Footnotes to Bruce Biven’s Book
On the Holy Spirit
When the footnotes are cut and pasted and/or when I transfer the book, the footnotes get misnumbered for some reason, so I have copied them separately below.
1 Christ is described as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) but this “slaying” took place over a period of time and was not yet complete until He died on the cross of Calvary. Likewise, Christ’s blending His divinity with that of humanity occurred over time and was not yet complete until He was born in a human form here on this earth. Indeed, this “blending” of divinity with humanity is “part and parcel” of His being “slain”—a position that I hope will become clear as we advance further in this study.
2 I recognize that most readers understand this point—but it is important to establish this fact because there are those who espouse a “Oneness” doctrine which is summed up by one “Oneness” organization like this: “God has manifest himself in different ways; however, He is only one Divine Entity, or one supreme spirit.” (Taken from the Thunder Ministries website at http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/tricont.html Emphasis mine). Nothing could be further from the Truth! It is simply not Biblical and misses the mark in almost every way when it comes to the “nature” of God, the creation, and the plan of redemption. For a brief, yet more thorough refutation of the Oneness doctrine, see Appendix “A.”
3 It is not the purpose nor within the scope of this book to provide an “in-depth” history of the Trinity Doctrine. Those wishing to find a more thorough history are encouraged to look in any good encyclopedia and those who wish to find a comprehensive history of this doctrine’s development may do so by visiting a library or bookstore; or by taking advantage of the vast amount of information available on the internet.
4 John A. Hardon, S.J., Catholic Doctrine on the Holy Trinity, (The Catholic Faith magazine, May/June 2001). “The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the most fundamental of our faith. On it everything else depends and form it everything else derives. Hence the Church’s constant concern to safeguard the revealed truth that God is One in nature and Three in Persons.” (Emphasis mine).
5 For those readers who may not be Seventh-day Adventists or who may need further proof of the Bible’s implication of the Catholic Church as the “Beast,” “Harlot,” and “Anti-Christ” power—please see Appendix “B.”
6 See also: John 14:16, 17 & Manuscript 20, 1906 “The Holy Spirit is a person... a divine person” who “has a personality.”
7 I used to wonder how it was that the “Sabbath” truth was unrecognized for so long. The Scriptures are so clear and plain regarding the Sabbath—how could anyone not see it? The truth is that it was buried beneath tradition, popular opinion, and accepted doctrine that no-one thought to question it. The Truth was hidden for so long God had to bring back into focus and “reveal” it again before it was understood. Many still do not understand the Sabbath or its importance. The same is true regarding the Godhead, the incarnation, and the Holy Spirit. Mr. White tells us “The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not proof that our ideas are infallible.” (RH, December 20, 1892). “We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but One Who is infallible—He Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (TM, p. 105). Interestingly, she wrote these statements long after the main “Pillars of our faith had been established—including the ones being discussed here.
8 There are instances where the word “nature” refers to the whole being—physical as well as character natures (mental and emotional attributes). This is especially true when speaking of “man” as it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two. But there are also instances (as in the one being discussed here) where the word “nature” is indicative of a specific attribute and does not refer to the subject as a whole—as is evidenced by the listing of other attributes (i.e. Character and Purpose).
9 Please not that Mrs. White’s asking Christ “if His Father had a form like Himself” does not necessarily imply or convey the idea that their “forms” were identical. Rather, it seems that it is used in the sense of confirming that the Father does indeed have a “form.” The question is really: “does your Father have a form?”—not “is His form identical to yours?” or, “is His form like the one I see you as having?” In this vision Mrs. White sees a multitude of peoples—both true believers and false believers—which indicates that she is viewing Christ at a time after His incarnation and which would make it impossible for Christ to have the same form as the Father.
10 “Cumbered with humanity Christ could not be in every place personally, therefore... He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit.” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, p. 23: MR 1084).
11 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (G.&C. Merriam Co., Publishers; Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.; 1961).
