so

DEFENCE
An Analysis of a
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST
Offensive Against
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

With Appendices on
the Trinity, Daniel Chapter 4,
the Ten Commandments, Christmas,
War and Chaplaincy Interfaith
DEFENCE

2
 DEFENCE

DEFENCE
An Analysis of a
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST
Offensive Against
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

With Appendices on
the Trinity, Daniel Chapter 4,
the Ten Commandments, Christmas,
War and Chaplaincy Interfaith

© 2018
This publication is not for sale.
Correspondence: gjtstrange1914@gmail.com

3
 DEFENCE

An anonymous publication.

4
 DEFENCE

Contents
To Our Reader 7
1 Trouble … and The Agreement 9
2 1914 and Here or Near? 31
3 Father to the Rescue 51
4 Bricks and A Debate 53
5 Answered Prayer 71
6 Paradise Restored 81
7 One God and Who Is Jehovah? 93
8 Questions 119
9 Baptised into Christ 125
10 Watchtower … 1975 127
11 Our Friends 131
Conclusions 157

Appendix
1 The Adventist Change to Trinitarianism 159
2 Signs of the Times and Daniel Chapter 4 167
3 77 Questions 171
4.1 Seventh-day Adventists and War 177
4.2 Adventists in Nazi Germany 179
5 Adventist Chaplains and Interfaith Material 183

Index 187

5
 DEFENCE

“Ready always to give an answer.”––1Pe 3:15.

6
 DEFENCE
To Our Reader:
Seventh-day Adventists believe that they practise the
true religion. (Eph 4:5) They should, because there are
just two roads––a cramped one to life and a broad one
to destruction.––Mt 7:13, 14, 22, 23.
More than 50 years ago a young Adventist minister
began to focus on Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1966, E.1
Bruce Price published a booklet, God’s Channel of
Truth–Is It the Watchtower? (GCT), and later Our
Friends: the Jehovah's Witnesses (OF).
He published several editions of each before his death
in 2015 in Australia. To the end, he taught that
Jehovah’s Witnesses are on that broad road to
destruction. Was he right? Were his untiring efforts to
discredit Jehovah’s Witnesses fair?
Fairness is an issue here because Jehovah is the God
of fairness. “When I set a time, I judge with fairness.”
(Ps 75:2) Fairness is therefore related to Jehovah’s
lofty standards of justice. If a judgment or estimation
is unfair, it cannot be God’s judgment.
Fairly judging matters of religion is difficult. But the
prophet Daniel was told that God’s true servants and
His knowledge would be clarified in the final part of
the days, so the identity of true Christians should be
easier to discern today than ever before.––Da 12:3, 4.
In the 50 years since Price’s criticisms were first
published there have been developments in both
religions. Jesus said: “wisdom is justified of her
children [“works,” Greek].” (Mt 11:19) True wisdom
will eventually be proven by its works. So how have
both religions fared over the last 50 years?
Price contends that Jehovah’s Witnesses are in chaos
but that Seventh-day Adventists are heading onward
and upward under God’s hand. However, this
assessment is unfair because very often the failings
that he identifies in the Witnesses exist in his own
denomination, and very often much worse.
The booklet says “the experiences given are true.”
This may be true. Yet, some of the statements made by
those portrayed as Jehovah’s Witnesses show a
surprising lack of understanding of their own beliefs.
Their lack of Bible knowledge and knowledge of their
organizational history is puzzling. For instance, it is
1 Ernest.
2 For example, Adventists were mentioned in the Watch Tower issues of September 15, 1892, March 1, 1897 and April 1, 1897.
7
not typical of Jehovah’s Witnesses that Lorna did not
know where the Ten Commandments were kept. Nor
is it true, as Nanna says, that they believe the tree(s) of
life and the river flowing from New Jerusalem to be
literal.
Of course, at times people misrepresent the beliefs of
their own religions but it would be unfair for anyone
to view this family as typical of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
These days, Jehovah’s Witnesses hardly ever
encounter Seventh-day Adventists who even identify
themselves as Adventists, much less engage the
Witnesses in discussions, despite the fact that the
Witnesses are now more active than ever in the
greatest witnessing campaign the world has ever seen
on doorsteps, on the streets, in informal contacts and
using the Internet at jw.org.
For all his efforts, Seventh-day Adventists are not
actively promoting Price’s materials to Jehovah’s
Witnesses. In fact, only once in the last 50 years has it
been brought to the attention of this writer despite
thousands of hours spent in the public ministry from
house to house and on the streets. That was in 1968.
Apparently, Adventists are using it mainly to convince
themselves and other opponents that Jehovah’s
Witnesses are not God’s channel of truth rather than
really trying to help the Witnesses.
We refer mainly to the King James Version. Chapter
and page numbers refer to the revised version of
Price’s booklet, accessed on-line in 2016. Our study
expresses personal findings only, but it accepts the
teachings and ministry of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The
use of “we” and “ours” is rhetorical only.
Our study will show why Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot
agree with Adventists in key areas of doctrine and
practice. From their beginning as Bible Students in the
nineteenth century, the Witnesses have been familiar
with the beliefs and teachings of Seventh-day
Adventists, so none of the arguments in Price’s
writings are really new or surprising.2
The conclusions drawn in God’s Channel of Truth–Is
It the Watchtower? and Our Friends: the Jehovah's
Witnesses can only be justified if they are also fair. So
we make the question of fairness an important issue in
our study of Price’s writings. Can they pass that test?
We will see. Let us “prove all things.”––1Th 5:21.
8
 DEFENCE

1
Trouble … and The Agreement
God’s Channel of Truth chapters 1 and 2 tell the story of
how Bob Watson, a young Seventh-day Adventist
minister, calls on a woman named Clarice and convinces
her that the Adventists have the truth. Clarice then
approaches her mother with Bob’s message. This may
seem unusual because Adventists hardly ever evangelize
non-Adventists at their homes these days.
Preaching is the great commission given to every
Christian. Jesus commanded:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you.”––Mt 28:19, 20.
Some say that Jesus’ commandment was restricted to the
apostles, but note that new disciples had to observe “all
[the] things” that their teachers had been commanded.
Those “things” would therefore have included the
preaching and teaching command given to the first
disciples, to “go ... and teach all nations, baptizing them.”
Each generation of Christians had to teach the next
generation to preach and teach.
Later, Acts 8:1 says that “they were all scattered abroad
throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the
apostles.” So when the text adds, “they that were
scattered abroad went every where preaching the word,”
it means that Christians other than the apostles also went
preaching. (Ac 8:4) These scattered preachers were not
only ministers and pastors with a special gift. Once a
Christian heard the gospel he became a preacher. “Let
him that heareth say, Come.”––Re 22:17.
In theory, Adventists agree with this, as their Church
Manual shows.
“The Saviour’s commission lays upon the church the
task of heralding the gospel to all the world. This also
places upon each individual member the responsibility
of giving the message of salvation to as many others
as possible. The Saviour ‘gave authority to his
servants, and to every man his work.’ He appointed a
meeting with His eleven disciples after His
resurrection for the purpose of giving them counsel
and encouragement, and at that time He gave the
gospel commission to the disciples and to the
assembled church, numbering more than five hundred
brethren. That was the first outreach (missionary)
meeting of the Christian church; it was certainly not to
be the last.”––Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual,
Chapter 8, subheading “Church Outreach
(Missionary) Meetings.” (Emphasis ours.)
However, it is rare these days for a Seventh-day
Adventist to visit one of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door,
or anywhere else, to speak directly about the Bible. At
best, colporteurs offer Church literature featuring
cooking, health and sometimes Bible stories and
prophetic literature for sale in door-to-door campaigns
that are often years apart. Often an appeal for money is
included if the sale is declined. And the Bible is seldom
quoted. The ordinary Adventist does not participate in
this work, though.
As a result, Jehovah’s Witnesses are almost never
mistaken for Adventists when they go preaching.
Preaching and teaching is the Witnesses’ primary work.
All of them, young and old, participate if they are
circumstantially able. They do not own health food
companies or promote health foods or vegetarianism.
They do not operate sanitaria, hospitals, schools or
universities. Their offices and factories are devoted
solely to spreading the good news.
As a recent example, one only has to compare jw.org, the
official website of Jehovah’s Witnesses, with the official
Seventh-day Adventist Church website. The reader can
decide their relative values for himself.
In their preaching work, Jehovah’s Witnesses find that
Adventists hardly ever self-identify now. In the 1960’s it
was common to have discussions with Adventists. It is
unfortunate that something seems to have changed in the
Adventist dynamic resulting in a reluctance to discuss the
Bible with the Witnesses at the door.
Still, Price’s story begins with young Bob Watson doing
what seldom happens now, visiting Jehovah’s Witnesses
in their homes.
1.1 Progressively Revealed Truth
Price’s first two chapters deal almost exclusively with the
teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses that have altered over
the years. The Witnesses have always taken the view that
they are not in the full light of truth, that changes will be
needed until “the perfect day.” (Pr 4:18) But Bob makes
great play of these changes as if they were solid evidence
that the Witnesses are not God’s channel of truth. Really,
his reasoning is unscriptural and, in the case of
Adventists, very inconsistent because both the Bible and

9
 DEFENCE
the Adventist religion give evidence of important
changes as we will see.
God’s imperfect people have always changed, adjusting
to new truths. So Noah and his family adjusted to the
truth that the Flood was coming. (Ge 6:7) Later, the
Israelite nation adjusted to a set laws given through
Moses. When the Messiah arrived, changes followed.
After the arrival of the holy spirit at Pentecost, new truths
replaced older ones as the congregation matured.
Circumcision, animal sacrifices, cleansing rituals and
temple service were removed. For centuries the identity
of the seed, or offspring, of Genesis 3:15 had been
unknown to God’s human servants and to angels, but
eventually the time came for it to be revealed.––1Pe 1:12.
Some truths were understood gradually. According to
John 2:22, the disciples understood Jesus’ saying at John
2:19 only after Jesus was raised from the dead. They
“remembered” the Jesus’ statement and its fulfilment
resulted in a clearer understanding of that comment. John
12:16 speaks about another understanding that was
gradually revealed.
“These things understood not his disciples at the first:
but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they
that these things were written of him, and that they had
done these things unto him.”
Acts 11:15, 16 says that it was only when the holy spirit
descended on Cornelius and his household that Peter
“remembered” Jesus’ words about Christians being
baptized with spirit. So yes, early Christians learned the
truth progressively.
However, more relevant to our enquiry is this question:
Did God’s people ever have to make changes because
some of their beliefs or expectations had been outright
errors?
1.2 Error among God’s Ancient People
Yes, God’s people of Bible times did make errors. When
David asked whether he should build a temple, Nathan
replied: “Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with
thee.” But it was not God’s will for David to build a
temple, so God corrected Nathan’s statement. (1Ch 17:1-
5) Was Nathan a false prophet? No. God would not have
sent him back to David with the correction if he were.
Similarly, after his resurrection Jesus said: “If I will that
he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow
thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the
brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said
not unto him, He shall not die…” (Joh 21:22, 23) Did this
misinterpretation make them all false prophets? There is
no evidence that they were judged so harshly.
10
What these examples demonstrate is that mistakes are
certainly possible when well-intentioned humans try to
interpret God’s will. Today, as always, “the path of the
just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more
unto the perfect day.” (Pr 4:18) What illuminates that
path? Psalm 119:105 answers: “Thy word is a lamp unto
my feet and a light unto my path.” Prayerful and
progressive Bible study results in greater spiritual light
and ever clearer understanding of Bible truth.
In the first century there were still many truths not clearly
understood, so Paul says: “For we know in part, ... For
now we see through a glass, darkly; ... now I know in
part.” (1Co 13:9, 12) Partial knowledge was an ever-
present reality in the early church. In the same letter Paul
corrects mistaken interpretations in the Corinthian church
about the resurrection. Despite those errors, Paul calls
them “beloved brethren.”––1Co 15:12.
Although he calls the Galatians “foolish” because they
mistakenly thought that works of the Mosaic Law could
establish their righteousness, Paul still accepts them as
“children of God.” (Ga 3:1, 26) Today we accept that the
early church was the organization that God was using
despite misunderstandings like these. It is no less true
today that God’s true church makes mistakes and needs
correction.
Another factor is that the understanding of some truths
needed to await God’s time to reveal them. As an angel
said to Daniel: “for the words are closed up and sealed
till the time of the end.” (Da 12:9) Any attempt to explain
those prophetic words before God’s time for revealing
their meaning could easily result in error.
1.3 Protestant Error
Christians in every generation have studied the Scriptures
and have tried their best to explain them. However, in
varying degrees they believed the errors passed on to
them through the great apostasy. So the Waldenses,
Wycliffe, Huss, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Knox and
others spoken of favourably in Ellen G. White’s Great
Controversy believed in eternal torment in hellfire. But
Adventists forgive them their errors.
Some Protestant reformers fell deeply into sin when they
came to positions of power. For example, although
Martin Luther at first opposed coercing religious
dissidents, he later encouraged his political friends to
execute by burning those who opposed infant baptism.
Reading Luther’s book The Jews and Their Lies, one
becomes aware of his outrageous anti-Semitic attitudes
hundreds of years before Adolph Hitler held similar
views. The book The Jews and Martin Luther–Martin
Luther and the Jews, by Heinz Kremers, explains:
 DEFENCE
“At first Martin Luther was friendly toward the Jews,
since he expected that they would convert to
Christianity once the pure gospel was preached to
them. When this hope went unfulfilled, he became a
vehement enemy of the Jews.”
Luther was given to unchristian excesses of many kinds.3
Although acknowledging his imperfections, Ellen G.
White encouraged Christians to imitate him. 4
The followers of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli killed
thousands of opponents. John Calvin’s relentless pursuit
of Michael Servetus and his compliance with others in
the execution of Servetus are lamentable examples of the
error of ‘Christians’ of the time. Still, Ellen G. White
allows that, for all their errors, they were Christians. Bob
is not as generous to Jehovah’s Witnesses
1.3 Jehovah’s Witnesses Disclaim Inspiration
Jehovah’s Witnesses have made many errors in
interpreting the Scriptures, and Bob is keen to list them
in detail and to emphasize them. What he does not admit
is that Adventists have made mistakes of their own.5 The
difference is that Adventists have claimed the “spirit of
prophecy” for many of their errors.
The errors of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the result
of earnest Bible study and interpretation, not inspiration.
From the first, the Witnesses positively disclaimed divine
inspiration. Consider these statements.
“We have not the gift of prophecy.”––Watch Tower,
January 1883, page 425. (Emphasis ours.)
“Nor would we have our writings reverenced or
regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy
Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed
for our teachings is that they are what we believe to
be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in
harmony with the spirit of the truth.”––Watch Tower,
December 15, 1896. (Emphasis ours.)
“Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility
and that every sentence appearing in ‘The Watch
Tower’ publications is stated with absolute
correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and
have never made such a claim. What motive can our
opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not
seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves
excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert
3 For a discussion of Luther’s excesses, see Martin Luther–Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Peter F. Wiener, page 28, at
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html
4 The Signs of the Times, July 26, 1883, paragraph 18; The Great Controversy, 1911, page 129; Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1, 1858,
page 122.
5 See point 1.5ff below.
11
the judgment of others.”––Watch Tower, September
15, 1909. (Emphasis ours.)
“We must admit that there are possibilities of our
having made a mistake in respect to the chronology,
even though we do not see where any mistake has been
made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as
expiring about October 1, 1914.”––Watch Tower,
November, 15, 1913. (Emphasis ours.)
“The writers of the New Testament were clothed with
certain power and authority to write as the Lord
directed them. However, since the days of the apostles
no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy,
nor has any man been inspired to interpret
prophecy.”––Prophecy, 1929, pages 61, 62.
(Emphasis ours.)
“We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have
come to the place where the Gentile times have
ended.”––Light, Volume 1, 1930, page 194.
(Emphasis ours.)
“This pouring out of God’s spirit upon the flesh of all
his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those
now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It
does not mean that the writings in this magazine The
Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without
mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and
infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with
believing so. ... But we confess with the Scriptures that
the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870,
as the apostle Paul showed it would… Inspired
speaking and writing passed away with the last of the
twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were
imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and
lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for
anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying
God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of
us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.”
––Watchtower, May 15, 1947, pages 157, 158.
(Emphasis ours.)
“The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its
utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and
critical examination of its contents in the light of the
Scriptures.”––Watchtower, August 15, 1950, pages
262, 263. (Emphasis ours.)
 DEFENCE
“In regard to how the truth is brought forth through
Jehovah’s organization, please note that if the Watch
Tower Society were infallible there would be no need
for future correction of viewpoints held; but because it
is not infallible and has never claimed to be, from time
to time corrections are necessary. If Jehovah’s spirit
operated in the way it did upon Bible writers, inspiring
them to write according to Jehovah’s thoughts, then no
future corrections in matters would ever be necessary.
But because the spirit does not operate in this way
today some corrections are made from time to time.”
––Watchtower, October 15, 1954, page 638.
(Emphasis ours.)
“Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate
(but admittedly not infallible).”––Watchtower, August
15, 1968, page 499. (Emphasis ours.)
“The brothers preparing these publications are not
infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those
of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And
so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding
became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)”––
Watchtower, February 15, 1981, page 19. (Emphasis
ours.)
“It is not claimed that the explanations in this
publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say:
‘Do not interpretations belong to God?’ (Genesis
40:8)”––Revelation–Its Grand Climax at Hand, 1988,
page 9. (Emphasis ours.)
“To one who wrote a letter of inquiry, Brother Russell
replied: ‘If it was proper for the early Christians to
prove what they received from the apostles, who were
and who claimed to be inspired, how much more
important it is that you fully satisfy yourself that these
teachings keep closely within their outline instructions
and those of our Lord;––since their author claims no
inspiration, but merely the guidance of the Lord, as
one used of him in feeding his flock.’ Brother Russell
claimed no supernatural power, no divine
revelations.”––Jehovah’s Witnesses–Proclaimers of
God’s Kingdom, 1993, page 622. (Emphasis ours.)
“Although the slave class is defined as ‘faithful and
discreet,’ Jesus did not say that it would be infallible.
This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists
of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of
intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men
sometimes were in the first century.”––Watchtower,
December 1, 2002, page 17. (Emphasis ours.)
Price’s writings do not give proper weight to these
statements. Instead, he points to the following comment
to show that the Witnesses do claim to be a prophet
organization.––OF, page 4.
12
“This ‘prophet’ was not one man, but was a body of
men and women. It was the small group of footstep
followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as
International Bible Students. Today they are known as
Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.”––Watchtower, April
1, 1972, page 197. (Emphasis ours.)
The statement in this Watchtower article refers to them
as a prophet in a modified sense, as the inverted commas
imply: “prophet.” Collectively, they prophesy in the
sense of preaching God’s previously-inspired written
Word rather than being an inspired prophet themselves.
How do we know that this was the intent when the word
“prophet” was used in that article? The inside cover of
the very same issue, which Price does not quote,
explains:
“No, ‘The Watchtower’ is no inspired prophet, but it
follows and explains a Book of prophecy the
predictions in which have proved to be unerring and
unfailing till now.”––Ibid., page 194. (Emphasis ours.)
Critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses like Price are never fair
enough to point to this clarifying comment, which should
have made it clear that “prophet” on page 197 was used
in the representative sense only. So Lorna’s comment
about Charles Russell and Joseph Rutherford is right, if
we are talking about inspired prophets. She says:
“Those men [Noah, Elijah, Isaiah and Jeremiah] were
prophets. Russell and Rutherford were not prophets.”
––GCT, page 22.
Correct. They were not inspired prophets. In response,
Bob makes a particularly unfair claim when he refers to
page 378 of the 1917 book The Finished Mystery which
applies Ezekiel 2:5 to Charles Russell. (GCT, page 23)
The text says:
“And they, whether they will hear, or whether they
will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall
know that there hath been a prophet among them.”
Fortunately, The Finished Mystery is on the Internet for
all to read. In explaining the sense in which the word
“prophet” was thought to apply to Charles Russell, page
378 continues:
“With a voice of many waters, reverberating like
thunder throughout the world, spoke Pastor Russell;
and ere long ‘they shall know that there hath been a
Prophet [preacher] among them.’” (Emphasis ours.)
Bob wants to catch Jehovah’s Witnesses out calling
Russell a prophet. The important thing is that the
bracketed word “preacher” was in the original
publication. Russell was never thought of as, and never
claimed to be, an inspired prophet. He was a preacher.
This is the distinction Lorna notes.
 DEFENCE
The Finished Mystery was wrong in explaining Russell
to be the antitype of Ezekiel, but the Bible Students never
understood him to be and never presented him to be an
inspired prophet like Ezekiel. Russell himself
consistently denied inspiration. The square brackets
show that, as applied to Russell, “prophet” had a
qualified sense, that he was simply a “preacher.” Why
didn’t Bob share this important fact with Lorna, Clarice
and the family?
Jehovah’s Witnesses draw doctrinal conclusions after
prayer and study, but not through any kind of inspiration.
Clearly, this has not always guaranteed accuracy, but the
Witnesses are not embarrassed at all by changed
teachings. They embrace the fact that they are neither
locked into their own errors nor into Christendom’s fixed
creeds.
Changing teachings is Scriptural. It is in harmony with
the Proverbs 4:18 principle and it is still true that “we see
through a glass, darkly,” although lighter now than before
as the light on God’s Word grows progressively
brighter.––1Co 13:12.
1.4 Adventist Error and “Present Truth”
Although it is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses have made
many changes, it is unfair for Bob to criticize the
Witnesses for this because Adventists have also changed.
Early Adventist writers used the term “present truth” to
describe their understanding of the truth at the time.
(Review and Herald, December 31, 1857, page 61) But
Ellen G. White taught that Adventist doctrine should not
be considered static or without the possibility of
containing error.
“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position
that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all
our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The
fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for
many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas
are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and
truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose
anything by close investigation.”––Counsels to
Writers and Editors, page 35. (Emphasis ours.)
Other Adventist publications make the same point.
“God is leading out His people step by step. Truth is
progressive. The earnest seeker will be constantly
receiving light from Heaven. What is truth? should
ever be our inquiry.”––Signs of the Times, May 26,
1881. (Emphasis ours.)
“Those who walk in the light will progress… Truth is
progressive; and those who are preparing for the last
great day will go forward in accordance with the
13
accumulated light which shines upon them.”––Review
& Herald, January 5, 1886. (Emphasis ours.)
“The truth of God is progressive; it is always onward,
going from strength to a greater strength, from light to
a greater light. We have every reason to believe that
the Lord will send us increased truth, for a great work
is yet to be done. In our knowledge of truth, there is
first a beginning in our understanding of it, then a
progression, then completion; first the blade, then the
ear, and after that the full corn in the ear. Much has
been lost because our ministers and people have
concluded that we have had all the truth essential for
us as a people; but such a conclusion is erroneous and
in harmony with the deceptions of Satan; for truth will
be constantly unfolding.” ––Signs of the Times, May
26, 1890. (Emphasis ours.)
“We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to
unlearn. …”––Review & Herald, July 26, 1892.
(Emphasis ours.)
“There is no excuse for anyone in taking a position
that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all
our [Adventist] expositions of Scripture are without
error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as
truth for many years by our [Adventist] people, is not
proof that our [Adventist] ideas are infallible. Age will
not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be
fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close
investigation.”––Review & Herald, December 20,
1892. (Emphasis ours.)
“The momentous issues at stake through neglect of the
Word of God should be carefully considered. The
study of the Bible is worthy of the best mental effort,
the most sanctified ability. When new light is
presented to the church, it is perilous to shut
yourselves away from it. Refusing to hear because you
are prejudiced against the message or the messenger
will not make your case excusable before God. To
condemn that which you have not heard and do not
understand will not exalt your wisdom in the eyes of
those who are candid in their investigations of truth.
And to speak with contempt of those whom God has
sent with a message of truth, is folly and madness. If
our youth are seeking to educate themselves to be
workers in His cause, they should learn the way of the
Lord, and live by every word that proceedeth out of
His mouth. They are not to make up their minds that
the whole truth has been unfolded, and that the Infinite
One has no more light for His people. If they entrench
themselves in the belief that the whole truth has been
revealed, they will be in danger of discarding precious
jewels of truth that shall be discovered as men turn
their attention to the searching of the rich mine of
 DEFENCE

God’s Word.”––Testimonies to Sabbath School
Workers, page 60. (Emphasis ours.)
So the preamble to the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s
Fundamental Beliefs says:
“These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the
church’s understanding and expression of the teaching
of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be
expected at a General Conference session when the
church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller
understanding of Bible truth or finds better language
in which to express the teachings of God's Holy
Word.” (Emphasis ours.)
More recently, P. Gerard Damsteegt, Price’s co-
contributor to a book on modern Adventism, says:
“Progressive revelation has played an important role
in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. By ‘progressive revelation’ I mean God’s
continuous unfolding of previously revealed truth that
we often refer to as ‘new light.’ Without God's
shedding new light on His revealed Word––the Bible
––the Seventh-day Adventist Church would not
exist.”––Here We Stand: Evaluating New Trends in
the Church, page 123. (Emphasis ours.)
If the Adventist Church is also dependent on new light,
how can it criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses over changes?
1.5 Changes in Adventist Teaching
However, Price believes that Jehovah’s Witnesses
misunderstand Proverbs 4:18.
“The Bible equates light with truth and darkness with
error. This ‘bright light’ is truth that is getting lighter
not error. God only leads His people into ‘bright light’
or brilliant truth. These truths as time goes on, always
prove to be truth not error!”––OF, page 6.
His point is that truth progresses to greater truth; that it
never stumbles back into error just as light never
becomes darkness. However, this fails to allow for the
failings of the Christian church in every generation. More
than that, his own Church cannot match his lofty ideal.
He is not taking into account adjustments in Adventist
teaching involving doctrines and practices resulting in
errors, many of which still cause tension in the
denomination today. Price’s writings are specific about
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ failures, so it is fair to shine the
light back on Adventism and to ask whether it has
unfailingly progressed from light to light as he requires.
1.5.1 Changes in Adventism––War
Price claims that “Seventh-day Adventists believe in time
of war, Christians should not kill but should try to save
lives.” (OF, page 25; emphasis his.) In the Adventist
Church, “should” is the active word, because Adventists
are free to join the armed forces in combatant roles and
many thousands actually do. This represents a significant
change from early Adventism.
In 1867 the fifth annual General Conference session of
the Adventist Church passed the following resolution.
“RESOLVED, That it is the judgment of this
Conference, that the bearing of arms, or engaging in
war, is a direct violation of the teachings of our
Saviour and of the spirit and letter of the law of God.”
Notwithstanding this clear historical position against
participating in war, the Autumn Council of the General
Conference Committee recommended noncombatant
duties in 1972, but did not impose it as a firm position. It
added:
“This statement is not a rigid position binding church
members but gives guidance leaving the individual
member free to assess the situation for himself.”––
Autumn Council of the General Conference
Committee: General Actions, October 14-29 1972,
Mexico City, page 17.6
What is this? The Church can have a “rigid position
binding church members” on the Fourth Commandment,
the Sabbath, but not on Sixth, on not killing! This 1972
statement has never been withdrawn and must be
understood as the current official Church position. It is

6 Full text of the 1972 Autumn Council Statement:

“Voted, 1. That we accept as our basic view the 1954 General Conference Session action entitled, ‘The Relationship of Seventh-
day Adventists to Civil Government and War,’ as amended at the 1954 Autumn Council, and further amended as follows:
Genuine Christianity manifests itself in good citizenship and loyalty to civil government. The breaking out of war among men in
no way alters the Christian’s supreme allegiance and responsibility to God or modifies their obligation to practice their beliefs and
put God first.
This partnership with God through Jesus Christ who came into this world not to destroy men’s lives but to save them causes
Seventh-day Adventists to advocate a noncombatant position, following their divine Master in not taking human life, but rendering
all possible service to save it. As they accept the obligation of citizenship as well as its benefits, their loyalty to government requires
them willingly to serve the state in any noncombatant capacity, civil or military, in war or peace, in uniform or out of it, which will
contribute to saving life, asking only that they may serve in those capacities which do not violate their conscientious conviction.
This statement is not a rigid position binding church members but gives guidance leaving the individual member free to assess the
situation for himself.”

14
 DEFENCE
much weaker that the 1867 statement. The noncombatant
position is not binding on Adventists and many choose to
serve and even go to war in combatant roles because their
personal consciences allow it. What a change!
However, compromise over war was evident well before
1972 in the way the Church mistreated Jews in Nazi
Germany and generally supported the Nazi regime.
In 2005 an official apology was issued by the German
Church for its disgraceful compromise. The German
Adventist statement said:
“We deeply regret that the character of National
Socialist dictatorship had not been realized in time and
distinctly enough, and the ungodly nature of [Nazi]
ideology had not clearly been identified ... in some of
our publications ... there were found articles glorifying
Adolf Hitler and agreeing with the ideology of anti-
Semitism in a way that is unbelievable from today’s
[perspective].”––“Church Leaders Say ‘We're
Sorry,’” Adventist News, August 15, 2005.
Kellner also notes that German Adventist leaders
expressed regret that
“our peoples became associated with racial fanaticism
destroying the lives and freedom of 6 million Jews and
representatives of minorities in all of Europe ... that
many Seventh-day Adventists did not share the need
and suffering of their Jewish fellow-citizens.”––Ibid.
German and Austrian Adventist congregations
“excluded, separated and left [church members who
were] ... of Jewish origin to themselves so that they
were delivered to imprisonment, exile or death.”––
Ibid.
Kellner quotes Rolf Pöhler, former North German church
area president who was the region’s theological advisor
and was involved with drafting the declaration, as saying:
“We had to realize that one wrong statement, one
wrong move by a person meant he could end up in a
concentration camp. ... [That was the] reason why we
excluded and disfellowshipped Jewish-born
Adventists from our midst: If a local church had not
done this, [the Nazis] would have closed the church,
taken the elder to prison, and it would have meant the
whole church would be forbidden.”––Ibid.
The German Adventist Church abandoned even its own
Jewish members in their time of greatest need! And how
7 “During World War I, the Bible Students generally understood that Christ’s followers should have no share in killing their fellow
humans. (Matt. 26:52) However, for many, the exhortation found at Romans 13:1 to be obedient to ‘the superior authorities’ meant
that they should join the army, wear soldiers’ uniforms, and even bear arms; however, when asked to kill the enemy, they should
shoot into the air.”––God’s Kingdom Rules, page 56.
15
inadequate the justification. Paul condemned those who
say “let us do evil, that good may come,” but this is
exactly what the Church was saying. (Ro 3:8) It was
‘evil’ to sacrifice these Jews for the ‘good’ of the Church.
While the Adventist attitude to war was faltering, the
attitude of Jehovah’s Witnesses against participating in
war was strengthening.7 On October 7, 1934 every
congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany met at
9:00 am and then sent the following letter to the German
government.
“TO THE OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT:
“The Word of Jehovah God, as set out in the Holy
Bible, is the supreme law, and to us it is our sole guide
for the reason that we have devoted ourselves to God
and are true and sincere followers of Christ Jesus.
During the past year, and contrary to God’s law and in
violation of our rights, you have forbidden us as
Jehovah’s witnesses to meet together to study God’s
Word and worship and serve him. In his Word he
commands us that we shall not forsake the assembling
of ourselves together. (Hebrews 10:25) To us Jehovah
commands: ‘Ye are my witnesses that I am God. Go
and tell the people my message.’ (Isaiah 43:10, 12;
Isaiah 6:9; Matthew 24:14) There is a direct conflict
between your law and God’s law, and, following the
lead of the faithful apostles, ‘we ought to obey God
rather than men,’ and this we will do. (Acts 5:29)
Therefore this is to advise you that at any cost we will
obey God’s commandments, will meet together for the
study of his Word, and will worship and serve him as
he has commanded. If your government or officers do
violence to us because we are obeying God, then our
blood will be upon you and you will answer to
Almighty God. We have no interest in political affairs,
but are wholly devoted to God’s kingdom under Christ
his King. We will do no injury or harm to anyone. We
would delight to dwell in peace and do good to all men
as we have opportunity, but, since your government
and its officers continue in your attempt to force us to
disobey the highest law of the universe, we are
compelled to now give you notice that we will, by his
grace, obey Jehovah God and fully trust Him to deliver
us from all oppression and oppressors.”
On the same day, Jehovah’s Witnesses in 49 countries
sent a cablegram to the Hitler government stating:
“Your ill-treatment of Jehovah’s witnesses shocks all
good people of earth and dishonors God’s name.
 DEFENCE

Refrain from further persecuting Jehovah’s witnesses; possible for even a very small and politically
otherwise God will destroy you and your national powerless group of people to make a firm stand
party.” against what they quickly identified as evil. Whilst
Witnesses were strengthened and informed in their
On the basis of the record, Christine King compared the
behaviour by their beliefs and their membership of the
response of Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s
movement, it is important to acknowledge that each
Witnesses in the face of the Nazi Party in Germany.
Witness faced their own challenge as an individual
“Seventh Day Adventists offered an immediate public and made their own choices. We may or may not share
statement of nationalism and support for the Party. their beliefs, but the fact that the vast majority were
They implemented changes to remove Old Testament willing to face imprisonment and death rather than, as
language from their liturgy and arranged to co-operate they saw it, deny their God, did make a difference. It
with the state in their extensive church welfare and continues to make a difference to our analysis of the
medical care schemes. ... The Jehovah's Witness story difficult questions facing Christians during the Third
stands out as radically different in this context of Reich.”––“Responses Outside the Mainstream
confusion, political naivete and compromise. This Catholic and Protestant Traditions,” in The Holocaust
group made the decision from a very early date to and the Christian World, pages 64-67.
ignore the ban on their missionary work and meetings
The difference between Adventists and Jehovah’s
and to continue to preach and meet. In their literature
Witnesses was stark. The Church position on war that
they publicly identified the evils of the regime,
softened in 1972 to a recommendation of noncombatancy
including what was happening to the Jews. The
has resulted in thousands taking up arms as combatants.
consequences were severe as members met the full
In 1984, associate editor of the Adventist Review, George
force of police and Gestapo brutality. Initially
W. Reid, reported that each year
imprisoned in civil prisons, by 1935 they were
amongst the first Germans to be thrown into the “between 6,000 and 7,000 enlistees write ‘Seventh-
Labour camps. By 1945 there were Witnesses in the day Adventist’ in the blank where incoming trainees
major concentration camps all across Europe of the designate religious preference.”––“Adventists and
Third Reich. Here they were subject to special tortures Military Enlistment,” Adventist Review, June 7, 1984,
and humiliations, whilst maintaining their faith and page 14.
refusing even the smallest of compromises even when
Adventists have also been directly involved as
such could buy their freedom from the camp. ... Thus
combatants in the military in Burma and other Asian
they would not enlist in Hitler’s army or offer the
lands with the full knowledge of the Adventist Church.
Hitler salute as a sign of Nazi citizenship. They
Ronald Lawson, of Queens College, New York, notes:
continued to ‘witness’ in their door-to-door
missionary work and to meet and share bible readings “Asia, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan and South Korea
and teachings. Such a response to National Socialism have conscription. Adventists made a formal
hit at the very heart of what that movement professed. accommodation with the government of Singapore
National Socialism claimed the hearts and minds of all some years ago which granted them Sabbath
its citizens and it demanded a loyalty beyond political privileges and the right not to use weapons. In
compliance. The Witness resistance and their Thailand, most Adventist conscripts are also able to
continued and obstinate refusal to bow the knee, protect their Sabbath observance, but they train with
whatever the personal cost, was something the system weapons. On the other hand, Adventists in South
could neither understand nor tolerate. Thus it threw at Korea and Taiwan have no option but to bear arms …
this tiny movement, with a mere 20,000 members out The most remarkable involvement of Adventists with
of a population of over 60 million, the full brute force weapons and military conflict, however, is found
of the regime. Brutality was no answer in the face of among the Karen rebels against the Burmese
the Witnesses’ faith and their work continued, in and government, who have declared an independent state
out of the camps, even as Witness children were taken of Cawthoolie along the Thai border. Adventists are
away to be brought up in Nazi homes and families the third-largest religious group among these Karens,
were split by imprisonment and death. All Christians behind Buddhists and Baptists, but they provide much
in Nazi Germany had choices not open to Jewish of the military and political leadership. The general
citizens. It is very dangerous to make judgements, in who heads the state, Bo (General) Mya, three of his
retrospect, about the choices made by the religious top deputies, and several other leading military
minority groups and about the information and figures are Adventists.”––“Onward Christian
understanding available to them at that time. The Soldiers?: The Issue of Military Service Within
Witness story demonstrates, however, that it was International Adventism,” in Review of Religious

