Search
  • seventhdaypioneerm

A Scholarly Study on Monogenes

(Extracts from "Is Christ God" by Terry Hill)

Study Series:Begotten/Pre-existent Son/ God's Oneness with His Son/Is Christ God


Source on Monogenes: Is Christ God, pgs.14-22/Terry Hill


https://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/MM.htm


Scholarly Note on "Monogenes"

In the finality, to a great extent, an author‘s intent of the use of monogenes must

be determined by the context in which it is written. This would apply to how any

word is understood. This is because words, depending upon the context in which

they are written, can change in meaning


Monogenes (to generate; to bring forth)

―In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word

was God.‖ John 1:1

In order to fulfil the purpose in writing his Gospel (that Jesus was the Christ, the

Son of God), the very first thing that the Holy Spirit led John to write was that

Christ, in His pre-existence, ―was God‖. From the outset therefore, John was

saying to his readers that there are two divine personages who are both rightly

termed God (Gr. Theos). This was the opening thrust of his Gospel. John then

proceeded to reinforce his opening words. He did this by saying that all things

were made by the Word and without him was not any thing made that was made

(John 1:3). Christ therefore, says John, is our Creator. This is the highest possible claim to divinity. Only divinity is not created.

John describes Christ as ―the only begotten of the Father‖ (John 1:14), ―the only

begotten Son‖ (John 1:18, 3:16), ―the only begotten Son of God‖ (John 3:18) and

God‘s ―only begotten Son‖ (1 John 4:9). On each occasion the Greek word

translated ―only begotten‖ is μονογενήρ (monogenes). John is the only Bible

writer who uses this word with respect to Jesus. He uses it each time to denote

the unique relationship between God and Christ (a father/son relationship). Luke

and Paul used it in exactly the same manner (a parent/child relationship)

although not with respect to Christ (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38 and Hebrews 11:17).

The basic meaning of monogenes is the only one of a generated kind or type.

Applied to a child it generally means a parent‘s only born son or daughter (of sole descent, without siblings).

Some maintain that monogenes (an adjective) does not contain the idea of

begetting. They say it only means unique. This view though, particularly in the

light of how this word was used by those whose mother tongue was Greek,

appears to have very little foundation. I am thinking primarily of those who

formulated the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople etc. The Creed of Nicaea

(AD 325) begins by saying

―We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and

invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the

Father, only-begotten [monogenes], that is, from the substance of the

Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not

made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into

being, things in heaven and things on earth,…‖ (Creed of Nicaea AD 325)

By those who formulated this creed, Christ is said to be the ―only-begotten‖

(monogenes) of the Father. This is exactly the same as say the Scriptures. This

is why the creed also says that Christ is ―begotten from the Father‖, also

―begotten not made‖. In his Gospel, John clearly says that Christ is the only-

begotten (monogenes) of God. The Greeks knew exactly what was meant by

monogenes (μονογενήρ). In this creed it is contrasted with being made or

created. The word translated ―begotten‖ in these two clauses is the participle

γεννηθένηα. It means literally begotten or born. It is very difficult to believe that

the people who formulated this creed did not understand their own language.

As recently as the 1980‘s, the English Language Liturgical Commission (ELLC)

completed a translation of the Nicene Creed. This new translation is said to be

truer to the original Greek than many other English translations. The whole

purpose of the ELLC is to translate as accurately as possible the various creeds

and prayers etc.


Monogenes linguistically

According to Strong‘s concordance, the word monogenes is a compound of two

words. These are monos and ginomai. The word monos means sole or only

(one/single/alone) whilst ginomai means to cause to be or to become. Its basic

meaning (Gr.– gen) is to produce or generate. It is a form of primary verb (an

action word). It is used over 260 times in the New Testament. This is where it is

often translated ―made‖, ―become‖, ―come‖ (as in come to pass), and ―became‖

etc. In John‘s Gospel alone there are 48 occurrences.

In modern times, particularly since the publication of the RSV (late 1940‘s/50‘s),

various scholars have taken the view that the suffix -genes (of mono-genes) is

not derived from gennao (meaning beget) but from -genos (meaning kind or

type). They reason therefore that monogenes should not be rendered only

begotten but the only one of its kind or type. This was the view of Dale Moody

who was mentioned earlier (see Journal of Biblical Literature, December 1953,

Vol. 72 No 4 pages 213-219).

Whilst one may argue for the validity of this view, it must be remembered that

each time monogenes is used in Scripture it is always with reference to a son or

daughter. In such cases therefore it would be impossible to divorce the idea of

begetting from monogenes. This is because in order to exist, a child would need to have been begotten (born). In other words, when speaking of a child (whether son or daughter), the idea of begetting is intrinsically built into monogenes. This is

regardless of which stem of genes is considered to be the valid one. Look at it

this way: If it is said that David is the only son of Mr and Mrs Smith, it would

automatically suggest that David had been born (begotten). It would not be

sensible to reason otherwise.

In an article I came across on the Internet, its author, Charles Lee Irons, makes

this observation

―But what about the etymological argument that the –genēs portion of

monogenēs comes from genos (―kind‖) rather than gennao (―beget‖)? This

argument collapses once it is recognized that both genos and gennao

derive from a common Indo-European root, ǵenh (―beget, arise‖).[4] This

root produces a fair number of Greek words having to do with biological

concepts of begetting, birth, and offspring. In fact, the word genos itself

sometimes means ―descendant‖ (Rev. 22:16). True, it can also mean ―kind‖

in a scientific or classification sense where literal biological descent is not in

view (e.g., ―different kinds of languages‖ [1 Cor 14:10]). But the scientific or

classification usage is a metaphorical extension of the literal biological

sense, since the abstract concept of ―kind‖ is modeled on the embodied

biological experience of the similarities shared by offspring descended from

a common parent.‖ (Charles Lee Irons, Let‟s go back to „only-begotten‟, 23rd November 2016)