12 Richard M. Davidson, “Proverbs 8 and the Place of Christ in the Trinity,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 33-54. Dr. Davidson is J.N. Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Chair of the Old Testament Department at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary—Andrews University, and past-president of the Adventist Theological Society. Professor Davidson’s paper deals, not with the Trinity but with the person of Christ, his pre-existence and his being brought forth. In quoting Dr. Davidson here, it should not be assumed that he endorses the position set forth here or that his views on the Trinity are the same as mine—they are not. I do believe, however, that Mr. Davidson’s research does seem to lend credence to the plausibility of my position.
13 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Old Tappan: Revell, [original, 1710], 3:835) Quoted in Davidson, p. 36. Emphasis and parenthetical notes—mine.
14 PLEASE NOTE: I am not suggesting that Christ is a created being in making this statement. I am merely stating the fact that angels are created beings having form and substance. Christ also appeared as one of these beings. In so doing, He exhibited both form and substance. Christ was not created, nor was He an angel—but He appeared to be one to those human beings with whom He interacted. He is also described as appearing to be a man (Gen. 18:2). Men and Angels are apparently remarkably similar in their appearance (an important fact that will become evident later. When Christ was “Brought Forth” from the Father He was brought forth in (and took on) a form that resembled both Men and Angels—but He was not truly either of these. Christ was of “DIVINE” origin. He was not created! Yet Christ was the leader of the Angelic Host. As such He is referred to as the “Archangel.” This does not make Him a created angel. However, His appearance did resemble that of the angels—so much so that it caused Lucifer to mistakenly equate himself with Christ and dare to claim supremacy over Him. We will get into this in a moment.
15 “The glorious plan of man’s salvation was brought about through the infinite love of God the Father.” (2T p. 200).
16 “The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. Christ 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 God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him.” (RH November 15, 1898; par. 1). “. . . .Christ and the Father would redeem the fallen race.” (ST Feb 17, 1909; par. 9). “The great gift of salvation has been placed within our reach at an infinite cost to the Father and the Son” (RH March 10, 1891; par. 2).
17 This point is extremely relevant to this study and to the creation of this world. There is much more revealed here than the casual reader might discern! Even the serious student might miss an important aspect of this statement if he or she does not consider it within the context of the Great Controversy. We will discover what this quote reveals as this study progresses—perhaps some of you are already getting a glimpse into its meaning.
18 The word “slain” also implies that someone else was involved with the death. We usually do not describe a person’s regular death in terms of their being slain, but we do use this word when describing a person’s death when it has been facilitated by another. We are told that Christ was brought forth from the Father. Jesus Himself said that He had come forth (being brought forth) from the Father and that He had been sent by the Father (John 8:42:17:8). This shows that the Father was an active participant in Christ’s incarnation and enables us to better understand the reference to Christ’s being “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” and His title of the “Son of God.”
19 “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isa. 53:4-5 KJV—emphasis mine).
20 “A specific being or entity:” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co., Publishers; Springfield, Mass., 1961). Emphasis mine. The term “existential” as used in this book should not be confused with the modern concept of existentialism. The two concepts are not even remotely related.
21 Christ was the “firstborn of all creation” in the sense that He was “brought forth” in a visible form for the purpose of revealing the invisible and infinite God to His visible and finite created beings.
22 The Father stated that Christ was the only One who could enter into His counsel and that “wherever was the presence of his son, it was as his own presence (see SOP vol. 1, p. 17, par. 1-2). This clearly indicates that Christ was not ever-present (Omnipresent) with the Father while He (Christ) was interacting with the angels. If Christ was not Omnipresent with the Father but would enter into His counsels (go to meet with Him), then it is ridiculous for us to conclude that Christ was Omnipresent with the rest of His creation. Surely, had Christ been every-present with Lucifer and his angels, Lucifer would not have been so bold. Christ interacted with them on a one-to-one basis and in their assemblies, but He was not ever-present with them.