16
 DEFENCE
Research, 37:3, March 1996, pages 97-122.
(Emphasis ours.)
Of course, it is really not true that these Adventists ‘had
no option.’ They had the same option that Jehovah’s
Witnesses took, the option to be noncombatant. Writing
about the Church’s recommendations that its members
remain noncombatant, Adventist Douglas Morgan says:
“The substantial number of Adventist combatants in
the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-1991 suggests that
the recommendation has carried minimal weight in
practice.”––“Between Pacifism and Patriotism:
Helping Students Think about Military Options,” in
Journal of Adventist Education, Summer 2003, page
25.
Sadly, he has to conclude:
“Unanimity on this complex and momentous issue
will likely continue to elude the Adventist Church, as
it has the Christian Church as a whole. Yet it touches
on matters so central to the gospel message that no
serious believer can avoid addressing it. Doing so with
intelligence and integrity will require recovery of a
history that has to a large extent faded from our
collective consciousness.”––Ibid., page 26.
His words “faded from our collective consciousness”
point to a serious, negative change in Adventism. This
has not been a change from light to greater light as Price
requires but from light to darkness. What good is
recommending noncombatancy if Adventists can ignore
the recommendation with impunity and remain in good
standing? See Appendix 5 for two articles written by
Adventists on the Church and war.
1.5.2 Changes in Adventism––Homosexuality
The toleration of homosexuality is another example of
change in Seventh-day Adventist attitudes. The Church
position in 1986 was that disfellowshipping was possible
for active homosexuality.
“Reasons for which a person may be disfellowshipped
from the Seventh-day Adventist Church include
‘homosexual practice and other perversions.’”––
Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 1986, page
162.
The Church’s website still regards homosexuality as less
than normative. In practice, though, many Adventists
remain actively homosexual because the Church often
fails to follow the Biblical injunction to disfellowship
unrepentant, sexually immoral members, heterosexual or
homosexual.––1Co 5:9-13; 6:9, 10.
There is unofficial but real, practical support offered to
practising Adventist homosexuals by parachurch
organizations. The Seventh-day Adventist Kinship
17
International organization, for one, coordinates support
for current Adventists who are actively homosexual. The
Glendale, California, Adventist Church has been
inclusiveness of active homosexuals for many years with
the full knowledge of the General Conference. Its Pastor
Lind says they “are affirmed and allowed to participate.”
(Advent Herald Ministry, viewed March 26, 2017 at
www.adventherald.org) In Price’s home country, the
Australian GLBT SDAS organization serves the same
purpose.
When the Adventist Church fails to follow through with
counselling, discipline and ultimately disfellowshipping
for moral failures like the practice of homosexuality, this
is certainly a change for the worse by Scriptural
standards. (Ro 1:26, 27; 1Co 6:9; Jude 7) Again, the
change is in the direction of darkness, not increasing
light. It is the opposite of a ‘truth that is getting lighter
not error’ as Price requires.
1.5.3 Changes in Adventism––Trinity
Nothing could be more fundamental than the identity of
God but Adventist doctrine has changed here too. The
document The Trinity in Seventh-day Adventist History,
by Merlin Burt of Andrews University, says:
“Some have failed to recognize the dynamic nature of
Seventh-day Adventist theology. Adventists have
always sought a clearer understanding of Bible truth.
Historically, their doctrines have developed in the
context of the original distinctive core of the Three
Angel’s Message and kindred concepts. A small
though significant and growing segment of ‘historic’
Adventists are advocating a return to an anti-
Trinitarian stance. Seventh-day Adventists have
always been Bible-centered in their theology and
doctrine. They have rejected a static creed and have
ever sought to study, understand, and follow the Bible
as the source of doctrine and the guide for experience.
Consequently, it should not be surprising that
Adventist doctrine has developed over time building
upon previous and new Bible study.”––Page 1.
Two of the founders of the Adventist church, Joseph
Bates and James White, rejected the Trinity. There were
many others. Non-Trinitarianism flourished for most of
the time Ellen G. White served as its Prophet. She did not
sound a clear call to the Church about it. So Gerhard
Pfandl of the Adventist Biblical Research Institute says:
“The first positive reference to the Trinity in Adventist
literature appeared in the Bible Students’ Library
series in 1892.”––The Doctrine of the Trinity among
Adventists, page 1.
In fact, Ellen G. White never mentioned the word Trinity
in her writings. Why did this prophet never defend this
 DEFENCE
supposed fundamental doctrine? Some of her statements
can be interpreted as favourable to aspects of the
doctrine. Others clearly were not. She even stated in 1904
that Christ was “given an exalted position” and that he
was “made equal with the Father.”
“God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God.
To Christ had been given an exalted position. He has
been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of
God are opened to His Son.”––Testimonies to the
Church, 8:268. (Emphasis ours.)
How could he be “made equal” with the Father if he was
always equal with the Father as the current Adventist
Trinity teaches?
White’s teaching on the Trinity was so indistinct that
Pfandl speaks about “ambiguous passages in Ellen
White.” (The Doctrine of the Trinity among Adventists,
page 3) A 40-year record like hers reminds us of Paul’s
comment: “if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who
shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1Co 14:8) It was not
until the 1931 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs that the
Adventist church finally and definitely decided in favour
of the Trinity. According to some, it was even later.
See Appendix 1 for an article sponsored by the Seventh-
day Adventist Church that details the gradual acceptance
of Trinitarianism among Adventists, a monumental
change that Bob does not acknowledge.
1.5.4 Changes in Adventism––Pork
Pfandl notes another example of “increasing light.”
“Another case of increasing light leading to a clearer
understanding are her statements on the eating of pork.
In 1858 she wrote, ‘If God requires His people to
abstain from Swine’s flesh, He will convict them on
the matter’ (1T 207). At that time most Adventists ate
pork. After receiving more light on the subject, she
wrote in 1868, ‘You know that the use of Swine’s flesh
is contrary to His express command, given not because
He wished to especially show His authority, but
because it would be injurious to those who should eat
it.’ (CD 392).”––The Doctrine of the Trinity among
Adventists, page 3, footnote 13.
Yes, for 5 years after the founding of the Church in 1863
Adventists allowed pork, but that teaching changed in
1868. This is more evidence of changed teachings.
1.5.5 Changes in Adventism––Sabbath/Tithing
Burt gives further examples of change.
“Two examples are the Sabbath and tithing. Early
Adventists initially concluded that the Sabbath should
begin and end at 6:00 p.m. It was in 1855, nearly a
decade after the initial Sabbath emphasis, that J. N.
18
Andrews’ biblical and historical presentation
influenced believers to adopt sundown as the correct
time to begin and end the Sabbath. Tithing first began
in 1859 as ‘Systematic Benevolence’ and had little or
no link to the Biblical teaching of ten percent. It was
not until the 1870s that a careful restudy of the topic
led Seventh-day Adventists to adopt the tithing
framework we practice today.”––The Trinity in
Seventh-day Adventist History, page 1.
The sundown Sabbath and ten-percent tithing were not
foundational teachings. They were changes.
1.5.6 Changes in Adventism––Sin Nature
Another important change was introduced in the book
Questions on Doctrine in 1957. White taught that, as a
human, Jesus Christ had a ‘sin nature’ that he resisted,
never acting on that nature by actually sinning. She says:
“Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been
weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every
child of Adam He accepted the results of the working
of the great law of heredity. What these results were is
shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came
with such a heredity to share our sorrows and
temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless
life ... Christ took upon Him the infirmities of
degenerate humanity.”––Desire of Ages, pages 49,
117. (Emphasis ours.)
This doctrine of Christ’s ‘sin nature’ was Ellen G.
White’s personal view. She says:
“In him was no guile or sinfulness; he was ever pure
and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature.”
––Review and Herald, August 22, 1907. (Emphasis
ours.)
Adventist theologian Herbert E. Douglass says that
White was ‘consistent’ about this, that it was her
“constant theme.” (The QOD Earthquake–Attempted
Merger of Two Theological Tectonic Plates, page 31) But
in 1957, in an effort to present the Adventist Church as a
conservative denomination, Questions on Doctrine
changed her teaching in a move that has resounded
through the Church for more than 50 years. It flatly
contradicted Ellen G. White.
“Although born in the flesh, He was nevertheless God,
and was exempt from the inherited passions and
pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of
Adam. He was ‘without sin’ not only in His outward
conduct, but in His very nature.”––Questions on
Doctrine, page 383; See also pages 61, 62. (Emphasis
ours.)
Was Ellen G. White right, that Jesus had a “sinful
nature,” or was Questions on Doctrine right, that he was
 DEFENCE
“without sin … in His very nature”? Herbert Douglass
says this “shift in denominational thought” has caused
Adventists great difficulty because it goes to the heart of
their understanding of the atonement.––The QOD
Earthquake–Attempted Merger of Two Theological
Tectonic Plates, pages 51-57.
Was Price really unaware of this very controversial
change in his denomination? Hardly. It was a hot topic of
debate in Adventist circles at the very time that Bob was
preaching to Lorna and family. Yet he mercilessly
attacked Jehovah’s Witnesses over changes. No doubt he
failed to raise the issue with family. How unfair!
1.5.7 Changes in Adventism––Ecumenism
There was also an alarming decision taken in 2003 to
provide false religious information to Adventist
chaplains and members of other denominations for use in
emergency situations such as end-of-life ministry.
A pamphlet entitled Emergency Ministry: Information
and Resource for Clergy: a Collection of Services and
Prayers from Distinctive Faith Groups was issued by the
Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries with a letter on General
Conference letterhead. It contained services for many
faiths, including non-Christian faiths. Most of it
contradicts Adventist doctrine.
The problem with this is that Ellen G. White was clear
about issuing printed material that contained falsehood.
“I have a word to say to the workers in every
publishing house established among us: As you love
and fear God, refuse to have anything to do with the
knowledge against which God warned Adam. Let
typesetters refuse to set a sentence of such matter. Let
proofreaders refuse to read, pressmen to print, and
binders to bind it. … When matters containing errors
that counteract the work of God are printed in our
houses of publication, God holds accountable not only
those who allow Satan to lay a trap for souls, but those
who in any way co-operate in the work of
temptation.”––Testimonies, Volume 7, pages 167,
168. (Emphasis ours.)
She also spoke very negatively about both the Roman
Catholic and Protestant churches, saying in 1888:
“The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the
world, covering with apologies her record of horrible
cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike
garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the
papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The
doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let
none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants
are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the
world in the days of the Reformation, when men of
God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her
19
iniquity. ... The papacy is just what prophecy declared
that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. 2
Thessalonians 2:3, 4. It is a part of her policy to
assume the character which will best accomplish her
purpose; but beneath the variable appearance of the
chameleon she conceals the invariable venom of the
serpent. ... It is not without reason that the claim has
been put forth in Protestant countries that Catholicism
differs less widely from Protestantism than in former
times. There has been a change; but the change is not
in the papacy. Catholicism indeed resembles much of
the Protestantism that now exists, because
Protestantism has so greatly degenerated since the
days of the Reformers.”––The Great Controversy,
page 571. (Emphasis ours.)
But when the Emergency Ministry document was printed
on Adventist presses contrary to White’s instructions, it
provided information to Adventist chaplains about
Catholic and Protestant rites containing false teachings,
including the “Hail Mary” for Catholics, a prayer to Mary
as if she were a living person. It gave ceremonial
information about the baptism of Protestants by pouring,
not immersion. This was also applicable to Catholics.
For a Buddhist, the Adventist document contained the
words: “I take refuge in the Buddha.” There were also
Jewish services for Jews, Islamic services for Muslims,
Hindu services for Hindus and Orthodox services for
Orthodox, all containing expressions contrary to
Adventist practice and belief. This was a serious and very
undesirable change from previous practice. See
Appendix 6 for the full text of the pamphlet.
1.5.8 Changes in Adventism––Women
The position of the Adventist Church at present denies
ordination to women. However, the Church is seriously
divided over the issue. During the Twelfth Business
Meeting that was part of the General Conference session
on July 8, 2015, the following question was put.
“After your prayerful study on ordination from the
Bible, the writings of Ellen G. White, and the reports
of the study commissions, and after your careful
consideration of what is best for the church and the
fulfillment of its mission, is it acceptable for division
executive committees, as they may deem it
appropriate in their territories, to make provision for
the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes
or No?”
During that meeting a total of 2,363 ballots were cast. 977
voted Yes and 1,381 No. There were 5 abstentions. This
means that 40 percent of the conference delegates voted
in favour of the ordination of women. The General
Conference is effectively the decision-making body of
 DEFENCE
the Adventist Church. It sets policy, determines doctrine
and represents the church membership.
Clearly, the Adventist denomination at its very heart is
divided on the question of the ordination of women and
it seems a matter of time before it follows so many other
Protestant churches down this unscriptural path. This is
certainly a time of Adventist change for the worse.
1.5.9 Changes in Adventism––Services
Price himself was a contributor to the book Here We
Stand: Evaluating New Trends in the Church. It
documents many important negative changes in
Adventism that are not clearly and unequivocally
opposed by the leadership. Price was the author of
chapter 2 which laments the development of a
‘pragmatist,’ ‘celebration-type’ church within the
Church along the lines of other Protestant churches with
highly charged, emotional meetings and raucous music
and singing. (Pages 23-27) He mentions other changes
for the worse. In the same book, Samuel Koranteng-
Pipim mentions rock, clowns, cafes and magicians in the
Church.––Page 42.
1.5.10 Changes in Adventism––Attendance
Price makes a point of the faster rate of growth of
Seventh-day Adventists. (OF, pages 3, 9) However,
another contributor to the book mentioned above
comments on their poor retention rates.
“Today it is considered normal for a high percentage
(approximately 50%) of newly baptized converts to
apostatize. It is considered normal for 50% or less of
the church membership to attend church regularly!”
––Here We Stand, page 81.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual specifies
that “nonattendance at church services shall not be
considered sufficient cause for removal from church
membership.” (Chapter 14, subheading “Members Not to
Be Removed From Church Membership for
Nonattendance”) This means that the active membership
of the Church is far less than the 19 million claimed for
2015. Of course, the Adventist Church has a right to
determine its own membership reporting method.
However, in the same 50-year period that Price has been
criticizing Jehovah’s Witnesses
“the Adventist Church … has lost at least 1 in 3
Seventh-day Adventist members … Also, in this
century, the ratio of people lost versus new converts is
43 per 100.”
This record is hardly worth celebrating.––Seventh-day
Adventist Church “News,” dateline November 19, 2013,
viewed online at news.adventist.org.
20
Shortly after the 2015 San Antonio Adventist General
Conference Session, James Standish, editor of the South
Pacific Division’s Adventist Record, wrote:
“I also hope you don’t mind me sharing my concerns
as one of just possibly 18.5 million Adventists. I say
possibly, as the reports from the GC secretary’s team
made clear, our membership numbers are so deeply
unreliable that all we know for certain is that we have
no idea how many members we really have. We have
an inbuilt incentive to exaggerate. A disincentive to
clean up numbers. And no global independent audit.
This produces predictably distorted results. One of the
incentives to inflate numbers is that the number of
[General Conference] delegates does, in part, turn on
membership count.”––Quoted in Where Are We
Headed?: Adventism after San Antonio, by William G.
Johnsson, pages 72, 73.
So perhaps Price’s boast about membership is unwise.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, by contrast, do not report
membership numbers. They report “publishers,” a
biblical term describing those who actively declare or
preach the good news. (Isa 52:7; Na 1:15) The 8 million
publishers reported for 2016 did not include inactive
members who did not even attend meetings. They are
those who participated in the public ministry regularly. If
the Witnesses counted members the way Adventists do,
they would amount to many more than 8 million.
However, in the end, large numbers are no evidence of
God’s blessing. Jesus himself said that “narrow is the
way ... which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find
it.”––Mt 7:14.
1.5.11 Changes in Adventism––the Bible
Samuel Koranteng-Pipim advises that some Adventists
no longer support their traditional creation position.
“Some Adventist scholars now:
(a) hold a long, rather than short, chronology for the
age of our earth (i.e., they measure the age of the earth
in millions, instead of thousands, of years); (b)
advocate views that reinterpret the days of Creation to
represent millions of years, instead of the six literal
days taught by the Bible; (c) argue for gradual,
uniformitarian deposit of the geologic column in
millions of years, instead of catastrophism (such as
described in the Biblical account of the Flood in
Noah's day); (d) maintain that Noah's Flood was a
local event, not a global, universal catastrophe; (e)
insist that there was death in the animal kingdom long
before the creation and fall of Adam and Eve, and that
there will even be death in the new creation.”––Here
We Stand, page 241.
 DEFENCE
How is it that such scholars remain Adventists? Some of
their positions are heretical from the Adventist point of
view. The Church can withdraw membership from
apostates, yet they remain in the Church. The result is
disturbing and causes division in the Church. There has
even been a subtle but important official change recently.
At the 2015 General Conference Session changes were
made to Fundamental Belief 6. It now reads, in part:
“God … created the universe, and in a recent six-day
creation the Lord ‘made the heavens and the earth, the
sea, and all that is in them.’”
Here is another Adventist change––one that has some
asking whether it now allows for a “gap” between God’s
original creation of the universe and the 7 days of the
creative week beginning 6,000 ago.––Where Are We
Headed?: Adventism after San Antonio, by William G.
Johnsson, pages 95, 96.
If so, this would disagree with Ellen G. White who spoke
of the creation of the world as taking place about 6,000
years ago.––The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, page 87;
Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, pages 91, 92.
1.5.12 Changes in Adventism––Divorce
On moral matters, Ellen G. White was very clear. The
following comments might be described as the Church’s
historic position.
“Those who break the seventh commandment should
be suspended from the church, and not have its
fellowship nor the privileges of the house of God. Said
the angel, ‘This is not a sin of ignorance. It is a
knowing sin and will receive the awful visitation of
God, whether he who commits it be old or young.’”––
Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and
Divorce, pages 248, 249, Manuscript 3, 1854.
However, many Adventist writers note the decay of
morals. One change has been in respect to acceptable
grounds for divorce. Ronald A.G. du Preez says:
“For more than a decade now, voices have been heard
suggesting and promoting a move away from our
historic Biblical position. For example, as far back as
1994, articles were appearing in official Adventist
magazines calling for a more accommodating view, in
which members would be allowed to divorce and
remarry for reasons other than sexual unfaithfulness.
... The illustrations mentioned at the start of this article
demonstrate that new concepts are currently creeping
into the Seventh-day Adventist Church––perspectives
that seek to recognize polygamous, homosexual,
contra-faith unions, as well as lax divorce/remarriage
standards as acceptable forms of Christian marriage.”
––Here We Stand, page 483. (Emphasis ours.)
21
The Adventist Manual says that divorce is possible even
on the grounds of abandonment.
“Scripture recognizes adultery and/or fornication
(Matt. 5:32) as well as abandonment by an unbelieving
partner (1 Cor. 7:10-15) as grounds for divorce.”––
Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, Chapter 15,
subheading “Grounds for Divorce.”
Note that abandonment is cited as grounds for divorce
even though 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 is about separation,
not divorce. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim says:
“From the 1970s, as an increasing number of pastors
have been reluctant to disfellowship offending
members, there have been attempts to find a ‘Biblical’
justification (other than sexual infidelity) to
accommodate the un-Biblical divorce and remarriage
practices that were rampant in some quarters of the
church. In other words, instead of bringing our lives in
harmony with the teachings of Scripture, we were
looking for a methodology that would bring the Bible
into accord with our lives. By the 1990s, as church
publications began carrying articles that sought to
liberalize the Bible’s teaching to accommodate un-
Biblical divorce and remarriage, attempts were also
underway to revise the wording in the Church Manual
to make its policy on divorce and remarriage more
‘redemptive.’ The triumph of the new view divorce
and remarriage took place at the 2000 Toronto General
Conference session when the Church Manual was
revised to include ‘abandonment’ as a new ground for
divorce. ... It also introduced another ground for
divorce, namely, ‘abandonment by an unbelieving
partner.’ Historically, Adventists have insisted that
the only ground for divorce is adultery and/or
fornication. But the document which the Church
Manual Committee presented before us introduces a
new ground; they call it ‘abandonment by an
unbelieving partner. ...’ Even in our own Seventh-day
Adventist Church the attitudes of some are changing
on the issue of homosexuality. We may find evidence
for this change in Adventist discussions on the
Internet, in written declarations by some scholars, in
discussions at annual professional meetings of the
church’s Bible teachers, in some carefully written, yet
troubling, articles that have been published in our
church publications, and in the mumblings, if not
deafening silence, from our pulpits.”––Here We
Stand, pages 496, 502, 535. (Emphasis ours.)
All of these are changes for the worse, and one by one
they are becoming entrenched in Church policy.
1.5.13 Changes in Adventism––Polygamy
Ronald A.G. du Preez points out a change from a Biblical
stance to one in which polygamists can now be baptized.
 DEFENCE
“The 1926 resolution stated that ‘in no case should a
man living in polygamy be admitted into the
fellowship of the church.’ In a dramatic reversal of this
absolutist position, the 1930 Fall Council
unconstitutionally overruled the General Conference
policy and adopted a stand that, upon recommendation
of responsible field committees, permitted
polygamists to be baptized into the church as
probationary members, yet be allowed to continue
living in polygamy. Just over a decade later, the 1941
General Conference session moved away from the
more accommodating approach of 1930 to the
following somewhat ambivalent policy: A man living
in polygamy who wishes to join the church is required
to become monogamous by putting away all but one
of his wives. Alternately, ‘wives who upon accepting
Christianity are still not permitted to leave their
husbands because of tribal custom, may upon
approval of the local and union committees become
baptized members of the church.’ This policy
superseded all previous resolutions on polygamy.
Without substantial change, this has remained the
official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
––Here We Stand, pages 621, 622. (Emphasis ours.)
Price contributed a chapter to this 2005 book that details
many changes in Adventism. Yet in the same year he
republished his criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses over
changes in doctrine. (OF, pages 6-8) Working within a
Church that was changing for the worse and that he
himself was criticizing, he continued to criticize
Jehovah’s Witnesses for the very same thing. That was
unfair, given his Church’s record.
Negative Adventist changes have not been the failings of
individual members and scholars alone. On many of
these issues there has not been a clear response from the
General Conference and its representatives. Sometimes,
as we have seen, the Conference itself has authorized the
changes or failed to correct errors already in place.
It turns out that Price’s unfailing “brilliant light” has not
been shining so bright after all.––OF, page 6.
1.5.14 Changes in Adventism––Alcohol
In her book Temperance, Ellen G. White writes: “There
are many solemn warnings in the Scriptures against the
use of intoxicating liquors.” She claims:
“The Lord has given special directions in His word in
reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has
forbidden their use, and enforced His prohibitions
with strong warnings and threatenings.” (Emphasis
ours.)
However, the Adventist Church has changed her position
on alcohol. It still recommends abstinence but concedes
22
that White’s statements about the Lord ‘forbidding’
alcohol are not quite true.
The 1982 issue of Adventist Review explains:
“Total abstinence is but one of a number of areas
where the Bible gives no explicit directives.”––“Does
the Bible Condemn ‘Moderate’ Drinking?,” Adventist
Review, February 22, 1982.
The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... A Biblical
Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines states:
“In interpreting such Scriptural passages, it is helpful
to keep in mind that God does not necessarily endorse
all that he permits.”––Page 282. (Emphasis ours.)
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary reads
similarly. Commenting on Deuteronomy 14:26 it says:
“Thus it was with ‘wine’ and ‘strong drink.’ Neither
was strictly prohibited, except to those engaged in
religious duties, and perhaps also in the administration
of justice (Lev 10:9; Prov 31:4, 5) … In times past God
often ‘winked’ at the gross ‘ignorance’ responsible for
practices He could never approve.”––Volume 1, page
1002.
These statements mark a change in the Adventist Church
toward intoxicating liquor, wine and strong drink. It now
says the Bible regards these as ‘permitted’ though not
‘endorsed.’
Of course, some Adventists feel strongly about this and
disagree with the change in their Church. They prefer
Ellen G. White’s original position.
1.5.15 Changes in Adventism––Prophecy
Accurate prediction is a hallmark of inspired prophets.
“How shall we know the word which the LORD hath
not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of
the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass,
that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken.”––
De 18:20-22.
“The LORD” or “GOD” in capitals here represent the
Hebrew word Anglicized as Jehovah. Jehovah’s
Witnesses do not claim prophetic ability under any
definition of inspiration, but Adventists do claim it for
Ellen G. White.
We should be able to test her prophetic claim by the
measure of accuracy specified in Scripture. First, did she
actually claim the gift of prophecy and the Lord as its
Source? Absolutely.
“I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in
relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It
is impossible for me to call up things which have been
shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at
 DEFENCE
the time that He is pleased to have me relate or write
them.”––Spiritual Gifts, Volume 2, page 293.
The Adventist Church agreed, and described her
prophetic gift as similar to that of the ancient prophets.
“Seventh-day Adventists hold that Ellen G. White
performed the work of a true prophet during the
seventy years of her public ministry. As Samuel was a
prophet, as Jeremiah was a prophet, as John the
Baptist, so we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet
to the church of Christ today.”––Review and Herald,
October 4, 1928.
Note that the Adventist Church considers that she was a
prophet for 70 years. This takes her prophetic ministry
back into the 1840’s, well before the official
establishment of the Church in 1863. The Church agreed
again in ‘The Dallas Statement’ of 1981 that she was a
prophet.
“One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This
gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and
was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As
the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing
and authoritative source of truth and provide for the
church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.
They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by
which all teachings and experience must be tested.”
Examine now some of her prophecies, including those
that predate 1863. Were they accurate?
In the 1850’s she said:
“I was pointed to some who are in the great error of
believing that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem,
and think they have a work to do there before the Lord
comes ... I saw that Satan had greatly deceived some
in this thing ... I also saw that Old Jerusalem never
would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost
to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these
things now, in the gathering time.”––Early Writings,
page 75. (Emphasis ours.)
Jerusalem has been greatly “built up” since then. In the
1850’s she also said:
“Some are looking too far off for the coming of the
Lord. Time has continued a few years longer than they
expected; therefore they think it may continue a few
years more, and in this way their minds are being led
from present truth, out after the world. ... I saw that the
time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly
finished and that time can last but a very little
longer.”––Early Writings, page 58. (Emphasis ours.)
“In a view given June 27, 1850, my accompanying
angel said, ‘Time is almost finished.’ ... Said the angel,
‘Get ready, get ready, get ready. ...’ I saw that there
23
was a great work to do for them and but little time in
which to do it. ... Then I saw the seven last plagues
were soon to be poured out upon those who have no
shelter.”––Ibid., page 64. (Emphasis ours.)
“But now time is almost finished, and what we have
been years learning, they [“they who of late have
embraced the truth”] will have to learn in a few
months. They will also have much to unlearn and
much to learn again.”––Ibid., page 67. (Emphasis
ours.)
In May of 1856, without condition she said:
“I was shown the company present at the Conference.
Said the angel, ‘Some food for worms, some subjects
of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and
remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of
Jesus.’”––Testimonies for the Church, Volume 1,
pages 131, 132.
Of course, none of that company lived to be translated at
Christ’s coming. In 1862 she said:
“This nation [the United States] will yet be humbled
into the dust. England is studying whether it is best to
take advantage of the present weak condition of our
nation … When England does declare war, all nations
will have an interest of their own to serve, and there
will be general war, general confusion.”––Testimonies
for the Church, Volume 1, page 259. (Emphasis ours.)
England did not declare war on America and the United
States was not humbled.
Today the Adventist Church tries to rescue Ellen G.
White from charges of false prophecy by arguing that all
prophecy is conditional and that God changed his mind.
The cases of Jonah and others are cited. Well and good.
But we wonder whether Bob would have been as
generous to the Watchtower Society as he and his Church
are to White. We know he would not, because he was not.
And, remember, Jehovah’s Witnesses have never
claimed inspiration of any kind. They have only ever
claimed deduction. Ellen G. White claimed much more.
She also made this incredible claim about other worlds.
“The Lord has given me a view of other worlds, wings
were given me, and an angel attended me from the city
to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of
the place was living green, and the birds there
warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place
were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely.
... I asked one of them why they were so much more
lovely than those on the earth. ... Then I was taken to
a world which had seven moons. There I saw good old
Enoch, who had been translated.”––Early Writings,
pages 39, 40. (Emphasis ours.)
 DEFENCE
Adventists will have to decide for themselves whether to
accept this one. It is certainly an ‘inspired’ error (“the
Lord has given me a view”) because the Bible is clear
that Enoch died. “These all [including Enoch, verse 5]
died in faith.” (He 11:13) He could not be off on some
other world.
In the face of White’s comments about “good old
Enoch,” it is almost unbelievable that the author of
Channel included the following comment in a later
publication.
“My mother read in the book, Reconciliation page 14
that the throne of Jehovah God was on one of the stars
of the Pleiades, in the Milky Way. She then knew that
she would have to look elsewhere to find truth.”––OF,
page 2.
Rutherford’s remarks in Reconciliation were based on a
suggestion based on Job 38:31 that he accepted as likely
true. He writes:
“The constellation of the seven stars forming the
Pleiades appears to be the crowning centre around
which the known systems of the planets revolve even
as our sun’s planets obey the sun and travel in their
respective orbits. It has been suggested, and with
much weight, that one of the stars of that group is the
dwelling-place of Jehovah and the place of the highest
heavens; that it is the place to which the inspired writer
referred when he said: ‘Hear thou from thy
dwellingplace, even from heaven.’ (2 Chron. 6:21);
and that it is the place to which Job referred when
under inspiration he wrote: ‘Canst thou bind the sweet
influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?’
––Job 38:31.”––Reconciliation, 1928, page 14.
(Emphasis ours.)
Note the italicized words, “appears to be” and “it has
been suggested ... that.” It was only a suggestion, but
Rutherford certainly accepted it as most likely true,
saying: “the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of
God.” (Ibid.) Some years later the Watchtower corrected
the error.
“Pleiades can no longer be considered the center of the
universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix
God’s throne as being at a particular spot in the
universe. Were we to think of the Pleiades as his
throne we might improperly view with special
veneration that cluster of stars.”––Watchtower,
November 15, 1953, page 703.
Yes, Joseph Rutherford interpreted Job 38:31 incorrectly,
but at least he never claimed inspiration for it. No ‘the-
Lord-has-given-me-a-view.’ No ‘I-was-shown.’ No ‘I-
was-taken.’ His was the language of interpretation based
on study. It was not the language of inspiration.
24
Ellen G. White did claim that the Lord gave her the vision
of other worlds, with Enoch on one of them. This was a
claim of inspiration that was manifestly untrue.
1.5.16 Changes in Adventism––The Shut Door
After the Great Disappointment of 1844, Ellen G. White
taught that there was no further opportunity for salvation
for certain groups. Her First Vision in December 1844
confirmed the shut-door theory that some Adventists
were teaching. In part, the vision stated:
“Others rashly denied the light behind them, and said
that it was not God that had led them out so far. The
light behind them went out leaving their feet in perfect
darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the
mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down
in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as
impossible for them to get on the path again and go to
the city, as all the wicked world which God had
rejected.”––As printed in The Day Star, January 24,
1846 and A Word to the Little Flock, by James White,
May 30, 1847.
The White Estate today makes a case that there was more
than one shut-door theory in the middle 1840’s and early
1850’s and that Ellen G. White considered the door to be
shut only to Adventists who rejected the ‘Midnight Cry’
message, leaving the door open to potential worldly
converts. But the last sentence in the quotation above
shows that the door to salvation was considered shut both
to the ‘Midnight Cry’ rejectors and to the world.
She claimed to have had another vision about the door of
salvation being shut in February 1845. Note how she
repeatedly uses the word “vision” in her description.
“At the time I had the vision of the midnight cry I had
given it up in the past and thought it future, as also
most of the band had. ... After I had the vision and God
gave me light, he bade me deliver it to the band, but I
shrank from it. I was young, and I thought they would
not receive it from me. ... The view about the
Bridegroom’s coming I had about the middle of
February, 1845, while in Exeter, Maine, in meeting
with Israel Dammon, James, and many others. Many
of them did not believe in a shut door. I suffered much
at the commencement of the meeting. Unbelief
seemed to be on every hand. ... The Lord worked in
mighty power, setting the truth home to their hearts. ...
Most of them received the vision, and were settled
upon the shut door.”––Letter B-3, 1847: Letter to
Joseph Bates, July 13, 1847, White Estate. (Emphasis
ours.)
Yes, Ellen G. White was still teaching the shut door in
1845. But was this only a shut door to apostate
Adventists?
 DEFENCE
She confirmed the vision on March 24, 1849, stating that
it taught her that the door of salvation was shut and
warning the faithful not to allow their faith in the shut
door to be shaken by the apparent conversion of sinners
since 1844.
Speaking of the events on March 24, 1849, she uses her
usual words for visions, like “I was shown.”
“I was shown that the commandments of God and the
testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door,
could not be separated. ... I saw that the mysterious
signs and wonders and false reformations would
increase and spread. The reformations that were
shown me were not reformations from error to truth,
but from bad to worse, for those who professed a
change of heart had only wrapped about them a
religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a
wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really
converted, so as to deceive God’s people, but if their
hearts could be seen they would appear as black as
ever. My accompanying angel bade me look for the
travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but
could not see it, for the time for their salvation is
past.”––Present Truth, pages 21, 22, August, 1849.
(Emphasis ours.)
Note her usual language of inspiration and visions: “I was
shown,” “I saw.” In this vision she was teaching the shut
door, not only for those who were previously Adventists,
but for the unsaved who only seemed to be “converted.”
Afterward, she claimed that she only believed in the “shut
door” before her First Vision of December 1844.
“For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did
hold, in common with the advent body, that the door
of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This
position was taken before my first vision was given me.
It was the light given me of God that corrected our
error, and enabled us to see the true position.”––
Selected Messages, Volume 1, page 63. (Emphasis
ours.)
She claims her shut-door position was her position only
before her First Vision. However, we have seen that in
that first vision, in February 1845 and as late as 1849 she
maintained that teaching. Then she changed her mind,
denying that she ever had a shut-door vision. In a letter
dated August 24, 1874, she says:
“With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in
forty-four I did believe no more sinners would be
converted. But I never had a vision that no more
sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to
state no one has ever heard me say or has read from
my pen statements which will justify them in the
charges they have made against me upon this point.”
25
––Selected Messages, Volume 1, page 74. (Emphasis
ours.)
At first she says she had such a vision and later she denies
it. In the 1840’s and 1850’s she had not carefully
restricted her shut-door comments to apostate Adventists
as the White Estate contends. And even if she had meant
this, on what authority could she say that these rejectors
could never repent and find the door open? Bob would
never allow such equivocation in Jehovah’s Witnesses.
1.5.17 Changes in Adventism––E.G. White
Price’s comment that “Watchtower publications ... had
been changed radically” is breathtaking in the face of the
changes in Adventist doctrine outlined above.
Even White’s own writings were subject to alteration and
rewriting, hardly a ringing endorsement of the “spirit of
prophecy.” Speaking of herself, she stated in 1905:
“If any of the citizens of Battle Creek wish to know
what Mrs. White believes and teaches, let them read
her published books. My labors would be naught
should I preach another gospel. That which I have
written is what the Lord has bidden me to write. I have
not been instructed to change that which I have sent
out.”––Review and Herald, January 26. (Emphasis
ours.)
Yet later, changes were made to her writings. Adventist
scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi points out several of them.
(“A Reply to Criticism: Part I, The Use of E. G. White’s
Writings in Interpreting Scripture,” in Endtime Issues,
Number 87, 1 August, 2002) For example, in 1911 the
Church revised Ellen G. White’s The Great Controversy.
She had originally written:
“This period [1,260 days] , as stated in the preceding
chapters, began with the establishment of the papacy,
A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time, when
the papacy was abolished and the pope was made
captive by the French army, the papal power received
its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, ‘He
that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.’”––
The Great Controversy, 1888 edition, page 439.
(Emphasis ours.)
So originally White had said that the papacy was
established in 538 and abolished in 1798. It was a
mistake, so the 1911 edition had to change it to the
following.
“This period, as stated in preceding chapters, began
with the supremacy of the papacy, A. D. 538, and
terminated in 1798. At that time, the pope was made
captive by the French army, the papal power received
its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, ‘He
 DEFENCE

that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.’”––
The Great Controversy, page 439. (Emphasis ours.)
By alteration and deletion Ellen G. White’s statements
were changed because the papacy was neither established
in 538 nor abolished in 1798. She was still alive and
agreed to the changes, but why were they necessary if she
had written ‘what the Lord had bidden her to write’?
However, at this point we are not really even questioning
her qualifications as a prophet. We are simply pointing
out that when Bob criticizes changes in the writings and
teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses he should also have
been open about the failings of his own prophet.
Another inaccuracy pointed out by Bacchiocchi relates to
Ellen G. White’s description of how Sunday replaced the
Sabbath in a series of church councils. She says:
“Vast councils were held from time to time, in which
the dignitaries of the church were convened from all
the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which
God had instituted was pressed down a little lower,
while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted.”––The
Great Controversy, page 53. (Emphasis ours.)
However, Adventist scholar Bacchiocchi says that this is
not quite true. There were 7 church councils held between
352 CE and 787 CE and he checked every one.8 He says:
“The problem is with the second part of the statement
which speaks of the Sabbath as being ‘pressed down a
little lower’ in almost every general council. I have not
found a reference to the Sabbath/Sunday question
being debated in such councils. Presumably the reason
is that Sunday observance was no longer a debated
question––it had become widely accepted by
Christians.”––“A Reply to Criticism: Part I, The Use
of E. G. White’s Writings in Interpreting Scripture,”
in Endtime Issues, Number 87, 1 August, 2002.
(Emphasis ours.)
There was no discussion of the Sabbath or Sunday in
those councils as White claims. She was mistaken.
Again, the point is that Bob completely ignores mistakes
made by White while highlighting those of Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
After her death in 1915 more changes were made. At a
1919 conference, W.W. Prescott said:
“Here’s my difficulty. I have gone over this [The
Great Controversy] and suggested changes that ought
to be made in order to correct statements. These
changes have been accepted. My personal difficulty
will be to retain faith on those things that I cannot deal
with on that basis. … If we correct it here and correct
it there, how are we going to stand with it in the other
places?”––Transcript of the 1919 Conference on the
Spirit of Prophecy.
Having corrected her errors, Prescott’s faith in the rest of
White’s writings was challenged. One justification for
making changes is that words, phrases, sentences and
even paragraphs can be changed because the Church
does not believe in verbal inspiration––that as long as the
meaning is unchanged, the wording can be changed.
However, when the wording was changed, often the
meaning was changed with it. For example, in Spiritual
Gifts, Volume 3, page 301, 1864 edition, White writes:
“The Lord first established the system of sacrificial
offerings with Adam after his fall, which he taught to
his descendants. This system was corrupted before the
flood by those who separated themselves from the
faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building
of the tower of Babel.”
This has the building of the tower of Babel “before the
flood.” Yet Genesis chapters 6 to 11 places it after the
Flood. Correcting the error, the 1870 edition of Spirit of
Prophecy, Volume 1, page 266 changes the wording to:
“This system was corrupted before the flood, and by
those who … engaged in the building of the tower of
Babel.” (Emphasis ours.)
By adding a comma and an “and” that most readers
would not even notice, the building of the tower is put
into its proper chronological place, after the Flood. Ellen
G. White’s work needed to be corrected.
Whether these changes to White’s writings were justified
is not the point. Some things had to be changed; they
were just wrong. Some changes were even made after her
death. Yes, while Bob and others criticize Jehovah’s
Witnesses over changes, their own Church has a history
of change, even to the ‘Spirit of prophecy.’
1.5.18 Changes in Adventism––Abortion
Unbelievably, the Adventist tolerance for change has
even reached the point where thousands of abortions have
been performed in Adventist hospitals. The Seventh-day
Adventist Church opposed the practice in the early days,
calling it “a great sin,” “shocking” and “murder.”9
In 1970 the Adventist Castle Memorial Hospital in
Hawaii sought guidance from the Church when some

8 Nicea I 325 CE, Constantinople I 381, Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451, Constantinople II 553, Constantinople III 680 and Nicea II
787.
9 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 30, 1869; See also A Solemn Appeal, 1870.