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/,


Some months ago I came across a website called ‗Ask a Greek‘. Its proprietor,

Mr. Harry Foundalis Ph. D, offers to answer questions regarding the Greek

language. Those who are interested will find it here

http://www.foundalis.com/lan/grkask.htm

I took this opportunity to ask Mr. Foundalis the meaning of monogenes. After all, I

reasoned, he is Greek, and by the look of his website, a person very well versed

in linguistics. After a series of emails in which he explained that monogenes

definitely conveys the idea of only-begotten/only-born etc, he replied to a

question I had asked concerning the relationship of the words ginomai (as

mentioned above) and monogenes. Here is what he wrote

―Some linguistic information regarding the Greek word ―monogenes‖

(μονογενήρ) follows:

Monogenes‖ consists of two parts:

 the prefix ―mono-‖

 and the suffix ―-genes‖

The meaning of the prefix ―mono-‖ is: ―single‖, ―alone‖, ―only‖. This prefix is

found in English words such as: ―monophonic‖ (of a single auditory source),

―monochromatic‖ (of a single color), ―monologue‖ (a soliloquy), ―monopoly‖

(having exclusive control of a market) ―monosyllabic‖ (of a single syllable),

―monotheistic‖ (of belief in a single god/God), ―monotonous‖ (of a single,

unvarying tone, hence: boring), and many more, all ultimately of Greek

origin.

The meaning of the suffix ―-genes‖ is: ―born‖, ―begotten‖. This can be

understood by the following information.

The suffix ―-genes‖ (in Greek: ―-γενήρ‖) consists of two morphemic parts:

 the root ―-gen-‖ (―-γεν-‖)

 and the ending ―-es‖ (―-ήρ‖)

The role of the ending ―-es‖ is to convert the word into an adjective in the

masculine or feminine gender, nominative case, singular, and that is the

grammatical role of the word ―monogenes‖.

The root ―-gen-‖ comes from the aorist stem of the verb ―ginomai‖ (that is its

Koine Greek version; its Classic Greek version is: ―gignomai‖), meaning: ―I

become‖ and ―I am born to‖. For instance, the opening line of Xenophon‘s

―Anabasis‖ reads:

Δαπείος καὶ Παπςζάηιδορ γίγνονηαι παῖδερ δύο,...

i.e.:

Two children are born to Darius and Parysatis,...

An explanation of what the aorist stem is follows.

Every Greek verb (not only in the ancient but even in the modern language)

comes in two ―flavors‖: the present or progressive flavor, and the aorist or

instantaneous flavor. Each of the two flavors is used in the formation of

some tenses, in all their moods. The present flavor is used in the present,

imperfect, and perfect tenses, whereas the aorist flavor is used in the past

and future tenses.

For the verb ―ginomai‖, the present-flavor stem is ―-gin-‖, whereas the aorist-

flavor stem is ―-gen-‖.

For example, for this verb, to form the 1st person singular, past tense (a

tense properly called ―2nd aorist‖ in this case, for this verb has no 1st aorist

form) we need to add three constituents:

1. the ―aorist augment‖ e- (ἐ: a mandatory prefix that signifies past in

Greek, and is suspected to have existed in the Proto-Indo-European

language),

2. the stem -gen- (-γεν-),

3. and the 2nd-aorist ending -omen (-όμην),

thus getting the form egenomen (ἐγενόμην: ―I became‖, or ―I was born‖).

The aorist stem -gen- has passed, through Latin, into English words, all of

which are associated with generation or birth, such as:

 generate, generation (as in creation), generator

 genesis (origin, the coming into being, birth)

 gene (the biological unit by which rebirth is achieved)

 genetic (―of genes‖)

 genus (a group of entities born from a common source)

 general (derived from gener-, i.e., ―something that creates‖)

 progenitor (a direct ancestor)

 ... and many more.

Perhaps the most interesting observation to help us understand the

meaning of the entire suffix ―-genes‖ (―-γενήρ‖) in ―monogenes‖ is to see

other Greek words where this suffix exists. Notice how, when added to the

prefix, in each case and without a single exception, ―-genes‖ results in the

meaning of ―born, begotten‖. All of the following are adjectives, just like

―monogenes‖:

 homogenes (ὁμογενήρ): someone who was born together

(―homo-‖) with others: ―of the same race or family‖. Today, this

word is used to mean those Greeks who were born outside of

Greece (e.g., in the USA, Australia, Russia, or wherever else in

the world) but belong to the Greek nation due to their Greek ancestry.

 heterogenes (ἑηεπογενήρ): the opposite of homogenes: born of

a different (―hetero-‖) race or family.

 eugenes (εὐγενήρ): born of noble ancestry, hence: noble, an

aristocrat. This is the root of the word ―eugenics‖, the study of

hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

 endogenes (ἐνδογενήρ): someone or something that has been

generated from within (―endo-‖) some greater whole; endogenous,

inherent, intrinsic. A common use is in endogenes aitia = ―intrinsic

cause‖.

 engenes (ἐγγενήρ): similar to endogenes, it means ―intrinsic‖.

Again, we can talk of an engenes aitia = intrinsic cause

 thnisigenes (θνηζιγενήρ): someone or something destined to

die (―thnisi-‖) no sooner than he/she/it is born. A thnisigenes child

is one that is born but has such serious medical problems that the

child cannot hope to avoid death. More often, this word is used

metaphorically, for, e.g., an agreement: a thnisigenes symphonía

(θνηζιγενήρ ζςμθωνία) is an agreement destined to collapse soon

after it is made.

 diogenes (διογενήρ): born/sprung from Zeus. The true root of

the word ―Zeus‖ is ―Dio-‖ (e.g., in the genitive case: Dios = of

Zeus; a cognate of Theos = God, and of Latin Deus). This adjective was used as a flattering title for kings and princes. This

was the origin of the name ―Diogenes‖ (Διογένηρ, stressed on the penult).

 protogenes (ππωηογενήρ): born originally, the initially born entity or cause.

 gegenes (γηγενήρ): born in the land (ge-, γῆ = gaea), a native of the land.