23 This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.” (Isa. 54:17; KJV). “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21; NASB). “All power is given into His [Jesus’] hands, that He may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of His own righteousness to the helpless human agent. That is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel’s message which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure.” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 92).
24 I am not suggesting that the Father is not revealed in the Old Testament. What I am saying is that Jesus is the One who came to reveal the Father to us and we have no understanding of the Father apart from Christ. When Christ cried out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me” He was speaking to His God and Father. For man, however, Christ is our Father and our Savior and our GOD. For man; “there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” (Isa. 45:21).
25 This is not to say that the Father is not our God also. But we must remember Christ’s special and unique role as it relates to us as men. He is our “Creator,” our “Savior,” our “Revelator,” and our “God.” Some will say that Christ is referring to the “Father” as the One who “comforts” and speaking only of His “Father” pouring out His Spirit at the end of time—we will see that this is not the case when we examine this closely in the next two chapters!
26 We certainly see many references to “the Spirit” in the Old Testament, but the “Spirit” seems to “come to life” in the New Testament—Why?
27 First printed by (The Bible Training School, South Lancaster, Mass. 1914) and reprinted by (Review and Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, MD., 1984)—Ellen White treasured this book. Another fine book is M.L. Andreasen’s, “The Sanctuary Service” (Review and Herald Publishing Association, Takoma Par, Washington, D.C., 1937). Frank B. Holbrook has also written much on this subject and is an excellent authority to consult.
28 See also Luke 10:22 “no one knows who . . . the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”
29 I understand that this is not a perfect analogy but is the best one that I could think of to describe what Christ has done. This analogy certainly does not fit or cover all the aspects involved in the incarnation, but it is sufficient to give us a glimpse into an understanding of what transpired.
30 The Hebrew word for “Cherubim’ actually carries the meaning of an “imaginary (or mystical) figure” and is generally not used as a direct reference to a created being (angel). Except for its use in describing Lucifer (who we know was a created being, or angel) most of the references using this word can be seen to represent a being (Christ?) who is not only in close proximity to God but has a unique relationship with God (executing His Will)—apart from those of created beings. Even in its use in reference to Lucifer, the word “covering’ can actually mean “protect” or “protecting” (it is used in this sense in Ex. 33:22 where the LORD “covers” and protects Moses with His hand). Lucifer then, can be understood to have been made a “protecting” Cherub—or Angel—and not necessarily one who stood in the very presence of the Father. Remember that Lucifer was not allowed into the “councils” of God held between Christ and the Father. I also believe that if Lucifer was in the direct presence of the Father when he began to “rebel” (Sin) that he would have been consumed immediately! Also, since everything else in the Tabernacle was representative of Christ, doesn’t it seem odd to suddenly have two created beings (Angels) residing in the Most Holy place of God?
31 The “Law” not only showed men what they should be doing—it also showed where men fail. Because all men have fallen short (transgressed God’s Law), the Law has placed all men under its condemnation—which is death. This “condemnation” makes clear our need for a “Messiah” and so, serves to point us to the “Christ”—Jesus.
32 In Christ’s brought forth form He had “parted with” much of His inherent divinity in the sense that He was not walking around with His “pre-creation” glory. He was not Omnipresent, Omniscient, or Omnipotent. In His brought forth form, Christ was subservient to His Father—yet rightfully the “Son of God.” He was still the Creator and still had access to his own “divine power”—but He voluntarily agreed not to use it for His self.
33 The Greek word used in 1 John 3:4 for the phrase translated in the KJV as “transgression of the Law” is “anomia” and means “Lawlessness.”
34 “And His name will be called . . . Eternal Father” (Isa. 9:6). “And I will be a Father to you.” (2 Cor. 6:18). “You shall call Me, My Father” (Jer. 3:19). “Through the Spirit, Christ was to abide continually in the hearts of His children” (SC: p. 74). “This is the mystery of godliness. That Christ should take human nature, and by a life of humiliation elevate man in the scale of moral worth with God; that He should carry His adopted nature to the throne of God, and there present His Children to the Father, to have conferred upon them an honour exceeding that conferred upon the angels,--this is the marvel of the heavenly universe, the mystery into which angels desire to look. This is love that melts the sinner’s heart.” (Australasian Union Conference Record: June 1, 1900; par. 15). Emphasis mine.
