James White and the church

Geoff sent me some more quotes, probably the last, regarding James White before we summarise:

When God has spoken, my husband has hearkened to his voice.. 3 Testimonies 509

and

My husband's ready judgement and clear discernment, which have been gained through training and exercise, have led him to take on many burdens which others should have borne. 3 Testimonies 497.

These quotes come from James' wife, Ellen, in a seventeen page section entitled "Leadership". Once again Geoff, thank you for leading me to this wonderful article, my copy is now heavily underlined.

The article deals with church worker's attitudes toward church leadership. Some were too independent, not heeding leadership. Others were not independent enough, relying on church leadership to make all their decisions for them. This leadership included James White, which is why she made the second quote above about people putting burdens on him that they should have carried themselves.

There are many references to James and the unappreciated burdens he bore. One I particularly liked was:

God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His word and illuminate the mind of my husband... 3 Testimonies 502

She went on that James should have reflected this light by preaching and writing but he was kept too busy doing church church business that others could have done. At the end of the page (502, 503):

The wide contrast between themselves and him seemed like a gulf; but might easily have been bridged, had these men of intellect put their undivided interests and whole hearts into the work of building up and advancing the precious cause of God.

It is clear that the same "ready judgement and clear discernment" that James exhibited, could have been gained by his fellow workers if they were willing to exercise their talents. We may also, "through training and exercise", gain these same characteristics.

The chapter ends (p508, 509) with a comments that James was often misunderstood by his co-workers:

I was shown that my husband's course has not been perfect. He has erred sometimes in murmuring and in giving too severe reproof. But from what I have seen, he has not been so greatly at fault in this respect as many have supposed and as I have sometimes feared. Job was not understood by his friends...
... His motives are misunderstood and his actions misconstrued by those who would be his friends, until like Job, he sends forth the earnest prayer: Save me from my friends...
When God has spoken, my husband has hearkened to His voice; but to bear the condemnation and reflection of his friends who do not seem to discriminate has been a great trial... (they torture) his feelings by reflections and censures which he in no way deserves.

While I appreciated the chapter, I can see no relationship between it and the topic of the Godhead. I think Geoff infers that God spoke to James on the Godhead and that James clearly discerned the correct picture of the Godhead. The quote I gave from page 502 says God permitted truth to illuminate the James' mind. We could infer that this includes Godhead BUT it is only inference. In the context, Mrs White doesn't even hint at what these truths are.

So I don't find it adds any significant weight to Geoff's argument. In fact, in context, it presents some real difficulties for the present-day antitrinitarians. Their attitude to church leadership is directly challenged by the chapter's second paragraph on page 492:

I have been shown that no man's judgement should be surrendered to the judgement of any one man. But when the judgement of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgement must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgement of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon earth...You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference...You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong.

So Geoff, and your friends, I encourage you to heed the voice of the prophet and the voice of the General Conference, cease your wilfulness and put your "undivided interests and whole hearts into the work of building up and advancing the precious cause of God".

The First Rule of Bible Study

Geoff has said that "the first rule of Bible study is that we are to understand the words according to their obvious meaning unless a figure or metaphor is indicated."

In a private email Geoff said "I cannot understand why you will not apply the first rule of Bible study to the discussion. "God is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God." "The Son of God in truth." If you want to infer a different meaning to what is obviously stated, then it is up to you to show cause why. Are you forgetting that the Bible was not written for theologians, "but the common man, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is in the best position to understand the Scriptures."

First off, I want to say that I am no theologian, I have not had any theological training, so according to the quote (I'm not sure where it is from) I should be in the "best position to understand the Scriptures".

Geoff has asked for several things:
1. Why I don't apply the first rule of Bible study specifically to the terms "Son of God" and "Father" (I'm not sure that "Father of Christ" is a Biblical reference)
2. That I show cause for inferring that Jesus is not the literal Son of God but figurative.

Before we begin, the big difference between myself and Geoff is that Geoff believes that Jesus is the literal Son of God ie. that God actually Fathered Jesus and Jesus is not from eternity past but had a beginning. I believe that Jesus is a figurative Son of God, from eternity past, without beginning.

Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent).

So why do I say Jesus is the figurative Son of God.

1. Jesus is the antitypical Son - he is the original Son - we are all typical. The type is not always the same as the antitype in every particular. The sacrificial lamb was a type of the "Lamb of God" but not exactly the same. In many ways Jesus was like the sacrificial lamb just as Jesus is, in many ways, like human sons. More importantly, in what ways are human sons and fathers, like the antitypical Son and Father? Geoff would say "in procreation", I say "in close relationship".

2. "Son" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal son". Ezekiel is repeatedly called the "son of man" as is Jesus, this is redundant if "son" is literal. Jesus is called the "son of David" (Mt 1:1, Mk 10:47) as is Joseph (Mt 1:20). Even though both were descendents of David, neither are literal sons. The overcomer is promised to become God's son (Rev 21:7). John says we are already sons of God ,1 Jn 3:1,2, Jn 1:12, as does Paul in Rom 8:14. James and John are called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3:17) by Jesus. These are the examples I could think of at present.

3. "Father" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal father". In John 8, Jesus calls God His Father many times which may or may not be literal. The Jews claimed Abraham was their father (v39) and that they only had one Father - God (v41). Jesus said that the devil was their father (v44) and that the devil was the father of lies (v44). None of these later references can be literal.

4. "Monogenes" (usually translated "only begotten son") is about "preciousness" not literal sonship. I say this because the writers of the New Testament used monogenes in the context of the Old Testament. They called Isaac monogenes even though he was not Abraham's "only son" (Heb 11:17). I could find two occurrances of monogenes in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament most readers of the New Testament in the first years of the Christian church were most familiar with. These references were Psalms 22:20 and 35:17 where it is translated "my darling" (in NKJV it is translated "my precious" and life is added in both cases). These would be the references most people reading the New Testament would apply to that word at the time it was written.

To sum up, it is quite possible that the original writers of the New Testament meant "Son of God" as a figure or metaphor, so I infer that Jesus is the figurative Son of God. The writers may also have meant it to be taken literally, which is why I'm not dogmatic and certainly won't ask anyone to change their mind on this matter.

Does that answer your question Geoff?