Adding to the above list, we could write:

 monogenes (μονογενήρ): born as a single son or daughter, lacking siblings.‖

(Harry E. Foundalis, Ph.D., cognitive science and computer science, 24th March 2018)

http://www.foundalis.com/lan/grkask.htm,

In an earlier email, again expressing that monogenes does carry the idea of only

begotten/only born etc, Mr Foundalis wrote to me stressing how obvious it was to him (as a Greek person) that genes conveys the idea of begotten/born etc.

―That the suffix ―-genes‖ means (meant, and still means) ―born‖ is beyond

any doubt, and to argue for it makes me feel like trying to explain I am not

an elephant‖ (Email, Harry Foundalis to Terry Hill, 23rd March 2018)

In another email, Mr Foundalis did agree that the second constituent of genes is

γένορ (genus) meaning type or kind but in agreement with my reasoning (see

above), he did make clear that when applied to a child it could only mean born.

His reasoning was, as is mine: How can anyone be an only child without being

born? Mr Foundalis also explained

―This brings me to the meaning of γένορ in Greek. This word has two

meanings: one is the notion of grammatical gender; but the other one, the more common one and the only relevant one in this discussion, is

the progeny. Thus, in Modern Greek, ηο γένορ μος (and in Ancient Greek: ηὸ

ἐμὸν γένορ) means ―my kin‖, the people who have been born together with

me, and with whom I share plenty of genes. Γένορ in Greek is not the same

as genus in English, no matter how similar the two words look, letter-for-

letter. Genus means (copying from the American Heritage Dictionary): ―A

class, group, or kind with common attributes‖. That‘s not the Greek γένορ,

and I think that‘s at the crux of the misunderstanding. A γένορ (besides the

grammatical gender) is not just a class/group/kind, but a set of people who

share many genes. The notion of birth is inherent in γένορ. Non-native

speakers of Greek are probably missing this point.‖ (Ibid, 14th April 2018)

To put this in a very small nutshell, the word γένορ (that we in English usually

regard as genus) means in Greek, of near kinship (family). The idea of birth

(being born/begotten) is inherent in γένορ.

If monogenes does not include the idea of begetting but only carries the idea of

one only (single/sole/unique) of a type or kind, then to what does the latter refer

when speaking of a monogenes child (meaning if the child is said to the only one of a kind or type)? In other words, what would this kind or type be? Would it be his humanity? His kindred? His race? His colour? If so, this would mean he was

the only human being in existence: either that or the only one of his kindred or

race, or colour in existence. This would necessitate all other humans, or all others of his kindred or race or colour, having gone into extinction (no other of this kind

existing). This therefore cannot be a satisfactory understanding of monogenes.

Amongst present-day theologians there is ongoing conjecture over monogenes.

Some emphasise the unique aspect of it (only) whilst some stress the come to be

(begotten/brought forth/born) aspect. The conclusion as to what it was that John

originally meant by his use of this word can only be decided upon by the weight

of evidence – which as far as I am concerned is that Christ is uniquely brought forth of God (in manner which has never been revealed). He is therefore the only begotten of God. His Sonship therefore is unique.

In his Greek dictionary, Bill Mounce, the renowned Greek Scholar, describes

monogenes as

―only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in

respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9* Bill Mounce, Greek Dictionary)

(www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/monogenes,

If John had wanted to say one and only (unique), it is very strange as to why he

should have used the word monogenes. The Greek have a word meaning one or

one and only. It is monos. They also have a word for son. It is huios. Why

therefore, if John had only wanted to say only son or one and only son did he not

simply use monos huios? It would also have avoided all the confusion of

monogenes. An even more appropriate word that John could have used (if he

had wanted to say only Son or one and only Son) is μονόπαις (monopais). This

word actually means an only child. It is found in pre-New Testament literature.

This would have suited the ―only child‖ at Luke 9:38 perfectly but Luke used

monogenes. To me the writer was emphasising that the child was the only one of the man‘s genes – meaning his only offspring. Notice too that the word child is a supplied word.

Mark refers to ―one son‖ (see Mark 12:6) but he does not use monogenes.

Instead he has heis huios. This is what John could have written if he had only

wanted to say of Christ, only Son or one and only Son. By using monogenes

though, the stress was on Christ being the only begotten of God (only begotten of

that genes).

We also need to give consideration to John‘s usage of monos. He used this word on a number of occasions (John 5:44, 6:15, 6:22, 8:9, 8:16, 8:29, 12:24, 16:32

[2], John 17:3). It is translated as only and alone. Two very relevant usages are

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do

not seek the glory that is from the one and only [monos] God? John 5:44 NASB

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only [monos] true God, and

Jesus Christ whom You have sent.‖ John 17:3 NASB.

This leads us to give consideration to something very important. Nowhere in

Scripture is the word monogenes applied to God. For this there must be a very

good reason. After all, He is referred to at Mark 12:32, Romans 3:30, 1

Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 2:5 and James 2:19 as the ―one God‖.

If monogenes conveys only the idea of one and only, why not use it with respect

to God? As it is, it is never applied as such. This alone suggests it is meant to

convey considerably more than one or one and only.

In the Bible, angels are called the sons of God (Job 38:7). Adam was also called

the son of God (Luke 3:38). Those who are born again through God‘s Spirit

(those who experience conversion) are called sons of God (Romans 8:14-15).

John needed to differentiate therefore between Christ and these other sons of

God. This would be the reason why he used the word monogenes. Thus he said

that Christ was the only begotten of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, 1 John

4:9). This could not be said of any of the other sons of God. None of them were

begotten in such a manner of God. Christ therefore, in this sense, is definitely

unique.