26
 DEFENCE
doctors at the hospital wanted to provide abortions. The
Church took no firm stand, so one after the other
Adventist hospitals began aborting children. Adventist
historian George Gainer gives statistics for the
Washington Adventist Hospital in Maryland, USA, as
published in the Washington Post.
“As to numbers, participants in the ‘Pastors’ Protest
Against Abortion’ supplied the figure of 1,494
abortions performed at Washington Adventist
Hospital from 1975 through July 1982. They said that
the medical records office of the hospital supplied
these statistics.”––Cp. Ministry, August, 1991.
The hospital was averaging 213 abortions per year. A
decade later, investigator Patrick Murebil found the same
hospital reporting at the rate of 547 abortions per year.
This was only one Adventist hospital and there are over
50 in the USA and more than 100 others around the
world, so abortions in Church hospitals must number into
the thousands.
In its “guidelines on abortion” that are still current, the
Church could not state a clear position. Because the
denomination is divided, the Church concedes that
“honest differences on the question of abortion exist
among Seventh-day Adventists.”10––Official Statements:
Guidelines: Abortion, October 12, 1992.
Guideline 4 allows that “significant threats to the
pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health,
severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus,
and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest” might be
reasons for abortion. (Emphasis ours.)
Based on this, doctors in Adventist hospitals and clinics
have performed many thousands of abortions, even for
non-therapeutic reasons––for non-medical, non-physical
indications. Compare this with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“If at the time of childbirth a choice must be made
between the life of the mother and that of the child, it
is up to the individuals concerned to make that
choice.”––Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 26.
(Emphasis in the original article.)
“What if the developing fetus seems to be abnormal
…? Deliberately terminating a pregnancy would be an
abortion … That would be deliberate abortion, which
is tantamount to murder.”––Watchtower, December
15, 2012, page 15.
10One reason the Adventist Church tolerates abortion may have to do with its beliefs about when the human soul begins to exist.
A standard Adventist textbook says: “As we have already mentioned, in the Old Testament ‘soul’ is a translation of the Hebrew
nephesh. In Genesis 2:7 it denotes man as a living being after the breath of life entered into a physical body formed from the earth.
‘Similarly, a new soul comes into existence whenever a child is born, each “soul” being a new unit of life uniquely different and
separate from other similar units.’” (Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 2005, pages 94, 95; emphasis ours.) Adventists might not
consider abortion as serious as murder because the unborn are not souls. We offer this as a possibility only.
27
“Does Jehovah view matters any differently if the
baby was the product of rape or incestuous relations?
Though the act against the mother was criminal, the
baby is not to blame. Terminating its life would only
counter one act of violence with another.”––Awake!,
May 22, 1993, page 11.
The relevant Bible principle says:
“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child
will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the
parent share the guilt of the child.”––Eze 18:20, New
International Version.
Did the child sin? No. Then the child should not die. On
this principle, abortion is never justified in cases of rape.
It punishes the innocent with death. How fair is that?
Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly have the stronger position
on abortion. Only if an unavoidable choice had to be
made between the life of the mother and child at the
moment of birth might an individual Witnesses make that
choice. The softening of Adventist attitudes to abortion
has resulted in thousands of deaths in their own hospitals.
1.5.19 Questions on Doctrine and Change
It is absolutely clear, then, that the Seventh-day Adventist
Church has an almost unbroken history of change. Back
in 1957, when the Church was under investigation by
Walter Martin and other Evangelicals, the Adventist
book Questions on Doctrine attempted to deal with
accusations of change that are very similar to those
levelled at Jehovah’s Witnesses by Price. It asked:
“Have Seventh-day Adventists changed from some
of the positions advocated by certain adherents of
earlier years, from whom citations are still currently
circulated? Do such citations misrepresent the
present teachings of Adventist leadership?” ––Page
29.
Given that Questions on Doctrine was in print at the
very time that Price was making great play with the
Witnesses’ doctrinal changes, it will be instructive to
read how Adventists explain their own changes.
“Seventh-day Adventists believe that the unfolding
light of Bible truth is progressive, and is to shine
‘more and more unto the perfect day.’ (Prov. 4:18).
And we have sought to walk in the advancing light of
 DEFENCE
truth. We have never driven in formal creedal stakes,
and said, ‘This is the truth; thus far, and no farther.’
Ellen G. White, one of our leading writers, wrote in
1892:
New light will ever be revealed on the word of
God to him who is in living connection with the
Sun of Righteousness. Let no one come to the
conclusion that there is no more truth to be
revealed. The diligent, prayerful seeker for truth
will find precious rays of light yet to shine forth
from the word of God.—Counsels on Sabbath
School Work, p. 34.
The founding fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church over a century ago came out of various
denominational backgrounds. While all were
premillennialists, some were Trinitarian; others were
Arian. The majority were Arminians; a few were
Calvinists. Some insisted on immersion; a few were
content with sprinkling. There was diversity on these
points. And as with various other religious groups,
our early days were characterized by transition and
adjustment …
But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of
view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity
of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken
by the great majority on such doctrines as the
Godhead, the deity and eternal pre-existence of
Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-
cut views were established on righteousness by faith,
the true relationship of law and grace, and on the
death of Christ as the complete sacrificial atonement
for sin.
A few, however, held to some of their former views,
and at times these ideas got into print. However, for
decades now the church has been practically at one
on the basic truths of the Christian faith.
The very fact that our positions were now clarified
seemed to us to be sufficient. Our teachings, we felt,
were clear. And no particular statement of change
from those earlier ideas appeared necessary. Today
the primary emphasis of all our leading
denominational literature, as well as the continuous
presentation over radio and television, emphasizes
the historic fundamentals of the Christian faith.
But the charges and attacks have persisted. Some
continue to gather up quotations from some of our
earlier literature long since out of date, and print.
Certain statements are cited, often wrested out of
context, which give a totally distorted picture of the
beliefs and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church of today …
28
All this has made it desirable and necessary for us to
declare our position anew upon the great fundamental
teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every
statement or implication that Christ, the second
person of the Godhead, was not one with the Father
from all eternity, and that His death on the cross was
not a full and complete sacrificial atonement. The
belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths
is clear and emphatic. And we feel that we should not
be identified with, or stigmatized for, certain limited
and faulty concepts held by some, particularly in our
formative years.
This statement should therefore nullify the stock
‘quotations’ that have been circulated against us.”
––Ibid., pages 29-32. (Emphasis ours.)
This statement seriously undercuts Bob’s accusations
against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Look again at the words
we have italicized. The early Adventists held ‘diverse’
beliefs. “Transition and adjustment” was not merely an
exceptional feature. It was “characteristic.” Error went
“into print.”
Questions on Doctrine complains about critics
‘gathering up of quotations from some Adventist
literature long since out of date.’ It says that the Church
should not be “stigmatized for … certain limited and
faulty concepts held by some, particularly in [the
Adventist Church’s] formative years.” More than that, it
states that lists of such faulty quotations from the past
should now be ‘nullified.’
What a pity that Price is not as generous to Jehovah’s
Witnesses as Questions on Doctrine wanted Walter
Martin to be to Adventists! He allows his own Church’s
errors to pass unmentioned but highlights every out-of-
date error in the Witnesses’ literature. He nullifies
nothing. Such fierce criticism reeks of double standards.
1.6 Changes? Be Fair
In view of all the Adventist changes, it is not necessary
to go into detail regarding other changes that Bob raises
because they are well known to the Witnesses.
While, on the one hand, Questions on Doctrine says that
“no particular statement of change from those earlier
ideas appeared necessary,” Jehovah’s Witnesses list their
changes openly. Every year the Watch Tower Publication
Index lists “Beliefs Clarified” since 1870 and directs the
reader to relevant publications. At present it lists more
than 180 such changes. This list is freely available on the
Internet. Price’s ‘gotcha’ list of ‘Watchtower changes’
may have shock value for his intended audience, but it is
no news to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
 DEFENCE
Bob says: “I’d want to be in an organization that has a
solid foundation of truth. From its organization the
Watchtower has claimed to be God’s channel of truth.
But the recurring problem to me is that if what the
Watchtower once taught was truth, then it teaches error
today. On the other hand, if it teaches truth today, then it
has taught many errors during the major part of its
history. That’s not God’s way of doing things.”––GCT,
page 24.
Well, let us review the Adventist Church by that
standard. At one time combatant duties were wrong.
Today they are not necessarily wrong. The Church was
originally against homosexuality but today it is often
tolerated. The Church was non-Trinitarian but today it is
Trinitarian. It once allowed pork but now recommends
against it.
The Church taught that Christ had a sin nature but later
changed this teaching. It once forbade printing religious
error but did that very thing by printing the Emergency
Ministry document in 2003. It originally taught that
adultery was the only ground for divorce but now teaches
that abandonment can be enough. It taught that polygamy
made a person ineligible for baptism, but now certain
polygamous people can be baptized.
The Church once taught that alcoholic drinks were
forbidden. Today they are permitted, not endorsed. The
Church has abandoned certain prophecies of Ellen G.
White that it once held were true. Some of her writings
were changed over time. The Church once unequivocally
opposed abortion. Today it equivocates and thousands of
unborn children have died in its hospitals as a result.
The latest festering sore is the ordination of women. The
2015 General Conference Session has not settled this
question. Women in China and elsewhere are ordained as
ministers but women in other lands are denied ordination.
With justification we could return Bob’s accusation. ‘If
what the Adventists once taught was truth, they teach
error today. On the other hand, if they teach truth today,
then they have taught many errors during the major part
of their history.’ Bob’s criticism fails the test of fairness.
That Price continued his attack on Jehovah’s Witnesses
for over 50 years knowing full well these facts smacks of
hypocrisy. It was hasty to imply by criticizing the errors
of others that his own religion had no error.
Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to “we see through a glass,
darkly” to a degree, although truth has been clarified
29
gradually and progressively. (1Co 13:12) In “the perfect
day” the light of truth will be perfectly bright. (Pr 4:18)
It is true that “God never changes.” (Mal 3:6) However,
as the examples of Nathan and Jesus’ early disciples
show, God’s servants do make mistakes and need to
change to adjust to progressively revealed truth.
God did not reject them but they needed to accept the
light he gave them. Price’s booklet implies that God’s
channel of truth should always have taught Bible truth––
that it should never have taught error––but this was not
true of the earliest Christians. (GCT, page 26) It has not
been true of Jehovah’s Witnesses and it has not been true
of Seventh-day Adventists either.
Today Adventist scholars speak of the ‘dynamic, fluid or
progressive’ nature of Adventist theology. It is changing
in a way that Bob does not concede––in a way that he
does not hesitate to criticize in Jehovah’s Witnesses.––A
Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day
Adventist Beliefs, G.R. Knight, pages 17-28.
Today there are “liberal” and “progressive” Seventh-day
Adventists––even “‘liberal churches,’ ‘liberal colleges
and universities,’ and even ‘liberal conferences.’”––
“Progressive Adventism,” in Adventist Today, M. Jones-
Haldeman, September 2001.
The Adventist Church was in the midst of great change
throughout the whole period that Price was launching his
offensive against Jehovah’s Witnesses, and still is. He
knew it at least by the time he launched his 2005 attack
on Jehovah’s Witnesses. All of these Adventist changes
and the fact that he was aware of them blunt his attack on
Jehovah’s Witnesses and call into question his fairness.
God’s people of Bible times were led gradually to replace
error with truth. Sometimes they even reverted into error
for a time. The Protestant reformers continued to teach
error while emerging slowly from their Roman Catholic
past. Jehovah’s Witnesses commenced a study of the
Scriptures in the 1870’s in an effort to rediscover Bible
truth. Whatever truth they learn, there are still other
things that need correction, so changes are made from
time to time. But the Witnesses never claim the “spirit of
prophecy.” Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand,
do claim it. Yet their errors and the changes their church
has made are documented. The Adventist Church is in no
position to criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses over changes.
DEFENCE

30
 DEFENCE
2
l9l4 and Here or Near?
Chapters 3 and 4 of Channel consider the return of Christ.
Has Christ already returned? If not, when will he come?
If so, why is he unseen? Clarice––a virtual Adventist at
this point ––notes a reference to 588 BC in the margin
next to 2 Kings 25:1 in the King James Version published
by the Watchtower Society, a date that she believes
confirms 586 BC as the date of Jerusalem’s fall. (GCT,
pages 29, 30) We will discuss dates in detail later.
First, though, note that Lorna buys into Clarice’s fallacy
when she exclaims: “Fancy two Watchtower publications
[From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained and the
Watchtower reprint of the King James Version]
contradicting each other like this!”––GCT, page 30.
When the Watchtower Society published the King James
Version in 1942, it was the version that the Society had
the legal rights to publish, the one with marginal
references purchased from the A.J. Holman Company of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. There were many
errors in the main text of the King James Version as all
scholars are aware, Adventist scholars included, and also
errors in its marginal references.
However, Lorna’s conclusion about contradiction is not
fair, because even now––more than 50 years later––
Adventist Book Centres sell copies of the King James
Version complete with errors. For example, they include
the spurious additions at Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7, 8.
We might as well say: ‘Fancy the Adventist Church
selling a Bible with well-known errors like this!’
If Jehovah’s Witnesses are to be accused of
contradiction, the Adventist Church can be accused of the
same thing. They also sell the Clear Word paraphrase
which contains many errors––far more than they accuse
the New World Translation of containing.11
2.1 The Return of Christ
Seventh-day Adventists understand Christ’s return to be
a visible, momentary, future event. Jehovah’s Witnesses
believe this to be incorrect for two main reasons. First,
because there is compelling evidence that Christ is now
11 The Clear Word omits and adds words and expressions to conform with Adventist doctrine. For example, it completely omits
the words that appear at Mark 7:19 in the oldest manuscripts: “thus he declared all foods clean.” The omission makes it easier for
Adventists to sustain vegetarianism, but it is not faithful to the Bible text. At Colossians 2:16, 17 the Clear Word gives an aggressive
Adventist twist: “Don’t let anyone control your life by giving you a set of ceremonial rules about what to eat, what to drink and
which monthly festivals or special Sabbaths to keep. All these rules about ceremonial days were given as a shadow of the reality
to come and that reality is Jesus.” The words we have italicized are words that bear no resemblance to anything in the Greek text.
31
an invisible spirit person, and second, because of the
difference between the words parousia and erkhomenon
that appear in texts relating to Christ’s return.
Adventists believe that Christ will return in his original
body of flesh and that the parousia and erkhomenon
mentioned in Matthew chapter 24 are a single event
during which Christ will be visible to the world on literal
clouds and take the remnant Church to heaven.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, understand the
parousia to be an extended period already underway that
will shortly culminate in the erkhomenon. They take
references to seeing Christ coming on the clouds as
symbolic of a future realization that he is invisibly here.
We will discuss the meaning of the Greek terms shortly.
2.2 Why Christ’s Return Must Be Invisible
First, there are many reasons for believing that Christ
must return invisibly. They include the facts that Christ
sacrificed his right to human life in paying the ransom
price, that the types of the Law of Moses required the
total destruction of the sin offering, and that direct and
indirect statements of Scripture support this conclusion.
2.2.1 To Pay the Ransom Price
The first of these is the ransom price. According to
Matthew 20:28 Jesus gave “his life [Greek, psykhen,
soul]” as a ransom. Adventists are aware that the soul is
the whole person rather than some spiritual part of it. So
when Jesus died, he “sacrificed” that soul––his whole
self, including his perfect human body––as a ransom for
the world. (1Co 5:7) Something ‘sacrificed’ is given up,
surrendered. It is not given away and then taken back.
Christ died to counter the sin of Adam. As “the last
Adam,” his role was to undo the effects of Adam’s sin.
Romans 5:14 describes an important likeness between
Adam and Christ. “Death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam’s transgression, who is the figure [Greek, typos,
type] of him that was to come.”
 DEFENCE
Originally, Adam and Jesus were both perfect humans.
Once Adam sinned, he was under the penalty of eternal
death. It was never explained to Adam in Eden that his
death was temporary, that he stood the chance of a
resurrection.
In fact, as a murderer of the entire human race and in
harmony with a principle incorporated into the Law
covenant, no ransom could ever be applied for Adam.
(Nu 35:31) So his death was eternal. This was the
heritage that Adam gave his offspring. As a result, all
humans are born as children of God’s wrath subject to the
penalty of eternal death.––Joh 3:36; Ro 9:22; Eph 2:3.
However, Paul calls Christ “the last Adam.” (1Co 15:45)
By giving his life, Jesus paid the price that satisfied that
penalty of everlasting death for the world. He stated:
“The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world.” (Joh 6:51) What Jesus gave for
the world was his perfect fleshly life, totally and
permanently, forever. To take back that fleshly life would
have been to take back the ransom price. At best, Jesus
would have paid three-days’ worth of the price required.
The human body of Christ had been prepared by God to
be given as an offering for sin. “Wherefore when he
cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering
thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: ...
we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all.” (He 10:5, 10) Therefore, God’s
intended purpose was for Christ to surrender that fleshly
body in sacrifice. For this reason, when describing the
ransom, Paul says: “the man [the human] Christ Jesus ...
gave himself a ransom for all.”––1Ti 2:5, 6.
2.2.2 To Fulfil the Types
The total and permanent destruction of Jesus’ fleshly
body was prefigured in the types of the Mosaic Law. The
Atonement Day instructions were clear that every part of
the bodies of sacrificial animals had to be destroyed,
including the flesh.
“And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for
the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to the
holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and
they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh,
and their dung.”––Le 16:27.
Hebrews 13:11-13 confirms that sacrificial animals were
totally destroyed, fleshly bodies and all, and that they
pictured Jesus’ body given in our behalf.
“For the bodies of those animals whose blood is taken
into the holy place by the high priest for sin are burned
up outside the camp. Hence Jesus also, that he might
sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered
outside the gate. Let us, then, go forth to him outside
the camp.”
32
Just as the fleshly bodies of the sacrifices were totally
destroyed outside the camp, Jesus’ fleshly body was
totally destroyed as if by fire. Christians now approach
Jesus “outside the camp,” in the state or condition where
his fleshly body has been destroyed. To teach that Jesus
later took back that original fleshly body would be
contrary to the Mosaic Law types, violate the approach
outside the figurative camp and negate the ransom.
Another type adds to the evidence. Hebrews 10:19, 20
says Jesus passed “through the curtain, that is, his flesh”
in going to heaven. The Israelite high priest did not take
the curtain with him when entered the Most Holy
compartment of the tabernacle but passed through it,
leaving it behind. Corresponding to the type, the
antitypical High Priest Jesus left his body of flesh behind
when he went to heaven.
2.2.3 To Agree with Clear Bible Statements
Apart from the types, there are the direct statements of
Scripture that Christ was raised a spirit.
“It is sown a natural [literally, ‘soulical’] body; it is
raised a spiritual body. There is a natural [‘soulical’]
body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written,
The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last
Adam was made a quickening spirit.”––1Co 15:44,
45.
Note the two types of bodies, the natural and the spiritual.
In case anyone should misunderstand “spiritual body” to
mean the fleshly body spiritualized, Paul clearly says that
Christ––the last Adam––was “made” a spirit. Adventists
have no difficulty understanding this. It means that he
“became a living soul.” (Ge 2:7) After his creation, he
was a soul.
In the same way, for Christ to be “made” a spirit must
mean that he became a quickening or life-giving spirit.
After that, he was a spirit. Is this a correct conclusion?
Yes. 1 Peter 3:18 supports it.
“He being put to death in the flesh, but being made
alive in the spirit.”––Revised Standard, New English,
Douay, Jerusalem Bible.
Here in the Greek “flesh” and “spirit” are contrasted, and
both are in the dative case. So a translator translating “in
the flesh” should consistently translate “in the spirit.” In
fact, to agree with 1 Corinthians 15:45 “in the spirit” is
the better reading. If the body in which Christ died was
“flesh,” the body in which he was raised was “spirit.”
We also know that Jesus could not have been raised in
the flesh because, even at the end of the first Christian
century, the apostle John still did not know what the
heavenly resurrection body would look like. He writes:
 DEFENCE
“Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
appear [from ephanerothe, meaning ‘manifest’] what
we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear,
we shall be like him [God]; for we shall see him as he
is.”––1Jo 3:2.
Why “doth [it] not yet appear”? John had seen the
resurrected Jesus. Peter says so.
“Him [Jesus] God raised up the third day, and shewed
him openly [from the verb emphanizo, the same basic
verb, meaning ‘manifest’].”––Ac 10:40, 41.
The disciples had clearly and openly seen Jesus’
‘manifested’ body of flesh. But was that body Jesus’
resurrection body? If it were, the apostle John could not
say that “it doth not yet appear what we shall be.”
The resurrection bodies of Christians like John are to be
the same as Christ’s resurrection body. (Ro 6:5) In that
case––if John had seen Jesus ‘as he is’––it should have
been perfectly clear to John “what we shall be.” But John
did not know what his future body would be like. He
would have to wait until his resurrection to find out what
that body would be like. It would be like God’s body and
like the body of Jesus, the image of God.––He 1:3.
There is really only one harmonious explanation for the
uses of emphanizo in Acts 10:40, 41 and 1 John 3:2.
When Acts 10:40 says that Jesus was manifested it refers
to a body of flesh materialized for the purpose of
appearing to his disciples, similar to the materializations
in pre-Christian times of angels when they appeared. (Ge
18:2; 19:1) 1 John 3:2 therefore means that Jesus’ real
resurrection body, and the nature of the resurrection
bodies of John and other sons of God, was not manifested
in the first century because Jesus’ resurrection body was
not fleshly.
The fact that Jesus does not now possess a body of flesh
also harmonizes with Hebrews 5:7: “In the days of his
flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions.”
This implies that at the time of writing Jesus was not “in
the days of his flesh.”––Cp. Mt 2:1; 23:30; Lu 3:2.
Paul confirms this conclusion at 1 Corinthians 15:50
when he says: “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s
kingdom.” This means that humans with bodies of flesh
cannot go to heaven. The expression “flesh and blood”
does not mean sinfulness. It always refers simply to
humans as humans.
For example, at Matthew 16:17 “flesh and blood” is
contrasted with God in heaven; no mention of sin or
sinfulness in the context. At Galatians 1:16 there is again
no indication that “flesh and blood” refers to anything but
humanity and, again, no mention of sinfulness. At
Ephesians 6:12 “blood and flesh” is contrasted with
33
wicked spirits. Clearly, the reference is simply to
humanity, not wickedness.
Similarly, at 1 Corinthians 15:50 “flesh and blood” is part
of a contrast between two kinds of bodies, one “from the
earth” and the other “out of heaven;” one “natural [Greek,
‘soulical’]” and the other “spiritual.” (1Co 15:44, 45) Not
until the second half of verse 50 is sin––“corruption”––
mentioned as a factor in addition to the comment about
“flesh and blood” rather than in explanation of it. This
means that “flesh and blood” is simply a reference to the
fleshly human person. Paul’s point is that humans with
earthly, ‘soulical’ bodies cannot inherit the heavenly
realm of God’s kingdom. This is stated as a general
principle. The same is true of Jesus.
This explains why Jesus, shortly before leaving the earth,
said that the world would soon be unable to see him
again. His disciples would see him because of their
resurrection to heaven.
“Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.”––Joh
14:19.
Note that Jesus did not say that the world would be able
to see him again at his return. Instead, they would see him
“no more,” “no longer.” (Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Note, too,
the difference between the world and Jesus’ disciples.
While the world would see him “no more,” his disciples
would see him in the future, when “ye shall live,” at their
resurrection. There is simply no provision in this text for
the world ever to see him again.
Also showing that Jesus Christ was not a man after his
resurrection, Paul says:
“Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a
man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who
raised him up from the dead.”––Ga 1:1.
He is no longer a man according to this statement.
Those who believe Jesus was raised in his original body
of flesh usually cite Luke 24:39, which says:
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch
me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones
just as you see that I have.”
What the disciples saw and felt on that occasion was
obviously not a spirit body but a body of flesh and bones.
Peter called it a ‘manifestation.’ (Ac 10:40) In past times
when angels materialized they were called “men.” (Ge
18:2; 19:1) When the apostles saw Jesus they saw a man.
They did not see a spirit because flesh and bones are the
characteristics of a man, not a spirit. So Jesus correctly
says “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
 DEFENCE
have.” What they saw was a “man” in the same sense that
the angels were men.
However, heavenly angels, righteous or wicked, were
really spirits manifested as men. (Ps 18:10; 104:4; Zec
6:5; Mr 1:23; Lu 4:33; 1Pe 3:19; cp. 2Pe 2:4) The same
was true of Jesus. Luke 24:39 does not and cannot negate
the other texts presented above proving that Jesus was
raised a spirit.
For all these reasons, and particularly because the ransom
could not truly have been paid if Christ’s body were taken
back, he can no longer be a human. Only the permanent
surrender of his perfect human life satisfied the prophetic
types of the Israelite sacrifices, providing a legal basis for
the transfer of his life-rights to faithful men.
2.3 Presence
Recall that the second difference between Seventh-day
Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses has to do with the
that way Greek words are translated “coming” in the
King James Version. Parousia is one of those words.
2.3.1 What Parousia Means
For help in understanding the meaning of parousia, Bob
is happy with neighbour Tony’s informal example of the
visit of Queen Elizabeth to Australia. (GCT, page 39)
Even if we take that example, the Queens’s parousia
involved a period of presence for several days. It was not
a momentary coming.
Without intending any disrespect to Tony, we are safer
with dictionary definitions and real examples of the use
of parousia in the Scriptures. The word comes from the
prefix para (“with”) and ousia (“being”) and so it
literally means ‘a being with,’ not a coming. It appears
24 times in the Bible, beginning at Matthew 24:3, and is
often but not always used in connection with Christ’s
return. The dictionaries define the word as follows.
“PAROUSIA ... Denotes both an arrival and a
consequent presence with. ... When used of Christ, it
signifies, not merely his momentary coming for His
saints, but his presence with them from that moment
until His revelation and manifestation to the world.”
––Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,
W.E Vine, under “Coming.”
A standard lexicon says the word is used in Greek
literature of
“the visit of a royal or official personage.”––A Greek-
English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, page 1343.
So parousia does not mean merely a “momentary
coming” or the ‘arrival’ of a visiting king but a longer
period of time, the “visit” itself during which various
activities take place.
34
How was parousia understood in the first century?
Consider some examples. The Jewish historian Flavius
Josephus used it to describe God’s invisible presence. He
says that at Mount Sinai lightning and thunder “declared
God to be there present [from parousia].” (Antiquities of
the Jews, Book 3, chapter 5, paragraph 2) But God was
not visible there.
Josephus also says the manifestation in the Most Holy
compartment of the tabernacle “showed the presence
[parousia] of God.” (Antiquities, Book 3, chapter 8,
paragraph 5) God was not visible there either. When God
showed Elisha’s servant some heavenly chariots,
Josephus says he made “manifest to his servant his power
and presence [parousia].” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book
9, chapter 4, paragraph 3) God was not visible then
either.
When the Roman Petronius tried to appease the Jews,
Josephus says that ‘God did show his presence [parousia]
to Petronius’ by sending rain. (Antiquities of the Jews,
Book 18, chapter 8, paragraph 6) It is clear that to
Josephus a parousia was not a momentary coming. It was
a presence over a period of time, even an invisible one.
More importantly, the meaning of parousia can be
established 2 Corinthians 10:10, 11 and Philippians 2:12,
where it is contrasted with “absence.”
“His bodily presence [parousia] is weak ... such as we
are in word by letters when we are absent [apontes],
such will we be also in deed when we are present
[parontes, related to parousia].”
“Ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence
[parousia] only, but now much more in my absence
[apousia].”
The proper contrast with an “absence” is obviously a
“presence,” not a “coming,” and the King James Version
acknowledges the correct translation by using “present”
and “presence” in these texts.
Paul makes a similar contrast when he refers to himself
as “absent in body, but present in spirit.” (1Co 5:3) From
this it is evident, not only that a presence is the opposite
to an absence, but that is possible to be present in spirit
when not personally present. So the Appendix of J.B.
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, under “Presence,” says:
“The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly shown by the
contrast with ‘absence’ (implied in 2 Co. x. 10, and
expressed in Ph. ii . 12) that the question naturally
arises,––Why not always so render it?”
Going on to discuss what happens during the parousia
and how long it might last, Rotherham adds:
“The parousia ... may, in fine, be both a period,––
more or less extended, during which certain things
 DEFENCE
shall happen,––and an event, coming on and passing
away as one of a series of divine interpositions. Christ
is raised as a firstfruit––that is one event; He returns
and vouchsafes his ‘presence,’ during which he raises
his own––that is another event, however large and
prolonged; and finally comes another cluster of events
constituting ‘the end.’ Hence, after all, ‘presence’ may
be the most widely and permanently satisfying
translation of the looked-for parousia of the Son of
Man.”––Ibid.
Note especially that, according to its scriptural
descriptions, Christ’s parousia is (1) a presence over an
extended period of time, (2) during which certain
important events take place, including the resurrection. It
is not a coming. And if Paul could say that he was
“present in spirit” when he was invisible to the
Corinthians, it is certainly possible for Christ to be
present though invisible.
2.3.2 Parousia and the Days of Noah and Lot
At Matthew 24:37-39 Christ’s parousia is likened to “the
days of Noe” before the Flood when humans “were
eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,”
when people did not see any obvious proofs of impending
disaster. Those “days” evidently covered a period of
many years when the world paid no attention to Noah.
They “knew not.”
In Luke’s account, the phrase “the days of the Son of
man” substitutes for the word parousia. (Lu 17:26) The
“days” are plural, not a single ‘day.’ As in the time of
Noah, and later also in Lot’s time, this longer period of
“days” culminated in a short “day” of destruction. ((Mt
24:38, 39; Lu 17:27, 29, 30) To match the days of Noah
and Lot the parousia begins many “days” before the final
destructive “day.”
It is wrong, therefore, to think of the parousia in terms of
the sudden, visible return of Christ in the clouds. The
parousia relates to a period during which most people
carry on life normally, unaware of any miraculous events.
2.4 Coming
On the other hand, the erkhomenon (“coming”) at
Matthew 24:30, 43, 44 is fulfilled according to its context
after the sign described at Matthew 24:7-14. It does not
correspond with the parousia which is mistranslated
“coming” in the King James Version at Matthew 24:3,
37, 39. The verbal form of erkhomenon that appears at
Revelation 1:7 is erkhetai.
The Bible is clear about the distinction between Christ’s
parousia and his erkomenon. As mentioned, the context
of Matthew chapter 24 shows that the parousia
designates a lengthy period during which the fulfilment
35
of the various features of the “sign” described in Matthew
24:3-29 take place.
The erkhomenon (erkhetai), on the other hand, occurs at
the time of the destruction of the worldly system and the
erkhomenon completes the parousia. (Mt 24:30-44)
Therefore, the “coming” of Revelation 1:7 corresponds
with Matthew 24:30 and refers to the time of the “great
tribulation.”––Mt 24:21; Re 7:14.
We are today in the parousia period marked by wars,
famines, earthquakes and the worldwide preaching of
God’s Kingdom, but the “coming” of Christ is yet future.
The distinction between Christ’s “presence [parousia]”
and his “coming [erkhomenon]” must be carefully
observed for any accurate understanding of Christ’s
return. The King James Version has done a grave
disservice in translating these very different Greek words
with the one English word, “coming.”
2.5 Brightness or Manifestation
Next we come to the expression the “brightness
[epiphaneia] of [Christ’s] coming [parousia]” at 2
Thessalonians 2:8 in the King James Version. Bob
believes that this proves that Christ’s coming will be
visible. There are two points to consider when it comes
to this verse.
First, this manifestation will be invisible. The word for
“brightness” is epiphaneia, some modern translations
rendering it “manifestation” and “spendor.” (New
Revised Standard Version, New International Version)
At 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the foretold “brightness” or
“manifestation” is associated with an end, an annihilation
“with the spirit of his [Jesus’] mouth,” which locates the
time of the manifestation at Armageddon when Christ
attacks the nations with “a sharp sword” extending “out
of his mouth.”––Re 19:15-21; cp. 16:14-16.
Will this manifestation be literally visible or will it be a
manifestion made obvious by Christ’s destructive acts? 1
Timothy 6:14-16 assists us here, referring to “the
appearing [same word, epiphaneias] of our Lord Jesus
Christ,” but then adding that is impossible to see him
literally.
“Keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable,
until the appearing [“manifestation”] of our Lord
Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is
the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and
Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in
the light which no man can approach unto; whom no
man hath seen [in that glorious resurrected st ate], nor
can see.”
“King of kings” and “Lord of lords” makes it clear that
this passage refers to Jesus Christ. (Re 17:14; 19:16) It is
 DEFENCE
logical that Jesus is the Potentate here because Paul in
context is comparing Jesus with human kings. Jesus is
“King of [human] kings and Lord of [human] lords.”
Compared to them, Jesus is the “only Potentate,” the
King superior to them all. He has been given a kingdom
over all on earth.––Da 7:14.
Regarding the clause “who only hath immortality,” the
comparison is still between Jesus and those human kings.
No human kings or lords have been granted immortality
as Jesus has. He was the only one who had received
immortality.
Note that Paul says that this Jesus has not been seen in
his resurrected, immortal state. Not only that, but that he
could not be seen.
The “appearing,” “brightness” or “manifestation” of
Jesus Christ will therefore be ‘shown’ somehow without
any man literally seeing him. This suggests that the
“appearing” that Paul speaks about is figurative, a
conclusion that agrees with Jesus’ own words: “the world
seeth me no more.”––Joh 14:19.
The second point to note is that the word for “coming” at
2 Thessalonians 2:8 text is parousia. The careful reader
will note that the text is saying that Christ’s parousia––
his presence––will be manifested at some time. Given
that Jesus’ parousia is a long period of time during which
the majority “knew not” as discussed above, at some
point in the future it will need to be made obvious to all,
manifested.––Mt 24:39.
So Price is not correct when he argues from 2
Thessalonians 2:8 that “the wicked are destroyed at his
… parousia.” (OF, page 12; Emphasis his.) They are
actually destroyed at the “manifestation” of that
parousia. The manifestation will be the clear display of
his presence which to that point had been invisible,
ignored and denied. (2Pe 3:3-5) It will at last be realized
mentally by his enemies, ‘manifested’ at Armageddon
but not visibly, in harmony with Paul’s 1 Timothy 6:14-
16 comments that Christ’s manifestation is consistent
with his invisibility.
2.6 Revelation
The third important Greek word in connection with
Christ’s return, apokalypsis, means ‘an uncovering.’ It
usually refers to a revelation of spiritual truth. (1Co 14:6,
26; 2Co 12:1; Ga 1:12; Eph 1:17) Obviously, these
revelations are not detected by the literal eye.
At Romans 8:19 Paul speaks of “the revelation
[inconsistently rendered ‘manifestation’ in the King
James Version] of the sons of God.” These sons of God
are already visible to other humans. What makes them
different is a special action of the holy spirit––they have
been born again. So their “revelation” in the future must
36
refer to something other than their being made visible to
the world. The apokalypsis of the sons of God at Christ’s
return will mean the revelation of their role in God’s
purpose. It will then be perfectly clear who these true
sons of God are.––Ro 8:18.
In a similar way, Peter speaks of “the revelation
[apokalypsei] of Jesus Christ.” (1Pe 1:13) This occurs at
the final destruction of the old world that corresponds
with the destructive “day” that befell the world of people
of Noah’s and Lot’s time.
“And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in
the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank,
they married wives, they were given in marriage, until
the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood
came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was
in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they
bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the
same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and
brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even
thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is
revealed [apokalyptetai].”––Lu 17:26-30.
Note the word “revealed.” The revelation of the Lord
takes place in a “day,” a very short period of time in
comparison with the many “days” that preceded it. It is
the point at which Jesus Christ makes his role in the
destruction of the wicked at Armageddon clearly known.
The “revelation” of Jesus Christ no more requires a
literal, visible appearance that the other uses of this term
above.
2.7 The Order of Events in Christ’s Presence
Considering the Bible’s use of these terms as they relate
to the last days, Matthew chapters 24, 25 use the word
parousia four times to refer to Christ’s presence during
an extended period preceding and including the
erkhomenon of Christ. The same chapters use
erkhomenon, or its related forms based on the verb
erkhetai, eight times to refer to the coming of Christ in a
much shorter period of time to execute judgment on the
wicked and to receive his remnant elect home to himself.
Here we arrive at the reasons for the failure of the
Adventist Church to arrive at the truth regarding Christ’s
return. First, Ellen G. White accepted without question
the King James Version in matters relating to Christ’s
return. Second, she accepted as true the statements about
a visible second coming that had been taught in the
Advent movement prior to the 1844 disappointment.
Third, she made dogmatic statements confirming this
expectation even after 1844 passed.
Fourth, Adventists accepted her statements as part of the
“spirit of prophecy” and committed themselves to the
visible second coming position. Fifth, when ‘new light’
 DEFENCE
became available about the difference between Christ’s
parousia and his erkhomenon––that one meant
“presence” and the other “coming”––their commitment
to White prevented them from accepting it.
Of course, Adventists would deny being confused about
the presence and the coming of Christ, but Bob confirms
it on page 41 when he refers to what he says is
“the fact that the signs are sent to warn us to be ready
for His presence or coming, as in verses 42 and 44.”
(Emphasis ours.)
Note his mistake. He uses presence and coming
interchangeably. They are not. He thinks that Matthew
24:42, 44 support his point. They do not. Both verses use
erkhomenon, “coming,” not parousia, “presence.” The
Bible never uses these words interchangeably as
Adventists do.
Luke 19:12-15 explains that it was necessary for Jesus to
go to heaven “to receive for himself a kingdom, and to
return.” Note that he would become King before
returning. “When he was returned,” it was “having
received the kingdom.”
Daniel chapter 2 confirms that the kingdom of God is in
place before the destruction of the wicked nations on
earth. The kingdom is depicted as “a stone” cut out of a
mountain which then travels to the feet of an image
representing worldly powers. (Da 2:34, 45) This stone-
kingdom exists as an entity before it hits the nations at
Armageddon. The kingdom of God therefore functions
during the parousia period.
For this reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses preach the kingdom
as part of the sign of the presence of Christ, “this gospel
of the kingdom.” (Mt 24:14) They understand that
Christ’s presence began in 1914 when he became king of
God’s kingdom and that since then it has been traveling
to its Armageddon crushing of the nations.––Da 2:44.
Summarizing, “manifestation” is used in the Scriptures
with reference to various events during Christ’s presence
as he discloses or makes clear his actions as King. It is
positive for some and negative for others at the end.
“Revelation” refers to the final revealing of Christ in his
destructive role at his coming when none will be in doubt
about the Source and authority for his actions. This
revelation corresponds to Revelation 1:7.
2.8 Revelation 1:7––A Visible Coming?
Seventh-day Adventists point to Revelation 1:7 as
evidence that Christ’s future coming will be visible.
However, there are expressions within the text indicating
that it is symbolic. These elements deserve careful study,
so they are italicized below.
37
“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall
see him, and they also which pierced him: and all
kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.”––
Revelation 1:7.
Expressions like ‘clouds,’ ‘eyes,’ ‘seeing’ and ‘piercing’
or persecuting someone appear in symbolic settings at
other places in the Scriptures. How can it be determined
whether they are figurative in this text? Jehovah’s
Witnesses take Bible passages literally unless there are
good reasons to take them figuratively. So why do they
read these expressions figuratively at Revelation 1:7?
As a starting point, they accept that much of the
Revelation prophecy is symbolic. Revelation 1:1 says its
message was “SIGNified”––shown in signs––and signs
are symbolic. (King James Version) Adventists would
agree. Of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that
Revelation is sometimes literal. They understand the
1,000 years of Revelation 20:2 to be literal, for instance.
And at times there are literal and symbolic terms in the
same verse. Revelation 20:2 is an example in which the
1,000 years are literal but the “dragon” is symbolic.
How is it possible to differentiate between literal and
symbolic passages? The Bible should be allowed to do
that. First and most importantly, though, we cannot
interpret a symbolic book like Revelation in such a way
as to contradict the Bible’s clear statements mentioned in
points 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 above which demand an
invisible return of Christ.
Suggesting the symbolic nature of Revelation 1:7 is the
fact that the similar text at Daniel 7:13 is surrounded by
prophetic symbols like beasts and a clearly figurative
presentation of God’s presence.––Da 7:9.
Another similar text at Matthew 24:29, 30 also contains
expressions that in the ‘Old Testament’––the Hebrew
Scriptures––are figurative, like the sun and moon being
darkened and the stars falling from heaven. These things
were fulfilled symbolically on Babylon and Pharaoh, not
literally.––Isa 13:10; cp. verse 13; Eze 32:7, 8; cp. verses
3, 6.
The symbolic nature of Revelation 1:7 can be seen un its
key words.
2.8.1 “Behold”
Why is “behold” a significant word in this text? Take a
passage that most accept as symbolic, Revelation 12:3-
17. The dragon, the stars, the woman, the child and so on
are all symbolic. That symbolic vision is introduced by
“behold.” (Re 12:3) “Behold” very often introduces
symbolic passages in the Revelation. (Re 4:1, 2; 6:2, 8;
7:9; 14:14; 16:15) It is likely that Revelation 1:7 is also a
vision with figurative features.
 DEFENCE

2.8.2 “He cometh”
As mentioned at point 2.4 above, “cometh” at Revelation
1:7 is the Greek erkhetai. It corresponds to erkhomenon
(“coming”) at Matthew 24:30, 43, 44 which is fulfilled
after the sign described at Matthew 24:7-14. It is not
synonymous with the parousia, mistranslated “coming”
in the King James Version at Matthew 24:3, 37, 39.
Remember, Matthew chapter 24 shows that parousia
designates the whole time of the fulfilment of the various
features of the “sign” described in Matthew 24:3-29.
The erkhomenon (erkhetai) occurs at the time of the
destruction of the worldly system and it completes the
parousia. (Mt 24:30-44) The “coming” of Revelation 1:7
corresponds with Matthew 24:30 and refers to the time of
the “great tribulation.”12––Mt 24:21; Re 7:14.
Today we are living in the parousia period marked by
wars, famines, earthquakes and the worldwide preaching
of God’s kingdom. The “coming” of Christ foretold at
Revelation 1:7 is yet in the future. This difference
between Christ’s “presence [parousia]” and his “coming
[erkhomenon]” must be carefully observed to correctly
understand Christ’s return.
In fact, the distinction between them helps to answer
Lorna’s question. (GCT, page 33) She points to 1
Corinthians 11:26, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and
drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come”
and asks “If Christ became present in 1914, then why do
we still hold the Memorial service each year?” Well, 1
Corinthians 11:26 is not talking about Christ’s presence.
The Greek word for “come” in that text is elthe, a word
related to erkhomenon and erkhetai, not to parousia.
Christians should memorialize the Lord’s death until his
“coming” which is yet future. Jehovah’s Witnesses
understand this distinction and continue to celebrate the
Lord’s evening meal annually during the presence until it
culminates in that future “coming.”
The meaning of Jesus’ “coming” is also clear when
compared with his Father’s ‘coming’ to Sinai. Speaking
with Moses, God said: “I come unto thee in a thick
cloud.” (Ex 19:9) The account adds: “the LORD came
down upon mount Sinai.” (Ex 19:20) When God ‘came’
to Sinai Moses obviously did not see God. As Jehovah
said, “there shall no man see me, and live.” (Ex 33:20) In
the same way, there is nothing in the word “coming” at
Revelation 1:7 that requires Christ’s coming to be visible.
2.8.3 “With clouds”
Clouds are things we can see, so someone might assume
that clouds suggest something visible. Really, though, in
the Scriptures clouds suggest invisibility. We have just
discussed Jehovah’s coming invisibly in a cloud at Sinai
as one example, but there are others.
“The LORD went before them in a pillar of a cloud.”
––Ex 13:19-21
“The LORD looked ... through the pillar ... of the
cloud.”––Ex 14:24.
“A thick cloud upon the mount ... the LORD descended
upon it.”––Ex 19:16, 18; 20:21.
“The LORD descended in the cloud.”––Ex 34:5.
“The LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud.”––
Nu 12:5.
“Fire ... clouds ... and the LORD spake out of the midst
of the fire.”––De 4:11, 12.
“The LORD appeared in the tabernacle in the pillar of
a cloud.”––De 31:15.
“The LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come
into Egypt.”––Isa 19:1.
In these ‘comings,’ Jehovah was invisible. “Thou canst
not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”
(Ex 33:20) In fact, Acts 7:38, 53 and Paul’s comment at
Hebrews 2:2 show that God was not personally present
on Sinai but was represented by his “angel.” 13
The Most Holy compartment of the tabernacle was
illuminated by a brilliant cloud over the ark of the
covenant. So God says to Moses: “I will appear in the
cloud upon the mercy seat.” (Le 16:2) Does “appear in
the cloud” mean that God appeared visibly to the high
priest every Atonement Day? No. The cloud represented
his invisible presence among his people.
Isaiah 44:22 confirms that clouds do not highlight the
visibility of something but ‘blot out’ the vision.

