose” (PP p.34, par. 1). That “nature” (or form) was almost assuredly that of “Spirit” — for “Elohiym is Spirit” (Yahuwchanon 4:24).
According to Proverbs 8:22-30, the Messiah was “Brought Forth” from the Father prior to the creation “when there were no depths I was brought forth ... before the hills I was brought forth”. Proverbs 8 describes the Messiah being brought forth as “a Master Workman” (vs. 30) and is in harmony with other Biblical texts that teach that all things were created through, and by the YaHuWshuaH (Yahuwchanon 1:3; Hebrews 1:1,2; Colossians 1:16). As outlined above and elsewhere, this was necessary in order for Elohiym to commune with His intelligent (free-willed) created beings and to provide for the eventuality of Sin.
But what exactly was this bringing forth? What did this involve? Was there a change in the nature of the Messiah at this time? And how does this change affect our understanding of the Scriptures, the Godhead,the Messiah's nature, and the plan of Salvation?
"Brought Forth" — How?
It is clear from Proverbs 8:22-30 that YaHuWshuaH was “Brought Forth” prior to the creation — but in what sense was He “Brought Forth”? ... When we consider the Messiah's interactions with the Angelic host prior to the fall of man, it becomes clear that YaHuWshuaH had indeed changed in form and that He appeared in a form that was very much like the Angels! Throughout the Bible we find references to “the Angel of YaHuWaH” which undeniably refer to the person of the Messiah. Examples of these can be found in the accounts of Avraham and Sarah, Hagar, Ya'aqov, Mosheh, Balaam, Gideon, Manoah, Dawid, Joshua, and others (See: Genesis 16:7-9; 22:11,15; Exodus 3:2; Debariym (Numbers) 22:32; Judges 6:12,21-22; 13:15-21; ZekarYahuw. 3:1-7; etc.). The account of Avraham's encounter with Him is of, ... particular notice.
Genesis 22:10-18 describes one encounter Avraham had with the “Angel of YaHuWaH” where it can be clearly demonstrated that the “Angel” was actually YaHuWaH! These passages recount the story of Avraham and Yitshaq. Avraham is just about to sacrifice his only son in obedience to the command of YaHuWaH
Avraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the Angel of YaHuWaH called to him from heaven and said, “Avraham, Avraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear Elohiym, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” ... “Then the Angel of YaHuWaH called to Avraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares YaHuWaH, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.
When YaHuWaH was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah He appeared to Avraham by the oaks of Mamre in the heat of the day and Avraham.
lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the Earth, and said, 'YaHuWaH, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not pass Your servant by ...'
Then he prepared a feast of the best he had to offer them and they ate with him.
One of the “men” was YaHuWaH. It was here that YaHuWaH promised:
“I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son” (vs. 10). Sarah laughed at the thought but YaHuWaH rebuked her and said: “Is anything too difficult for YaHuWaH? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son” (vs. 14).
Then came the familiar conversation between Avraham and YaHuWaH about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. There are a couple of things worthy of note in these passages. First, it is clear that Avraham was speaking with YaHuWaH! Second,YaHuWaH appeared as a man. Third, the other “men” were Angels (Genesis 19:1). Fourth, YaHuWaH ate with Avraham (he ingested food!) — Does a “Spirit” ingest food? When Mosheh was on the Mount, we are told: “The Angel of YaHuWaH appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush” (Exodus 3:2). And when Mosheh went closer to see why the bush was not consumed “YaHuWaH saw that he turned aside to look, Elohiym called to him from the midst of the bush and said, 'Mosheh, Mosheh!' And he said, 'Here I am.' Then He said, 'Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.' He said also, 'I am the Elohiym of your father, the Elohiym of Avraham, the Elohiym of Yitshaq, and the Elohiym of Ya'aqov.'
Then Mosheh hid his face, for he was afraid to look at Elohiym.” (vs. 3-6). It was here that Elohiym the “Angel of YaHuWaH” in verse 2 declared His name:
I AM, WHO I AM.
YaHuWshuaH said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Avraham was born, I AM'.
Yahuwchanon 8:58. So we are on very safe ground when we conclude that YaHuWshuaH was the “Angel of YaHuWaH.”