Whilst monos huios or heis huios (or perhaps even monopais) would have

conveyed the idea of the only son or one and only son, this would have failed to

specifically convey that Christ was the only-begotten of the Father. In other

words, it would have concealed Christ‘s unique generation from God (―God from

God‖, ―true God from true God‖ as says the creed of Nicaea). It would therefore

have concealed Christ‘s unique relationship (Sonship) to God. This idea therefore of monos huios or heis huios, which would be without the idea of generation from

God (not begotten), could easily have led to the idea of two Gods, or, if the Holy

Spirit was also included, a triad of Gods.

If Christ is not literally a son – and we know the Bible continually speaks of Him

as a son – then how is He a son? If He is not truly a son then He must be a son

metaphorically. This would mean we have two divine beings (the Father and the

Son), both of whom, in their own individual right, are God (neither begotten of the

other), This would mean we have two Gods. This though is not Scriptural. John

therefore chose a word (monogenes) that showed Christ‘s true relationship with

God therefore avoiding this conclusion. Christ was, and still is, God‘s only

begotten Son.

Those who promote the idea that monogenes only has reference to kind or type(without begetting) are faced with a very serious dilemma. This is because with respect to Christ it must be asked, what is this kind or type? It cannot be

pertaining to Christ as a divine person. This is because the Father is also a divine person. Christ therefore, as far as His divinity is concerned, cannot be one of a

kind or type (unique). This immediately brings us back to the realisation that

monogenes must be with reference to Christ‘s relationship to the Father, which in turn brings us back to His Sonship. It is His Sonship therefore that must be one of a kind or type. This is because He is the only begotten (monogenes) of God.

There is something else to consider here. This is the Creed of Nicaea mentioned

earlier. We noted it said

―We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and

invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the

Father, only-begotten [monogenes], that is, from the substance of the

Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not

made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into

being, things in heaven and things on earth,…‖ (Creed of Nicaea AD 325)

The entire point of this creed was to show that the Son was ―of one substance

with the Father‖. This is why the creed says that Christ is begotten ―from the

substance of the Father‖. What though if the word monogenes is only said to

mean one and only? We would need to ask ―one and only what‖? As has already

been concluded (see above), it could not mean divine person. This would

automatically rule out the Father as being divine. It would certainly mean that He

and the Father were of a different kind (type). This reasoning would have

completely destroyed the very purpose of formulating this creed. Those who

formulated it though knew that monogenes would not destroy it. They could not have thought therefore that this word meant one and only. It must be to do with the Son‘s generation from the Father, meaning His Sonship. He is the only

begotten of the Father.

From the above we can readily see that at John 3:16, the word monogenes could

not simply mean only or one and only (without the idea of begetting). This would violate the fact that its suffix is -genes. In other words, if John had wanted to say

at John 3:16 (and other places) that Christ is the only son or one and only Son,

he would only have needed to use monos (not mono + genes). It needs to be

remembered too that he did write monogenes huios (son) – not just monogenes.

He was obviously emphasising more than simply one and only Son. He was

emphasising that the Son alone is begotten of the Father.

Common sense dictates that those whose mother tongue was Greek knew their

own language. To reason otherwise is not intellectually sound. It can only be

concluded therefore that the translators of the KJV had it right. Monogenes does

mean only-begotten.

On the basis of Paul‘s usage of monogenes in Hebrews 11:17, some have objected to this conclusion. They say that Isaac was not the only begotten of

Abraham because he had a number of sons. The verse in question says

―By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had

received the promises offered up his only begotten [monogenes] son‖ Hebrews 11:17.

We need to remember here that those to whom Paul was writing were

descendants of a people who had been the recipients and custodians of the

Old Testament Scriptures. It was absolutely imperative therefore that in

expressing himself to them he wrote in harmony with these writings. In

Hebrews 11:17, the apostle was referring to when God had said to Abraham

―And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and

said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said,

Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into

the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the

mountains which I will tell thee of.‖ Genesis 22:1-2

―And he [God] said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any

thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not

withheld thy son, thine only son from me.‖ Genesis 22:12

Notice in each of these verses that there is an occasion of the word ―son‖ in

italics. This is because it is a supplied word (supplied by the translators of the

KJV). It is not in the original text. In these verses, God actually refers to Isaac as

Abraham‘s ―only‖ (Heb. Yachiyd).

Much could be said here concerning the fact that the word ―only‖ is translated

from the Hebrew word Yachiyd but space is limited. Suffice it to say that in the

Scriptures, this word is translated ‗only son‟ (Genesis 22:2, 22:16, Amos 8:10,

Zechariah 12:10), ‗only‘ (Judges 11:34), ‗darling‘ (Psalm 22:20 and 35:17),

‗desolate‘ (Psalm 25:16), ‗solitary‘ (Psalm 60:6) and ‗only beloved‟ (Proverbs 4:3).

Note that the words in italics are again supplied words.

God had promised that Abraham and Sarah would have a son. This was even

though Sarah was past childbearing age. In order to ‗help‘ God, Abraham

produced a son by Sarah‘s handmaiden Hagar. This son‘s name was Ishmael.

Ishmael though was not the son promised by God. Isaac was the promised one.

In calling Isaac ―thine only‖ [yachiyd] therefore, God was emphasising this fact to Abraham. God was leaving Ishmael out of the question.

Isaac was a son by the promise of God. He was caused to be by God. God

though did not promise that Ishmael should be born. He had been the result of

human devising. Isaac on the other hand was special. His existence was a

miracle. He was definitely one of a generated (begotten) kind or type. Paul

therefore chose a Greek word that would suit this perfectly. It was monogenes.


FURTHER EXPLANATION (pg.32)

―God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto

the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his

Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the

worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his

person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by

himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:‖

Hebrews 1:1-3

These three verses are comparable with the first three verses of that which John

would write 30 or so years later in his Gospel. John said that the Word was with

God and was God; also that by the Word were all things made that were made

(John 1:1-3). Paul says that the Son is ―the brightness‖ of God‘s ―glory‖ and the

―express image‖ [Gr. σαπακηήπ] of God‘s ―person‖, also that through Him the

worlds were made. If both authors were inspired they must be saying the same

thing. In other words, Christ being the ―express image‖ of God‘s person must be the equivalent of saying He is God.