12 See footnote 7. D.B Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament that
there is an “anaphoric” use of the article where the definite article “refers back to a previous instance of a noun, which was usually
introduced without the article.” The fact that the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21 appears without the definite article (i.e. is
anarthrous) and that the “great tribulation” of Revelation 7:14 appears with the article (i.e. is articular) suggests that they both refer
to the same tribulation.
13 The internal evidence suggests that Paul was the writer of Hebrews and that Italy was its place of writing. (He 13:24) Paul was

imprisoned in Rome along with Timothy until the latter was released. (He 13:23; Php 1:1; 2:19; Col 1:1, 2; Phm 1) The Chester
Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) of about 200 C.E. records Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen
letters of Paul the apostle.”

38
 DEFENCE
“I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy
transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins.”
By means of that figurative cloud God made their sins,
not more visible, but invisible.
When God spoke to Peter, James and John on the
transfiguration mount, he spoke out of “a bright cloud”
that overshadowed them. (Mt 17:5) None of them saw
God literally on that occasion either.
This was also true of the cloud at Jesus’ ascension to
heaven. According to Acts 1:9, at the time of Jesus’
departure from the earth “a cloud received him out of
their sight.” Yes, that cloud took Jesus out of their sight,
made him invisible. As the angel said, “Jesus ... shall so
come in like manner.” (Ac 1:11) When the angel spoke
these words, Jesus was already in the clouds, invisible.
There being no Scriptural indication that Christ will
descend below cloud level at his coming, he can be
expected to be invisible at that time.
In the book of Revelation, whenever “cloud” is used it is
always in a symbolic setting. (Re 11:12; 14:14-16) So at
Revelation 10:1 a cloud is associated with invisibility.
“I saw another strong angel descending from heaven,
arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his
head, and his face was as the sun, and his feet were as
fiery pillars, and he had in his hand a little scroll
opened. And he set his right foot upon the sea, but his
left one upon the earth.”
The face, the feet and the hand were all visible in the
vision. Importantly, though, what was invisible? The rest
of the body, because it was clothed, “arrayed with a
cloud.” The cloud made most of the body invisible. When
clouds are spoken of in connection with spirit persons
they suggest invisibility.
The next reference to a cloud is at Revelation 11:12
which Seventh-day Adventists usually relate to the
period around the French Revolution. The passage
mentions two witnesses who are killed but then come to
life. The verse says:
“And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their
enemies beheld them.”
Adventists explain the two witnesses to mean the Old and
New Testaments silenced in the French Revelation. Ellen
G. White says that after the Revolution they were
“honoured as never before. The Bible has been
translated into nearly every language spoken by men,
and scattered over every part of the globe. After being,
as it were, thrust down to hell, it has, in truth, been
exalted to heaven.”––The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume
4, page 193.
39
She interprets the ‘ascent,’ the ‘heaven,’ the ‘cloud’ and
the ‘beholding’––all of them––figuratively. Bob would
not criticize White’s symbolic explanation, but he cannot
concede as much for Revelation 1:7. Yet what is true in
the symbolic settings of Revelation 10:1; 11:12 is also
true in the symbolic setting of Revelation 1:7.
All of these texts combine to show that ‘coming with
clouds’ and ‘beholding those in the clouds’ is more
suggestive of invisibility than visibility.
2.8.4 “Eye”
‘But surely “eye” is literal,’ some would say. However,
the question should be, How are eyes used in Revelation
and in the Scriptures generally? It is true that eyes are
used literally, but the Bible also uses them figuratively.
“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now
mine eye seeth thee.”––Job 42:5.
Job said this after gaining extra knowledge of God. (Job
chapters 38-41) In this case it was not Job’s literal eye
that was involved. “No man hath seen God at any time.”
(Joh 1:18) Rather, it was the eye of his understanding.
“For from of old men have not heard, nor perceived by
the ear, neither hath the eye seen a God besides thee,
who worketh for him that waiteth for him.”––Isa 64:4,
American Standard Version.
The Israelites had not seen a god equal to Jehovah with
their natural eyes, but they had seen Jehovah figuratively.
Ephesians 1:18 speaks of “the eyes of your understanding
[literally, “the eyes of the heart”] being enlightened.” So
the Bible does at times use “eye” symbolically. But
which usage, literal or symbolic, is in play at Revelation
1:7?
Look at how ‘eyes’ and ‘seeing’ are used symbolically in
the Revelation.
“Anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest
see.”––Re 3:18.
Yes, in the same Bible book as Revelation 1:7, we find
figurative “eyes” and “eyesalve,” and with the verb ‘to
see’ in the same sentence at that!
On the basis of the facts that (1) the verse is part of a
symbolic vision as determined by its introduction and
that (2) vision-obscuring clouds accompany Christ, it is
reasonable that the “eye” in Revelation 1:7 is more likely
symbolic than literal. In this case, though, it would be a
mental “eye” of sudden, tragic realization.
2.8.5 “See”
The word for “see” is opsetai. It has a literal sense but it
is also used metaphorically. A Greek-English Lexicon
 DEFENCE
suggests as one meaning: “metaphorically ... of mental
sight, to discern, perceive.”
One example of figurative sight is at Romans 1:20: “the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen.” Here a prepositional prefix is used together
with a verbal form of opsetai, making the verb
kathoratai. Obviously, this kind of sight is metaphorical,
not literal.
Then there is Revelation 3:18, mentioned above, which
also mentions seeing figuratively and it is an example
right within the same Bible book of Revelation. There are
other examples at Isaiah 44:18; Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel
12:2. Yes, “see” quite often refers to mental sight. Apart
from Revelation 1:7; 3:18, there are other cases in which
“eye” and “see” occur together symbolically.
“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now
mine eye seeth thee.”––Job 42:5.
“Blessed are your eyes, for they see.”––Mt 13:16.
In addition to the two previous points––that the verse is
symbolic and that vision-obscuring clouds accompany
Christ––there are now these two others, (3) that eyes and
(4) sight are also often symbolic.
2.8.6 “And they also which pierced him”
If the words “they also which pierced him” were literal,
there would need to be a special resurrection of the
wicked ones who took part in killing Jesus. Adventists
entertain the idea but the Bible does not mention it. If the
men who literally pierced Jesus were to be raised at his
coming, they would have to be destroyed at Armageddon,
re-resurrected at the end of the 1,000 years only to be re-
destroyed. They would have lived and died three times!
There is a better explanation. The key to understanding
the comment lies in Matthew 25:41-46, which is part of
Jesus’ great prophecy about the same “coming” in the
clouds that Revelation 1:7 describes. (Mt 24:30) Jesus
judges people as sheep or goats on the basis of what they
did or did not do for his spiritual brothers.
Speaking of the past, of the parousia period before his
coming, they ask him: “when saw we thee ...?” (Mt
25:37-39, 44) This indicates that they had not seen him
literally during the parousia because it is characterized
by invisibility.
But then, at Matthew 25:45, Christ gives the key:
“Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye
did it not to me.” What the goats do or fail to do to
Christ’s brothers he considers as done or not done to him.
They ‘pierce’ him by persecuting his brothers.––Mt 24:9.
Given that both prophecies are about Christ’s “coming,”
it seems clear that “they ... which pierced him” are those
40
who do it figuratively during the parousia by persecuting
his followers. Again, the expression is figurative, not a
literal piercing by the same first-century individuals.
2.8.7 “All the kindreds of the earth shall wail”
All of the “goats” will wail because they face what Jesus
calls their “everlasting punishment [‘cutting off,’
Greek].” (Mt 25:46) There will be no future resurrection
for any of these. With the words “even so, Amen” the
visionary snapshot closes.
To misread Revelation 1:7 as other than a vision is to look
for an incorrect revelation of Jesus Christ. The majority
today, “all the kindreds,” have tragically incorrect
expectations for Christ’s coming.
2.9 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17––Audible?
Pressing on and arguing for an audible return, Bob refers
to the following important words of the apostle Paul.––
GCT, pages 31, 32.
“the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a
shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God.”––1Th 4:16.
Paul says this about the time of the resurrection, as the
context shows, but he is not talking about Christ’s
coming, the erkhomenon/erkhetai of Revelation 1:7.
Instead, “coming” at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 translates the
word parousia. It really means ‘presence.’ Once again,
the King James Version mistranslates parousia and leads
Adventists to expect that the resurrection will take place
in the future at Christ’s coming.
First, note that, according to the text, Jesus issues a shout,
a loud voice and a trumpet blast to waken the dead from
their symbolic “sleep.” At John 5:28 also refers to a
symbolic voice. There the “dead” were hearing “the
voice” of Jesus and coming to life. (Joh 5:25) He had not
performed a resurrection at this point, so the “dead” Jesus
speaks of were still alive in a literal sense but they were
dead spiritually.
For them, hearing Jesus’ “voice” was not just hearing
literal words––many did that––but appreciating and
responding to Jesus’ message, obeying it and coming to
life spiritually. (Joh 5:24) In fact, in Biblical usage,
‘hearing God’s ‘voice’ more often refers to acting
obediently in response to God’s (usually written)
commands than to hearing audible words.
There is also the obvious fact that at 1 Thessalonians
4:13-17 Jesus is talking about Christians who are
figuratively “asleep.” (1Th 4:14) An audible trumpet
would only wake those literally asleep. A figurative
shout, voice and trumpet would be needed to wake a
person from a figurative sleep. So why, then, the
trumpet?
 DEFENCE
Trumpets symbolize authoritative commands or a call to
action. So at Isaiah 58:1: “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy
voice like a trumpet.” In other texts, the trumpet is even
more clearly symbolic and, again, the ‘sound’ is
inaudible.––Zec 9:14; Re 8:2.
Adventists themselves interpret some trumpets as
symbolic. They believe the trumpets of Revelation
chapters 8-10 to be symbolic messages and/or events that
take place over 2,000 years. None of the trumpet blasts
were literally audible. Even outside those passages that
are obviously symbolic, trumpets are used in a figurative
sense at Matthew 6:2 and 1 Corinthians 14:8.
Taking the trumpet at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as symbolic
agrees with the symbolic sleep in the context in verse 14.
2.9.1 Timing
Clarice believes that dead and living Christians will rise
at the same time. She thinks that all anointed ones should
have been raised together in 1914 if Jehovah’s Witnesses
were right. (GCT, page 32) She discounts evidence that
those who go to heaven are raised at different times.
Some Christians are described as “asleep” in death at the
beginning of Jesus’ parousia, and they are immediately
raised to life in heaven at that point. (1Th 4:15,16) Others
are “living” when the parousia begins. 1 Thessalonians
4:15 in the Greek describes this second group as
“hoi [‘the’] zontes [‘living’] hoi [‘the ones’]
perileipomenoi [‘being left around’] eis [‘into’] ten
[‘the’] parousian [‘presence,’ not ‘coming’] tou [‘of
the’] kyriou [‘Lord’].”
According to Paul, while the dead in Christ are
immediately raised to heaven, the living are not, because
they survive into Christ’s presence, “into” being the
primary meaning of eis. The King James Version has
done a disservice by translating eis as “unto.” The use of
eis shows that the parousia is an extended period of time
that a Christian can live “into” and that those who live
“into” it are raised after those already dead. In fact, 1
Thessalonians 4:16, 17 confirms that there is a sequence
involved in the heavenly resurrection.
“The dead in Christ shall rise first: Then [Greek,
epeita] we which are alive and remain shall be caught
up together with them in the clouds.”
Epeita indicates order. It “marks sequence,” according to
Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon. Christians already dead at
the time that the parousia commences rise first. “Then
[epeita]” those alive and remaining alive in the presence
––not the coming––of Christ join them in heaven.
This sequence in the heavenly resurrection is not
simultaneous, instantaneous or immediate. Paul is clear
about this at 1 Corinthians 15:23 in the Greek. He shows
41
that the second group, those who survive into Christ’s
presence, will be raised during the presence.
“epeita [‘then,’ next in sequence] hoi [‘the ones’] tou
[‘of the’] khristou [‘Christ’] en [‘in’] te [‘the’]
parousia [‘presence’] autou [‘of him’].”
The heavenly resurrection therefore takes place during
the ‘in-the-parousia’ period, not at the momentary
coming of Christ at Armageddon. The heavenly
resurrection takes place “in”––during––that longer
period. This confirms our understanding of eis as “into”
rather than “unto” as mentioned above. The ones already
dead rise first. Those who survive into the parousia rise
later. When the ‘remaining’ group are resurrected they
are caught up “together [hama] with [syn]” the ‘sleeping’
group.––1Th 4:17.
2.10 2 Thessalonians 2:8––Bright?
Adventists point to 2 Thessalonians 2:8 which speaks of
“the brightness of his coming.” We have discussed this
text above at point 2.5 but we can summarize it again
here. It is argued that Jesus’ coming will be unmistakably
bright and visible. (GCT, page 32) But 1 Timothy 6:14-
16 shows that this brightness or appearing will happen in
such a way that no man will be able to see Christ.
Clarice misinterprets the verse when she says to her
mother: “According to Second Thessalonians 2:8 the
wicked are going to be destroyed by the brightness of the
parousia, or coming.” Note that Clarice speaks of the
parousia and coming as if they were the same thing. As
we have seen, they are not. The parousia takes place over
a long period of time corresponding to the pre-Flood
period when people “knew not.”––Mt 24:39.
If the parousia were obvious to the wicked, it would not
have to be manifested at all! But it is called “the
manifestation of his presence” because the invisible
presence will at last be manifested in the destruction of
the wicked.––New World Translation.
2.11 Here or Near?
Chapter 4 of Channel argues that the signs of the times
prove Christ to be near rather than here. (Pages 40, 41)
The argument is based on the Adventist explanation of
Matthew 24:30-44. Bob points to verse 30, which speaks
of Jesus’ “coming,” erkhomenon. The coming is still in
the future and, as mentioned, relates to events that occur
in connection with Armageddon. Bob has Valmai read
verses 32 and 33.
“Now learn from the fig tree as an illustration this
point: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender
and it puts forth leaves, You know that summer is near.
Likewise also you, when you see all these things,
know that he is near at the doors.”
 DEFENCE
John, one of the characters in the booklet, concludes from
this text that “these signs show that Christ’s coming is
near.” Jehovah’s Witnesses agree. The signs of our times
do indicate that Christ’s coming is near. What they do not
indicate is that his presence is near. As mentioned above,
Bob makes a classic mistake when he says:
“the signs are sent to warn us to be ready for His
presence or coming, as in verses 42 and 44.”
By wrongly concluding that Christ’s presence and his
coming are identical and interchangeable, Bob places the
presence into the indefinite future. So he continues:
“It is too late if His parousia has already taken place.
And in verses 36-41 we are told no one will know
when it [the parousia] will take place.”
Bob should know that in verse 36 Jesus does not mean
the parousia when he says:
“But of that day [singular] and hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
What singular “day” does he mean? It is identified in the
following verses.
“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming
[parousia, “presence,” mistranslated “coming” in the
King James Version] of the Son of man be. For as in
the days that were before the flood they were eating
and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until
the day [singular] that Noe entered into the ark, And
knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;
so shall also the coming [parousia, presence] of the
Son of man be.”––Mt 24:37-39.
Jesus says the “presence”––which he likens to “days,”
plural––culminates in a final destructive act––which he
likens to a “day,” singular. This illustrates again the
important difference between presence and coming, that
one is a longer period and the other shorter.
Christ’s presence is compared to “the days of Noe ...
before the flood.” Note, “before.” Like the pre-Flood
period, the parousia occurs before the erkhomenon and
culminates in it. The presence is therefore an extended
period allowing for “eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage.” (Verse 38) By contrast, the “day
[singular]” that Jesus spoke about when he said, “of that
day and hour knoweth no man,” corresponds to the “day
[singular]” that Noah entered the ark and the pre-Flood
world was subsequently destroyed. The words are clearly
not synonymous as Bob supposes.
Jesus also says in verse 39 that at last “the flood came.”
Here “came” is elthen, a verbal form of erkhetai and
related to erkhomenon, “coming.” Again, the parousia
period is the lengthy period culminating in a “coming.”
It is only by totally missing this point that Bob lumps the
42
presence together with the coming as if they were one
event and casts the presence off into the future.
Luke’s version confirms that the presence is a longer
period ending in a short destructive day.
“And as it was in the days [plural] of Noe, so shall it
be also in the days [plural] of the Son of man. They
did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were
given in marriage, until the day [singular] that Noe
entered into the ark, and the flood came [elthen,
related to erkhomenon, “coming”], and destroyed
them all.”––Lu 17:26, 27.
This is even more specific. What Matthew calls the
parousia Luke calls “the days of the Son of man.” The
fact that these are days, plural, in contrast with a single
day of “coming” clearly indicates that Jesus enjoys an
extended period of presence before he “comes” in a
special, short, destructive act.
In a similar way, a few verses later Luke 17:28-30
compares the “days” of his presence with an extended
period of time called “the days [plural] of Lot.” By
contrast, the “day,” singular, that God destroyed Sodom
is likened to “the day [singular] when the Son of man is
revealed.” It is obvious that Jesus’ presence or parousia
is always presented as an extended period that precedes
his coming or erkhomenon, which is a much shorter
period.
During the parousia period before the “coming” of Jesus
the features of the sign at Matthew 24:7-14 take place,
but Christ remains invisible. Note the timing of events of
Matthew 25. Matthew 25:31 says, “the Son of man shall
come [elthe, from erkhetai] in his glory. This marks the
point of Jesus’ “coming.” The ‘sheep’ ask him three
times, “when saw we thee …?” (Mt 25:34, 37-39)
Clearly, at his coming true Christians on earth will say
that they not have seen Christ. The ‘goats’ will also ask
“when saw we thee ...?” (Mt 25:44) Clearly, Jesus is
invisible to everyone prior to the “coming.”
The significance of this conversation is most important.
It is undeniable from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24:37-
39 and Luke 17:26-30 that his extended “presence”––
otherwise called “the days of the Son of man”––precedes
his final “coming.” But Jesus’ conversation with the
sheep and goats proves that, in any period before his
coming, Christ is invisible. The only conclusion to be
drawn is that Christ’s presence is invisible.
2.11.1 Here or Near?––the Answer
So then, is Christ here or is he near? Since two different
Greek words are used in relation to Jesus’ return, we need
to ask whether Jesus is referring to his “presence” or to
his “coming” when he says, “when you see all these
things, know that he is near at the doors.”––Mt 24:33.
 DEFENCE
The answer is indicated at Matthew 24:36 where Jesus
adds: “But of that day [singular] and hour knoweth no
man.” The words “that day” refer back to verse 33, to the
event that is near. What “day” was “that”?
Jesus defines it in verse 38 as the one corresponding to
“the day [singular] that Noe entered into the ark,” which
led directly to the Flood, or as Matthew 24:42 says, the
“hour [literally, “day”] your Lord doth come [erkhetai].”
(Cp. American Standard Version) Yes, when Jesus spoke
about his being “near” at the doors he was speaking about
his coming which is still future, not about his presence.
This is in harmony with Jesus’ main point. “Watch
therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth
come [erkhetai].” (Mt 24:42) The signs prove that the
coming is near, despite the fact that the presence is here.
This important truth has been held by Jehovah’s
Witnesses in modern times from the very beginning.14
2.12 1914
The events of the Matthew 24:7-14 prophecy are in
evidence all around us, so none should deny the presence
of Christ because that prophecy was given in answer to
the question: “what will be the sign of your parousia ...?”
(Mt 24:3) Yet Peter said that some would deny the
evidence of the presence. “Where is the promise of his
coming [parousia, ‘presence’]?”––2Pe 3:4.
Jehovah’s Witnesses point to the comment by Jesus at
Luke 21:24 about “the times of the Gentiles” and connect
it with the “seven times” of Daniel 4:16. “Times” at Luke
21:24 comes from the Greek kairos. One dictionary says:
“when used of ‘time,’ [kairos] signified ‘a fixed or
definite period, a season,’ sometimes an opportune or
seasonable ‘time.’”––Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, under
“Time.” (Emphasis ours.)
As examples of other periods that were fixed and limited,
kairos is used to refer to the “harvest season,” “the season
of the fruits” and “the season of figs.” (Mt 13:30; 21:34;
Mr 11:13) This indicates that “the times of the Gentiles”
would be a definite period somehow assigned to the
Gentiles to rule. So H.A.W. Meyer says, commenting on
Luke 21:24:
“Till the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled, that is,
till the time that the periods which are appointed to the
Gentile nations for the completion of divine judgments
... shall have run out. … Such times of the Gentiles are
14 Jehovah’s Witnesses were not the first to hold elements of these teachings. Isaac Newton wrote that Christ would return and
reign “invisible to mortals.” In 1856 Joseph Seiss, a Lutheran minister in Pennsylvania, wrote about a two-stage second advent––
an invisible parousia followed by a visible manifestation. In 1864, Benjamin Wilson published the Emphatic Diaglott with the
interlinear reading “presence” for parousia.
43
ended in the case in question by the Parousia ... the
kairoi ethnon [times of the Gentiles] would be the
kairoi [times], which were familiar to all from the
prophecies, and which had already begun to run their
course, so that at the time of Jesus and long before they
were regarded as in process of fulfillment. This is the
reason for our having hoi kairoi [the times] with the
article (compare xix. 44).”––Pages 530, 531 (1884).
As Meyer notes, the fact that kairoi is accompanied by
the article hoi, ‘the,’ indicates that the Gentile times were
times with which the Jews were already familiar.
In agreement with this, D.B Wallace explains in his
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical
Syntax of the New Testament that there is an “anaphoric”
use of the article in which the definite article “refers back
to a previous instance of a noun, which was usually
introduced without the article.” To what “previous
instance” might the article at Luke 21:24 be pointing?
Daniel 4:16 in the Septuagint translation uses the same
word “times” as Luke 21:24, but “without the article.” So
it would be consistent for the article at Luke 21:24 to be
“anaphoric,” pointing back to those “times” in Daniel.
This would agree with Meyer’s comment that the Gentile
times were understood by the Jews in Jesus’ day to be
already under way.
In fact, when Jesus delivered his discourse at Matthew
chapters 24, 25; Mark chapter 13; Luke chapter 21 about
his presence he often quoted from or referred to Daniel’s
prophecies. Compare Matthew 24:15 with Daniel 11:31;
Matthew 24:21 with Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:30 with
Daniel 7:13. The comment at Luke 21:24 was part of the
same discourse. So when Jesus used the word “times” as
Daniel does, but with the article, it is likely that he had
Daniel 4:16 in mind.
2.12.1 The Tree Dream
Even though Daniel chapter 4 applied originally to king
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon at a time when he
temporarily lost his kingship for seven years, Jehovah’s
Witnesses have seen a second application in the cutting
down of the kingdom of God in the person of king
Zedekiah of Judah for a period of 2,520 years (7 x 360
symbolic day-years) from 607 BCE to 1914 CE.
This explanation does not satisfy Adventists. Clarice says
that relating Daniel chapter 4 to 607 BCE is “Scripturally
incorrect.” (GCT, page 30) Is this true?
 DEFENCE
In Daniel chapter 4 an immense tree was felled as
commanded by an angel. Its stump was banded for seven
times to stop it growing until by decree the bands were
removed and the tree began to grow again. The first
application of the prophecy was to Nebuchadnezzar. (Da
4:28) That is not in dispute. However, there are sound
reasons to believe that there is a larger application to the
tree dream.
First, Daniel 2:31-45 presents a symbolic view of the
succession of Gentile world powers. The only powers
presented are those that ruled during the period from 607
BCE to 1914 CE. Egypt and Assyria, for example,
despite being Gentile world powers prior to 607 BCE, are
not listed. What Daniel chapter 2 presents is the march of
Gentile powers during the specific period of time in
which there was no kingdom of God on earth and when
Gentile powers ruled the earth.––Lu 21:24.
Second, in all its many visions and prophecies, the book
of Daniel portrays the manoeuvrings of Gentile
kingdoms through long periods of time and always
climaxing with the triumph of God’s kingdom. (Da 2:36-
45; 7:3-12, 17-26; 8:3-14, 20-25; 9:2; 24-27; 11:2-45;
12:7-13) Is Daniel chapter 4 the only exception? Is it
alone a short-range prophecy with a moral lesson only?
It would certainly fit the wider context of the book of
Daniel for chapter 4 to have a long-range application like
the other visions.
Third, the vision was given just after God’s kingdom was
overthrown––ideal timing for a prophecy concerning the
overthrow and reestablishment of God’s kingdom.
Fourth, the vision was given to Nebuchadnezzar, the very
person who had conquered God’s kingdom and begun a
period of uninterrupted Gentile rule. We know from the
wording of Daniel 2:38 that Nebuchadnezzar was a
metaphor for the whole Babylonian empire. In the same
way it is fitting that his kingship should be a metaphor
for God’s kingdom because, at the time of the vision, he
was considered world sovereign.
Fifth, the theme of the vision is “that the most High ruleth
in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he
will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” (Da 4:17)
The main point of the vision was how God’s rulership
affects the earth, not Nebuchadnezzar’s.
Sixth, as mentioned above, the same word kairoi
(“times”) appears in the Greek Septuagint version of
Daniel 4:16 as appears in Jesus’ parousia prophecy at
Luke 21:24. Since in Luke account Jesus uses the definite
article “the” with kairoi, Jesus likely had the Daniel
chapter 4 “times” in mind.
Seventh, certain features of the dream appear elsewhere
in the Bible in connection with the contest between
44
Gentile kingdoms and God’s kingdom. For example, the
vision mentions a “tree” of great height under which
birds and fowls find protection. (Da 4:10-12) In the
Scriptures trees very often represent governments rather
than individuals like Nebuchadnezzar. (Jg 9:6-15) For
example, the fall of Assyria is likened to the fall of a tree.
(Eze 31:3, 5, 6, 12) Jehovah’s Messianic kingdom is also
likened to a tree at Ezekiel 17:4-6, 22-24.
Note the similarities in the following references. The first
is from the Daniel chapter 4 prophecy.
“The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof
much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field
had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt
in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.”––
Da 4:12.
The second is a prophecy regarding the restoration of
Israel as a nation.
“That the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift
itself up ... In the mountain of the height of Israel will
I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit,
and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl
of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof
shall they dwell.”––Eze 17:14, 23.
Ezekiel and Daniel were contemporaries. Their language
is similar and in Ezekiel the Israelite kingdom is depicted
as a tree. Ezekiel 17:24 says: “I the LORD … have
exalted the low tree.”
Consistent with the figure of Ezekiel 31:12, 13, the tree
being ‘hewn down’ at Daniel 4:14 signifies the fact that
God “hath thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of
the daughter of Judah; he hath brought them down to the
ground.”––La 2:2.
It also corresponds with Jehovah’s pronouncement to the
last Jewish king: “Remove the diadem, and take off the
crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low,
and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn,
overturn, it [the kingdom]: and it shall be no more, until
he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” (Eze
21:26, 27) A definite break in the kingdom is indicated,
but with a promise that it would resume at a later date.
Isaiah 10:32-34 also describes a tree representing the
Davidic kingdom.
“He shall shake his hand against the mount of the
daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem. Behold, the
Lord, the LORD of hosts, shall lop the bough with
terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn
down, and the haughty shall be humbled. And he shall
cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and
Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one.”
 DEFENCE
After “seven times” the bands preventing the growth of
the stump were removed. (Da 4:15, 26) Naturally, any
new growth would start with a sprout. So Isaiah 11:1
says: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of
Jesse, and a Branch [Hebrew, netser, “sprout”] shall
grow out of his roots.” Jesus was this sprout, descended
from Jesse, David’s father. Isaiah 53:2 describes him as
a “a tender plant,” and both Jeremiah 23:5 and Zechariah
6:12, 13 reinforce this figure. He is therefore the one
“whose right it is.”
Evidently, then, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be charged
with a reckless interpretation of Daniel chapter 4. The
symbolisms inherent in the vision are common in God’s
Word for kingdoms and for God’s kingdom in particular.
Since the tree in the second and more important
application was God’s kingdom cut down in 607 BCE, it
is expected that the kingdom would lapse for “seven
times.” In the case of Nebuchadnezzar this was evidently
seven literal years, according to lexicographers Koehler
and Baumgartner.––See also Brown, Driver and Briggs.
“Times” in Daniel chapter 4 was originally an Aramaic
word, but when the Septuagint translators rendered it into
Greek, they used the word kairoi. As mentioned, this is
the exact word Luke used when he referred to the
“Gentile times.” (Lu 21:24) This strengthens the case for
a link between these Gentile times and Daniel chapter 4.
Of course, if there were to be a larger application to
Daniel chapter 4, the “times” could not be ordinary years.
If Nebuchadnezzar’s experience was significant of
something greater, the time period involved would also
likely be greater. Seven years equals 2,520 days (7 x 360
days) according to the way years are counted in other
prophetic passages.
At Revelation 11:2, 3 “forty and two months,” (three and
a half years) is said to be the same as “a thousand two
hundred and threescore [1,260] days.” So one year would
be 360 (1,260 divided by three and a half) days.
Revelation 12:6, 14 uses the expression “times,” showing
that 1,260 days equal three and a half “times.” So a year
is a time and one prophetic year or ‘time’ amounts to 360
days. “Seven times” would then amount to 2,520 (7 x
360) days.
That these calculations would be similar in Daniel and
Revelation is not surprising, given the prophetic nature
of the books. Applying the day-for-a-year rule of
Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, the “seven times”
amount to 2,520 years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE.
Adventists allow the day-for-a-year rule elsewhere in the
book of Daniel. They understand the “two thousand and
three hundred days” of Daniel 8:14 to be 2,300 years
ending in 1844 CE. They also understand the “seventy
weeks” of Daniel 9:24 to be 490 (70 x 7) years.
45
In the year 1914 the “Branch,” or “sprout,” Jesus Christ,
became king of the Davidic kingdom “stump,” causing it
to grow again free of the bands that limited it during the
Gentile times. In a secondary fulfilment of Daniel’s tree
dream prophecy, he was “established in [his] kingdom,
and excellent majesty was added unto [him].”––Da 4:36.
2.12.2 Ford on Daniel Chapter 4
Adventists cannot seriously ridicule this line of reasoning
in view of an article published in their Australian Signs
of the Times magazine in July 1973. By then Clarice,
Lorna and their families were all Adventists and Bob was
promoting his book criticizing Jehovah’s Witnesses and
their understanding of Daniel chapter 4.
We can only imagine their disappointment when they
read in Signs of the Times Adventist scholar Desmond
Ford’s statement that the message of Daniel chapter 4 is
not “mere homily,” that is, not a mere moral or spiritual
lesson. He says it relates to a long succession of ungodly
worldly powers and that Nebuchadnezzar was a figure of
those powers.
Although some of the details differ, Jehovah’s Witnesses
agree that Daniel chapter 4 includes a prophecy spanning
centuries. In his article, Ford quotes historicist writers
Henry Grattan Guinness and his wife. They maintain that
the seven years relating to Nebuchadnezzar were typical
of 2,520 years of Gentile domination ending in the
restoration of God’s kingdom,
“‘The times of the Gentiles’ constituted a week, each
of whose days is a year of years, or 360 years, and
whose entire duration is therefore 2,520 years. As we
wrote in the ‘Approaching End of the Age:’ ... ‘These
episodes in Nebuchadnezzar’s life are clearly typical;
these features of his character have been stamped
indelibly on all his successors; these incidents answer
to events on the scale of nations and centuries, with
which history makes us familiar. So also does the
seven years’ bestial degradation of the monarch during
his insanity answer to the seven years of years of
Gentile rule, represented by the fourfold image and by
the four wild beasts of a subsequent vision. The king
himself represents the succession of imperial
sovereignty till the kingdom of Christ shall come; the
“seven times” that passed over him similarly represent
the whole period of moral and spiritual debasement,
and consequent idolatry and persecution, in the
Gentile kingdoms, from the times of Nebuchadnezzar
till the full redemption of mankind.’ ... His campaigns
consequently against Judah and Jerusalem are the
specially important ones; and after the lapse of ‘seven
times’ from them, we are likely to reach the centre and
crisis of Jewish restoration. From the date of his
overthrow of the nation and desolation of the land, we
 DEFENCE
may expect ‘seven times’ to lead to the restoration of
the people of Judah to their land; and from the date of
his overthrow of the throne of Judah, we may expect
‘seven times’ to lead to the restoration of that throne,
in the person of the Son and Lord of David, the true
King of the Jews; while, from his burning of the
temple and breaking down of the wall of Jerusalem,
we may expect ‘seven times’ to lead to the
rededication of the temple and city.”––Light for the
Last Days, 1888, Chapters 2, 10.
In his article Ford essentially accepts the Guinness’
interpretation, showing that he too acknowledges a
greater application for Daniel chapter 4. the fact that
Signs magazine accepted Ford’s article shows that it
found editorial acceptance in the Church’s Australian
headquarters community at the time. Price is silent about
Ford’s analysis, but ignoring it does not gainsay the
argument.
Does Bob disagree with Ford? Probably. He later wrote
about ‘the Ford apostasy.’ (Here We Stand: Evaluating
New Trends in the Church, Chapter 2) Still, the July 1973
Signs of the Times article clearly contradicts Bob’s
reasoning on page 30 of Channel. It is not enough to say
that Ford was later dismissed from his teaching position.
That decision dates to the 1980’s over a different issue.
See Appendix 2 for the Signs article in full.
2.12.3 607 BCE or 586 BCE?
Of course, Adventists do not agree that 607 BCE was the
date of the destruction of Jerusalem and the desolating of
Judah by the Babylonians. They agree with secular
chronology and the reckoning generally accepted in
Christendom that assigns the event to 586 BCE. It is
important to establish the correct date because it marks
the beginning of the seven times.
From the events beginning in 1914, including the Great
War, and from the Daniel chapter 4 calculations that
confirm it, we can dismiss Bob’s concerns about this
date. But can 607 BCE be established historically?
2.12.4 The Date of the Desolation of Jerusalem
Adventists do not agree that 607 BCE was the date of the
destruction of Jerusalem and the desolating of Judah at
the hands of the Babylonians. They agree with secular
chronology that assigns the event to 587 BCE or 586
BCE. The historians Berossus (circa 350-270 BCE) and
Ptolemy (circa 100-170 CE) mention five kings of the
Neo-Babylonian dynasty that reigned before Cyrus
conquered Babylon: (1) Nabopolasar (21 years), (2)
15
It seems that Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from Berossus’ time, more than 250 years after 539
BCE. This would explain why Ptolemy’s figures agree with Berossus.
46
Nebuchadnezzar II (43 years), (3) Evil-merodach (2
years), (4) Neriglissar (4 years) and (5) Nabonidus (17
years), the sum of the last four figures of 43, 2, 4, and 17
years being 66 years.15
Counting those 66 years back from the end of Nabonidus’
reign in 539 B.C.E. points to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign
beginning in 605 B.C.E. If this were correct, Jerusalem
would have been destroyed in 587/586 BCE since
Nebuchadnezzar desolated that city in his 19th year. This
is the date that Adventists and secular historians accept.
––2Ki 25:8.
How can Jehovah’s Witnesses account for the 20- or 21-
year difference in the reigns of Babylonian kings between
the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the first year of
Nabonidus in 556 BCE? The traditional secular
chronology accepted by Adventists follows Ptolemy in
assigning Evil-Merodach a two-year reign, but his reign
may have been longer. Polyhistor (105 BCE-?) says Evil-
Merodach ruled for 12 years, not 2, and Josephus says 18.
(Antiquities of the Jews, 10.11.1) Another king,
Neriglissar, may have ruled for more than the 4 years
assigned by Ptolemy. Even the reign of Nabonidus may
have begun earlier than is currently thought. He may have
ruled for longer than 17 years.
That is to say, while Berossus and Ptolemy may have
been essentially accurate in their astronomical data, the
historical information they attached to fixed astronomical
dates may not have been accurate.
Speaking of the Royal Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, Leo
Depuydt says:
“It has long been known that the Canon is
astronomically reliable, but this does not
automatically mean that it is historically
dependable.”––Journal of Cuneiform Studies,
Volume 47, 1995, pages 106, 107.
While business tablets have been found supporting the
secular chronology, they do so only indirectly. For
example, they mention activities taking place during the
4 years of Neriglissar’s reign but nothing for any years
after that. This is an argument from silence. It may just
have been that there were no records made in those later
years. There are years in later periods of the accepted
reigns of Babylonian kings for which no business tablets
exist. No one has a problem in those cases.
2.12.5 VAT4956
Adventists point to a Babylonian cuneiform tablet
designated VAT4956 made in the Seleucid period––the
 DEFENCE
third century BCE, some 300 years after the event––that
they believe confirms their chronology.
The information on the tablet was evidently copied from
an earlier tablet. It is supposed to link the 37th year of
Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign to astronomical data
matching 568 BCE. A 568 BCE date would agree with
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign beginning in 605 BCE and this
would support the Adventist position. So Price is happy
to pose with the Babylonian tablet.––GCT, page 114.
However, a careful examination of the lunar data on
VAT4956 fits much better with 588 BCE, a year 20 years
earlier. This supports the chronology that Jehovah’s
Witnesses accept, providing an explanation for the 20-
year variation noted earlier. There are 13 sets of lunar
positions described on the tablet and many of them
disagree with 568 BCE.
For example, the four lunar positions for the dates Nisanu
9, Ayyaru 1, Simanu 5, and Addaru 2 are inaccurate by
more than two degrees for 568 BCE. The other nine lunar
observations are an excellent match for 568 BCE, being
accurate within one degree. We might say VAT4956’s
lunar accuracy for 568 BCE is only 9/13.
How do the same 13 lunar observations match with 588
BCE? Remarkably, in all 13 cases the positions of the
stars and constellations in relation to the moon fit
perfectly, to the very degree. VAT4956’s accuracy for
588 BCE is 13/13!
What are the implications? The exact matches strongly
suggest that the lunar information on the tablet was
copied from an earlier tablet that contained actual
observations from 588 BCE. And if VAT4956 points to
588 BCE as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, his first
year would have been 625 BCE. In this case, the19th year
counting from his accession would have been 607 BCE,
the date Jehovah’s Witnesses accept and Adventists
reject.16 The lunar positions on the tablet actually support
the chronology that Jehovah’s Witnesses accept.
How is it, then, that the planetary data on VAT4956
agree with 568 BCE? That fact is that they do not, at least,
not exactly. If the planetary data were based on actual
observations, we would expect the kind of exact matches
that we find with the lunar data for 588 BCE. However,
the planetary data match for 568 BCE is approximately
but not exactly correct. There are many inaccuracies. 17
How can they be explained?
Astronomical records that are approximately accurate but
not exactly accurate are evidence that they have likely
been calculated backwards from a much later date. The
16 That is, 18 full years and some months.
17 Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology, R. Furuli, pages 300-316.
47
most likely scenario here is that a scribe having accurate
lunar information for 588 BCE but believing the 37th
year of Nebuchadnezzar to be 568 BCE according to the
Seleucid chronology of his day, made backward
calculations for 568 BCE.
But because the calculations of his day were not exactly
accurate, they resulted in approximate planetary data. In
this way astronomical data from two separate years
appear on the same VAT4956 tablet. However, the most
reliable and exact match, the lunar data, points to 588
BCE as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Yet, that even if VAT4956’s astronomical information
unequivocally pointed to 568 BCE, which it does not,
there is still no proof that its writer was correct in
attaching the historical events in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th
year to the astronomical events. And from more than 250
years after the events, Berossus could not personally
verify that the events and dates matched.
2.12.6 Scriptural Evidence for 607 BCE
On the other hand, there is firm Scriptural evidence for
607 BCE. Wat the Bible says is of primary importance
for Christians. The key text is Jeremiah 25:11.
“This whole land shall be a desolation, and an
astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of
Babylon seventy years.”
The required order of events is, (1) a desolation, followed
by, (2) servitude to Babylon for 70 years. Jeremiah 25:1
says the prophecy was given in the fourth year of king
Jehoiakim––calculated at 604 BCE by Adventists and
625 BCE by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both requirements are
difficult for the Adventist position. First, the prophecy
says “the whole land shall be a desolation.” Helping
define the meaning of the desolation, Jeremiah 26:9 adds:
“This city shall be desolate without an inhabitant.”
This means that it was not possible for the 70 years to run
while the city was occupied. Describing an event more
than 10 years later, in the fifth year of the exile of
Jehoiachin, God says to Judah:
“In all your dwellingplaces the cities shall be laid
waste, and the high places shall be desolate; that your
altars may be laid waste and made desolate.”––Eze
1:2; 6:6.
To Adventists this was 592 BCE when the 70 years had
already been running for 12 years, but note that the
desolation was still future: “shall be desolate.” The next
year the prophecy adds:
 DEFENCE
“The cities that are inhabited shall be laid waste, and
the land shall be desolate.”––Eze 12:20.
Yes, even then it was still not desolate. So when did the
land become desolate? After the final destruction of
Jerusalem, when Jeremiah was in Egypt, word came to
him saying:
“Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon
Jerusalem, and upon all the cities of Judah; and,
behold, this day they are a desolation, and no man
dwelleth therein.”––Jer 44:2.
Here for the first time the land was desolate. This is in
harmony with the words of Leviticus 26:31-35, 43 which
show that the land could only be ‘desolate’ after it had
been abandoned without inhabitants.
“I will bring the land into desolation: ... And I will
scatter you among the heathen, ... and your land shall
be desolate, and your cities waste … The land also
shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths,
while she lieth desolate without them.”
By this definition, Adventists believe in a 50-year
desolation at best. Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other
hand, understand a full 70 years of actual desolation
“without them” as required by Scripture.
There are a few texts that have been suggested by
Adventists to argue that the desolation began before the
final destruction of Jerusalem. They cite Jeremiah 12:10,
11, dated before the eleventh year of Zedekiah.
“Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, ... they
have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness.
They have made it desolate, and being desolate it
mourneth unto me; the whole land is made desolate,
because no man layeth it to heart.”
We must understand this as a figurative desolation in
view of the texts quoted above and because in a literal
sense the land was still occupied at the time, as the
context at Jeremiah 12:14 clearly shows. Some prophetic
statements in Jeremiah are spoken of as past when they
are still future. Jeremiah 2:15; 13:19 are examples that
even Adventists would admit. In such cases, Daniel 4:17
would apply: “God ... calleth those things which be not
as though they were.”
The second problem for Adventists is in calculating the
length of the 70 years of service. Jeremiah 25:11 reads as
a prophecy: “these nations shall serve the king of
Babylon seventy years.” That prophecy was spoken in
the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar––604 BCE for Adventists, 625 BCE for
Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Jer 25:1) There were simply not
enough years between 604 BCE and 537/536 BCE for the
48
Jews to complete 70 years of servitude. So when did
Judah begin to “serve” the Babylonians?
Jeremiah 27:8, 11-13 is clear that Judah would not need
to be destroyed at all if it served Babylon.
“It shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom
which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the
king of Babylon, ... that nation will I punish.”
Yes, Judah could have served Babylon and prevented the
destruction and desolation of Jerusalem and the land.
Much later, in the fourth year of Zedekiah, the year
Adventists would call 593 BCE, God says:
“I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these
nations [including Judah], that they may serve
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve
him.”––Jer 28:14.
The service had still not begun at this point and yet
Adventists suppose it to be 11 years into the 70 years. As
late as the eleventh year of Zedekiah, according to 2
Kings 25:2 Gedaliah was exhorting the men of Judah:
“Fear not to be the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in
the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be
well with you.”––2Ki 25:24.
By Adventist reckoning, Judah was about 18 years into
the 70 years. But, remember, the 70 years could not even
begin until the ‘service’ began because Jeremiah is clear
that Judah would “serve the king of Babylon seventy
years.” (Jer 25:11) So when did they begin to serve
Babylon?
2 Chronicles 36:17-21 answers.
“They burnt the house of God, and brake down the
wall of Jerusalem, ... And them that had escaped from
the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they
were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the
kingdom of Persia: To fulfil the word of the LORD by
the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her
sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept
sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.”
It is perfectly clear that only after the final destruction of
Jerusalem did they become “servants” to the Babylonians
and that only these events fulfilled the Jeremiah 25:11
prophecy of the 70 years.
Adventists believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in
587/586 BCE. In that case, the Jews served Babylon for
50 years at best. Their approach is unfaithful to Scripture.
The date 607 BCE, on the other hand, is firmly based in
Scripture. So too is 1914 CE for the reestablishment of
God’s Kingdom 2,520 years later at the end of the Gentile
Times.––Lu 21:24.
 DEFENCE
While the author of Channel poses with the VAT 4956
tablet on page 114 of the revised edition of his booklet,
we are on firmer ground to rest on the chronology of
God’s Word. Ironically, though, the very tablet that he
displays supports the chronology of the Bible––the one
Jehovah’s Witnesses accept––more than it does the
compromising chronology of Seventh-day Adventists.
2.13 Adventists’ Own Chronological Problem
Although they are very critical of Jehovah’s Witnesses
regarding 1914, Adventists have a problem of their own
in connection with the Jesus’ death. White claimed in The
Great Controversy that Jesus died in 31 AD.
“In the midst of the seventieth week, Messiah was to
be cut off. Three and a half years after His baptism,
Christ was crucified, in the spring of A.D. 31.”––Page
410. (Emphasis ours.)
The ‘spirit of prophecy,’ so-called, is clear that Jesus died
in 31 AD. She agreed with William Miller on this.
The Scriptures say that he was executed on the day of the
full moon, Nisan 14, and that it was a Friday, Preparation
day, the day before the Sabbath. (Joh 19:31, 42) In a
lengthy article that considered the chronology of Jesus’
death, C.J Humphreys and W.G. Waddington of Oxford
University concluded:
“There is a striking unanimity from all sources that the
Crucifixion was on Nisan 14 and consequently the
only two plausible years for the Crucifixion are AD 30
and AD 33.”––“The Jewish Calendar, A Lunar
Eclipse, and the Date of Christ's Crucifixion,” in
Tyndale Bulletin 43.2, pages 331-351.
The problem for Adventists is that Nisan 14 in 31 CE was
not even a Friday. It was a Wednesday. According to the
US Naval Observatory’s Oceanography Portal, Nisan 14
in that year was Wednesday, April 25 (Julian calendar).
The Adventist Church is aware of the problem because it
holds in its possession documents confirming it. For
example, Oswald Gerhardt writes:
“In 31 the 14 Nisan came either on Wednesday, April
25, or on Thursday, April 26, but not on a Friday.”––
Das Datum der Kreuzignung Jesu Christi, pages 74-
80, as quoted in “Translations of Various Scientific
Documents: On Lunar Calendar and the Crucifixion
Date,” Box 2, Folder 5, Grace Amadon Collection,
(Collection 154), Centre for Adventist Research,
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.
18 Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept 457 BCE as the date for “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem” mentioned at Daniel 9:25 because Ezra 7:8ff. says nothing about restoring and building Jerusalem. The only account
describing an actual command to rebuild the city is Nehemiah 2:5-8. It is the event that Jehovah’s Witnesses use.
49
Also in the Adventist archives is this comment by
astronomer Karl Schoch.
“I now come to the year 31 A.D. when the new moon
for the Nisan new light came on April 10 … After 28
hours, on the eve of April 11, at this time of the year,
every new light is quite easily seen in Jerusalem … 1
Nisan = April 12; 14 Nisan = April 25, Wednesday; 15
Nisan = April 26, Thursday.”––The Crucifixion of
Christ on 14 of Nisan, as quoted in “Translations of
Various Scientific Documents: On Lunar Calendar
and the Crucifixion Date,” Box 2, Folder 5, Grace
Amadon Collection, op. cit.
Ellen G. White’s 31 CE date fails the astronomy test
because it does not provide for a Friday crucifixion.
The problem is even more difficult for Adventists
because they count from October 457 BCE in calculating
both the 2,300 day-years of Daniel 8:14 and the 490 day-
years of Daniel 9:24, 25.18 They employ a luni-solar
calculation for arriving at October 22, 1844 as the end of
the 2,300 years. But they do not use the same luni-solar
method to calculate the date of the death of Christ
because it leads directly to a Wednesday crucifixion.
However, the US Naval Observatory’s Oceanography
Portal says that in 33 CE Nisan 14 was Friday, April 3
(Julian), April 1 (Gregorian), the year that Jehovah’s
Witnesses calculate as the year of Jesus’ death.
So there is a curious inconsistency about 607 BCE.
Adventists criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses on the basis of
what they think is strong secular evidence. The Witnesses
reply that they believe that the Biblical evidence for 607
BCE is strong and should be allowed more weight than
the secular. Adventists insist on their secular proof.
However, when it comes to 31 CE where the secular
evidence is against them, Adventists opt for Ellen G.
White over the secular evidence. There are even attempts
to wrestle the secular evidence in favour of the prophet,
to ‘make it fit.’ Even being generous, we must say at the
very least that Adventists are neither consistent nor fair
in criticizing Jehovah’s Witnesses on secular grounds.
2.14 The Problem
The Adventist Church from the beginning was anchored
to the teachings of Ellen G. White, which were accepted
as ‘the spirit of prophecy.’ Its doctrines had to bear a
resemblance to her teachings. Its main doctrines lie in its
name. A visible Advent was locked-in. Adventists could
not receive ‘new light’ about the parousia.
 DEFENCE