As has been pointed out, Elohiym the Father needed a mediator (or go-between) between Himself and His absolute purity and the free-willed beings He wished to create. YaHuWshuaH was that Mediator. In His role as such, it was necessary for Him to take on the form (or nature) of His created beings. This incarnation (being “Brought Forth” from the Father) involved YaHuWshuaH depriving Himself of many of the powers and attributes that He had shared with the Father prior to this event, ... A drastic change in the Messiah's nature took place at this time. The Messiah was still of “Divine” origin (not created) and He still was invested with supremacy and authority over ALL created beings, but there existed a huge change in His “being” from that which He had enjoyed when He was purely Elohiym. This “change” in His “being” resulted in the loss of many of the attributes that had made Him fully Elohiym.
The change, or incarnation, through which He passed involved the giving up of certain attributes of His “Elohiym-Nature” (Omnipresence being one of these) and helps us better understand what is meant by the Messiah's being “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The word “slain” implies “death”. It also can imply being “struck” or injured. Whichever way we may choose to define the word “slain” we know, that in the case of the Messiah, it meant that He would die as a result. Did the Messiah “die” from the foundation of the world? If so, in what sense did He “die”? Can Elohiym die? How did the Messiah “die” — How are we to understand that He was “slain from the foundation of (prior to the creation of) the world”?
I would suggest that part of this death was fact and part of it was promise. The “Brought-Forth” YaHuWshuaH certainly did not “die” until He was fully incarnated as a man and died on the Cross. But the pre-Brought-Forth nature of the Messiah actually was the result of dying .. He was no longer totally and completely Elohiym in the person of one being. This Elohiym died and decomposed! The products of this divine decomposition were: The 'Angel of YaHuWaH' and the 'Spirit of YaHuWshuaH'. It is in this sense that the Messiah, as Elohiym, “died” — or was “slain”. the Messiah literally died to “self” — the “self” that He had once personally commanded when He existed in His fully “Elohiym” nature.
The Messiah's “death to self” held infinite consequences for the Godhead, for Himself, and for us. It most certainly involved “an infinite cost to the Father and the Son” (Review & Herald Publishing; March 10, 1891; par. 2). At the time of the Messiah's being “Brought Forth” there came into existence a dual nature to His being — in form. In character the Messiah still possessed and exhibited all the attributes of Elohiym. He was still very much Elohiym in this regard, even though His form had undergone a change. It is in the change in the Messiah's form that we find the Messiah exhibiting a dual nature. Elohiym is Spirit. We know that the Messiah existed with Elohiym and as Elohiym in eternity past.
Elohiym, by virtue of His being Eternal, absolutely cannot die. So when the Messiah gave up His “Spirit” nature for that of His “Brought Forth” nature — His “Spirit” nature lived on SEPARATELY. the Messiah now existed as a being that was limited by His form, THE BROUGHT-FORTH FORM - without Omnipresence and Omniscience! His glory ... including Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience were retained in HIS SPIRIT. In truth, the Messiah now existed as two personages — one, His original “Spirit” nature, and one His “incarnate” nature. I suppose one might say that YaHuWshuaH now had a “split personality — Split, not in character but in nature or form. They were the Messiah's “Spirit” and His “Brought Forth” being, now two individuals, albeit two individuals of the same being — much like the Messiah and the Father were two individuals of the same Elohiym.
In the beginning ... Elohiym said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ...” (Genesis 1:1,26).
It is very illuminating to consider what Mrs. White says regarding this statement:
“After the Earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the Earth and every living thing upon it. And now Elohiym says to his Son, “Let us make man in our image.” (Signs of the Times; Jan. 9, 1879; par. 13).
Notice that it is “the Father and the Son” who are carrying out their purpose in creating man in their image — and that this was “designed before the fall of Satan.” The Father now says to the Messiah; “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.”
Whose “likeness” was man created in? It had to be in the “likeness” of both the Father and the Son for He says: “Let us make man in our image.”
But this statement has greater significance than we have traditionally given it. Exactly “How” was man to resemble Elohiym's “likeness” — the “likeness” of both the Father and the Son?
“Man was to bear Elohiym's image, both in outward resemblance and in character.”
Most of us can accept the idea of Adam bearing Elohiym's image “in character” — but did Adam really look like Elohiym in “outward resemblance”?
When Adam came from the Creator's hand, he bore, in his physical, mental, and spiritual nature, a likeness to his Maker. 'Elohiym created man in His own image' (Genesis 1:27), and it was His purpose that the longer man lived the more fully he should reveal this image — the more fully will he reflect the glory of the Creator.