Strong‘s concordance transliterates the Greek word σαπακηήπ as charakter. It

appears that originally this was an engraving tool or a marker (engraver) but later came to be known as the impression or engraving itself. It is from where we

derive the word character. This is the only place in the Bible where this word is

used. This is why there can be no comparison of usage.

As do many scholars, Strong describes this word as meaning an exact

impression or precise reproduction of persons or things that are original. An

impress in wax is not that which did the impressing. A stamp on a coin is not the

die that causes the impress. A footprint in the sand is not the foot that made the

print. Each is distinct from the other, but there is the closest of relationships

between the original and the impression. Without the original there would not be

an image. It is also interesting to note that such an impression is always an

integral part of the very substance of which it is impressed (like an impression in wax). It is cut (formed) from the substance but remains a part of it.

The Abingdon Bible Commentary of 1929 (compiled by some 66 professors of

biblical exegesis, biblical languages, theology, Christian doctrine and church

history etc.) has the following to say with reference to the words ―express image‖

(KJV)

―The word translated ‗very image‘ means, literally, the stamp cut by a die,

and so the impress made upon a seal; thus the phrase signifies that the

essence of the divine nature was stamped on the Person of Christ. He was

the ‗impress of God‗s essence.‖(Professor H. T Andrews, D.D., The Abingdon Bible Commentary, 1929) [found on pg.32]


BEGOTTEN

―God has sent His Son to communicate His own life to humanity. Christ

declares, ‗I live by the Father,‘ My life and His being one. No man hath seen

God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,

He hath declared Him. ‗For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He

given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him authority to

execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.‘ The head of every

man is Christ, as the head of Christ is God. ‗And ye are Christ‘s, and Christ

is God‘s.‘ [1Cor.11:3]‖ (Ellen G. White, Lake Union Herald, December 2nd 1908,

„Extracts from unpublished Testimonies‟)

From the above we can see the reason why the life that is in Christ is ―life,

original, unborrowed, underived‖. It is because it is the Father's life (the life of

God). The Father is said to be the source of this life. As it says here, it is ―the

Father's life‖ that flows ―through the beloved Son‖. As Jesus made clear, the

Father who has life in Himself had ―given‖ Him (God‘s Son) to have life in Himself(John 5:26).

Here again we see the Father in the primacy. As Ellen White said,

the Son had ―received‖ this life from the Father. The concept is very simple to

understand. The Father and the Son 'share' the same divine life (the life of God) yet the Father is the primal source. Notice that the Father is referred to as ―the

great Source of all‖. Again as it says here ―God has sent His Son to communicate

His own life to humanity‖.

These words and thoughts from the spirit of prophecy do not deny the begotten

concept. They confirm it. They are describing the type of life that is in Christ

(divine life – divinity). This is why it is referred to as ―life, original, unborrowed,

underived‖. Divinity is self-existing. For its existence, it does not depend upon

anything else. We are told here, ―All things Christ received from God‖. There are no exceptions. He was the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2). This again is the

begotten concept.


In 1890 Ellen White informed Seventh-day Adventists

―The world‘s Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the

authority of God. He declared that he had no existence separate from the

Father. The authority by which he spoke, and wrought miracles, was

expressly his own, yet he assures us that he and the Father are one.‖ (Ellen

G. White, Review and Herald, January 7th 1890, „Christ revealed the Father‟)

Christ does not exist separately from the Father. He is begotten of the Father.

Again our thoughts are returned to the oneness that exists between the Father

and the Son.

When reading these statements, Seventh-day Adventists could only conclude

that once again through Ellen White, God was confirming them in their begotten

(Sonship) belief. What other conclusion could they have drawn? If Christ is not

begotten of God then God‘s messenger is guilty of having led a great many

people to believe error.


In 1890), in a letter to her good friend Judson Washburn, EGW wrote

the following (after quoting John 3:16)

―God‘s love for the world was not manifest because He sent His Son, but

because He loved the world He sent His Son into the world that divinity

clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lay hold of infinity.

Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of Himself. The brightness of the Father‘s glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged the gulf and opened a channel of communication between God and man.” (Ellen G. White, letter 38a 1890, to J. S. Washburn, September 18th 1890)


This again is the begotten concept. This is also very interesting because she wrote of Adam (this was when Eve tempted him to

partake of the forbidden fruit)

―He [Adam] understood the high destiny opened to the human race should

they remain faithful to God. Yet all these blessings were lost sight of in the

fear of losing that one gift which in his eyes out-valued every other. Love,

gratitude, loyalty to the Creator--all were overborne by love to Eve. She was

a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation.‖ (Ellen

G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, page 56, „The temptation and the fall‟)

Was Ellen White referring here to the fact that Eve had been formed from one of

Adam‘s ribs (Genesis 2:21-24) or was this just a reference to them being

husband and wife? Whatever the truth of the matter, we know that a little earlier

in the previous chapter she wrote

―Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she

was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an

inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by

him. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, she was his

second self, showing the close union and the affectionate attachment that

should exist in this relation." (Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, page

46, „The Creation‟)

Notice it is said that Eve was Adam‘s ―second self‖. Why? It was because she

was bone of Adam‘s bone and flesh of his flesh. The union could not be closer.

The material that God had used to produce Eve was from Adam himself. This is the same in principle regarding Christ. Ellen White said that the material God had

used to provide for our salvation was ―A part of Himself‖ (see above). Eve being

made from the side of Adam paralleled Christ being brought forth of God. It can

be said therefore that because Christ was God from God, He is God‘s second

self.