Charles Russell, by contrast, was wide open to new light
on the subject. Although he attended a meeting of the
Advent Christian Church (Second Adventists) in 1869,
he was never a member. Bob says Russell took his beliefs
about an invisible presence from Nelson Barbour. (GCT,
pages 37, 38) He is wrong. As far back as 1873 Russell
published the booklet The Object and Manner of the
Lord’s Return in which he taught that Christ would return
invisibly. He did not even become aware of Barbour or
his magazine Herald of the Morning until 1876.
Long before Russell or Barbour came to this conclusion
Isaac Newton wrote that Christ would return and reign
“invisible to mortals.” As far as an invisible presence is
concerned, in 1856, Joseph Seiss, a Lutheran minister in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, wrote about an invisible
parousia followed by a visible manifestation.
In 1864 Benjamin Wilson published the Emphatic
Diaglott using “presence” for parousia. Barbour was
alerted to this reading and later, after the two had met, he
shared it with Russell. It is not true to say that Barbour
was the one who convinced Russell that Christ would
return invisibly. Barbour’s contribution was to show
Russell that the Emphatic Diaglott used “presence” in
translating parousia.
As far as 1914 is concerned, British clergyman,
E.B. Elliott drew attention to it as the date for the end of
the “seven times” in 1844. Another Briton, Robert Seeley
arrived at the same conclusion in 1849.
Adventists have been unwilling or unable to concede the
difference between Christ’s extended presence and his
momentary coming. When Russell noted the difference,
he was not committed to a previous view. He was a ‘Bible
Student’ not tied to a prophet’s teaching. He was in a
position to accept new light. Despite the evidence,
Adventists must remain attached to Ellen G. White’s
teaching on the subject or deny both her prophetic status
and the fundamentals of their denominational name. We
can hardly expect any new Adventist light on this subject.
2.15 A Lack of Knowledge
As for Lorna, Clarice and family, they should have had a
clear understanding of the parousia because it had been
explained by Jehovah’s Witnesses for decades. For
example, it was discussed in the Watchtower of August
15, 1940, pages 252, 253.
It was discussed in greater detail in the issue of July 1,
1949, pages 196-203. If Lorna’s family only became
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1950’s, the 1952 edition of
their study textbook Let God Be True discussed the same
subject on pages 198-206.
There was an appendix about the parousia in all copies
of the Christian Greek Scripture edition of the New World
Translation after its release in 1950. Lorna’s family
owned copies and they would have studied these other
publications, but they seemed to know nothing about the
Scriptural arguments presented in them. They did not
discuss them with Bob in any detail. How might the
conversation have developed if they had simply defended
their faith? Their lack of Bible knowledge is surprising.
Bob, though, is supposed to be an expert on Jehovah’s
Witnesses. “His knowledge of the Watchtower history
and teaching is devastating.” (GCT, page 89) So he
should have known why the Witnesses distinguish
between Christ’s presence and his coming, yet he left
most of the points in their publications.
The truth about the return of Christ involves four
elements. First, his return is in a spirit body because he
once and for all sacrificed his perfect human body of
flesh in providing the ransom. The Mosaic Law types
support this understanding. Second, Christ’s parousia
and his erkhomenon are clearly different, one relating to
the whole of the last-days period including his final
coming, and the other to that coming itself. Third,
passages of Scripture that apparently teach a visible and
audible return contain expressions that are elsewhere
used symbolically. Fourth, time calculations that point to
1914 are supported by real-world events that began
occurring in that year. The teachings of Jehovah’s
Witnesses reflect all four of these elements.

50
 DEFENCE
3
Father to the Rescue
Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse the transfusion of blood
products. This sets them apart from Seventh-day
Adventists. Chapter 5 of Channel contains a brief
exchange about blood transfusions. Probably the
Seventh-day Adventist sentiment is mirrored in the
words of one of the booklet’s characters, Paul: “I reckon
it’s all wrong to say it would be the will of God for her to
die. What has eating blood to do with placing blood in
veins to save a life?”
Problems arise with the “I reckon ...” approach, but Paul
was right in saying it would not be God’s will for a person
to die. The real question, however, is ‘Would God want
a Christian to sustain his life by a direct violation of his
law?’ To put the question to an Adventist: ‘If you were
asked to deny that Jesus Christ is God or that the Sabbath
is his sacred day, what would God expect of you? To
recant your faith to save your life, or to die if necessary?’
The Adventist publication speaks well of martyrs who
died in the Middle and Dark Ages “for even the little truth
they knew,” refusing to recant. (GCT, page 84) To be fair,
then, Bob would have to agree that obedience to God is
more important that life itself.
Until the time of Noah, there was no law regarding blood
because animals had not been killed for food.
Interestingly, though, animals were used before the Flood
for sacrifice. (Ge 4:4) After the Deluge, there may at first
have been limited vegetation. God himself gave Noah’s
family meat to eat and this command was never revoked.
(Ge 9:3) Since Noah was our common ancestor, we retain
the right to eat meat, despite the Adventists’ dietary
recommendations.––Ro 14:2, 3; 1Co 10:25-33.
The limitation was that blood could not be eaten along
with the flesh because blood represented the creature’s
soul or life, which essentially belonged to God. (Ge 9:4)
The law against consuming blood continued into the
Mosaic Law covenant. (Le 17:11, 12, 14; De 12:23) The
Law simply required that blood be drained, not
Pharisaically, but reasonably.––Le 17:13.
3.1 “Abstain from Blood”
In Christian times, the apostle and elders in Jerusalem
decreed:
“But we write unto them that they abstain ... from
blood.”––Ac 15:20, 28, 29; 21:25.
51
Along with blood, the decree commanded Christians to
abstain from fornication, things sacrificed to idols and
things strangled. These were laws never revoked. Some
make convenient distinctions between eating blood and
having it transfused. What can we say about this
argument? Adventists do not favour the use of alcoholic
beverages. If an Adventist were to circumvent the
Church’s recommendation to abstain from alcohol by
having it transfused directly into his veins, could he
honestly argue that he was ‘abstaining’ from alcohol?
No. Intravenous feeding is really just another form of
eating. It is not abstaining.
Fornication is mentioned in the same text. It has different
forms such as adultery and homosexuality, but all are
fornication and all are forbidden. In the same way, the
command to abstain from blood would cover all of the
forms in which blood is consumed.
3.2 The Reason for the Prohibition
Blood was not forbidden for dietary reasons but for
spiritual reasons. The only use of blood ever authorized
in the Scriptures was its use in sacrifice. The reason for
the prohibition is stated this way:
“I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For
the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it
to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your
souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for
the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel,
No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any
stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.”––Le
17:10-12.
In Israel, blood was for atonement and “therefore” it was
forbidden for other use. The prohibition was directly
related to atonement. Of course, Christians are not under
this particular Mosaic Law requirement. Still, the
principle of ‘blood for atonement only’ remains because,
once Christ shed his atoning blood in the antitypical
Atonement Day sacrifice, there is no other permissible
use of blood specified in the Christian Scriptures. It is
expressly forbidden.––Ac 15:20, 28, 29; 21:25; He 9:22.
In ancient times, the prohibition included all blood, even
human blood. (Le 7:26, 27; 17:10) So David refused to
drink even water that to him represented human blood.
(1Ch 11:18, 19) Blood could not be used even when
apparently lifesaving. (1Sa 14:31-34) If we are concerned
 DEFENCE

with saving human life, therefore, it is better to follow
Christ’s direction: “Whosoever will save his life shall
lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall
find it.”––Mt 16:25.
3.3 Russell and Rutherford
John says Charles Russell and Joseph Rutherford “did not
get on too well together.” (GCT, pages 45, 46) This is
untrue. At the time of Russell’s death, Rutherford was a
serving member of the board of directors of the Watch
Tower Society. Russell had approved this appointment.
Russell had also named Rutherford in his will as one of 6
men designated to fill vacancies on the Editorial
Committee of the Watchtower Society’s publications. As
president of the Society, Russell could easily have
sidelined Rutherford if they “did not get on too well.”
From Rutherford’s side, he was a strong supporter of
Russell. In 1915, the year before Russell died, he
authored the 64-page booklet A Great Battle in the
Ecclesiastical Heavens defending Russell from a
lawyer’s point of view against the attacks of his many
religious enemies.
Chapter 5 of Channel gives more examples of teachings
that Jehovah’s Witnesses have abandoned in favour of
‘new light.’ But remember that Adventists also believe in
new light and have changed many important teachings
before and since 1863.
To Jehovah’s Witnesses, obedience to God takes priority
even over the preservation of life. This has been
demonstrated by their refusal to use blood products,
including blood transfusions. In God’s view, blood
represents the life of the creature and he has not
authorized its use in any form by any other person.