Created to be 'the image and glory of Elohiym' (1 Corinthians 11:7), Adam and Eve had received endowments not unworthy of their high destiny. Graceful and symmetrical in form, regular and beautiful in feature, their countenances glowing with the tint of health and the light of joy and hope, they bore in outward resemblance the likeness of their Maker. Nor was this likeness manifest in the physical nature only. Every faculty of mind and soul reflected the Creator's glory.”
How could this be?
The only way that this could be is if the Messiah bore this likeness prior to the creation and then formed man in His image! Since Elohiym intended to create man prior to the creation of all intelligent life; since man was to be created just “a little lower than Elohiym”(Tehillim (Psalm) 8:5), and would be Elohiym's “Crowning” creation; and since man was the object of the plan of Redemption — it makes perfect sense that the Messiah would take on mankind's form when He was “brought forth” from the Father.
We cannot forget that it was the Messiah who created all things — that the Father has “appointed Him heir of all things” and that it was through the Messiah that “He made the world” (Hebrews 1:2). We cannot escape the fact that man was to be created in the image of Elohiym and that this would include the image of the brought-forth Messiah as their Creator.
He is the image of the invisible Elohiym, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on Earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
When Adam (man) was created, he bore the physical likeness of his Creator (who was the brought-forth Messiah) as well as possessing the character likenesses of Elohiym (Father and Son). Man resembled His maker in very many remarkable ways, yet “Man” was made “a little lower than Elohiym” (Tehillim (Psalm) 8:5) and did not bear all the attributes of Elohiym for he was not Omniscient, Omnipotent, or Omnipresent. Could it be that the “brought-forth” Messiah also lacked these qualities? I believe that He lacked these qualities.
This is a rather remarkable consideration. We have already seen that the Messiah lacked at least one of these “fully Elohiym” qualities — Omnipresence — even when He existed in His brought-forth form prior to Lucifer's fall from grace. But how could the Messiah also lack such qualities as Omniscience and Omnipotence if HE was the One who created all things? Wouldn't the Messiah need to use His omniscience and omnipotence to accomplish the creation? For this we need to go back and remember the Father's statement to the heavenly host when He “set forth the true position of His Son” and showed “the relation He [the Messiah] sustained to all created beings.” (PP; p. 36, par. 2).
In the Father's proclamation He indicated that the Messiah;
The Son of Elohiym had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to Elohiym, their homage and allegiance were due.
But the Father went still further in revealing the part and the power that the Messiah was yet to exercise in the creation of the Earth: “the Messiah was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the Earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to Elohiym's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love.” (Ibid). When the Messiah sat on His Father's Throne at this time, it was the Father's Glory that “encircled both.” the Messiah's Own Glory was apparently not abiding in Himself anymore — in His “brought-forth form” — else there would have been no confusion on the part of the Angels as to the Messiah's “true position” or “the relation He sustained to all created beings.”
Also, had the Messiah's own glory been abiding in Him at this time, the Angels who had “sinned” would have been consumed. Part of the Messiah's own original glory was His Omnipotence and He had apparently laid this power aside in order that He might accomplish being “brought forth” in a form that would not consume His finite beings.
“the Messiah, the Light of the world, veiled the dazzling splendor of His divinity and came to live as a man among men, that they might, without being consumed, become acquainted with their Creator. No man has seen Elohiym at any time except as He is revealed through the Messiah”.
Since the Messiah was equal with the Father in every respect prior to His being “brought forth”, the Messiah would have to “veil” His own glory in order to interact with His Creation. Had the Messiah come in the totality of His divinity, we (and the Angels) would have been consumed. the Messiah “veiled” His divinity by separating part of it from Himself. When the Messiah took on the form of man we could behold Him. And in “beholding” Him we are beholding a divine person. We cannot afford to forget that the Messiah, even in His “brought forth” form, is Divine! So when we, or the Angels, are beholding Him, we are beholding “Divinity.” But part of His divinity we cannot behold — it would consume us.
How was the Messiah to “veil” that part from us? Remember, He could not be walking around with this aspect of Himself residing in Him. He had to separate this part of Himself from His brought-forth self. In separating or dividing Himself, He effectively became two persons. His “brought forth” self we know and behold as the “Son of Man.” The part of Himself that was not brought-forth with Him became what we refer to as the "Ruach haQodesh" (“Holy Spirit”).