GOD'S ONENESS WITH HIS SON

More thoughts to the Book of Hebrews, Paul went on to say

―And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers

a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and

ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.‖ Hebrews

1:7-8

Paul is now bringing the introductory words of his epistle towards a climax.

The above words are citations from Psalm 104:4 and Psalms 45:6-7. The writer is

applying the latter to the Father speaking to His Son. The Father is referring to

His Son as God. This is the highest acclamation that could possibly be made of the Son. It is the testimony of God Himself. God never said to any of the angels,

―Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever‖. He only said it to His Son. This is the

point that the writer of Hebrews is making (see 1:5 and 1:13). Christ is deity. The

angels are not deity. The verses following say

―Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy

God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And,

Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the

heavens are the works of thine hands:‖ Hebrews 1:9-10

Here we see God referring to Himself as His Son‘s God (theos). Notice too that

the Father calls His Son ―Lord‖. This means that God has called His Son both

God (theos) and Lord (kurios). The Father also refers to His Son as the Creator.

All things were made through Him (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-3, Colossians 1:13-17

etc.). In these verses in Hebrews, God (theos) is speaking to God (theos). This

should remind us of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7.


God is the Father of Christ. Christ is the Son of God. The Son is God‘s person

(personality) shown. As the apostle Paul said, He is the ―express image‖ of God‘s

―person (substance)‖, also the ―image of the invisible God‖ (Colossians 1:15).

Christ therefore is (the invisible) God begotten (brought forth).


The apostle Paul describes Christ as ―the wisdom of God‖ (1 Corinthians 1:24,

see also 2:1-8). Solomon says wisdom was ―brought forth‖ (Proverbs 8:24:25).

Only God can be ―brought forth‖ of God. Anything that is not ―brought forth‖ of

God is created (a part of creation). Christ was not created. He is begotten. This is

why He is Son (Hebrews 1:2). This is also why the Father is God and the Son is

God yet they each have a personal identity of their own. As we noted above,

Christ is the express image of God‘s person (Hebrews 1:3). This is because He is God from God. He is God‘s person (personality) in divinity made visible. In Christ we

behold God in the person of the Son.


In the Old Testament, God says of Himself that He is the first and the last (see

Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 48:12). In the New Testament Christ says of Himself that He is

the first and the last (see Revelation 1:17, 2:8, 22:13). Notice in Revelation 22:12

that He who refers to Himself as the first and the last is the One who will be

returning to earth, also at 1:17 and 2:8 it says that He who is the first and the last

was dead. This can only mean Christ.


God has never explained the oneness of existence between Himself and His

Son. It is a mystery known only to divinity. This is why we must never attempt to

explain it. Even if God did provide an explanation, it would probably be beyond

our comprehension to understand it. Can the finite comprehend the infinite?


THE PRE-EXISTENT SON

Before Abraham was, I am." Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of

God. The message He gave to Moses to give to the children of Israel was, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." The prophet Micah writes of Him, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, tho thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of Thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 29th August 1900, „Resistance to light. No. 3)

―To Christ Himself we address the inquiry, ―Who art thou?‖ Listen! ―Before

Abraham was, I am.‖ ―I and my Father are one.‖ ―As the Father raiseth up

the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the

Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He

that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.‖

(Ellen G. White, Letter 65 1898, to Howe F. Griggs)


Since the fall of man, the Father has not spoken directly to

humanity. This must mean that the person who appeared to the patriarchs such

as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses was Christ.

―It was under the trees of Eden that the first dwellers on earth had chosen

their sanctuary. There Christ had communed with the father of mankind.

When banished from Paradise, our first parents still worshiped in the fields

and groves, and there Christ met them with the gospel of His grace. It was

Christ who spoke with Abraham under the oaks at Mamre; with Isaac as he

went out to pray in the fields at the eventide; with Jacob on the hillside at

Bethel; with Moses among the mountains of Midian; and with the boy David

as he watched his flocks. It was at Christ‘s direction that for fifteen centuries

the Hebrew people had left their homes for one week every year, and had

dwelt in booths formed from the green branches ―of goodly trees, branches

of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook.‖

Leviticus 23:40.‖ (Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, page 290, „He ordained

twelve‟)


―There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father

before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark

place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely

mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable

truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible.‖

(Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 5th April 1906, „The Word made flesh)

This is why we should not make any attempts to explain this oneness. It is

because God has never revealed it. Notice Ellen White says, What it does

explain ―other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths‖. In other words, the

only way to make sense of some things in Scripture is to believe there is a certain

oneness between God and His Son that is beyond the understanding of mankind.

The context of where Ellen White made this statement is very important. It will

answer many questions. In the same article, in the paragraph immediately

previous to this ‗oneness‘ statement, she made this comment

―The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a

distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of

heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the

adoring homage of the angels was received by him as his right. This was no

robbery of God. ―The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,‖ he

declares, ―before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the

beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought

forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the

mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth; while as yet he

had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the

world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass

upon the face of the depth.‖ (Ibid)

The context of Ellen White saying that there is a mysterious and

incomprehensible oneness between God and Christ was her saying that Christ

was the wisdom of God brought forth (Proverbs 8:22-31;1Cor.1:24,30). This is telling us something very important. It is explaining Christ‘s personality. It is speaking of Christ being begotten (being brought forth) of God before anything was created.

We spoke of this above. It was indeed ‗the beginning of God‘s way‘ (see

Proverbs 8:22). In other places she wrote saying exactly the same (that Christ is

the wisdom of God brought forth).


―Our ministers must be very careful not to enter into controversy in regard to

the personality of God. This is a subject that they are not to touch. It is a

mystery, and the enemy will surely lead astray those who enter into it. We

know that Christ came in person to reveal God to the world. God is a

person, and Christ is a person. Christ is spoken of in the Word as ―the

brightness of His Father‘s glory, and the express image of His person.”