52
 DEFENCE
4
Bricks … and A Debate
Channel chapters 6 and 8 attempt to support the
Adventist proposition that the Ten Commandments,
including the Sabbath, are binding on Christians.
First, though, Lorna’s lack of knowledge is exposed
when she imagines Bob to mean that the Ten
Commandments were stored in Noah’s ark. She does not
seem to be aware of the existence of the ark of the
covenant. Bob says: “Remember, there are two arks
mentioned in the Bible.” (GCT, pages 48, 49) Actually,
there are three. (Ex 2:3) Lorna’s family lacked even the
kind of basic Bible knowledge needed to engage Bob
meaningfully.
4.1 Storage Issues and the Question of Two Laws
Bob points out that after giving the Ten Commandments
God “added nothing.” (De 5:22, GCT, page 50) The Ten
Commandments were then placed in the ark. (Ex 40:20)
He believes this is very significant. He argues that these
storage arrangements mean that the Commandments
were a Law complete in their own right. Then he refers
to “the other law” written, not by God, but by Moses
which, when ‘finished’ and ‘completed,’ was stored at
the side of the ark. (De 31:24-26) Bob argues on this basis
that there were two completed laws, separate and distinct
from each other.
However, the fact that God “added nothing” after writing
the Ten Commandments on stone is really no proof that
the Commandments were a discrete Law. It is feasible
that God could add other regulations to the same Law at
a later time on different materials if he wanted to do so.
That would be his prerogative. Bob’s statement based on
Deuteronomy 5:22 is an unproven assertion.
He makes an equally unfounded assertion about “the
book of the law” that Moses wrote and placed at the side
of the ark. He assumes without proof that it included the
Ceremonial Law but excluded the Ten Commandments.
Nothing in the Bible says that Moses excluded the Ten
Commandments from his writing. Actually, the
expression “the law” as used in Exodus and
Deuteronomy includes both the Ten Commandments and
other laws that Adventists would call ‘Ceremonial.’ (Ex
24:12; De 4:44; 17:11; 29:21; 30:10) So Moses no doubt
wrote all of the laws of the covenant––the Ten
19 “The word ‘law’ requires individual attention. The [Greek] article indicates a particular law, or the Mosaic law; without the
article, reference may be to ‘law’ as a principle.”––The Bible Translator, Volume 1, January 1950, page 165.
53
Commandments and all the other laws––and included
them in “the book” that he wrote.
In fact, Deuteronomy 30:10 refers to God’s
“commandments ... which are written in this book of the
law.” (Cp. 1Ki 2:3; 2Ki 17:13) Adventists are usually
keen to link the word ‘commandments’ with the Ten
Commandments. If so, the book that Moses wrote and
placed at the side of the ark would have included the
whole law, including the Ten Commandments.
This book of the law that Moses wrote was to be read to
the Israelites. (De 31:10, 11) There was no similar
instruction to read directly from the stone tables to Israel.
Surely God would have wanted the Ten Commandments
to be read to his people! It therefore seems certain that
the book of the law that Moses wrote included the Ten
Commandments.
The Bible does not say that there were two laws given to
the Israelites. On the contrary, it specifically refers to
“one law.”––Ex 12:49; Nu 15:16.
4.2 “Christ Is the End of the Law”
Bob is called on to explain Romans 10:4: “Christ is the
end of the law.” (GCT, page 51) He describes “end” in
terms of a goal or objective. Jehovah’s Witnesses agree
that Christ was the objective of the Law but, as Paul also
says, the arrival of Christ removed any need for the Law.
“The law ... was added ... till the seed should come ...
Wherefore the law [Greek, ho nomos] was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ ... We are no
longer under a schoolmaster.”––Ga 3:19, 24, 25.
Note the words “till” and “no longer.” They show that the
Law had no authority once Christ arrived and then died
in our behalf, and Paul does not confine “the law” to the
‘Ceremonial Law.’
There can be no refuge for Adventists in Romans 3:31.
“Do we, then, abolish law by means of our faith? Not at
all! On the contrary, we uphold law.” Which “law” did
Paul mean when he wrote this? He uses “law” without
the definite article, “the,” showing that he is referring to
law generally.19 He is not saying that Christians continue
to uphold the Law––the Ten Commandments and other
 DEFENCE
auxiliary laws––but that they uphold law in principle. For
example, the teachings and life course of Jesus are a law
for his followers, “the law of Christ.” (Ga 6:2) This
Christian law means that Christ’s followers are still
subject to law despite the end of the old Law covenant.
Paul does not mean they are subject to any of the laws of
the old covenant––‘Moral’ or ‘Ceremonial.’
So what of Bob’s explanation of Romans 10:4 about
Christ being the end of the Law? (GCT, page 51) We can
take a cue from Paul’s other writings. At Romans 7:6 he
says Christians have ‘died’ to the Ten-Commandment
law and have been “delivered” from it. At 2 Corinthians
3:11 he says the Ten Commandments are “done away.”
In view of comments like these, Christ was not only the
end of the Law in the sense of being its objective, but the
Law was also terminated when he fulfilled it.
4.3 The Law of Liberty
Bob believes that “the law of liberty” at James 2:10-12
refers to the Ten Commandments because James refers
directly to two of those Commandments. (GCT, page 52)
He should have noted that James also refers to the so-
called ‘Ceremonial Law’ just a couple of verses earlier at
James 2:8.
“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.”
Here James quotes from Leviticus 19:18, which appears
alongside a text that forbids the interbreeding of two
kinds of animals and the wearing of garments with
intermingled thread. By saying “ye do well,” is James
recommending that we adhere to those ‘ceremonial laws’
just because they are mentioned in the immediate
context? No. James’ point is not that we should keep the
‘Ceremonial Law.’
In the same way, James is not teaching that we should
keep the ‘Moral Law.’ James’ lesson is about
impartiality. (Jas 2:1-7) He illustrates the lesson with
hypothetical situations, using the word “if” to show that
they are not actual situations. He describes a situation in
which a person tries to keep some laws––whether
‘ceremonial’ or ‘moral’––but fails to keep the whole
Law.––Jas 2:8, 9, 11.
James 2:10-12 describes one of those situations. Note the
“whosoever,” the “if” and the subjunctive verbal mood,
all of which show that James is not discussing a real-life
situation.
“For whosoever [Greek, hostis] shall keep [Greek,
subjunctive mood] the whole law, and yet offend
[again, subjunctive] in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do
not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou
kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. Speak
54
so ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the
law of liberty.”
The relative pronoun that James uses in verse 10 is hostis,
“whosoever,” which implies indefiniteness, and James
adds two verbs in the subjunctive mood, “the mood of
doubtful assertion.” Grammars call this an ‘indefinite
clause.’ (The Elements of New Testament Greek, page
160) James uses the word “if” twice, adding to the
evidence that his scenario is a theoretical construct, not a
real-life one.
James is saying, in effect: ‘If someone, a Jew, were
successfully keeping the whole Law except just one law,
he would be keeping the Law partially.’ By this
imaginary scenario, he gives an example of what
partiality would look like.
When James uses the expression “the whole law” he
includes the Ten Commandments and the ‘Ceremonial
Law’ as James 2:8 clearly shows. Both are in view in the
context. When Paul uses the expression “the whole law”
at Galatians 5:3 he says that it includes the circumcision
law. “Every man that is circumcised … is a debtor to do
the whole law.” We can say, then, that “the whole law”
includes all of the Law given to Moses, without division.
Bob is not correct that “the whole law” in James is only
the Ten-Commandment Law. Neither is the Ten-
Commandment Law “the law of liberty.”
Missing this fact, Adventists misread James 2:12, as if
the double “so [houtos]” refers back to the
commandments in verse 11. Instead, verse 12 explains its
own meaning. “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall
be judged by the law of liberty.” The double “so” points
forward to that final clause, which relates to the law of
liberty. What is this law?
Nothing could be clearer than that the law of liberty is not
the Ten-Commandment Law. Quite the opposite. The
“one” covenant that came from Mount Sinai resulted in
“bondage,” not liberty. (Ga 4:24) Did this old covenant
include the Ten Commandments? Indeed, it did,
according to Deuteronomy 4:13.
“He declared unto you his covenant, which he
commanded you to perform, even ten commandments;
and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”
And Paul confirms that the Ten Commandments were
part of the old covenant at Hebrews 9:1, 4.
“The first covenant had ... the tables of the covenant.”
By contrast, liberty is connected with another covenant,
one connected with the Jerusalem above. “Jerusalem
which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Ga
4:26) “We are not children of the bondwoman, but of the
free.” (Ga 4:31) “Stand fast therefore in the liberty
 DEFENCE
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled
again with the yoke of bondage.” (Ga 5:1) Note that
Christian liberty is contrasted with the bondage of Sinai.
“The law of liberty” is therefore “the law of Christ”
mentioned in the context. It is not the first covenant with
its Ten Commandments. (Ga 6:2) “The law of liberty” is
also described as “the law of faith” and “the perfect law
of liberty.” (Ro 3:27; Jas 1:25) In recommending “the law
of liberty,” James means that applying the law of Christ,
including love, is the best way to avoid impartiality.
But could James have used the Ten Commandments in a
lesson on partiality if they had already passed away? Yes,
he could, just as he used the so-called ‘Ceremonial Law’
for a similar purpose at James 2:8. And elsewhere, at 1
Corinthians 9:8-10, Paul quotes the ‘Ceremonial Law’
about not muzzling a bull while it threshes grain, even
adding that this was said “for our sakes.” Did he mean
that the ‘Ceremonial Law’ was still to be kept by
Christians? Clearly not.
Quoting parts of the Law that are relevant because the
principles that they teach are consistent with Christian
law is a proper teaching tool, but it does not prove that
Christians are under the laws given in the Sinai period,
‘Moral’ or ‘Ceremonial.’
4.4 False Contrasts
On page 54 of Channel Price claims some contrasts
between the so-called ‘Moral Law’ and ‘Ceremonial
Law’ and he arranges them in parallel columns. His
intention is to demonstrate two separate Laws. But the
division of the Law into two Laws is unscriptural, so it is
not surprising that many of his contrasts fail him.
Consider a few examples.
In the right-hand column at point 1 he cites Leviticus 1:1-
3 under the headings “Ceremonial Law” and “Laws of
Offerings & Blood Sacrifices Circumcision etc ...”
However, among the laws that Moses spoke in the book
of Leviticus are some of the most ‘Moral’ laws of all. For
example, the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus chapter 18
are moral. The command to respect one’s parents at
Leviticus 19:3 is moral, as is the command to provide for
the poor at Leviticus 19:9, 10. The command not to hate
one’s brother in the heart is also moral. (Le 19:17) And
what about the command that Jesus called the second
greatest of all, to love one’s fellow as oneself? It is
moral.––Le 19:18.
All of these laws Moses ‘spoke’ to the Israelites at God’s
command. How can they possibly be classified as
‘ceremonial’ when they have absolutely nothing to do
with ceremonies, offerings, sacrifices, circumcision or
anything of the kind? In fact, the majority of the laws of
a ‘moral’ nature are found in the so-called ‘Ceremonial
55
Law.’ Such is the confusion when Adventists try to
maintain a division that the Bible does not sustain.
Also at point 1, Price notes as a difference the fact that
“God spoke” the ‘Moral Law’ whereas “Moses spoke”
the ‘Ceremonial Law.’ Yet, the Scriptures also say that
Jehovah spoke the ‘Ceremonial Law.’ For example:
“Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake
unto you by the hand of Moses.” (Jos 20:2) Yes, God
spoke the ‘Ceremonial Law.’ Whether God spoke
personally, through Moses or even “by the disposition of
angels,” all of the Law was effectively spoken by God.
(Ac 7:53) The human involved in speaking God’s laws is
really not important, since “all scripture is given by
inspiration of God.”––2Ti 3:16.
At point 5 Price says that the ‘Moral Law’ was
“complete.” He takes this from Deuteronomy 5:22 but
the verse does not say that the Law was complete at that
point. It simply says that God added no more to the Ten
Commandments. No one challenges that. However, Price
believes there is a contrast with the ‘Ceremonial Law’
which was “added to and built up.” But Deuteronomy
31:24 says that “Moses ... made an end of writing the
words of this law in a book, until they were finished.” In
God’s time the Law was completed in its entirety. To take
time to complete it was God’s prerogative but, remember,
there was only “one law,” not two.––Nu 15:16.
At point 6 Price quotes Psalm 111:7, 8 regarding God’s
“commandments” standing “for ever and ever,” and he
says this means the Ten Commandments. He takes
advantage of the King James Version’s use of a Hebrew
word that actually means ‘orders’ or ‘precepts.’ A simple
search of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
would have revealed that the original Hebrew word
translated “commandments” at Psalm 111:7, 8 hardly, if
ever, refers exclusively to the Ten Commandments. It is
never used this way in Exodus or Deuteronomy where the
Ten Commandments are recorded. The word is used of
any of God’s orders or precepts, ‘Ceremonial’ included.
Having incorrectly limited Psalm 111:7, 8 to the Ten
Commandments, Price then contrasts it with Hebrews
7:12, which says that a change in the priesthood makes it
“necessary to change the Law.” Adventists think that this
“Law” in Hebrews is the ‘Ceremonial Law.’ But in
Hebrews chapters 8, 9 Paul goes on to clarify what
changes or passes away with the priesthood. After
mentioning the end of the “old” covenant at Hebrews
8:13, he clearly shows at Hebrews 9:1-6 that the covenant
included the “tables of the covenant.” The Ten
Commandments were part of that old covenant that
needed to “change.” Hebrews 7:12 is therefore speaking
about the whole Law, including the Ten Commandments,
not only the ‘Ceremonial Law.’ The claimed contrast
between Psalm 111:7, 8 and Hebrews 7:12 does not exist.
 DEFENCE
Price’s point 7 is nonsensical. He argues that, because
Colossians 2:14 says that the Law is “contrary to us,” it
must mean the ‘Ceremonial Law.’ Because it is
“contrary” Price categorizes that Law as “not good.” Is
this reasoning sound? Well, what of Romans 7:10: “the
commandment [the Tenth Commandment, verse 7] ... led
to death”? Were the Ten Commandments also “not good”
because they led to death? Any perfect law, even a good
one, is contrary to sinful humans. If “contrary” things are
“not good,” how does Price account for Galatians 5:17:
“the Spirit [is] against the flesh: and these are contrary
the one to the other”? Is the spirit “not good” because it
is “contrary”? Price’s argument simply does not follow.
At point 11, Price draws a contrast between the “perfect”
law of Psalm 19:7 and the comment at Hebrews 7:19 that
“the law made nothing perfect,” as if this proves that
there were two separate laws. But surely something can
be perfect without imparting perfection to others. Did the
Ten Commandments make people perfect? The faithful
angels are perfect but cannot impart perfection to others.
And who is to say that “the law of the LORD” at Psalm
19:7 is the ‘Moral Law’? The surrounding verses speak
of “statutes” and “judgments,” as well as a
“commandment.” All three of these terms apply in other
texts to the ‘Ceremonial Law’ just as well as to the Ten
Commandments. (Le 18:5; 19:37; De 26:16) These are
just a few examples of the faulty reasoning in his chart.
4.5 No Sabbath for Humans Before the Exodus
Seventh-day Adventists believe the Ten Commandments
were given in Eden, but the evidence is that they were not
given for human observance before the Exodus.
Deuteronomy chapter 5 lists them in detail in verses 6 to
22, and Deuteronomy 5:3 is absolutely clear.
“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers,
but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this
day.”
Did this covenant include the Ten Commandments, or
were the covenant and the Decalogue different? As
mentioned above, Deuteronomy 4:13 is clear that the Ten
Commandments were part of the covenant.
“He declared unto you his covenant, which he
commanded you to perform, even ten commandments;
and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”
The Ten Commandments were not different from the old
covenant but were part of it. Hebrews 9:4 calls the Ten
Commandments “the tables of the covenant.” They were
an integral part of the covenant that was not there before
Sinai. When was it introduced? There is something in the
Hebrew text that gives us a clue.
56
When the Sabbath for humans is first introduced in the
Bible record it is anarthrous––it lacks the Hebrew article,
“the.” (Ex 16:23, 25, 26) After this, beginning at Exodus
16:29, it is articular––it takes the article. This is
significant because in Hebrew and Greek a noun pointing
to something unfamiliar is usually introduced without the
article. After that, the article appears with the noun
because by then it is something familiar.
There are other examples of this kind of language. At
Genesis 8:20 we first read about “an altar” and then “the
altar,” meaning the one previously mentioned. At Exodus
12:11 where the Passover was introduced it is called “a
Passover,” anarthrous. (Byington) Thereafter it is “the
passover,” the one previously mentioned and already
known to the reader. (Ex 12:21) So the three anarthrous
Sabbath constructions that appear first in quick
succession in Exodus chapter 16 suggest that the Sabbath
at this point was an innovation, something new.
4.6 “Commandments” Not Always the Ten
Adventists counter that even Abraham obeyed God’s
“commandments.” (Ge 26:5; GCT, page 68) And Bob
quotes Paul: “Until the law sin was in the world: but sin
is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death
reigned from Adam to Moses.” (Ro 5:13, 14; GCT, page
67) No one denies that there was ‘law’ from Adam to
Moses but the Bible never says that these laws included
the Ten Commandments.
If the Ten Commandments should be understood
everywhere that we read “commandments” there would
be many more than ten. Even laws that were part of what
Seventh-day Adventists call the ‘Ceremonial Law’ were
called ‘commandments’ in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Deuteronomy 6:1; 7:11; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 13:18; 17:19, 20
are examples. So it is unreasonable to use references to
commandments at texts like Genesis 26:5 and Revelation
14:12 as if they apply to the Ten Commandments. There
is absolutely no proof that they do.
What about Bob’s text at Romans 5:13, 14? Note Paul’s
language: “until the law.” While “law” existed in a
general sense prior to Sinai and was reflected in various
laws given to God’s people––such as the commands to
build an ark, to leave Ur and to be circumcised––none of
this was “the Law.” At Romans 7:7 Paul shows that “the
Law,” with the definite article, included the Ten
Commandments.
By using the expression “the law” at Romans 5:13, 14
Paul shows that there was a time “until” which the Ten-
Commandment Law did not exist. It did not exist from
Eden.
4.7 Decalogue for Israel and Proselytes
 DEFENCE
The text of the Ten Commandments shows clearly that
they were designed for Israel and Gentile proselytes to
the Israelite religion only. At Exodus 20:2, 3, 12, 17, note
the words in bold type that show this.
“[First Commandment:] I am the LORD thy God,
which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other
gods before me …
[Fifth Commandment:] “Honour thy father and thy
mother: that thy days may be long upon the land
which the LORD thy God giveth thee …
[Tenth Commandment:] “Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his
maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that
is thy neighbour’s.”
In the other version of the Ten Commandments in
Deuteronomy, there are a few extra details.
“Hear, O Israel ...
[Fourth Commandment:] Keep the sabbath day to
sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded
thee. Six day thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that
thy maidservant and thy maidservant may rest as well
as thou.”––De 5:1, 12-15.
Clearly, the Ten Commandments were given specifically
to Israel, a nation that had been in bondage as slaves, a
nation brought out of Egypt. Not every nation had these
experiences. The nation to whom the Commandments
were given would have a specific land and would have
servants. The Commandments did not apply to all
strangers or to Gentiles generally but to those Gentiles
who were in a relationship with Israel. They were ‘thy
strangers,’ Gentiles such as those living ‘within Israel’s
gates.’
It is only by changing the target audience of the Ten
Commandments that Seventh-day Adventists can apply
the Commandments to themselves. The majority of them
are not Israelites, not ‘slaves brought out of Egypt’ into
another ‘land’ and not Gentile proselytes to the religion
of Israel as the Ten Commandments require. What gives
Adventists the authority to apply the Commandments to
themselves instead of to the ones actually mentioned in
the text? There is no good reason.
57
4.8 Sabbath a Sign Only to Israel
The purpose of the covenant that included the Ten
Commandments is outlined at Exodus 19:5. It also
identifies those under the Law.
“If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me
above all people.”
The old covenant was what separated Israel from other
nations. This would have been impossible if it had
applied to all nations. So Exodus 31:13, 17 calls the
Sabbath a special sign between Jehovah and Israel.
“... a sign between me and [Israel] throughout your
generations; ... It is a sign between me and the children
of Israel for ever.”
How could the Sabbath function as a sign on Israel if all
nations were under the Sabbath law since creation? No.
It only made Israel unique because other nations did not
have the sign.
The earliest reference to human Sabbath keeping is at
Exodus 16:4 in reference to the Israelite nation and their
associates. On that occasion, Moses gave specific
instructions on how to keep the Sabbath because they
were not familiar with it. (Ex 16:13-30; 31:12-18)
However, Bob points to the words: “How long will you
refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?” (Ex
16:27, 28) He believes this proves that the Sabbath had
existed as one of the Ten Commandments for a long time
before the exodus. (GCT, page 68) What can we say?
First, this expression “how long” does not prove that the
time was very long at all. When God asked the same
question “how long” of Pharaoh He was speaking about
a short period of time. (Ex 10:3, 7) And this is not the
only example. “How long” very often applies to short
periods of time in the Bible.––1Sa 1:14; 16:1; Neh 2:6;
Job 8:2; 18:2.
Second, the context shows that the Israelites had
repeatedly been disobedient to God’s commands during
the month after the exodus, and not just concerning the
Sabbath. (Ex 15:25b; 16:2, 3, 8, 16, 19, 20) So when
Jehovah asks: “how long will you refuse to keep my
commandments …?” there is no proof that Jehovah is
referring to the Ten. For instance, the command at
Exodus 16:19 not to leave manna over until the next day
was not one of the Ten. Again, the problem comes back
to the Adventist tendency too easily to interpret
“commandments” to mean the Ten Commandments.
As a unique sign differentiating Israel from Gentiles, the
Law was part of what Paul calls “the middle wall of
partition ..., even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances.” (Eph 2:14, 15) Adventists are not so keen to
 DEFENCE
apply these “commandments” to the Ten because this
wall of commandments has been “abolished.” But the
text is in harmony with those quoted above that show that
the Ten Commandments including its Sabbath was part
of the Law that divided Israel from the Gentiles. Gentiles
were never given those commandments unless they lived
in Israel or were proselytes to its religion. Otherwise, the
commandments would never have been a divider.
When the Ten Commandments were given, they were
described in Deuteronomy as “statutes and judgments.”
(De 5:1) Yet Psalm 147:19, 20 is clear that the statutes
and judgments of the Law were given only to Israel.
“He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his
judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any
nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known
them.”
This could only have been true if Gentile nations as a
whole had not been under the Ten Commandments since
Eden. This special Law divided Israel from Gentile
nations generally. It did not unite them.
4.9 Keeping Sabbath? Then Offer Sacrifices!
Bob needs texts proving that the Sabbath was not
confined to Israel. So he cites Isaiah 56:2, 6 to prove that
Gentiles should keep the Sabbath. (GCT, page 69)
However, he does not use the passage fairly and in
context. “Blessed is the man … that keepeth the sabbath
from polluting it, … Also the sons of the stranger
[Gentile], ... every one that keepeth the sabbath from
polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant.”
The passage certainly shows that strangers kept the
Sabbath, but it does not seem important to Bob to take
verse 6 in context. Note the next verse.
“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and
make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt
offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon
mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of
prayer for all people.”––Isa 56:7.
As well as Sabbath-keeping, Jehovah says that Gentiles
would offer sacrifices at the temple. This immediately
makes clear that Isaiah 56:2, 6 has no reference to
universal Gentile Sabbath-keeping. There was never a
requirement for all Gentiles in every land to offer the
animal sacrifices of the Law. Only particular Gentiles
kept the Sabbath and offered sacrifices. They were
Gentiles “that hath joined [themselves] to the LORD.” (Isa
56:3) They were converts to the Israelite religion.
There were always Gentile converts to the religion of
Israel. They were mentioned in the Ten Commandments
at Exodus 20:10 where it is said that the Sabbath was to
58
be kept by “thy stranger [Gentile] that is within thy
gates.” They were virtually Jews, by religion.
The Jews in Paul’s day would have been well aware that
Gentile converts like this were considered Jews by
religion. They were familiar with the Septuagint at Esther
8:17 which reads: “Many of the Gentiles were
circumcised, and became Jews.”
At Matthew 23:15 and Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43 converts like
these are called “proselytes.” Of course, these Gentiles
kept the Sabbath but they were also circumcised. (Ex
12:48, 49) And as circumcised proselytes, they had to
keep the whole Law according to Leviticus 24:22 and
Galatians 5:3. Proselytes kept the Sabbath.
However, Isaiah 56:2, 6 does not refer to modern-day
Sabbath keeping. If it did, why does Bob not quote verse
7 and, as a Gentile himself, offer burnt offerings in
Jerusalem? At least then he would have a more consistent
argument for Gentile Sabbath-keeping.
4.10 Greek Proselytes to Judaism
Bob uses Acts 17:2, 4; 18:4, 11 to prove that Gentiles
attended the synagogue to keep the Sabbath. (GCT, pages
69, 70) But he misapplies these texts, giving the
impression that all Gentiles were under Sabbath law. For
example, he points out that Acts 17:2, 4 says that Paul
reasoned in a synagogue in Thessalonica on three
Sabbath days with Jews and Greeks. The same thing
happened in Corinth.––Ac 18:4.
Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that some Gentiles kept the
Sabbath, but they were converted Gentiles, proselytes to
the Jewish faith, “devout Greeks,” as the record calls
them. (Ac 17:4) Earlier in Acts, such Gentiles are called
“religious proselytes.”––Ac 13:43.
The history of the period tells us that uncircumcised
Gentiles were not allowed into a synagogue. In one case,
the Jews falsely accused Paul of bringing Gentiles into
the temple. They believed that uncircumcised Gentiles
would defile the temple and the synagogue. (Ac 21:28;
24:6, 12) The Greeks that Paul preached to in the
synagogues in Thessalonica and Corinth must therefore
have been circumcised proselytes and therefore Jews by
religion. As mentioned, while individual Gentiles like
these may have kept the Sabbath, this was never true of
whole nations.
Bob’s inability to reason from the Scriptures is exposed
most clearly when he discusses Acts 16:13. (GCT, page
70) Ordinarily, Paul would have gone to the synagogue
to preach on the Sabbath, but here in the Roman colony
of Philippi there was none. So according to the text, Paul
went to the riverside outside the city where there was a
place of prayer and he preached to some women there.
Paul and his companions simply spoke to the women
 DEFENCE
exactly as they would have done had there been a
synagogue. There is nothing mentioned about Paul
observing the Sabbath.
However, Bob thinks it significant that “Luke, ... many
years after Christ’s death calls this day ‘the Sabbath
day.’” He wants us to believe that Luke used this
language because the Sabbath was still in force for
Christians. Bob fails to realize that just a few chapters
later Luke writes that Paul “hasted ... to be at Jerusalem
the day of Pentecost.” (Ac 20:16) Does this comment
mean that Pentecost observance was still in force for
Christians? No. Bob’s reasoning is exposed! Neither the
Sabbath nor Pentecost are binding on Christians. Paul
went out to the riverside “because it was the Sabbath” as
Bob says, but to preach, not to keep the Sabbath.
Nowhere do any of the texts that Bob uses state explicitly
or implicitly that Paul or his companions kept the
Sabbath themselves. Every time they approached others
on that day they preached to them. And significantly, all
of Paul’s Sabbath-day meetings were with Jews and
proselytes, never with a Christian church. Why not?
After the Pentecost day following Jesus’ death, we might
have expected there to be at least one reference to a
Sabbath-day Christian church meeting in the Bible.
There is not a single one.20 This not to say Christians
never met on Friday/Saturday. They were as free to meet
on that day as any other day, but there was no such
requirement.
The lack of evidence shows that it is not possible to prove
a requirement for Sabbath-day church meetings in the
first century after Pentecost. The very fact that Bob has
to cast around in texts that refer to Paul’s meeting with
Jews and Greek proselytes demonstrates the weakness of
his case.
4.11 No Moral Law/Ceremonial Law Distinction
Jesus as a Jew kept all of God’s Law without dividing it
into sections. (Ga 4:4) But Adventists maintain a
distinction between the Ten Commandments––their
‘Moral Law’––and the other laws given to Moses––their
‘Ceremonial Law.’ They say the ‘Ceremonial Law’ was
done away at the Cross but that the ‘Moral Law’ remains.
Did Jesus say anything to suggest a distinction?
At Matthew 5:17, 18 he says: “Think not that I am come
to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil.” These words are often quoted by
Adventists as if “the law” means the Ten
Commandments, and that therefore they are eternal. But
what does Jesus really mean by “the law”? He makes it
20 Regarding Acts 13:42-44, see point 11.15.2.
59
clear by the laws he quotes. Not all of them were from
the Ten Commandments. Instead, he quotes two of the
Ten Commandments and three ‘Ceremonial’ laws.
Specifically, he quotes, not only Commandments relating
to murder and adultery, but ‘Ceremonial’ laws relating to
offerings at the altar, divorce, vows and eye-for-eye
punishment. He refers to all six laws under the one
description, “the law.”––Mt 5:21, 23, 27, 31, 33, 38.
Jesus therefore viewed the whole Law as one united
whole. In fact, when you think about the laws that Jesus
actually quoted, if Matthew 5:17, 18 proves that the Ten
Commandments are eternal, it would prove equally that
the ‘Ceremonial Law’ was eternal. Clearly, this was not
his meaning. Jesus calls all of these laws––‘Moral’ and
‘Ceremonial,’ whatever we may call them––“the law,”
collectively, singular.
There was no Moral Law/Ceremonial Law distinction to
him. So W.E. Vine says:
“Circumcision belongs to the ceremonial part of the
‘Law.’ But, while the Mosaic Law is actually divisible
into the ceremonial and the moral, no such distinction
is made or even assumed in Scripture.”––Vine’s
Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testament Words, New Testament section, under
“Law.” (Emphasis ours.)
Evidently, Seventh-day Adventists have followed the
Protestant practice of ‘dividing’ the Law without
Scriptural warrant. The division of the one Law into two
is entirely unscriptural.
Jesus was specific. “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.” (Mt 5:18) He does not say that the Law would
remain in force until heaven and earth would pass away.
Instead, he says the Law could pass once it had been
fulfilled. And that was precisely why Jesus came, to fulfil
it. “I am come ... to fulfil.” (Mt 5:17) So what did that
‘fulfilling’ mean for the Law?
It is possible to resolve this by comparison with “the
prophets” mentioned in the same verse. When Jesus
fulfilled the prophets’ words, they were not destroyed,
but no one looks to them for further fulfilment. No one
still waits for a Messiah to be born at Bethlehem or for a
great light to shine in Galilee. These prophecies were
fulfilled by Jesus but not destroyed. In the same way, the
whole Law including the Ten Commandments were
fulfilled by Christ and no longer needs further fulfilment.
4.12 “Sabbath Days ... a Shadow”
 DEFENCE
According to Paul, the Sabbath was a type of future
Christian realities rather than a permanent observance. In
discussing various features of the Law, he says that the
Law was “a shadow” and that “the body,” the reality of
the Sabbath, was fulfilled in Christ.
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of
the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to
come; but the body is of Christ.”––Col 2:16, 17.
Adventists usually argue that these “sabbath days” are
ceremonial sabbaths such as the Passover, Pentecost or
festival of Tabernacles, but this cannot be.
The “sabbath days” mentioned by Paul are weekly
sabbaths, not annual sabbaths. Just the descending order
of the observances––“holyday” (annual), “new moon”
(monthly), “sabbath” (weekly)––argues that the sabbaths
are weekly. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures––the
‘Old Testament’––this same formula of words is used,
both in ascending and descending order, and in these
cases the “sabbaths” always refer to weekly Sabbaths. To
try to make the Colossians passage refer to ceremonial,
annual festival sabbaths ignores the Hebrew background
of the expression and rips the formula from its wider
Biblical context.
Consider these examples. “To offer all burnt sacrifices
unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on
the set feasts.” (1Ch 23:31) Note the ascending
sequence––weekly sabbaths, monthly new moons,
annual feasts. At 2 Chronicles 2:4: “on the sabbaths, and
on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts.” Again,
weekly, monthly and annual. “Of the sabbaths, of the new
moons, for the set feasts.” (Ne 10:33) Weekly, monthly,
annual.
It does not seem to matter that these observances are
placed in descending order. “In the feasts, and on the new
moons, and on the sabbaths.” (Eze 45:17) Here we have
annual, monthly, weekly observances in descending
order, the same as Colossians 2:16. Wherever the
sabbaths are mentioned as part of a sequence––ascending
or descending––they are always weekly sabbaths.
In fact, if the “sabbath days” that Paul mentions at
Colossians 2:16 were annual “feast” sabbaths, then
mentioning them separately from the “feasts” would have
been tautologous, unnecessary.
Also, note that wherever the Hebrew Scriptures link new
moon celebration with the Sabbath, it always refers to the
weekly Sabbath.––2Ki 4:23, 1Ch 23:31, 2Ch 2:4; Neh
10:33; Isa 1:13; 66:23; Eze 45:17; 46:1; Hos 2:11; Am
8:5.
The Greek Septuagint uses the special phrase sabbata
sabbaton when it refers to annual Sabbaths, not the
60
shorter form sabbaton used here in Colossians 2:14-17.
Paul was thoroughly familiar with the Septuagint. It was
the Bible that he quoted in his letters and it was the Bible
he knew his readers consulted. So when he chose to use
sabbaton at Colossians 2:16 rather than sabbata
sabbaton he must have known that those readers would
assume he was referring to the weekly Sabbath.
Sabbaton in Colossians 2:16 is plural in Greek. Every
other time, and there are more than 20, that this plural
appears in the ‘New Testament,’ it refers to the weekly
Sabbath. Consistency would require that it means the
weekly Sabbath here too, but Adventists usually find this
point difficult to concede.
At last Church scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi concedes it
in his book The Sabbath Under Crossfire, a Biblical
Analysis of Recent Sabbath/Sunday Developments.
Under the heading “The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16” he
says:
“The ‘regulations’ advocated by the Colossian
‘philosophy’ had to do not only with ‘food and drink’
but also with sacred times referred to as ‘a festival or
a new moon or a sabbath’ (Col 2:16). Commentators
agree that these three words represent a logical and
progressive sequence (annual, monthly, and weekly),
as well as an exhaustive enumeration of sacred times.
This interpretation is validated by the occurrence of
these terms in similar or reverse sequence five times
in the Septuagint and several other times in other
literature. Some view the ‘sabbaths––sabbaton’ as a
reference to annual ceremonial Sabbaths rather than
the weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:6-8, 21, 24- 25, 2728, 37-
38). Such a view, however, breaks the logical and
progressive sequence and ignores the fact that in the
Septuagint the annual ceremonial Sabbaths are never
designated simply as “sabbath” (sabbaton), but always
with the compound expression “Sabbath of Sabbaths”
(sabbata sabbaton). Indications such as these
compellingly show that the word “sabbaton” used in
Colossians 2:16 cannot refer to any of the annual
ceremonial Sabbaths.”––Page 238.
Then under the heading “Weekdays” he adds:
“The plural form ‘Sabbaths’ (sabbaton) is used in
Scripture to designate not only the seventh-day
Sabbath but also the week as a whole (Greek
Septuagint on Ps 23:1; 47:1; 93:1; Mark 16:2; Luke
24:1; Acts 20:7). This fact suggests the possibility that
the term ‘Sabbath’ may refer to weekdays as a whole.
The latter view harmonizes better with the sequence
of the enumeration which suggests yearly, monthly,
and weekly festivities.”––Ibid.
This admission was ground-breaking for an Adventist,
especially for a scholar of Bacchiocchi’s status. Even so,
 DEFENCE
he believes he can rescue the Ten Commandments and
the Sabbath by referring to Colossians 2:14.
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of
the way, nailing it to his cross.”
Bacchiocchi focuses on the word “handwriting,” from the
Greek kheirographon. He argues that this word
sometimes refers to a signed bill of indebtedness. So
Bacchiocchi says kheirographon at Colossians 2:14 does
not refer to the law but to “the instrument for the
remembrance of sin” or “the record of our sins.” Where
does he get this idea?
Not from the Bible but from non-Biblical “apocalyptic
literature.” He argues that the record of sin is what God
blotted out when Christ died, not the law.––From
Sabbath to Sunday, pages 350, 351; “A Reply to
Criticism: Part I, The Use of E.G. White's Writings in
Interpreting Scripture,” in Endtime Issues, Number 87, 1
August, 2002.
However, Bacchiocchi’s is certainly not the usual
Adventist explanation, and a document of indebtedness
is only one possible meaning of kheirographon in
nonbiblical Greek. Scholar Richard Lenski explains that
the word itself simply mean a handwritten document.
(The Interpretation of St Paul's Epistles to the
Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus
and to Philemon, page 114) It is a compound of kheir
(“hand”) and grapho (“writing”), so it could be a
handwriting of any kind. It might be a labour contract, a
document giving authority to act or a business agreement.
The kind of written document must be determined from
the context. It does not have to mean an instrument for
remembering or recording a debt. Bacchiocchi arbitrarily
uses a meaning convenient to his own preferred
understanding of the passage.
If kheirographon simply means a handwriting, what kind
of kheirographon is meant at Colossians 2:14? The
context leaves no doubt. It is a “handwriting of
ordinances.” The Greek for “ordinances” is dogmasin,
meaning “decrees,” and the context shows what kind of
decrees they are––feasts, new moons and Sabbaths––not
a record of sins. Paul uses dogmasin again at Ephesians
2:15 where it’s meaning is absolutely clear. There he says
“the law of commandments [was] contained in
ordinances [dogmasin].” All these feasts, new moons,
sabbaths and commandments were collectively the
handwritten document in the form of “the law,” the
divine requirements blotted out when Jesus died.
21 Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, under “Cross.”
61
What does all of this mean? That having conceded that
the usual Adventist explanation of Colossians 2:16 is
incorrect, Bacchiocchi has offered an alternative that is
also incorrect. Paul was simply talking about the weekly
Sabbath when he said it was part of the Law that was
‘blotted out, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross
[Greek, stauros, stake21].’
4.13 “Delivered” From the Tenth Commandment
At Romans 7:6 the apostle Paul makes clear that
Christians are delivered from the Ten Commandments.
“We are delivered [Greek, katergetai] from the law,
that being dead wherein we were held.”
Here “the law” definitely includes the Ten
Commandments, as Paul goes on to show by quoting the
tenth Commandment against coveting. (Ro 7:7) That
commandment was “holy,” “just,” “good” and
“spiritual,” but the Jews were totally incapable of
keeping it, so it came to be “unto death” to them. (Ro
7:10, 14, 12) So God loving arranged for something
described at Romans 7:2-4.
“The law hath dominion over [Greek, kyrieuei.
‘lording it over’] a man as long as he liveth ... For the
woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to
her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be
dead, she is loosed [Greek , katergetai] from the law
of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth,
she be married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from
that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye
also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;
that ye should be married to another, even to him who
is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit
unto God.”
Paul uses marriage as an illustration. “The law” is the
husband or ‘lord,’ and Jewish Christians are the
“woman” or ‘wife’ of the Law. (Ro 7:1) To become part
of Christ’s “bride,” they had to be released from the Law.
Without being “loosed from the law,” they could never
come into a proper wifely relationship with Christ. An
attachment to both ‘husbands’ would have been
adulterous and bigamous. But in the illustration a death
takes place in their ‘marriage’ to the Law. Jewish
Christians die to the Law. ––Ro 7:4.
This death breaks the marriage bond, leaving the
Christian free to marry Christ. So “we are delivered
[katergetai, ‘loosed’] from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held.” This figurative death of
 DEFENCE
Christians frees them from the Law. “We are delivered
[Greek, katergetai] from the law.” (Ro 7:6) Katergetai
ties this statement to the one at Romans 7:2 in the
marriage illustration. Just as death breaks a marriage
bond, so the Christian’s bond to the Law is broken by a
figurative death. From which law, then, are Christians
delivered? The ‘Ceremonial Law’?
No, the next verse says:
“I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not
known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet.”––Ro 7:7.
The tenth Commandment was part of “the law” from
which Paul was delivered, so he is not only writing about
the ‘Ceremonial Law,’ but he means to include the
‘Moral Law.’
Elsewhere in Romans, the apostle Paul reinforces the fact
that the Law, including its Sabbath, had ended and was
not compulsory for Christians to observe. He says:
“Christ is the end [Greek, telos] of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Ro 10:4) As
mentioned, telos means, not only the accomplishment of
a certain purpose, but the finish of it. So Matthew 24:14
uses it to mark “the end [telos] of the world”––not its
accomplishment only but also its end.
And further along in his letter at Romans 14:5, 6 we read:
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day,
regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not
the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.”
Keeping “one day above another” is not a requirement.
One might keep it due to his background in Judaism and
another might not. There were no compulsory days, but
it was a matter of personal choice. Paul does not specify
which day, so we must take him to mean any day.
The overall message of Romans, then, is that Christians
are delivered from the Ten-Commandment Law,
including its special “day.”
4.14 “The Letter ... Done Away”
Another passage showing clearly that the Ten
Commandments have been done away is in 2 Corinthians
chapter 3. Comparing the Christian ministry with the
ministry of the stone tables, Paul says:
“Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ
ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the
Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in
fleshy tables of the heart.”––2Co 3:3.
62
What does this mean for the Ten Commandments? 2
Corinthians 3:7 says that the glory of the Ten-
Commandments’ ministry was to be “done away.”
“If the ministration of death, written and engraven in
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel
could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the
glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done
away ...”
“The [Ten-Commandment] ministration” was inscribed
on the stone tables, but it was a “ministration of death”
because its “letter killeth.” (1Co 3:6) Paul made the same
point at Romans 7:10, 11 when speaking of the
Commandments. Despite their being holy, righteous and
good, they were “found to be unto death” because those
trying to keep them, being sinful, could not do so.
Really, then, in view of the comments at 2 Corinthians
3:7 that their glory “was to be done away,” the Ten
Commandments should no longer be glorious. But in
Adventism they still have their former glory, and then
some. One of the Ten Commandments has even worked
its way to the very front of their denominational name.
Some might say that only the glory is done away but that
somehow the Ten Commandments themselves remain.
But this too is impossible. The apostle goes on.
“For if that which is done away was glorious, much
more that which remaineth is glorious.”––2Co 3:11.
“That which [was] done away” was not the glory. It was
something other than glory, something that “was
glorious.” In the Greek, “that which” is to, a neuter
pronoun. It cannot refer to “the ministration” or to the
“glory” because both of these are feminine, and it cannot
refer to the “stones,” which is masculine. What does to
refer to, then?
The neuter pronoun can only refer to “the letter”––the
actual content of the Ten Commandments––because ,of
all the nouns in the immediate context, “letter” is a neuter
noun. (2Co 3:6) Paul uses “letter” 4 times in connection
with the Law, twice in reference to circumcision and
twice in connection with the Ten Commandments. (Ro
2:27, 29; 7:6; 2Co 3:6) Some might imagine Paul’s
meaning to be that the Ten Commandments should still
be kept, but in “spirit”––in a spiritual way––rather than
merely in “letter.” This would be a misunderstanding
because in that case a similar explanation of the matching
expression at Romans 2:29 would require that
circumcision still be practised.
Paul’s argument, then, is that all three––stones, glory and
what was written on the stones––were “abolished.” This
leaves Adventists ‘stedfastly looking to the end of that
which is abolished,’ something the passage does not
 DEFENCE
recommend. (2Co 3:13) How futile! They have “a zeal of
God, but not according to knowledge.”––Ro 10:2.
4.15 Ten Commandment Covenant “Cast Out”
The drama of Sarah and Hagar also teaches that
Christians are not subject to the Ten Commandments. It
is instructive to “those who desire to be under the law.”
(Ga 4:21) Paul describes Hagar as a type of the “one”
covenant “from the mount Sinai.” (Ga 4:24) Note, one
covenant, not two. What was included in this covenant?
Did it include or exclude the Ten Commandments?
The Bible is clear about this. The Ten Commandments
were part of the old covenant and the handwritten laws
dictated to Moses by God were also part of it. Exodus
24:7; Deuteronomy 4:13; 9:9; 10:10, 11 and Hebrews 9:4
make clear that all so-called ‘Moral’ and ‘Ceremonial’
aspects of the Law were part of the covenant.
Paul quotes the type and then makes an antitypical
application that shows why Christians should not be
under the Ten Commandments.
“Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of
the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the
freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of
the bondwoman, but of the free.”––Ga 4:30, 31.
The quotation is from Genesis 21:11. Hagar, representing
the old covenant that included the Ten Commandments,
was “cast out.” In Genesis, Hagar and her son never
returned from this eviction. Applying the type, Paul
concludes that Christ “is become of no effect unto you”
if you become “entangled again with the yoke of
bondage.”––Ga 5:1, 4.
The lesson is that true Christians are not children of the
old Ten-Commandment covenant which has been cast
out. Paul even warns that the old covenant threatens a
Christian’s relationship with Christ. They should view it
as Abraham viewed Hagar.
So at Galatians 5:18 Paul could go on: “Ye are not under
the law.” By “under the law” he does not mean under the
Law’s condemnation because Paul had already stated that
Christ was “under the law” and he was certainly not
condemned. (Ga 4:4) Not being under the Law simply
means not being subject to it. The Law was a
“schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.”––Ga 3:24.
Once Christ came, Christians were “not children of the
bondwoman [Hagar, her children being literal Israelites
under the Law covenant], but of the free [Sarah, the
Jerusalem above, her children being spiritual Israelites
under the new covenant].” (Ga 4:31) They were not to be
subject to Hagar’s law but to Sarah’s.
63
4.16 Not Anti-Law
Often people who believe that the Ten Commandments
have passed away are considered lawless, anti-law. Some
say that those without the Ten Commandments have no
disincentive to become criminals.
Yet, in the “law of Christ” Christians have a rich legal
code on which to base their lives. (Ga 6:2) Reasoning on
these very points almost as if he anticipated the objection,
Paul says at Galatians 5:13-23:
“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only
use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love
serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one
word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself … But if ye bite and devour one another, take
heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I
say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the
lust of the flesh … But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are
not under the law … But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”
As Paul says, Christians, although not keeping the Law,
actually end up fulfilling it because love is the Law’s
fulfilment. For example, someone who loves God would
never worship another god or disrespect His name. And
someone who loves others does not murder them or
commit adultery or steal or lie or covet. And, of course,
he honours his parents. True love automatically fulfils
these laws. In a similar passage Paul says:
“He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this,
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other
commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore
love is the fulfilling of the law.”––Ro 13:8-10.
So the Christian who is not under the Law ends up
fulfilling it, not because he is under the Decalogue, but
because he loves. Most of the Commandments were
framed as prohibitions against bad things. But because
“love worketh no ill,” it cannot perform the “ill”––the
bad things the Law prohibits. Christians avoid them, not
because they are under the Commandments, but because
they love others.
There are laws recorded in the Christian Scriptures that
are similar to some of the Ten-Commandment laws. They
are to be kept because they are part of the body of
Christian law, not because they are similar to the Ten
Commandments. Consider the following examples.
 DEFENCE
Commandments Texts
1 No other gods Exodus 20:3
2 No idolatry Exodus 20:4, 5
3 Not disrespect God’s name Exodus 20:7
4 Sabbath Exodus 20:8-11
5 Honour parents Exodus 20:12
6 No murder Exodus 20:13
7 No adultery Exodus 20:14
8 No stealing Exodus 20:15
9 No lying Exodus 20:16
10 No coveting Exodus 20:17
Of course, the requirements of Christian law in the last
column above do not exhaust that law. The commands
applying to Christians are incorporated in “the law of
Christ,” based on the example and teachings of Christ
himself. Some are framed positively, as commands to do
certain things. (He 10:24, 25) Others are framed
negatively, as prohibitions.––Ro 6:12; 12:11.
Apart from direct laws, there are principles that apply in
all circumstances. Christians are certainly not without
law, even without the Ten Commandments.
4.17 No Sabbath Law after Pentecost
However, the interesting exception in the “Christian
Scriptures” column is the Sabbath. Why? For certain, it
is not because Jehovah’s Witnesses have something
against the Sabbath as Bob imagines. The Witnesses
regularly engage in public preaching and abstain from
blood transfusions, things that are often far more difficult
than simply going to church and refraining from work
one day a week. If the Witnesses were to find a clear
command in the law of Christ to keep the Sabbath they
would have no hesitation in keeping it.
However, after Pentecost, there is no such command in
the Bible. In fact, there are just two references to
“Sabbath” between Romans and Revelation––one
concerning a spiritual sabbath in Hebrews and the other
calling the weekly Sabbath a shadow that is blotted out,
taken out of the way, in Colossians.22 Compare this with
Seventh-day Adventist literature which fairly overflows
with articles encouraging Sabbath-keeping.
Not only is there no positive command to keep the
Sabbath after Pentecost, but failing to keep the Sabbath
is never described as a sin. In fact, although there are long
lists of other sins in the Christian Scriptures at Mark 7:21,
22 (13 sins); Romans 1:29-31 (19 sins); Galatians 5:19-
22Seventh-day Adventists do not allow that the latter reference is to weekly Sabbaths. If this were true, the references would reduce
from two to one. See point 4.12.
64
Christian Scriptures
Matthew 4:10
1 John 5:21
John 17:26; Romans 10:13
Ephesians 6:1
Romans 13:9
1 Corinthians 6:9, 10
Ephesians 4:28
Colossians 3:9
Ephesians 5:3
21 (17 sins); and 2 Timothy 3:1-4 (18 sins), Sabbath-
breaking is never listed as a sin. Why not?
It cannot be because the newly formed Christian church
already understood the need to keep the Sabbath because
many of the first-century converts to Christianity were
Gentiles with no background in Sabbath-keeping. Many
were slaves for whom the Sabbath would have been a
great challenge, given the fact that they had few rights in
the Roman empire. It would be expected that the
importance of the Sabbath would be thoroughly
explained in the letters to the churches in Rome, Corinth,
Galatia and so forth. But no, it is not.
Some Jewish Christians continued to observe certain
requirements of the Law, including the Sabbath and
circumcision. (Ac 21:20, 21, 24, 25) This helps to explain
why some Christians judged one day above others while
others did not.––Ro 14:5.
Some Jewish Christians, including some former Gentile
proselytes to Judaism, may have reserved the seventh day
for spiritual purposes because of their cultural
background or even because the local civil law required
it, even though there was no Christian requirement for it.
Provided they did not insist that Sabbath observance was
required by God, there was no objection to this in the
same way that there can be no objection to Saturday
meetings today.
However, showing that keeping the Sabbath at that time
was not a divine requirement, Paul allows each Christian
to decide about the day for himself. “Let every man be
fully convinced in his own mind.” (Ro 14:5b) The
Adventist Clear Word paraphrase would have it that this
text refers to ceremonial holy days rather than the
Sabbath, but in doing so it goes beyond the original
Greek text.
 DEFENCE
If the Sabbath were required to please God, even those
Jews and proselytes who had become Christians and
whose custom was to keep the Sabbath would have
needed reminding that Sabbath-keeping was still
important despite the end of the Law.
When the question was raised about whether
circumcision was still a requirement, the apostles and
elders in Jerusalem issued a clear statement about which
of the Mosaic laws should still be kept. This would have
been a perfect opportunity to reinforce the Sabbath, but
nothing.––Ac 15:19, 20, 28, 29.
Adventists usually explain this by saying that the
requirements mentioned in that statement were not
exhaustive, that there were many other laws that
Christians must keep and that the Sabbath was one of
them.
However, the laws under discussion in Acts chapter 15
were not just any laws but specifically those recorded by
Moses and read aloud in synagogues each week. (Ac
15:5, 21, 24) Naturally, among them were laws about the
Sabbath because, although God himself wrote the Ten
Commandments on stone tables, Moses wrote both
Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 where those
Commandments are recorded for us to read. Of the laws
that Moses wrote, the only “necessary things” to observe
were regarding idolatry, fornication and blood. (Ac
15:28) The Sabbath was not regarded as vital, necessary
for Gentile converts.––Ac 15:3.
Sabbath-keeping was really not an issue in the early
church. There is no proof that the early church as a whole
was ever required to keep or ever did keep a weekly
Sabbath day.
4.18 A 7,000-Year Sabbath?
Lorna asks for proof that each of the seven creative days
were 7,000 years in length. (GCT, page 71) Although it
was true in times past that Jehovah’s Witnesses taught
that each creative day was this long, they are now not so
specific. So we find this comment in 1988.
“The Bible does not specify the length of each of the
creative periods.”––Insight on the Scriptures, Volume
1, page 545.
Yet there remains clear evidence that the days of creation
were at least several thousands of years in length.
Hebrews 3:19–4:11 is the relevant passage about the
seventh creative day and tracks it as continuous for four
thousand years. It also discusses the disobedience of the
Israelites for forty years.
Bob argues that the issue in the wilderness was Sabbath-
breaking. (GCT, pages 72, 73) This is incorrect because
in Deuteronomy chapter 1, at the end of the forty years,
65
Moses convicts the Israelites of their sins and the Sabbath
is not even mentioned, although it would likely have been
one of their many sins.––See also Nu 14:10, 11; 16:2;
20:2-4; 25:1-3.
How, though, can we answer Lorna? What indications
are there that the creative days are thousands of years in
length? At Hebrews 4:4-9 Paul traces the ‘rest’ of God
first mentioned at Genesis 2:2 through a comment by
David at Psalm 95:11 to his own time in the first Christian
century.
In Genesis, each of the first six creative days is spoken of
as ending. A formula like “and the evening and the
morning were the first day ... second day ... sixth day” is
used to mark the completion of each day.––Ge 1:5.
For the seventh day, however, there is no terminating
statement. Instead, we simply read: “And on the seventh
day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had
made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified
it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which
God created and made.” Does the mean that the seventh
day was not completed in the same way that the other six
days were completed? That is the implication.
Bob is critical of the New World Translation at Genesis
2:2. He says it “changed” the text “from the past tense to
a continuous tense.” (GCT, pages 98, 99) If Bob means
that the New World Translation changed the King James
Version’s rendering of the verb “rested” to “proceeded to
rest,” he is wrong. The translators of the New World
Translation were never in the business of changing the
King James Version. They were only concerned with the
true meaning of the original Hebrew verb and how to
render it accurately into English. So presumably Bob’s
criticism means to say that they changed the true meaning
of the Hebrew.
The truth is that there was never any effort to ‘change’
the meaning of the Hebrew verb. The New World
Translation is accurate when it renders the verse this
way.
“And by the seventh day God came to the completion
of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest
[or, ‘began to rest’] on the seventh day from all his
work that he had made.”––Ge 2:2.
These New World Translation renderings––“proceeded
to rest” and “began to rest”––accurately convey the true
sense of the verb. The Hebrew verb for “rested” is in a
verbal state called the imperfect state––a state that
denotes incomplete action, or action in progress.
Describing the imperfect state, James Washington Watts
writes this in his work A Distinctive Translation of
 DEFENCE
Genesis, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1963), pages 129,
130.
“The fundamental characteristic of all imperfects is
incompleteness … The incompleteness of these
imperfects, when they are in the indicative mood,
appears either in a progressive form or a frequentative
form. The context is relied upon to indicate one or the
other, for the structure of the verb is the same in both
cases. If the context indicates a single act or state, the
force is progressive. The action is pictured in the
process of development. In such case the primary idea
of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its
full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like
‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the
translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full
force. When a narrative is unfolding rapidly and the
sequence of events is more important than the vivid
portrayal of progress in some particular event, the
translator may depend solely upon conjunctive
adverbs like ‘afterward’ to indicate both sequence and
progress. Progress in this case is not brought out fully.
There is merely movement from one action or state to
another without definite portrayal of progress within
the second. The use of this limited translation means
that the translator sees no special reason for bringing
out the idea of progress more fully at that point. The
account in English would become tedious if he did. On
the other hand, if the translator sees that the account is
enriched by bringing out the full force of the verb, he
is at liberty to do so. If the context indicates more than
one occurrence of the act or state, the force is
frequentative. Again the primary idea of the verb in
English is not sufficient to convey the full meaning.
The addition of an auxiliary like ‘continued’ or an
adverb like ‘frequently’ is needed to reveal the full
meaning of repetition or customary occurrence.”
This, together with the fact that the termination formula
used for the other six days is not used for the seventh,
means that the seventh creative day was not completed in
one 24-hour period but continues. It is clear that when
grammar and context are considered, the New World
Translation rendering has not “changed” Genesis 2:2.
Consistent with these facts, Paul’s inspired argument is
that the seventh day is continuing.
“For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on
this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all
his works. [Ge 2:2] And in this place again, If they
shall enter into my rest. [Ps 95:11]”––He 4:4, 5.
He then says that there remains the opportunity to ‘enter
into’ the very same day mentioned at Genesis chapter 2
and Psalm 95.
66
“Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter
therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered
not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain
day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as
it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts.”––He 4:6, 7.
Note Paul’s use of “To day” because it is vital to
understanding the sabbath into which Christians “enter.”
It is a day that was called “To day” in David’s day. (Ps
95:7) The very same day remained open for Christians to
enter in the first century.
“There remaineth therefore a rest [a Sabbath] to the
people of God.”––He 4:9.
Paul’s quotations from Genesis chapter 2 and Psalm 95
indicate that the rest day that “remaineth” is the Genesis
2:2 day. Is it a weekly Sabbath day as Bob suggests?––
GCT, page 72.
No, because using the very same expression “To day” in
the context, Paul says:
“Exhort one another daily [not weekly], while it is
called To day.”––He 3:13.
To exhort and be exhorted to faithfulness is not
something we need just weekly. Christians always need
it. The Sabbath of Hebrews 3:13; 4:9 is therefore a
“daily” Sabbath––a continual rest from works of self-
justification, a continual rest of faith.
Faith, after all, was the topic in Paul’s mind when he
introduced the word “To day” at Hebrews 3:13 in the first
place, and faith or lack of it remains the topic throughout
Paul’s discussion of this special Sabbath rest. (He 3:12,
19; 4:2, 3) According to Hebrews 4:10, entering into
God’s rest includes resting from our own works. The
majority of Adventist scholarship concedes that Hebrews
4:9 refers at least partially to a Sabbath rest from works
of self-justification.
A concession like this actually prevents it referring to a
weekly Sabbath because the language of the text is
specific. “Rest” is singular. “There remaineth therefore a
rest to the people of God.” There is just one Sabbath for
Christians that remains. If that Sabbath is a spiritual rest
from works of self-justification, there is no place for a
weekly Sabbath because there would then be two
Sabbaths, one the outward sign of the other.
Bob believes that the New World Translation’s
“proceeded to rest” and “has been resting” at Genesis 2:2,
3 contradicts its translation of Hebrews 4:4, 10, “God
rested” and “just as God did.” But the translators did not
‘forget to alter the tense’ at Hebrews 4:4, 10 as Bob
suggests. The verbs in both Genesis chapter 2 and
Hebrews chapter 4 are translated accurately. In Genesis
 DEFENCE
chapter 2 they reflect the Hebrew imperfect state
denoting continuing action as already discussed. In
Hebrews chapter 4 they reflect the Greek aorist tense.
What does this mean?
Bob’s impression that the two contradict each other
shows that he misunderstands the meaning of the aorist
by limiting it to action that had been completed in the
past. According to W. Powers, the aorist can include “the
point of commencing ... an action.” (Learn to Read the
Greek New Testament, 4.31, page 51) One textbook calls
this “the ingressive aorist.”
“The Ingressive Aorist. The action signified by the
aorist may be contemplated in its beginning. This use
is commonly employed with verbs which signify a
state or condition, and denote entrance into that state
or condition.”––A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey, page 196.
Are the verbs at Hebrews 4:4, 10 verbs like this? Are they
“verbs which signify a state or condition, and denote
entrance into that state or condition”? Yes, they are,
exactly. In verse 4 the verb is “rested”––denoting the
state of being at rest––and verses 3, 5 specifically
mention ‘entering’ this rest state. Verse 10 also mentions
entering the same rest. The texts exactly meet the
requirements of the ingressive aorist.
This means that Hebrews 4:4, 10 does not refer to a
completed rest but to the commencement or beginning of
a rest, in agreement with the imperfect state of the
Hebrew verbs at Genesis 2:2, 3. Scholars F. Blass and A.
Debrunner confirm that the ingressive aorist emphasizes
the “beginning ... of the action.” (A Greek Grammar of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
page 166) Therefore, “commencing” and “beginning” are
perfectly compatible with God’s beginning an extended
state of rest.
If Bob had checked Hebrews 4:10 closely, he would have
seen that the Christian entering into God’s rest “also hath
ceased [Greek, katepausen] from his own works.” The
Greek word is the same word used of God at Hebrews
4:4: “God did rest [katepausen].” If the Christian rest of
faith takes place over many years as Adventists would
agree that it does, it should consistently mean something
similar for God. God’s katepausen began when he rested
from creation and continues on over many years.
Bob’s criticism is unfounded. Genesis 2:2, 3 and
Hebrews 4:4, 10 are consistent both in their original
languages and in the New World Translation.
Having said this, Jehovah’s Witnesses concede that the
Bible is not specific about the length of the seven creative
days. It is reasonable that the days were equal in length.
Because God rested from Genesis 2:2 and because the
67
same day (“To day”) was still ongoing in David’s and
Paul’s day, that seventh day of the creative week was at
least 4,000 years long. And according to Paul’s comment,
“it remaineth that some must enter therein,” so the
seventh day had longer still to run.––He 4:6.
The first six creative days had an ‘evening and morning.’
They were completed. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) This
formula was not used of the seventh day because it was
not complete. When the sixth day ended, “God saw every
thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”
(Ge 1:31) But this was not said of the seventh day. It will
not be possible to call the seventh day “very good” until
God’s original purpose for the earth is at last realized at
the end of the Millennium.
Today we are more than 6,000 years from the creation of
Adam, who was created late on the sixth day. Sometime
after his creation the seventh day began. By now we must
be nearly 6,000 years into that day. Allowing for the
1,000 years to come before the “very good” earth is
realized, 7,000 years was thought to be a reasonable
calculation for the length of the seventh day. If the
creative days were of equal length, they would all be
7,000-year days. But the Bible is not specific about this.
4.18.1 Counter Arguments
As Ron Roberts, the Witness, says: “many times ‘day’
refers to long periods of time.” (GCT, page 70) In fact,
this is the case right there in the context at Genesis 2:4.
Bob counters that this is never the case in Scripture where
an ordinal is placed before the word day, such as “first”
day. However, there is an exception. Some Adventist
scholars believe that “the third day” at Hosea 6:2 is a
figurative day, not a literal 24-hour day. So Adult
Sabbath School Lessons explains:
“Why does God tear us? The text says, ‘That he may
heal us.’ Verse 2 expands this thought: ‘After two days
he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.’ Here is a prophecy often
applied to Christ’s resurrection on the third day, but
it’s also talking about our experience. We may be
raised up to a new life with Jesus and ‘live before him.’
So in verse 1 we find the call to return and in verse 2
the promise of revival.”––Adult Sabbath School
Lessons: Love Never Fails, April, May and June 1988,
page 39. (Emphasis theirs.)
The same Sabbath school lesson states that this ‘third
day’ revival is still future for the Adventist Church.
(Ibid., page 43) It is certainly no 24-hour revival.
However, even if this Adventist explanation of Hosea’s
“third day” were wrong, there are many instances of
exceptional references in the Bible. There is no statement
in God’s Word that says the interpretation of “first day,”
 DEFENCE
“second day” and so on must be restricted to the way
other similar terms are used much later in the Scriptures.
More important is conformity to the apostle’s inspired
commentary on the seventh day at Hebrews 3:19–4:11
discussed above.
Another argument Bob raises is that “evening and
morning” would imply periods of 3,500 years of darkness
and light, and that vegetation could not have survived
under those circumstances. Bob does not properly
account for the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses view the
term “day” figuratively, and so its component parts––
“evening and morning”––are also understood
figuratively. The Witnesses certainly do not teach 3,500
years of literal darkness and light. By the time Moses
wrote the book of Genesis the expression “evening and
morning” was the semantic equivalent of a day. ––Ge
49:27; Nu 9:15; De 16:4.
The King James Version translates the 2,300 “evenings
and mornings” at Daniel 8:14 as “days” and Adventists
accept this meaning. In fact, they take these “evenings
and mornings” figuratively, representing 2,300 years, but
they never imagine these 2,300 years to be six months of
darkness and six months of light. When a “day” is taken
figuratively, its “evening and morning” should also be
taken figuratively. There was not 3,500 years of total
darkness.
What about the argument that vegetation created on Day
3 would not have had sufficient light to grow? (Ge 1:11-
13) In fact, “light” existed much earlier, on Day 1. That
“light” translates the Hebrew word ’ohr and refers to
light generally rather than to a specific light source.
Vegetation would have been able to grow in this diffused
light just as it does today under cloud cover. (Ge 1:3-5)
The “lights” that appeared at Genesis 1:14-18 on Day 4,
on the other hand, were ma’ohr––sources of light, the sun
and the moon––which became visible in the
“firmament,” or atmosphere, of the clearer sky of Day 4.
Bob’s imagined difficulty does not exist. There was
diffused light reaching the earth from Day 1.
Bob’s also argues that vegetation created on Day 3 could
not have been pollinated if bees and other creatures that
assist in pollination were not created until thousands of
years later. (GCT, page 71) Some 85 percent of flowering
plants are at least partly dependent on insect pollination,
but not all vegetation requires pollination. At Genesis
1:11, after mentioning grass, seed plants and fruit trees,
the Bible says: “and it was so.” The Hebrew verb for
“was” is in the same imperfect state mentioned above,
indicating ongoing activity, so another translation might
be: “it came [‘gradually’] to be so.”23 The imperfect state
23 See point 4.18.
68
therefore allows for an ongoing creation of vegetation,
starting on Day 3 and continuing on into later days.
For example, as late as Day 6, after the creation of Adam,
the account says that the Creator “planted a garden in
Eden” and “made to grow out of the ground every tree
desirable to one’s sight and good for food.” (Ge 2:8, 9)
This may mean that certain varieties of vegetation were
not created until then. As an example of ongoing
creation, Genesis 1:20, 21 tells about the creation of the
“fowl [Hebrew, ohph],” a term that can include flying
insects, on Day 5. Yet on Day 6 after the creation of
Adam Genesis 2:19 says: “the LORD God formed
[imperfect state, literally ‘continued to form’] ... every
fowl [same word, ohph] of the air.” This seems to
confirm that, once started, the creative process begun on
one day continued into subsequent days.
The imperfect state of the verbs in Genesis chapters 1 and
2 shows that Jehovah exercised his creative abilities
gradually, which was his divine prerogative. Bob’s
objection about pollination falters because it is certain
that the imperfect state of the Hebrew verb is not the same
as the simple English past tense. It implies gradual action.
Perhaps, and no one can be sure of the exact order, God
‘began to create’ vegetation on Day 3 that did not require
pollination or that could be pollinated by the wind. Later,
after the creation of flying creatures including bees and
insects beginning on Day 5, he may have continued to
create vegetation that needed this form of pollination.
The creation of vegetation and flying creatures then
continued into Day 6 as suggested by Genesis 2:8, 9, 19.
These are possible solutions to the problems Bob raises.
4.19 International Date Line Conventions
Adventists arbitrarily accept the International Date Line
(IDL), the 180o meridian with deviations, as the point at
which the Sabbath begins. Despite claiming that “the
Biblical Sabbath was established by God at the time of
creation,” that is, at Eden, “the Seventh-day Adventist
pioneers coming to the Pacific understood … the 180th
meridian to be the natural date line and chose to keep the
Sabbath in accordance with that.”––Sabbath in the
Pacific Around the Dateline: Statement of Principles and
Considerations, P. Petersen, [Seventh-day Adventist]
Biblical Research Committee.
The 180th meridian was an artificial construct adopted at
the 1884 International Meridian Conference. The
Adventist report concedes that accepting the IDL as the
starting point for the Sabbath day is a human decision.
 DEFENCE
“The date line, which is necessary because the earth is
round, is not established by any divine principle, but
solely on the basis of historical and practical human
considerations.”––Ibid.
Ellen G. White herself taught that the Sabbath began at
Eden.
“The Sabbath and the family were alike instituted in
Eden.”––Education, page 250. (Emphasis ours.)
If the Sabbath originally began there, even today it should
start from there and follow the sunset as it progresses
westward from the Middle East, ignoring any arbitrary
International Date Line. The IDL has caused all kinds of
difficulties for Adventists.
Because of the deviation of the line from 180o, Adventists
in Wallis and Futuna, Western Samoa, Tonga and certain
islands of Kiribati observe a Sunday Sabbath. There has
been discussion, debate and division among Adventists
over which day to keep in this part of the world.
Worse, all Adventists living west of the Date Line,
including Australian Adventists, keep the Sabbath before
those living in the Middle East, where it is supposed to
have begun. So they are actually keeping the day before
69
the seventh day that begins on Eden’s longitude. They are
sixth-day Adventists. Why should the Sabbath begin at
the arbitrary International Date Line?
In Appendix 3, 77 questions about the Commandments
and the Sabbath are raised, listing in bold texts that are
used by Adventists, and with our suggested answers.
In the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestant
denominations were observing Sunday as the ‘Lord’s
day.’ It was often referred to as the Sabbath. Many early
Adventists noted that the seventh day of the Hebrew
week was not Sunday but Friday/Saturday and they
began promoting the observance of that day. They should
have examined the more fundamental question, whether
any literal Sabbath observance is required of Christians.
If God no longer requires it, the question about the
particular day is moot. An examination of the Christian
writings from Romans to Revelation shows a clear trend
away from an emphasis on the Sabbath. The spiritual
Sabbath required of spiritual Israel according to Hebrews
chapters 3, 4, not the literal Sabbath once required of
fleshly Israel.
DEFENCE