The Messiah effectively “laid aside” that part of His divinity, which included His Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience and this part of the Messiah's divinity became the person of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit).
The Messiah would still (yet) use His own divinity, His Ruach haQodesh (His Holy Spirit) in the creation of the Earth and of man, but He would exercise His own divinity only in submission to the will of His Father. This is why we seem to see three individuals at work in the creation of the Earth and Man.
When the Father said to His Son: “Let us make man in our image” it was the work of the Father and the Son alone. But the Ruach haQadosh (Holy Spirit) is there, a part of the person of the Messiah and is active in the formation of the Earth and in the giving of life to man (see Genesis 1:2 & 2:7).
The reason why we see only two persons spoken of in connection with Elohiym's Throne, the Councils of Heaven, the work of creation, etc.; is because the “Ruach haQodesh”, (“Holy Spirit”) is inclusively reckoned in the person of YaHuWshuaH the Messiah!
After the Fall of man, when the brought-forth Messiah promised to take man's place and suffer the penalty for man's transgression, this separation in the Messiah's person widened.
Man is the crowning glory of the Creator's works, and he has been redeemed at an inconceivable cost to the Son of Elohiym. None but He could restore to man the moral image of Elohiym, which had been lost through transgression.
Before HIS incarnation and birth to Miryam, HE was often described as the 'Angel of YaHuWaH' or the Angel Michael or Arch Angel Michael. After HIS incarnation and birth, no longer would HE be seen or be so described! Forever HE shall be known and described as the 'SON OF MAN'.
When the Messiah actually became fully incarnated as a man through His birth to Maryam — the separation was complete (but not yet final). When the Messiah died on the Cross, the separation was final — the brought-forth (incarnate) Messiah would forever exist as a Man.
On that fateful Abib 14 evening, 31 AD on the Biblical Calendar or Wednesday March 25, 31 AD on the Julian / Gregorian Calendar, when the SON OF MAN dying on the Cross, shouted with that loud voice:, "IT IS FINISHED" - Yahuwchanon 19:30, the process of HIS being "BROUGHT-FORTH" became complete, final and irrevocable! Oh! What awesome condescension! HE WILL NOW FOREVER REMAIN A MAN!
You must READ MORE OF THIS to fully grasp this awesome truth. Your redemption and mine was at infinite cost to the Savior and His Father. He gave His body so that His blood will cleanse you and me from all sin and qualify you and me for eternal life. He gave up His Spirit so that His Spirit will live in us and lead us making something of divinity of us. The Father now will only see His son in you as you are remade in His image fully.
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of Elohiym dwells in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Messiah, this one is not His. ... And if the Spirit of Him who raised יהושע YaHuWshuaH from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Messiah from the dead shall also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit dwelling in you. ... For as many as are led by the Spirit of Elohiym, these are sons of Elohiym.
The Savior gave us himself completely. He gave up his omnipresence, his omniscience and his omnipotence and to be called the Son of Man, in other to make our salvation possible! What would you do with this incredible SACRIFICE? But you must read the full story. Here is it. Remain blessed beloved.
Stated correctly by knowledge,
WE HAVE A "BINITY, DUALITY" NOT A "Trinity"!
The Son of Man is YaHuWshuaH the Messiah; the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) is YaHuWshuaH the Messiah. He is the Human Form of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. YaHuWshuaH and the Ruach haQodesh are One and the same person; just as the Father and the Son are One.
Everyone and everything involved in our salvation is the Messiah. There is no one else.
For it is written:
And there is no deliverance in anyone else, for there is no other Name under the heaven given among men by which we need to be saved.
Equally importantly too, we need to keep in mind that "YaHuWshuaH is not the savior! YaHuWaH is the savior!" "The meaning of YaHuWshuaH is YaHuWaH SAVES; YaHuWaH DELIVERS"
The ONE who died for you and me on that dreadful Cross, is none other than YaHuWaH Elohiym, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.
Remember beloved, the words of the Shema,
“Hear, O Yisra'ĕl: יהוה (YaHuWaH) our Elohiym,יהוה (YaHuWaH) is one!" - Deuteronomy 6:4, The Scriptures 1998.
And you shall love יהוה (YaHuWaH) your Elohiym with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your might.Back to tab top