(Ellen G. White, Ms 46, May 18th 1904)


The Pharisees knew that the long-awaited Christ (the Messiah) would be from the

days of eternity (Micah 5:2), also that He would abide forever (John 12:34). This

is why they could not contemplate Him dying (John 12:34). Matthew then records

that ―… no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that

day forth ask him any more questions‖ (Matthew 22:46). Christ‘s pre-existence,

also His divinity, was a continuing stumbling block to many of the Jews. This related

especially to the scribes and the Pharisees (John 5:18, 8:58, 10:33)


IS CHRIST GOD

In a sermon of November 1908, Ellen White is recorded to have made this

observation (she was commenting on John 15 verses 1-23)

―Verse 11. And if Christ‘s joy remains in us that which rejoiced His heart is

upon us, that your joy might be full. It is a living connection with the living,

tenderhearted God. Jesus Christ is our heavenly Father. Jesus Christ is the

Father with us. God is the Father, and there is the link of the chain brought

right down to bind His children in connection with the Father.‖ (Ellen G.

White, Ms 141, 1908, Sermon, November 15th 1908, Healdsburg, California, ,,

Lessons from John 15)}


―While Christ stood forth as the Son of man, in His own personality, He was

at the same time one with the Deity. He stood within the light surrounding

the throne of God, and His words were spoken with power and authority.

―The Father is in Me, and I in Him,‖ He declared. ―No man knoweth the Son,

but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he

to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.‖ ―Whatsoever the Father doeth, that

also doeth the Son likewise.‖ ―I and My Father are one.‖ ―He that hath seen

Me hath seen the Father.‖ Christ and God are one, and yet they are distinct

personalities.‖ (Ellen White, Ms 140 1903, „Christ‟s work‟ September 27th 1903)

―But the anger and the frowning countenances of the Pharisees could not be

concealed. Apparently their looks expressed holy horror. They began to

reason, saying, ―Who is this which speaketh blasphemy? Who can forgive

sins but God alone?‖ But who was it that had uttered the words, ―Thy sins

are forgiven thee‖? The Son of the living God. Had the Pharisees not been

blinded, they would have seen that God alone could forgive sins, and that

He was the Christ that was before them. Christ was in the Father, and the

Father in Christ. ―I and my Father are one,‖ He declared.‖ (Ellen G. White,

Ms 36 1898, „Christ‟s mission, March 10th 1898)


When Philip asked Jesus to show the disciples the Father, Jesus said

“ … Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.” John 14:9-11


IS CHRIST GOD--SOP REFERENCES

―For centuries the Jews had vainly endeavored to show wherein the promise

of God, given by Haggai, had been fulfilled; yet pride and unbelief blinded

their minds to the true meaning of the prophet‘s words. The second temple

was not honored with the cloud of Jehovah‘s glory, but with the living

presence of One in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily,—who was God himself manifest in the flesh.‖ (Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy

Volume 4 page 24, „Destruction of Jerusalem‟)


―Jesus Christ ―counted it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God.‖

Because divinity alone could be efficacious in the restoration of man from

the poisonous bruise of the serpent, God himself, in his only begotten Son,

assumed human nature, and in the weakness of human nature sustained

the character of God, vindicated his holy law in every particular, and

accepted the sentence of wrath and death for the sons of men.‖ (Ellen G.

White, Youth‟s Instructor, February 11th 1897, „The Mind of Christ‟)


―As the representative of God, Christ appeared in human flesh. Though in

the form of a man, He was the Son of God, and the world was given an

opportunity to see how it would treat God. Christ declared, ―He that hath

seen me hath seen the Father.‖ But when He comes the second time,

divinity is no longer concealed. He comes as one equal with God, as His

own beloved Son, Prince of heaven and earth. He is also the Redeemer of

His people, the Lifegiver. The glory of the Father and the Son are seen to be

one. His claim to being one with the Father is now substantiated. His glory is

the glory of the Son, and the glory of God. Then shall He shine forth before

His ancients gloriously.‖ (Ellen G. White, Letter 90 1898, to J. H. Kellogg)


―What a love it is that appeals to fallen men! "God so loved the world, that

he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not

perish, but have everlasting life." God showed his love for us by adopting

our nature, in the person of his Son. God himself inhabited humanity,

making us partakers of the divine nature, that by the incarnation and death

of his only begotten Son, our adoption as heirs of God and joint heirs with

Christ might be fully accomplished. The origin of this wonderful achievement

was his own spontaneous love.‖ (Ellen G. White, Youth‟s Instructor, 16th

December 1897, „The New Commandment, Part 1)


―That this redemption might be ours, God withheld not even the sacrifice of

Himself. He gave Himself in His Son. The Father suffered with Christ in all

His humiliation and agony….The human heart knows the love of a parent for

his child. We know what a mother's love will do and suffer for her beloved

one. But never can the heart of man fathom the depths of God's self-sacrifice.‖ (Ellen G White, Australasian Union Conference Record, 1st June 1900, „The love of God. How manifested‟)


―God has measured how much it cost to save man. This salvation was

accomplished only by the sacrifice of Himself in His Son. "God so loved the

world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him

should not perish, but have everlasting life."... Exalt the God of heaven, you

who can realize the depth of His self-sacrifice; for He suffered with His Son.‖

(Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 27th January 1898, „Knowing Christ‟)


―In the person of his only begotten Son, the God of heaven has

condescended to stoop to our human nature." (Ellen G. White, Review and

Herald, 8th November 1898, „The revelation of God‟, see also Review and

Herald, 17th March 1904)


―Look, O look to Jesus and live. You can but be charmed with the matchless

attractions of the Son of God. Christ was God manifest in the flesh, the

mystery hidden for ages, and in our acceptance or rejection of the Saviour

of the world are involved eternal interests. … This love is past all language to

describe. It is the mystery of God in the flesh, God in Christ, and divinity in

humanity.‖ (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 17th November 1891, „The

Teacher of Truth the Only Safe Educator‟)