70
 DEFENCE
5
Answered Prayer
In Channel chapter 7, Lorna, with a limited
understanding of the issues, “suddenly” prays for the
truth and then opens her Bible at random. Landing at
Romans chapter 8, she concludes that she has been born
again. (GCT, pages 58, 59) This is called bibliomancy,
opening at random to a Bible passage expecting that the
text that first meets the eye is special guidance from God.
Two things can be said about bibliomancy. First, it is a
superstitious practice without any guarantee that God is
involved in guiding the person to the particular passage.
The Roman Catholic ‘Saint’ Augustine engaged in it.
(Confessions, Chapter XII, paragraph 2) Many who
practise it have become convinced of doctrines that
Seventh-day Adventists would deny. Second, once a
person finds their so-called ‘truth’ this way, the error can
be impossible to shake.
Instead of bibliomancy, the Scriptural way to find truth is
described by Jesus at John 14:26.
“The Comforter ... shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance.”
Conviction to Christian truth is based on teaching and the
holy spirit’s recalling that teaching to the memory, not on
bibliomancy.
It is clear that the holy spirit did not bring all things to
Lorna’s memory because she had not even considered
many of the Scriptural points that we have discussed
before she decided in favour of Adventism. She had not
studied the Trinity or the many other Adventist teachings
that appear later in Price’s booklet, for example. There
are also the issues that many Adventists themselves
oppose, like the sanctuary doctrine and Adventist
participation in war that Lorna had not considered.
Bob certainly did not tell her about the changes in Ellen
G. White’s writings. And we wonder how Lorna must
have felt as a mother after 1970 as doctors in Adventist
hospitals began aborting innocent, unborn babies. 24 Bob
probably did not tell her about this disgraceful state of
affairs either.
Even after her prayer and reading of Romans chapter 8,
Lorna still misinterprets the Scriptures. She says being
‘born again’
24 See point 1.5.18.
71
“is what the Bible means when it says, ‘Flesh and
blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.’”––GCT, page
59.
Lorna thinks “flesh and blood” refers to the carnal,
ungodly man, and that a person who is ‘born again’ is the
contrasting spiritual man. However, as mentioned at
point 2.2, “flesh and blood” never signifies the carnal
man in the sense that she imagines.
The other references to ‘flesh and blood’ in the Christian
Scriptures prove this. At Matthew 16:17, “flesh and
blood” has nothing to do with the carnal, sinful man. It
simply refers to humanity. At Galatians 1:16 “flesh and
blood” also refers to humans. And at Ephesians 6:12
“blood and flesh” is contrasted with “wicked spirit
forces,” showing that it simply refers to humans.
As for the text that Lorna quotes, 1 Corinthians 15:50
uses “flesh and blood” as part of a contrast between two
kinds of bodies, one “physical [literally, ‘soulical’]” and
the other “spiritual.” (1Co 15:44, 45) It is not until the
second half of verse 50 that sin––“corruption”––is
mentioned as a factor in addition to the comment about
“flesh and blood,” as indicated by the word “neither.”
“Flesh and blood” is a reference to humans who in their
physical bodies cannot inherit the heavenly realm of
God’s kingdom. It has no reference to the pre-born-again
state as Lorna thinks.
5.1 Born Again
On page 59 it is said that a person must be born again of
holy spirit to be saved. Bob also says that the “great
crowd” of Revelation 7:9 is born again because “all the
saved have a heavenly hope.” (GCT, page 60) The Bible
does not teach these things.
Jesus said: “Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Joh
3:5) At John 3:3 he calls this being “born again.” The
Jews were familiar with the idea of being born again.
They applied the idea of being born again––rebirth––to
Gentiles who converted to Judaism because for them it
was the beginning of a new life. So when Jesus spoke
about being born again, Nicodemus would naturally have
expected something similar. What was this new life?
 DEFENCE
The Scriptures teach that those who are born again in a
Christian sense are sealed with the holy spirit. So 1 Peter
1:3, 4 says: “God ... hath begotten us again ... to an
inheritance ... reserved in heaven for you.” So those who
are begotten or born again receive as an inheritance the
hope of a new heavenly life. All would agree that being
born again is connected with a guarantee or promise of
life in heaven.
Now note that Ephesians 1:13 adds another detail. “Ye
were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the
earnest of our inheritance.” The “seal” is essential for
those who have that heavenly inheritance. This is
logically so because the seal is the holy spirit and it is by
the action of holy spirit that a person is born again in the
first place.
Summarizing, a person is (1) born again, then (2)
receives a heavenly inheritance of which (3) the holy
spirit is the seal. Only this person has the hope of going
to heaven. A person must be sealed to go to heaven.
In Revelation chapter 7, two groups are mentioned, the
144,000 and the “great multitude.” There are important
distinctions between them. For example, the “great
multitude” is introduced “after” the 144,000. (Re 7:9)
The word “number” is also distinguishes the two groups
from each other. The first group has a definite number––
a fixed and exact number, 144,000. The second group,
the “great multitude,” has no definite number––“no man
could number” it. (Re 7:9) Then there is their spiritual
nationality. The 144,000 are from the 12 tribes of
(spiritual) Israel, but the second group is out of “all
nations, tribes and tongues.” In these ways the two
groups are different from and contrasted with each other.
One of the most important differences between the two
groups is that only one is sealed. Revelation 7:3-8
describes the 144,000 as sealed, while Revelation 7:9-17
does not describe the “great multitude” as sealed. Given
the other distinctions between these two groups, it is
difficult to believe that this fact too is not significant. If,
as we have said, only the sealed go to heaven, the only
conclusion can be that the “great multitude” is not sealed
for heavenly life.
Price challenges whether 144,000 is a literal number.
“Revelation 7:4-8 states the 144,000 are 12,000 from
each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Is this literal or spiritual?
To be consistent it can not [sic] be both! But the
Society teaches it is a literal number of spiritual
Israelites.”––OF, page 14.
It is consistent, though, so consistent that in 2002 the
Adventist parachurch organization Amazing Facts
Incorporated published a book on the subject by Doug
Batchelor entitled Who Will Sing the Song?
72
Understanding the 144,000. On pages 8 and 9 he
correctly identifies the Israel of Revelation 7:4-8 as
“spiritual Israel or the church.” All Adventists would
agree with that, but then explaining why the number
144,000 is literal, he says:
“Are the other numbers in Revelation literal or just
spiritual? For instance, will there be 12 gates and 12
foundations? Are there really 12 different kinds of
fruit on the tree of life? Yes, of course. There are many
prophetic time periods given in Revelation, but the
numbers are not just nebulas [sic] numerical symbols
––they are precise measures of time. The numbers
would be useless for reckoning if they were merely
symbolic. All of our understandings about the
dimensions of the New Jerusalem are based on the
assumption that these numbers have real literal
value.”––Page 16.
Then Batchelor answers Price’s objection as to whether
it is consistent to have a spiritual Israel and a literal
number.
“Now you might be thinking, ‘How can you say that
the names are symbolic and the number is literal?’
Simple, Jesus did. It doesn’t seem to matter to the Lord
what tribes the 12 Apostles sprang from, but it did
matter that there were 12 of them. Also remember that
while most of the numbers in Revelation depict a real
value, all the proper names in Revelation are symbols.
(e.g., The Lamb, The Dragon, the Lion, Balaam,
Jezebel, etc.).”––Page 17.
After mentioning other factors, Batchelor concludes:
“For these reasons and others, I believe the number
144,000 is a precise figure.”––Page 22.
Clearly, Price would disagree with his fellow Adventist
on this point. However, Batchelor should be the least of
Price’s worries. Price never tires of pointing out
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ ‘changes’ and ’contradictions.’ So
how would he account for the following comments by
Uriah Smith in the Adventist magazine Review and
Herald?
“The people of ‘Israel’ are not confined to the
descendants of Abraham after the flesh, but … true
Israelites … Jews inwardly (Rom. 2:29) … And all
this pertains to Christians, who are in consequence of
their relation to Christ, ‘Abraham’s seed, and heirs,
and heirs according to the promise.’ … The number,
144,000, must mean a definite number, composed of
just so many individuals. It cannot stand for a larger
but indefinite number, for in verse 9 another company
is introduced which is indefinite in its proportions, and
hence is spoken of as ‘a great multitude, which no man
could number.’ If the 144,000 were designed to
 DEFENCE
represent such an indefinite number, the John would
have said, in verse 4, ‘And there were sealed a great
multitude, which no man could number, out of all the
tribes of the children of Israel.’ But instead of this, he
says, 144,000, twelve thousand from each tribe a
number, which can easily be enumerated.”––August
10, 1897, pages 1-4.
Smith understands this as a spiritual Israel numbering
literally 144,000, exactly the explanation that Price
criticizes in Jehovah’s Witnesses. Uriah Smith and Doug
Batchelor are not the only ones to note the evidence for a
literal 144,000. Lexicographer E.W. Bullinger observed
this over 100 years ago.
“It is the simple statement of fact: a definite number in
contrast with the indefinite number in this very
chapter.”––The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,”
page 282.
More recently, R.L. Thomas wrote:
“The case for symbolism is exegetically weak. … It is
a definite number [at 7:4] in contrast with the
indefinite number of 7:9. If it is taken symbolically, no
number in the book can be taken literally.”––
Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1,
page 474.
There is also the fact that Adventists themselves mix
literal and spiritual interpretations in Revelation. At
Revelation 1:11 and in Revelation chapters 2, 3 they
consider the literal 7 local churches in Asia Minor to be
prophetic of the literal 7 periods of the symbolic church
(that is, the international church, not local churches) over
the following 2,000 years.
At Revelation 11:2, 3 Adventists interpret the “holy city”
to be symbolic of the saints, but the two witnesses to be
literally two. At Revelation 20:2, 3 Adventists interpret
the “dragon” and the “serpent” to be symbolic of Satan
but the 1,000 years to be literal. So the mixing of the
literal and symbolic is not as unusual as Price believes.
The facts require that those born again must be sealed by
the holy spirit, and the total number sealed are 144,000.
The number must be literal because it is contrasted with
another unnumbered group.
5.2 The ‘Light’ on Lorna’s Page
Lorna believes she has been guided through prayer to
Romans 8:7-9 which she quotes from the New World
Translation. (GCT, page 59) The passage reads:
25Recall that Jesus also included both the ‘Moral Law’ and the ‘Ceremonial Law’ under the one description, “the Law.”––Mt 5:17,
21, 27, 31, 33, 38.
73
“Because the minding of the flesh means enmity with
God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God,
nor, in fact, can it be. So those who are in harmony
with the flesh cannot please God. However, you are in
harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if
God’s spirit truly dwells in you.”
The way she understands it, if a person is not born again
“he doesn’t want to keep the law of God”––the Ten-
Commandment Law. She believes that Jehovah’s
Witnesses do not keep the Ten Commandments because
they are not born again.
Her conclusion is not logical because the Governing
Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is composed entirely of
men who are born again. They oppose keeping the Ten-
Commandment Law because of the Biblical evidence,
not because they are not born again. Of course,
Adventists would not concede that they are born again,
so we need to examine the Romans passage carefully.
What is “the law” at Romans 8:7? Is it the Ten-
Commandment Law? In the previous chapter Paul does
include the Ten Commandments as part of “the Law.”
(Ro 7:7, cp. 13:9) On the other hand, he also uses “the
Law” in his letters to include the so-called ‘Ceremonial
Law.’25 (1Co 9:8, 9; Ga 3:10, 12; He 7:5, 11, 28; 8:4;
9:22; 10:8) So if Paul were referring to the Law given to
Moses when he speaks of “the law of God” at Romans
8:7 he would most likely mean the whole law––‘Moral’
and ‘Ceremonial.’
However, he has already stated clearly in the previous
chapter in speaking of the Ten Commandments that “we
have been discharged from the Law.” (Ro 7:6, 7) It is
hardly likely that he would say on the one hand that we
have been discharged from this Law and then almost
immediately that we are subject to it.
“The law of God” at Romans 8:7 must therefore refer to
a different law, one for Christians. The context supports
this. In Romans 7:1-20 “the law” means the Law that
included the Ten Commandments, as verse 7 shows.
According to Romans 7:5, that Law applied to those who
“were in the flesh,” figuratively. However, Romans 7:6
flags a change from the authority of the “letter” of that
old Law, which had been like a husband to them, to a new
slavery under a new husband or master “by the spirit.”––
Cp. Ro 7:1.
Note the contrast between flesh and spirit––the flesh
signifying the imperfection of those who had been
subject to the old Law, and the spirit the holy spirit
 DEFENCE
making them subjects of a new law as Christians. Which
new law?
Romans 7:21-25 mentions various laws, but the most
important is “God’s law” which a few verses later at
Romans 8:2 is called “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus.” It is Christian law, the law binding Christians to
him. This is consistent with the fact that Christ will be
their new husband.––2Co 11:2.
With a new husband there is naturally a new law. All of
God’s requirements for Christians comprise his law for
them and they are described variously as “the law of
Christ,” “the law of faith,” “the law of God,” “the law of
the spirit,” and the ‘changed’ law.––Ro 3:27; 7:22; 8:2;
Ga 6:2; He 7:12.
This means that, by saying, “the minding of the flesh
means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection to
the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be,” Paul means the
new law to which Christians are subject.––Ro 8:7.
Lorna and Bob have failed to follow Paul’s inspired
argument as he plots the change from the letter of the Law
that included the Ten Commandments to the law of
Christ delivered by the spirit.
5.3 The Great Multitude
Who is the “great multitude”? Bob argues that the fact
that the “great crowd” are “before the throne” proves that
they are a heavenly group.––Re 7:9, 15; GCT, page 60.
The Greek reads: enopion tou thronou. Unfortunately for
Bob, he has not checked his facts because the very same
expression appears in the Greek at Revelation 20:12,
which Adventists apply to the wicked dead who never go
to heaven! Although the King James Version uses the
expression stand “before God,” the Greek reads enopion
tou thronou, “before the throne,” exactly as at Revelation
7:9. Once again, Bob’s reasoning fails his inordinate zeal
to disprove Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Greek word for “before,” enopion, literally means
“in the sight of.” So the phrase literally reads: “having
stood in sight of the throne and in sight of the Lamb.” (Re
7:9) This does not necessarily mean that the great
multitude is in heaven. When Matthew 25:3 says “before
[enopion] him shall be gathered all nations,” should we
expect that all wicked earthly nations will be taken to
heaven to face Christ? No, they will be “before” him––
‘in his “sight’––while they are still on earth.
In harmony with this, there are many other texts that use
enopion of people who are on the earth, texts such as
Romans 14:22; Galatians 1:20; 1 Timothy 5:21; and 2
26 See also A.T. Robertson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, page 762ff.
74
Timothy 2:14.––Cp. Ex 16:9; Le 24:8; Ps 11:4, 5; Pr
15:3.
The great multitude is described as “standing before the
throne.” This is a contrast to others mentioned at
Revelation 6:17 who cannot stand and are to be
destroyed. (New World Translation) “Standing” signifies
the great multitude’s survival at the time of the “great
tribulation.”––Re 7:14.
Bob argues that the great multitude at Revelation 7:9 is
the same as the “much people” at Revelation 19:1 which
is certainly “in heaven.” As Bob says, the “great
multitude” and the “much people” come “from the same
word,”––actually words, plural––okhlos polys. (GCT,
page 60) However, this expression “great multitude”
does not apply uniquely to one group. It is used in the
Scriptures of other crowds. (Mt 14:14; 20:29; 26:47; Ac
6:7) There is no proof that any of these multitudes are
identical.
More than that, there is a good reason to conclude that
the multitudes at Revelation 7:9 and Revelation 19:1 are
not the same crowd. It is from something not in the texts.
At both Revelation 7:9; 19:1 the crowd is “a great
crowd,” not ‘the great crowd.’ There is no Greek definite
article––“the”––in either text. Why would this omission
be significant? If both texts referred to the same crowd
we would expect the second reference at Revelation 19:1
to have the definite article. This is called the ‘anaphoric’
use of the article.
As mentioned earlier, D.B Wallace explains the
anaphoric use in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. It is where a
definite article ‘refers back to a previous instance of a
noun, which was usually introduced without the
article.’26 If okhlos polys at Revelation 19:1 had the
article––‘the much people’––it would likely have been a
reference back to the earlier multitude at Revelation 7:9.
But the article is missing and so it more likely that this
“people” is a different multitude, nothing to do with the
“multitude” at Revelation 7:9.
Bob fails to take into consideration that there is another
“great multitude” at Revelation 19:6. Would he argue
that this crowd is the same as the one at Revelation 7:9?
It cannot be the same because it cries out, “Let us be glad
… for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife
has made herself ready.” (Re 19:7) This multitude is not
the bride of Christ, but speaks of the bride in the third
person. So if the great multitude of verse 6 is not the bride
of Christ, how can Bob be sure that the multitude of
Revelation 19:1 is the multitude of Revelation 7:9 and
 DEFENCE
that both of them represent Christians who comprise the
bride of Christ?
There are other reasons too to believe that the great
multitude is an earthly group. First, they come “out of the
great tribulation.” (Re 7:14) A similar expression is used
of Joseph in Egypt being delivered “out of all his
afflictions [literally, ‘out of all his tribulations’]” when he
survived the experience on earth. He did not survive by
being taken away to heaven.
Second, “the Lamb ... shall lead [the great multitude]
unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away
all tears from their eyes.” (Re 7:17) This means that after
surviving the great tribulation they are still not perfect in
heaven. They need to be led to life. This would not be
necessary if they were in heaven immortal, imperishable
and incorruptible.
5.4 No One to Went to Heaven Before Christ
On page 61, Channel claims to have proof that Enoch and
Elijah went to heaven before Jesus. Did any humans go
to heaven before Jesus? It is certain that, for one, “David
is not ascended into the heavens.”––Ac 2:29.
And while John the Baptist was still living, Jesus
remarked that there had been no man greater than him.
This comment would have to include Enoch and Elijah.
Enoch and Elijah were lesser than John. Then Jesus adds:
“He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than
he [John].” (Mt 11:11) Yes, before John died Jesus was
able to say that John––and by implication Enoch and
Elijah––would not go to heaven, that the least of those
with a heavenly reward would be greater in this respect.
However, if any should think this vague, in unmistakable
terms Jesus himself says:
“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven.”––Joh 3:13.
“No man” must include Enoch and Elijah. They were
men. Neither they nor David, John the Baptist––any other
man––went to heaven before Christ. For this reason, the
Bible calls Jesus “the forerunner” of those who go to
heaven. (He 6:20) A forerunner goes first. Enoch and
Elijah could not go to heaven before the forerunner.
Yet Bob insists: “Elijah is already there.” (GCT, page 61)
His text is 2 Kings 2:11: “Elijah went up by a whirlwind
into heaven.” Can this text contradict Jesus? No. It must
harmonize with the texts just discussed. The word
“heaven” is used not only of God’s personal presence but
also of earth’s atmosphere in which birds fly. So in the
creation account we read: “God called the firmament
Heaven.”––Ge 1:8.
At the time of the Flood we read: “In the six hundredth
year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth
75
day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of
the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven
were opened.” (Ge 7:11) And in the same scroll of which
2 Kings was anciently a part we read: “The heaven was
black with clouds and wind.” (1Ki 18:45) A “whirlwind”
would naturally operate in these atmospheric heavens of
clouds and wind, not in the heavens of God’s presence.
Elijah’s ascension took place early in king Jehoram’s
reign. (2Ki 1:17; 2:11) It was long in the past by
Jehoram’s fifth year. (2Ki 8:16) Yet in the seventh or
eighth year of Jehoram’s reign the king received a letter
from Elijah judging him for his wicked ways. (2Ch 21:5,
12) Is it likely that the letter was written before Elijah’s
ascension and then held onto somewhere for 7 years until
being delivered to Jehoram?
Hardly. Elijah’s letter is not written in the form of a
prophecy. Instead, it shows an awareness of Jehoram’s
recent wicked conduct. (2Ch 21:12, 13) So Elijah must
have been alive in another earthly assignment well after
his temporary ascension into earth’s atmosphere. Elijah
did not permanently go to heaven as Bob supposes.
Then Bob turns to Enoch. His text is Hebrews 11:5:
“Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and
was not found, because God had translated him.” Lorna
says: “It’s pretty obvious he must be in heaven.” She
draws that conclusion because, she says, “he did not die.”
Bob agrees: “That’s right.”
Yet, Enoch did die. In the very same chapter of Hebrews,
after mentioning Enoch, Paul says: “These all died in
faith.” (He 11:13) “All” included Enoch. And at Hebrews
11:40 Paul adds: “God having provided some better thing
for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.”
Enoch is either imperfect in heaven, an impossibility, or
is not there at all in harmony with Jesus’ statement at
John 3:13 that no one had gone to heaven until that time.
How can Enoch’s translation or transference be
explained, and why would the Scripture say that he did
not “see death”? Enoch lived for 365 years at a time when
people lived for 800 or 900 years. The Septuagint version
uses the Greek word for ‘translated’ or ‘transferred’ at
Genesis 5:24. It does not mean to translate to heaven as
its other usage shows.––De 27:17; 1Ki 21:25; Ps 45:3; Pr
23:10; Isa 29:14; cp. Ac 7:16.
Evidently, God spared Enoch the pain of death so that he
did not “see”––was unaware of––his death. So Genesis
5:24 says: “he was not; for God took him.” Since
Hebrews 11:5 says he was “not found,” God must have
allowed Enoch gently to slip into death and then disposed
of his body as He did in Moses’ case.––De 34:5, 6; Jude
9.
 DEFENCE
At Psalm 37:36 it is said that a man who “passed away
… was not.” So the expression “was not” suggests that
Enoch died. (Cp. Job 7:21; 8:22; Ps 39:13; 103:16; Pr
12:7) And when Genesis 5:24 says “God took him,” it
implies that Enoch died. “Took” translates the Hebrew
laqah and in other places refers to death, not to being
taken or translated to heaven. (Ps 49:15; 73:24; Ho 13:11)
The evidence is consistent. “These all died in faith.”––He
11:13.
Bob points out that the city that the men of old were
awaiting was “heavenly Jerusalem.” (He 11:10; 12:22;
GCT, pages 61, 62) Hebrews 11:10 says they “desired”
it, not that they hoped to live in it as Bob asserts. They
‘desired a better country, that is, an heavenly.” (He 11:16)
“Heavenly [Greek, epouraniou]” in this verse is similar
to the word at Hebrews 11:10 but in the genitive case, the
case of possession. The “country” that they were
awaiting was “of heaven”––belonging to––heaven.
Naturally, the earthly paradise in God’s new world will
belong to heaven.
None of Jehovah’s ancient servants mentioned in
Hebrews chapter 11 were ever promised heavenly life.
The pre-Christian Scriptures only ever cultivated in them
the hope of earthly life. (Ps 37:11; Pr 2:21, 22) In fact,
Hebrews 11:39 says that “these all”––Enoch included––
“received not the promise.”
As mentioned, Hebrews 11:40 goes on:
“... God having provided some better thing for us
[Christians], that they without us should not be made
perfect.”
How was a ‘better thing’ provided for Christians than for
those pre-Christian servants? Those Paul calls “us” were
to be “partakers of the heavenly calling.” (He 3:1) This
was the “thing” that pre-Christian servants of God would
not enjoy. If Enoch and Elijah went to heaven, their
reward would have been equal to that of first-century
Christians and Paul could not have told those Christians
that God had purposed something better for them.
As mentioned above, Matthew 11:11 shows that John the
Baptist was not among those who were “in the kingdom
of heaven” and no one before him was greater than John.
If he could not enter the heavenly kingdom, neither could
they. According to Jesus, John’s time marked the
beginning of a change regarding the kingdom of heaven.
So Matthew 11:12 adds:
“From the days of John the Baptist until now the
kingdom of heaven suffereth violence [Greek,
biazetai], and the violent [biastai] take it by force.”
It is unfortunate that most translations use the sense of
violence in this verse. Biazetai can have that meaning,
but it can also have another meaning. So Vine’s
76
Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
says:
“The verb suggests forceful endeavour.”––(1981),
Volume 3, page 208.
The endeavour is not necessarily violent and the biastai
are not necessarily violent enemies of the kingdom.
Regarding Matthew 11:12, German scholar Heinrich
Meyer states:
“In this way is described that eager, irresistible
striving and struggling after the approaching
Messianic kingdom ... So eager and energetic (no
longer calm and expectant) is the interest in regard to
the kingdom. The [biastai] are, accordingly, believers
struggling hard for its possession.”––Critical and
Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of Matthew
(1884), page 225. (Emphasis his.)
The New International Version accurately captures the
meaning of the verse.
“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the
kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and
forceful men lay hold of it.”
Taken together, Matthew 11:11, 12 indicate that faithful
men up until John the Baptist’s time, including Elijah and
Enoch, will not enter the kingdom of heaven, whereas
those from the days of John onward “lay hold of it” and
enter “in the kingdom.”
5.5 Christ Resurrected as a Spirit
On page 62, Channel takes up a discussion of Jesus’
resurrection body. At point 2.2 we discussed why Jesus
was raised as a spirit. Adventists understand Philippians
3:20, 21 to mean that he was raised in his original fleshly
body. First, review the evidence that Christ was raised in
a spirit body.
The first text in this connection is 1 Peter 3:18.
“Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to
death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”
The Greek literally reads: “in [Greek, en] flesh, ... in [en]
spirit.” If en in the first expression should be translated
“in the flesh,” the same word in the second should also
be translated “in the spirit.” And just as “in the flesh”
means that he had a body of flesh, “in the spirit” would
mean that his resurrection body was a body of “spirit.”
Second, at 1 Corinthians 15:45 Paul says:
“The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last
Adam was made a quickening spirit.”
If Adam was a soul, as Adventists believe, the resurrected
Jesus was a spirit.
 DEFENCE

Third, at 1 Timothy 3:16, the King James Version says:
“God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”
In this place the oldest and best Greek manuscripts read
“He who” instead of “God,” referring to Jesus,
manifested during his earthly life and ministry as a man
of flesh and then declared righteous in his resurrected
state as a spirit.27 These three texts, 1 Peter 3:18; 1
Corinthians 15:45; and 1 Timothy 3:16, bear direct
testimony to Jesus’ resurrection in a spirit body.
Other texts teach the same in an indirect way. For
example, Paul says: “In the days of his flesh [Christ]
offered up supplications and also petitions to the One
who was able to save him out of death,” implying that he
was no longer flesh. (He 5:7) From Paul’s reference point
decades after Christ’s death, ‘the days of Christ’s flesh’
were past, implying that he was no longer flesh.
Later in Hebrews, Paul writes of “a new and living way,
which he [Christ] hath consecrated for us, through the
veil, that is to say, his flesh.” (He 10:20) The “veil,” or
curtain, that separated the Holy and Most Holy
compartments of the tabernacle corresponded to Christ’s
“flesh.” The curtain was never taken into the Most Holy.
The high priest always passed through it and left it
behind. Like that high priest, Jesus had to pass “through”
an antitypical curtain, leaving it behind, in order to enter
the Most Holy of God’s personal heavenly presence.
At his death, both the literal curtain in the temple and
Jesus’ flesh were torn. Christ had to leave that torn flesh
behind to enter the Most Holy, God’s personal presence.
(Mt 27:51) So Paul’s explanation of the antitype of that
ancient tabernacle arrangement confirms that, even in
Christ’s own case, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s
kingdom.” This expression, “flesh and blood,” only ever
refers to the natural human body.––1Co 15:50.
1 Timothy 2:5 is sometimes used to prove that Jesus is
still “a man” after his resurrection, but we need to account
for the fact that Paul says in another place: “Paul, an
apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but
through Jesus Christ.” (Ga 1:1) According to this text,
Jesus Christ is not a man. 1 Timothy 2:5 must therefore
be taken together with the point being made in verse 6,
which shows why Christ is called “a man” in this limited
context. It is because the ransom price Jesus paid was his
perfect human life.
All these lines of evidence converge to the conclusion
that Christ was raised in a spirit body.
5.6 Philippians 3:20, 21
Bob believes he has strong evidence that Christ was
raised in the flesh at Philippians 3:20, 21. (GCT, page 62)
“The Lord Jesus Christ: ... shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.”
Bob’s idea is that Christ’s fleshly body was re-fashioned
to go to heaven and that the same will be true for others.
However, although Adventists officially believe in the
resurrection of the physical body, there are practical
absurdities that force some of them to depart from a strict
adherence to the teaching.28
Philippians does not teach a physical resurrection. The
Greek word for “change” is metaskhematisei which,
according to Fritz Rienecker, means:
“... to refashion, to change the outward form or
appearance. The meaning of the word would be
illustrated not merely by changing a Dutch garden into
an Italian garden, but by transforming a garden into
something wholly different, as into a city...”––A
Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, Volume
2, page 213. (Emphasis ours.)
So the Greek does not mean the original human body is
the same with added glory or attributes. Refashioning
implies “something wholly different,” consistent with a
wholly different spirit body. So W.E. Vine explains:

27 Scholar A.T. Robertson says in his commentary on the verse: “He who (hos). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the
Textus Receptus (Syrian text) nor ho (neuter relative, agreeing with mysterion) the reading of the Western documents. Westcott
and Hort print this relative clause as a fragment of a Christian hymn (like Eph. 5:14) in six strophes. That is probably correct. At
any rate hos (who) is correct and there is asyndeton (no connective) in the verbs. Christ, to whom hos refers, is the mystery (Col.
1:27; 2:2).”––Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume IV, pages 576, 577.
28 Marvin Moore, editor of the American edition of the Adventist magazine Signs of the Times, says that he was asked whether in

the resurrection God will use the identical bodily material that people had when they died. His answer: “God is certainly capable
of doing that, but I doubt that He will. To begin with, most people have numerous defects when they die––wrinkled skin, cancer,
tuberculosis, missing an arm or leg, and so on. If God were to put us back together using the exact same atoms we had when we
died, our resurrected bodies would have these same defects. But, as Paul said in a quote I shared with you a moment ago, we’ll be
raised imperishable. So God is going to have to use atoms and molecules that are different from the ones we had when we died, or
we’d be raised to life perishable and with all our diseases and missing body parts. Then think of this: when someone dies and
donates his heart, who’s going to get it back if God has to use the same atoms and molecules in the resurrection––the donor or the
recipient? ... He won’t be obligated to use the same atoms and molecules we had at the moment we died.”––Signs of the Times
(Australian edition), Volume 131, Number 6, page 58. (Emphasis his.)