35 Fred C. CONYBEARE, in The Hibbert Journal. A Quarterly Review of Religion, Theology, and Philosophy, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Oxford: October 1902) pp. 102-108. Emphasis mine. See also “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19” Zeitsehrift fur Neutestamentlich Wissenschaft 2: 1901, pages 275-288.
36 These Hebrew manuscripts are of the Ante-Nicene era (pre-dating the First Council of Nicaea-325 A.D.). Matthew’s Gospel was written for the Jew and would most likely have been written in Hebrew. Hebrew scribes were much more meticulous (careful not to use extraneous material) in their transcription of manuscripts than were the Greek scribes—so these Hebrew manuscripts are likely to be more reliable then the Greek manuscripts.
37 See Dr. James D. Tabor, A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew @ www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/shemtovweb.html
39 If Jesus could not have told His disciples to baptize men into the Holy Spirit, then it is highly unlikely that He would have told them to baptize men into the Father either—especially given His emphatic statement: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.” (Jn. 14:6).
40 There is no “magic” in being baptized by immersion—but this is the only manner of baptism that demonstrates our understanding of the significance of this ordinance. We can be baptized by immersion and still not be baptized into Christ! There is nothing magical about the method, but the method is important because it demonstrates our understanding of the significance of the act—and it demonstrates our commitment to doing things as God has prescribed, as opposed to how we may have been taught or might like to do things ourselves.
41 See—Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, ed., The Language of the New Testament, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), pp. 33, 34.
42 The Complete Word Study Dictionary, Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. (ed.), et al. (Chattanooga, TN, AMG International, Inc., 1993). Emphasis mine.
43 I suppose that it would be more accurate to say that the Holy Spirit did exist prior to the Creation but that He existed as the “Word” (Jesus Christ in His Divine Totality) when He was “with God” and “was God” before Jesus was “Brought Forth” as the mediator between God and His Creations.
44 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: (G. & C. Merriam Col, Publishers; Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., 1961).
45 Please note: Jesus was still “God” even in His brought forth and incarnated form for the simple reason that HE is of divine origin. He is not a created being, and so, must always and rightfully be considered “God.” Jesus is also God because He still has all the attributes of God albeit now existing in the form of two individuals. I am not taking anything away from Christ’s divinity by suggesting these things. But we simply must admit and understand that Christ has “changed” and “sacrificed” a great deal in order to meet us in our fallen (lost) state and to redeem us to the status of “Sons and Daughters of God.” This is a mysteriously Wonderful fact, that Christ would part with and sacrifice His complete Oneness with/as God in order to save you and I! What love is this?!
46 This text reveals that the “human nature” and the “divine (Spirit) nature” of Christ are separated. It also shows that Christ could have used His divine nature to overcome temptation (this was Christ’s biggest and most difficult temptation and the one the Devil sought to convince Christ to do) but, as we saw earlier, if Christ had used His divine power—we would have been lost.
47 It is very doubtful that all of the redeemed will “see” God the Father face to face. There is a special group of people that will have this honor and these are described as the 144,000. These chosen ones will so fully partake of the nature of Christ that they will be allowed into the very presence of the Father. In 1T, p. 698, speaking of heaven after the second coming of Christ, we see the Temple—God’s dwelling place—and Jesus declares that “Only the 144,000 enter this place.” In fact, the names of the 144,000 are described as engraved in tables of stone in letters of gold within this Temple. These people, I believe, are the ones who will actually be “reigning” with Christ.
48 Interestingly, the shout, voice, and trumpet are ALL the voice of the Lord (for “shout” see Jer. 25:30, for “voice” see Jn. 5:25-29, and for “trumpet” see Rev. 4:12 & 1:9, 10).