―Christ was God manifest in the flesh; in him dwelt ―all the fullness of the

Godhead bodily.‖ All this glory he longed to pour upon the world, but men

refused to receive it. They were given evidence upon evidence; but they

bound themselves up in their stubborn unbelief and prejudice. Therefore

they were without excuse.‖ (Ellen G. White, The Youth‟s Instructor, March

21st 1901, „Show us a sign from Heaven‟)


And ―when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son.‖ ...The

heavenly Teacher had come. Who was He? No less a being than the Son of

God Himself. He appeared as God, and at the same time as the Elder

Brother of the human race.‖ (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, May 17,

1905, „A teacher sent from God‟)


―The truth of the third angel‘s message has been proclaimed by some as a

dry theory. But we must all place in that message Christ, as the first and the

last, the I AM, the bright and morning star. The message must be given,

―Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.‖ The second

coming of Christ is near, even at the door. Who are prepared to look upon

the bright and morning star? who are ready to glorify God? Who will bring

the bright and morning star of hope, of mercy, of forgiveness, and of peace

into their hearts, and proclaim the last message of mercy to be given to the

world? ―O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with

strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your

God.‖‖ (Ellen G. White, Ms 36, 1897, April 1st 1897, „In Gethsemane‟, see

also Testimonies Volume 6 page 20)


―The more we think about Christ‘s becoming a babe here on earth, the more

wonderful it appears. How can it be that the helpless babe in Bethlehem‘s

manger is still the divine Son of God? Though we cannot understand it, we

can believe that he who made the worlds, for our sakes became a helpless

babe. Though higher than any of the angels, though as great as the Father

on the throne of heaven, he became one with us. In him God and man

became one, and it is in this fact that we find the hope of our fallen race.

Looking upon Christ in the flesh, we look upon God in humanity, and see in

him the brightness of divine glory, the express image of God the Father.‖

(Ellen G. White, Youth‟s Instructor, 21st November 1895, „Child life of Jesus

No. 1‟)


―What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty

God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His

creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The

Son of Man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet

His divinity clothed with humanity, standing at the head of the fallen race,

that human beings might be placed on vantage-ground! Possessing eternal

riches, yet living the life of a poor man! One with the Father in dignity and

power, yet in His humanity tempted in all points like as we are tempted! In

the very moment of His dying agony on the cross, a Conqueror, answering

the request of the repentant sinner to be remembered by Him when He

came into His kingdom, with the words, "Verily I say unto thee to-day, Thou

shalt be with Me in Paradise."


Christ was God manifest in the flesh. In Him divinity and humanity were

united. In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.‖ (Ellen G. White,

Signs of the Times, 26th April 1905, God manifest in the flesh‟)


―No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation,

could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human

flesh.‖ (Ellen G. White, Youth‟s Instructor, 8th September 1898)


―O, what a history we have in the life and death, resurrection and exaltation

of Christ! He was the incarnate God, the Lord of life and glory; yet for our

sakes he was delivered into the hands of wicked men. … When the mighty

angel descended from heaven, parting the darkness from his track, the

Roman guard fell as dead men before the resplendent glory, and Christ in

his Godhead shone forth as he burst from the tomb, and rose triumphant

over death and the grave. The disciples understood, when they saw him

arisen from the dead, what he meant when he said, ―Destroy this temple,

and in three days I will raise it up.‖ (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, May

30th 1895, „Christ our complete salvation‟)


―Satan is an accuser, a thief, and a murderer. He instigated men, not only to

put to death innocent human beings, but the incarnate God. If he could, he

would have held Christ locked in the tomb.‖ (Ellen G. White, MS 111, 1897

„Our substitute and surety‟)


―For this Christ came into our world. This was the object ever before Him, to

seek and to save that which was lost. He gave His life that man, through the

offering of Himself, the incarnate God, through faith in Him, might secure

that life that measures with the life of God. He has the care of every soul in view.‖ (Ellen G. White, Letter 72, 1897, to Bro and Sister Haskell, December 1st 1897)


―Gideon desired some token that the one now addressing him was the same

that spoke to Moses in the burning bush. The angel had veiled the divine

glory of his presence, but it was no other than Christ, the Son of God. When

a prophet or an angel delivered a divine message, his words were, "The

Lord saith, I will do this," but it is stated of the Person who talked with

Gideon, "The Lord said unto him, I will be with thee." (Ellen G. White, Signs

of the Times, 23rd June 1881, 'Gideon called'


―The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain

that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our

study. Christ was a real man; he gave proof of his humility in becoming a

man. Yet he was God in the flesh.‖ (Ellen G. White, Youth‟s Instructor, 13th

October 1898, „Search the Scriptures No. 1‟)


―The burning bush, in which God appeared to Moses, revealed Christ. There

is living truth in this spectacle. In mercy God was about to deliver his people

from Egyptian bondage; and he appeared to Moses, telling him that he had

been selected as the visible leader of God's people. Moses was chosen by

the Lord as his representative to bear a message to Pharaoh. He must

receive his commands directly from God: a most important responsibility

had been placed upon him.‖ (Ellen G. White, Youth‟s Instructor, 13th

December 1900, „The burning bush‟)


―Jesus was the invisible leader of his ancient people, and every command and

direction given to the people through Moses, was the command and direction of

Jesus Christ. …. Jesus in the New Testament does the same work as Jesus

in the Old Testament did; but men are so determined to do away with the

law of God, in order that they may find a way of avoiding the observance of

the Sabbath, that they array Jesus in the New Testament against Jesus in

the Old Testament.‖ (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, October 2nd 1893,

"My people have committed two evils‟

Jer.2:13


Christ was God manifest in the flesh. In Him divinity and humanity were

united. In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.‖ (Ellen G. White,

Signs of the Times, 26th April 1905, God manifest in the flesh‟)


Source on Monogenes: Is Christ God, pgs.14-22/Terry Hill


https://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/MM.htm


85 views0 comments