77
 DEFENCE
“metaschematizo ... ‘to change in fashion or
appearance’ ... A similar distinction holds good in
Phil. 3:21; the Lord will ‘fashion anew,’ or change
outwardly, the body of our humiliation, and ‘conform’
it in its nature (summorphos) to the body of his
glory.”––Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old and New Testament Words, under “Fashion.”
Yes, metaschematizo involves a change in the appearance
or outward form of the body, but more. The change is in
its very nature of the body itself, a change from human
nature to divine nature.––2Pe 1:4.
Bob makes a classic mistake when he says: “Remember,
they are not spirits; they have bodies, just like Christ’s
body,” implying that spirits do not have bodies. (GCT,
page 62) But Paul considers the question of resurrection
bodies in response to the enquiry: “How are the dead
raised up? And with what body do they come?” (1Co
15:35) In response, he explains that spirits do have
bodies. “God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him.”
(1Co 15:38) But what kind of body will they have?
Paul explains that there are different kinds of bodies just
as there are different kinds of flesh. (1Co 15:39) The
earth, sun, moon and stars “are ... celestial bodies, and
terrestrial bodies.” (1Co 15:40, 41) These physical bodies
illustrate his point about the resurrection. He says: “There
is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1Co
15:44) Paul speaks of the “spiritual [Greek, pneumatikon]
body [Greek, soma]” distinct from the “natural
[psykhikon, or ‘soulical’] body [soma],” so there are two
kinds of bodies––physical and spiritual. Soma does not
refer only to physical bodies as Bob says. All existence
is bodily, yes, but there is more than one kind of body.
(1Co 15:44b) Spirit persons have bodies, spiritual ones.
In the account at Luke 24:37-39, Jesus appeared visibly
to the disciples after his resurrection and some take this
as evidence that he was not a spirit. (GCT, page 62) He
said: “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
have.” (Verse 39.) However, in ancient times when
angels materialized and were seen by Abraham and Lot,
it is said that they appeared as “men.”––Ge 18:2; 19:1.
Yes, angels sometimes appeared as men. When the
apostles saw the resurrected Jesus, they saw him as a man
of flesh and bones, not as a spirit. A spirit is invisible and
flesh and bones are the characteristics of a man. Jesus
could say that “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see
29 The Greek for “recently killed” is prosphaton. Although its root meaning is ‘freshly killed,’ it has another meaning in common
usage, ‘new.’ To insist on the root meaning would be to fall victim to the “root fallacy.” (Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson, pages
28-33) Almost all translations render prosphaton at Hebrews 10:20 as “new,” or similar. Those who insist on the root meaning
would do well to explain the related word prosphatos translated “lately” at Acts 18:2 in describing Aquila’s recent arrival from
Italy. It is impossible that Aquila had been “recently killed.” Neither will “recently killed” fit the Greek Septuagint reading at
Numbers 6:3; Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 81:9 and Ecclesiastes 1:9.
78
me have” because for that occasion he was a man in the
same sense that those angels were men. He was not a
spirit for that occasion.––Jg 6:20-22; 13:6, 20.
However, Jesus’ physical body after resurrection was
different to his former body. Often, even his closest
associates did not recognize him. (Luke 24:13-32; John
20:14-16) Sometimes they recognized him only by
manners and actions. And he entered a locked room,
something he had never done before. (Joh 20:26-28) All
of these things suggest a resurrection in the spirit.
Resurrection bodies are supposed to be imperishable and
incorruptible. Yet the body that Jesus showed Thomas
had wounds in its hands and side. (Joh 20:27) If Christ is
God as Adventists teach, he is immutable and must carry
those wounds in heaven today. But this is illogical. The
fact that Jesus displayed wounds is actually consistent
with his being raised a spirit, just as on other occasions
he appeared as a man, sometimes being recognized and
other times not, to suit various occasions. Appearing with
wounds helped Thomas identify Jesus.
The spurious addition to Mark shows that some professed
Christians in early times believed that Jesus had appeared
in “another form” after his resurrection.––Mr 16:12.
What about Hebrews 10:20 as translated by the Emphatic
Diaglott: “His flesh recently killed and yet is living”?
(GCT, page 63) Bob imagines that he corners Jehovah’s
Witnesses because they publish the Diaglott. The
translator of the Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson, was never
one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was a founding member
of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. His
translation contains errors, and this is just one example.
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Adventist Book Centres both
distribute the King James Version that contains errors,
but this does not mean that they agree with those errors.
Adventists sell the Clear Word, a uniquely Adventist
paraphrase that also contains many errors.
The interlinear left-hand column of the Diaglott gives a
better picture of what the Greek says at Hebrews 10:20.
“He consecrated for us a way recently killed and yet is
living, through the vail (that is, the flesh of himself).”
“Recently killed” is an ultra-literal rendering that
amounts to a mistranslation. The Greek word really
means “new.”29 There is no mention in the Greek that the
flesh is living. It is clear that it is the “way” that is living.
 DEFENCE
The flesh corresponded to “the vail” separating the Holy
compartment from the Most Holy.
So Wilson’s translation in the right-hand column is
wrong. He was influenced to mistranslate the verse
because, like Adventists, he believed that Jesus was
raised in the flesh. Even the King James Version
disagrees with Wilson’s forced rendering. It reads:
“By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated
for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”
There is no mention of the flesh still living. From the
reference to the Paradise book, we know that Bob’s
discussions with Lorna’s family took place after 1958.
(GCT, page 28) Bob certainly had access to translations
published before that date showing the Diaglott’s
translation of Hebrews 10:20 to be wrong. How do they
translate the relevant part of the verse?
“By the new and ever-living way which He opened up
for us through the rending of the veil––that is to say,
of His earthly nature.”––The New Testament in
Modern Speech (1902), R.F. Weymouth.
“By the fresh and living way which he has opened up
through the curtain, that is, his flesh.”––The New
Testament: A New Translation in Plain English
(1952), C.K. Williams.
“By the new and living way which he opened for us
through the curtain, that is, through his flesh.”––
Revised Standard Version (1952).
79
None of these versions say Jesus’ flesh was still living
after his ascension to heaven. Every one confirms that
what was “living” was the “way,” not the “flesh.” They
expose the fact that Bob’s interest is not in accurate
translation but in finding fault with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
As discussed earlier, if Jesus was raised in a body of
flesh, the apostle John could never have written:
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when
he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see
him as he is.” (1Jo 3:2)
John had seen the resurrected Jesus and he knew that
Jesus is “the express image of [God’s] person.” (He 1:3)
He would have known exactly what God and Jesus
looked like, and what he himself could expect to look
like, if Jesus’ post-resurrection body of flesh were Jesus’
true and permanent resurrection body. The fact that John
did not know is convincing evidence that Jesus was
raised a spirit. It adds to and confirms other Scriptural
evidence to this effect.
The Bible has clear teachings regarding the spiritual
rebirth of anointed Christians, the identity of the 144,000,
the identity of the great multitude, and the resurrections
of Jesus Christ and others. Any fair analysis of these
subjects presents no serious challenge to Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
DEFENCE

80
 DEFENCE
6
Paradise Restored
The resurrection and the Millennium are important
themes in discussions between Seventh-day Adventists
and Jehovah’s Witnesses. In discussing Chapter 7 of
Channel, we considered who will go to heaven. Chapter
10 develops related themes.
6.1 Kings in Heaven
Revelation says those who go to heaven will be judges,
priests and kings for 1,000 years.
“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
judgment was given unto them ... they shall be priests
of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a
thousand years.”––Re 20:4, 6.
During the Millennium, those who rule as kings from
heaven must rule over “people,” because kingship
implies subjects. The principle is:
“In the multitude of people is the king’s honour: but in
the want of people is the destruction of the prince.”––
Pr 14:28.
A kingship without subjects is not a real kingship. The
same applies to judging and priesthood. What kind of
judge or priest does not serve people? There is a problem
here for Seventh-day Adventists. Any Adventist kings
ruling from heaven during the Millennium would have no
subjects over whom to rule because the earth would be
desolate at the time. They would not really be kings at all.
Anticipating the problem, the Church publication
Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... A Biblical Exposition
of 27 Fundamental Doctrines asks:
“But in what sense can the saints be said to reign if
they are in heaven and all the wicked are dead?”––
Page 366.
Answering, it goes on:
“John saw that during the millennium the saints would
be involved in judgment; he saw ‘thrones, and they sat
on them, and judgment was committed to them (Rev.
20:4).’ This is the time of the judgment of Satan and
his angels that Scripture notes (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).
It’s the time when Paul’s declaration that the saints
30 “Imagine you were in heaven and you found that one of your loved ones who you certainly expected to be there was not. Such a
case might cause you to question God’s justice––and that kind of doubt lies at the very base of sin.” (Seventh-day Adventists Believe
... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, page 367) Saying this means that Adventists entertain the impossible, that
an incorruptible person could be corrupted.
81
would judge the world and even the angels (1 Cor. 6:2,
3) will come to pass. The millennial judgment does not
decide who is to be saved or lost. God makes that
decision before the Second Advent; all those who were
not either resurrected or translated then are forever
lost. The judgment in which the righteous participate
serves the purpose of answering any questions the
righteous may have as to why the wicked are lost.”––
Ibid., pages 366, 367. (Emphasis ours.)
So the Adventist Church claims that their kingship will
be in the form of serving as judges. But these judgments
would not be real judgments. They would only be a
review of judgments already made because God would
have made all final judgments at Christ’s coming. There
would be nothing left to judge! And there would be no
one left on earth to judge either.
What is more, to need a thousand years to review God’s
judgments beggars belief. Neither would there be any
need for the kings to satisfy themselves about the
righteousness of God’s decisions. During the 1,000 years
they will be immortal and incorruptible. (1Co 15:52, 53)
There is no possibility of their apostatizing because they
doubt the accuracy of God’s pre-Millennial judgments as
one official Adventist publication contemplates. 30
Otherwise, ‘immortal’ and ‘incorruptible’ have no
meaning.
In any case, judging is not the same thing as reigning. Nor
is judging the same as being a priest. So during the
Millennium Adventists would have no real judges
deciding real cases, no real priests performing real
priestly duties and no real kings really ruling. These roles
were all real in Israel, and none of them involved just
reviewing old cases to satisfy themselves that God was
right after all.
6.1.1 “Other Sheep”––Subjects
Christ likened his first-century followers to sheep in a
sheepfold, or pen. (Joh 10:7-15) The flock that he was
gathering at the time was not natural Israel, but spiritual
Israel. All of those earliest disciples had a hope of living
with Christ in heaven.––Joh 14:3.
 DEFENCE
Jesus went on to speak of “other sheep” not of this
spiritual Israelite fold that he must bring at some future
time. (Joh 10:16) As above, those who would go to
heaven must be sealed with the holy spirit. Only 144,000
are described as sealed that way.31 (Eph 1:13; 1Pe 1:3, 4;
Re 7:4) This means that the “other sheep” not of the
144,000 fold are not sealed and must remain on earth as
the subjects of those kings.
It is a common mistake to identify the “other sheep” as
Gentile Christians distinct from Jewish Christians, but
the passage itself shows why this could not be so. At John
10:1-4 Jesus calls himself the shepherd who enters
through the door of a sheepfold, or pen, and leads his
sheep out.
Note these two things: first, that Jesus is not described as
the door of this first sheepfold and second, that he did not
leave his sheep in the sheepfold but brought them out.
That sheepfold must therefore represent the Mosaic Law
covenant that previously encompassed and confined
God’s people. As their shepherd, Jesus called his sheep
out of that covenant.
That Mosaic sheepfold was replaced with a new
arrangement of which Jesus was the “door.” (Joh 10:7)
Jesus calls the new arrangement “this fold” at John 10:16,
so it is a second sheepfold comprised of his Christian
followers. It must represent what replaced the Mosaic
Law covenant, namely the new covenant that includes all
anointed Christians.––He 8:13.
So when Jesus says he has “other sheep ... which are not
of this fold” he means sheep other than those in the new
covenant. The contrast is not between Jewish and Gentile
Christians but between those who are in the new
covenant and those who are not. The other sheep are
therefore followers of Christ who are not parties to the
new covenant.
Bob argues that when Jesus returns there are only two
groups, the righteous and the wicked, the “sheep” and the
“goats,” and that there is no difference between the
144,000 and the “great multitude.” (GCT, page 81) Yet,
the Bible shows that there will be different kinds of
righteous ones.
For example, according to Matthew chapters 24 and 25
when Jesus comes in his glory, he gathers his “elect,” or
chosen ones, to heaven. (Mt 24:31) Elsewhere the elect
are called his brothers, “partakers of the heavenly
calling.” (He 2:11, 12; 3:1) Paul uses the words “elect”
and “election” several times in Romans chapters 9 to 11.
At Romans 9:11 he says that God elected Jacob over
Esau. He uses similar language at Romans 11:5, 7 of the
31 See point 5.1 above.
82
remnant of Israel who became Christians. God chose
them because of their faith. At Romans 11:28 the “elect”
are the faithful chosen remnant who, together with
faithful Gentiles, comprise “all Israel,” spiritual Israel.
(Ro 11:25, 26) And being spiritual Israelites, the elect are
necessarily the 144,000 Israelites of Revelation 7:4-8.
However, the “sheep” in Matthew’s account are
different. They are not Christ’s brothers but they treat
those brothers––the elect––hospitably before Christ’s
coming. (Mt 25:40) Since they are not his brothers, they
are not partakers of the heavenly calling. The distinction
between the two kinds of righteous ones is clear in
Matthew chapter 25.
Hebrew-Scripture prophecies confirm that many who are
not ‘Israelites’ spiritually would come to worship with
spiritual Israel in the last days. Isaiah 2:2 speaks of “all
nations”––Gentiles spiritually––coming to worship
with spiritual Israel. (Mic 4:2) And again, Zechariah
8:23 speaks of ten men of the nations––Gentiles
spiritually––taking hold of the skirts of spiritual Jews
to join them in true worship.
Bob’s claim about just one group of righteous ones at
Christ’s coming is just not correct.
6.2 The Resurrection
Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses also
differ when it comes to the timing of the first resurrection.
To Adventists, the righteous who died before Christ’s
coming are resurrected first and then Christians still
living at his coming are immediately taken––translated
––to heaven.
The Witnesses believe that Christ’s presence is an
extended period of time concluding with Christ’s
coming. So they believe that those Christians who were
dead when the presence began were resurrected at that
point, while anointed Christians who live during the
presence are raised either at their death during the
presence or at Christ’s coming at the latest.
Endeavouring to support the Adventist view, Channel
considers two passages that relate to the heavenly
resurrection. (GCT, page 82) The first is 1 Thessalonians
4:13-17. The Adventist interpretative error is in casting
all the events in that text off into the future, to Christ’s
future “coming.” They make the mistake because they
accept “coming” as the correct translation of parousia in
1 Thessalonians 4:15.
“We which are alive and remain unto [Greek, eis,
“into”] the coming [parousian, “presence”] of the
 DEFENCE
Lord shall not prevent [phthasomen, ‘precede’] them
which are asleep.”
The events described in the passage are clearly about
Christ’s parousia. The group called “we which are alive”
survives, not “unto,” but into the parousia. The parousia
must therefore be longer than a momentary coming. It is
a time period into which a person can survive.
There is also a group called “the dead in Christ” that dies
before the presence. These dead ones “rise first.” (1Th
4:16) None of these “dead” can be pre-Christian servants
of God because every occurrence of the term “in Christ”
from its first occurrence at Romans 8:1 through to 1 Peter
5:14 refers to anointed Christians. It never refers to those
who lived before Christ. So 1 Thessalonians chapter 4
teaches that the Christian dead rise at and during Christ’s
parousia.
The events of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 are not restricted
to Christ’s coming, his erkhomenon. Again, the problem
is the Adventist failure to note the distinction between the
parousia and the erkhomenon. Observing the distinction
enables a correct understanding of the return of Christ
and the timing of the resurrection. How, exactly?
After the Christian dead rise, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 says:
“Then [Greek, epeita] we which are alive and remain
shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to
meet the Lord in the air.”
Epeita means next in sequence, “hereafter.” (Greek-
English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott) It does not mean
‘next immediately.’ After the first group––those sleeping
in death––are resurrected at the beginning of the
presence, those surviving and remaining alive “into” the
presence are raised. They either die during Christ’s
presence and are raised “in the twinkling of an eye” or
they remain alive until his coming and are raised then.
(1Co 15:52) At his coming at latest, they are “caught up
together with them [those who have already been raised]
in the clouds.” “Caught up together” cannot mean
simultaneously because there would then be no epeita, no
sequence.
Bob uses 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 to prove that at Jesus’
coming those who remain alive will be raised “in the
twinkling of an eye.” (GCT, page 82) But according to 1
Corinthians 15:52 this change will happen, not “at the
last trump” (King James Version) but ‘in [Greek, en] the
last trumpet.’ 1 Corinthians 15:23 says:
32As discussed above, Adventists themselves interpret the trumpets of Revelation chapters 8-10 to be symbolic of events taking
place over 2,000 years. None of them was audible to anyone. They are still awaiting the seventh trumpet which, for the sake of
consistency, must surely also be inaudible. But even outside those passages that are more obviously symbolic, trumpets are used
in a figurative sense as at Matthew 6:2 and 1 Corinthians 14:8. This understanding of the trumpet at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as
symbolic is in agreement with such references.
83
“Afterward they that are Christ’s at [Greek, en,
meaning “in”] his coming [parousia, ‘presence’].”
“The last trump” is therefore, not Christ’s “coming” as
the King James Version has it, but his parousia.32 The
Adventists follow its error. The ‘change’ takes place
during the parousia, not the erkhomenon.
Paul’s comments mean that those living into the presence
are raised in or during the presence, an extended period
of time. Nothing in Thessalonians or Corinthians about
the resurrection mentions the Greek word for “coming,”
erkhomenon. The Christians taken to heaven rise at the
beginning of and progressively during the parousia.
Revelation 14:13 confirms that the resurrection begins at
a particular point in time before Christ’s coming.
“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from
henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest
from their labours; and their works do follow them.”
So from a certain point in time (“henceforth”) there is
something unique about the death of these Christians
compared with those that died earlier. “Henceforth”
translates the Greek arti, meaning ‘right now.’ The exact
time is before Christ’s coming. Adventists should agree
because they explain the third angel’s message and the
keeping of the commandments that are in the context at
Revelation 14:9, 12 to apply before the coming.
There is therefore a time before Jesus’ coming that, when
Christians die, their works “follow them [Greek, met’
auton; literally, “with them”].” (Re 14:13) If this did not
imply an instant resurrection, there would be no way that
their works could follow “with” them. A dead person is
unconscious and “there is no work … in the grave.” (Ec
9:10) Without a resurrection, no works can follow death.
So Revelation 14:13 must mean that these particular
Christians are instantly resurrected at their death.
6.3 No Desolate Earth
The illustration on page 83 of Price’s booklet portrays a
desolate earth and quotes Revelation 20:1-3 as a support
text. Adventists believe that the earth will be desolate
during the Millennium. Revelation says Satan is to be
“bound” and then “hurled ... into the abyss,” and in her
book The Great Controversy, Adventist prophet Ellen G.
White links this “abyss” with the one at Genesis 1:2
where the earth was an “abyss” before it was inhabited.
 DEFENCE
However, the link is arbitrary because “abyss” is used in
other ways in the Christian Scriptures. The demons, for
example, urged Jesus not to “command them to go out
into the deep [literally, ‘abyss’].” (Lu 8:31) That “abyss”
existed in Jesus’ day when the earth was populated and
not desolate. And Romans 10:7 says Jesus was in an
“abyss” when he was dead for three days. For him it
meant absolute restraint in death, as if imprisoned. The
earth was not desolate then either. How, then, might we
determine the meaning of “abyss” at Revelation 20:1-3?
Especially in the Revelation, the “abyss” would be
expected to be symbolic of a state or condition rather than
a literal location, in harmony with the figurative tenor of
the book. (Re 1:1) Compare other symbolic locations
such as Sodom, Egypt, the Euphrates, Armageddon and
Babylon.––Re 11:8; 16:12, 16; 17:5.
Adventists do not apply other references to “abyss” in the
Revelation to a desolate earth. For example, an abyss is
mentioned at Revelation 9:1, 2, 11 where many Adventist
commentators identify it as the deserts of Arabia during
the rise of the Arab empire. They apply it to a limited part
of the earth, not to all of it. The same word at Revelation
11:7; 17:8 is also considered to be symbolic, not a literal
desolate earth. So the abyss is more likely a condition
imposed on the Devil than a physical location.
It is also important to factor in the circumstances of those
who have been there, like Jesus, or those who are going
there, like the demons. Nowhere in the Christian
Scriptures is the abyss a desolate earth. At the very least,
given the examples cited above that have nothing to do
with a desolate earth, the Adventist interpretation of
Revelation 20:1-3 is impossible to prove.
Bob argues that the Devil is to be bound on a desolate
earth “so he cannot deceive the nations for 1,000 years,
for there is no one alive for him to tempt.” (GCT, page
84) We have to wonder why the Devil has to be bound at
all if there are no nations on earth to deceive! Surely,
being bound “so he cannot deceive the nations” implies
that there are nations on earth that might otherwise be
deceived during the 1,000 years.
A desolate earth is actually inconsistent with the kingship
of Christians who go to heaven to be kings “over the
earth.”33 (Re 5:9, 10) This suggests subjects on earth. As
mentioned earlier, the Scriptural principle is that a
33Greek, epi tes ges. When epi is used with a verb of authority and with a noun in the genitive case as here, it means “over” rather
than “on.” The King James Version uses “over” in the same circumstances at Revelation 2:26; 9:11; 11:6; 17:18 and there is no
real reason not to use it at Revelation 5:10. It also uses “over” at Matthew 25:21; Acts 6:3 and Romans 9:5. A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by Arndt and Gingrich describes this as the “over of power,
authority, control of or over someone or something ... Rv 5:10.”––Page 286.
84
desolate earth without subjects would be shameful for a
king.
“In the multitude of people is the king’s honour: but in
the want of people is the destruction of the prince.”––
Pr 14:28.
So if the earth were desolate and without earthly subjects
as Adventists teach, the kings in heaven––Jesus and his
co-rulers––would be greatly dishonoured.
The same can be said of their roles as priests and judges.
(Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:4, 6) If all the dead will by then have
been judged by God as incorrigibly wicked, those in
heaven will have no one for whom to serve as priests and
no one to judge. As mentioned at the beginning of this
chapter, reviewing old judgment records is hardly
reigning as kings or serving as priests.
In several ways the Bible suggests that the earth will
always be populated. Genesis 8:22 ensures us: “While the
earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat,
and summer and winter, and day and night shall not
cease.” And at Proverbs 2:21, 22 we read: “For the
upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall
remain in it. But the wicked shall be cut off from the
earth.” Only if the earth is always populated can this true.
Again, in the great-image prophecy given to Daniel, the
stone representing God’s kingdom that destroys the
wicked nations at Christ’s coming becomes a great
mountain which immediately fills “the whole earth.” (Da
2:35, 44) The new mountain does not fly off to heaven
for 1,000 years to rule from there. Clearly, the kingdom
is not restricted to heaven for 1,000 years after
Armageddon. How could it ‘fill the whole earth’ if Satan
were the earth’s only occupant?
Then again, the great multitude, “came out of great
tribulation, ... The Lamb which is in the midst of the
throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living
fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears
from their eyes.” (Re 7:14, 17) These Armageddon
survivors will need “living fountains of waters” to
continue living. They are not immortal and imperishable.
The expression “God shall wipe away all tears from their
eyes” parallels Revelation 21:4; 22:1, 2 which clearly
depicts an earthly scene.
The evidence points in just one direction: the “great
multitude” is a group that survives on earth.
 DEFENCE
6.4 Jeremiah and Isaiah
Typical of Adventist reasoning, the booklet presents
Jeremiah 4:23-27 as a “description of an empty earth.”
(GCT, page 83) This passage must be understood in its
context. Jeremiah’s prophecy was about the desolation of
the land of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians, not of
the whole earth. The immediate context at Jeremiah 4:1
has Jehovah addressing himself to “Israel,” and in verses
5, 10, 11, 14 to Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah 4:15, 16
also shows that the prophecy relates to Judah and Israel.
Adventists are dependent on the word “earth” meaning
earth, all of it. But the Hebrew word ’erets, or ’eres,
translated “earth” in the passage can also mean ‘land.’
The context certainly restricts it to the land of Israel. So
one Bible dictionary explains:
“’Eres does not only denote the entire terrestrial
planet, but is also used of some of the earth’s
component parts. English words like land, country,
ground, and soil transfer its meaning into our
language.”––Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary
of Old and New Testament Words, “Old Testament
Section, under “Earth.” (Emphasis theirs.)
Confirming this meaning for ’erets, the empty land
mentioned at Jeremiah 6:8 is specifically called
Jerusalem’s land.
“Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart
from thee; lest I make thee desolate, a land not
inhabited.”
Bob also disregards the fact that the fulfilment of the
prophecy is recorded later in Jeremiah where it does not
relate to the whole earth.
“Wherefore my fury and mine anger was poured forth,
and was kindled in the cities of Judah and in the streets
of Jerusalem, and they are wasted and desolate, as at
this day.”––Jer 44:6.
The entire earth was not desolated at that time. Only the
land of Israel and Judah was.
However, Adventists will argue that there will be a
secondary application of these prophecies that will affect
the whole earth. Sometimes prophecies have secondary
fulfilments. If this one has a second fulfilment,
consistency would suggest that it apply in one of two
ways, either (1) to literal Judah and Israel or (2) to
something corresponding spiritually to unfaithful Judah
and Israel.
The first option does not suit Adventists because they do
not restrict the future desolation to the territory of literal
Palestine. If there were to be a second application,
apostate Judah which failed to keep the old covenant
would compare best to the modern-day apostate churches
85
of Christendom which have similarly failed to stay true
to the new covenant. Christendom’s future demise and
desolation are foretold elsewhere in the Scriptures. (Re
17:16) The Adventists’ literal application of Jeremiah
4:23-27 to the whole earth is entirely arbitrary.
They also use Isaiah 24:1, 3 for a similar purpose.
“Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh
it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth
abroad the inhabitants thereof … The land shall be utterly
emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken
this word.” But verse 6 goes on: “the inhabitants of the
earth are burned, and few men left.”
Again, the prophecy relates to the “earth” or “land” of
Judah and Israel, not to the whole earth. Note “the priest”
and “the everlasting covenant” in the context, confirming
that the prophecy related to that local Israelite area. (Isa
24:2, 5) That land was temporarily desolated during the
invasion by Nebuchadnezzar. Similar to Jeremiah
chapter 4, any modern application of the prophecy must
have a figurative application.
6.5 Bones
On pages 83, 84 Bob says that when Jehovah’s Witnesses
apply Ezekiel 39:12-16 to the burying of Armageddon
survivors’ bones they contradict Jeremiah 25:33, which
says: “they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor
buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.” How can
these texts be harmonized, not only with the beliefs of the
Witnesses, but with each other?
Comparing Ezekiel 39:4, 17-20 with Revelation 19:17-
21, the similarity is immediately evident. In both
passages the birds devour the vanquished armies of the
wicked and their animals. The Revelation passage is
certainly fulfilled in the post-Armageddon period. There
is no similar description matching the post-Millennial
period. This suggests a post-Armageddon timing for the
Ezekiel passage.
In Israel, burial was afforded to all but the worst of
criminals. (De 21:3; Jos 8:29) Burial implied hope of a
future resurrection, but those destroyed at Armageddon
will be incorrigible; they will never be resurrected, not
even at the end of the 1,000 years. “Everlasting
punishment” in the King James Version at Matthew
25:46 is literally “everlasting cutting-off” and signifies
their eternal death.
They will be left unburied, unworthy of a decent burial,
to be picked clean of flesh by birds. Since bones do not
rot and cannot be eaten, they would make the earth and
its inhabitants unclean if left indefinitely.––Nu 19:16;
Eze 39:14, 16.
However, the burying of the bones that must be done after
Armageddon in no way contradicts Jeremiah 25:33,
 DEFENCE

which says: “They shall not be lamented, neither Ezekiel chapter 37 describes their regathering with two
gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the vivid illustrations, the valley of dry bones and the joining
ground.” The burying mentioned in this text is connected of two sticks. Its application is clear.
with lamentation. It is the kind of respectful burial
“I shall place you in your own land ... I will take the
performed by mourners at funerals.
children of Israel from among the heathen, whither
After being denied a respectful burial and after the birds they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and
have picked them clean, their bones will be disposed of bring them into their own land.”––Eze 37:14, 21.
unceremoniously, whether literally or symbolically. This
At this point, Israel is reorganized in its land. They come
is what Ezekiel 39:12-16 requires.
“from among the nations,” not from heaven. Then Gog is
Bob’s criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses on this point has introduced and these words are spoken to him.
weaknesses of its own. Ezekiel 38:14-16 foretells an
“In the latter years thou shalt come into the land that
attack by Gog of Magog on God’s people. After God
is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of
destroys Gog, Ezekiel 39:12 specifies that for “seven
many people, against the mountains of Israel, which
months shall the house of Israel be burying of them.” Bob
have been always waste: but is brought forth out of the
connects this attack on God’s people with Revelation
nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.”––Eze
20:7-9, which describes another attack by Gog on God’s
38:8.
people at the end of the 1,000 years.
This cannot be after the 1,000 years. The people that the
Lorna responds: “So here is Gog and Magog at last. …
Gog of Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 attacks have been
Now I can see that Ezekiel 9 [sic, 39?] does not apply
restored from a war situation and from being scattered
directly after Armageddon to Gog and Magog having
among the nations. They are “people that are gathered out
their bones buried for 7 months, because they are
of the nations,” not from heaven. (Eze 38:12) Jehovah
depicted here as the wicked ‘like the sand of the sea’ who
speaks of how he would gather them “out of their
are destroyed after the thousand years.” Bob agrees:
enemies’ lands.” (Eze 39:27) The events that will take
“Right.”––GCT, page 85.
place at the end of the 1,000 years simply do not match
Really? If, as Lorna says, the 7-months period “does not these descriptions.
apply directly after Armageddon,” at what point “after
On the other hand, how would these descriptions apply if
the thousand years” does it apply? When exactly are Gog
this attack on God’s people were pre-Millennial? The
and his crowd to be buried for 7 months as the prophecy
book of Revelation alludes to the captive condition and
requires? Revelation 20:7-9 says that at the end of the
release of God’s modern-day people from Babylon the
thousand years all the wicked will be burned up in fire
Great at Revelation 9:14; 16:12. So Revelation 18:2-4,
from heaven and Adventists take this literally. Bob also
after noting the fall of Babylon, says: “Come out of her,
applies Malachi 4:1-3 to the end of the thousand years.
my people.” The time for the release of God’s people
(GCT, page 86) That text says the wicked will become
from the lands of their enemies is now, before
stubble and ashes. Surely, then, there would be no bones
Armageddon, not at the end of the 1,000 years. Clearly,
left to be buried at the end of the 1,000 years, only stubble
the Ezekiel Gog of Magog attacks God’s people before
and ashes. So for Adventists, Ezekiel 39:12 simply never
the 1,000 years begins.
comes true!
‘Gog and Magog’ is therefore a collective and pejorative
Look closely at the timing of the Ezekiel account. The
term for hardened enemies of the people of God both
context at Ezekiel chapters 36 to 39 says that Gog of
before and after the 1,000 years. The Gog and Magog
Magog will attack God’s people after those people have
before the 1,000 years and the Gog and Magog after the
been regathered from the nations, not after they have
1,000 years are therefore different groups. They are not
returned from heaven. In other words, these chapters can
identical. The Adventist explanation definitely does not
only refer to pre-Millennial events. From Ezekiel chapter
match the Ezekiel description and it leaves Ezekiel 39:12
36 onward, the regathering of Israel from Babylon and
unfulfilled.
surrounding nations is described. For example, Ezekiel
36:24 promises: 6.6 “The Rest of the Dead”
“I will take you from among the heathen, and gather Bob argues that those martyred at Revelation 20:4 must
you out of all countries, and will bring you into your be more than 144,000 because millions died during the
own land.” Dark Ages for their faith. (GCT, page 84) Certainly, there
were millions of victims during these periods but not all
victims are martyrs. And not all of those who were

86
 DEFENCE
executed for their faith and spoke about Jesus and God
would be among those who go to heaven.
Many of Jehovah’s Witnesses have died for their faith,
yet Adventists would not even concede that they were
Christians. The main point is that God chooses who will
be his 144,000 spiritual Israelites. It is not for us to say
how many genuine spiritual Israelites there were during
the Dark Ages.
Bob next cites Revelation 20:5. “The rest of the dead
lived not again until the thousand years were finished.”
He says this contradicts Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief that
the dead will be raised during the 1,000-year reign of
Christ. Why do the Witnesses believe in a general
resurrection during the Millennium? The main reason is
that the earthly resurrection of the dead occurs after the
destruction of the old heavens and earth.
“From before him [1] the earth and the heaven fled
away, and no place was found for them. And I saw [2]
the dead, the great and the small, standing before the
throne.”––Re 20:11, 12.
From this it is clear that to establish the time of the earthly
resurrection we must first establish the timing of the
destruction of the old heaven and earth. 2 Peter 3:12
assists here because it foretells the end of that heavens
and earth.
“The heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the
elements shall melt with fervent heat.”
When does that happen? According to Peter, not at the
end of the 1,000 years, but at a time that parallels the
destruction of the old heavens and earth in Noah’s day.
He says:
“The world that then was, being overflowed with
water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which
are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved
unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men.”––2Pe 3:6, 7.
Jesus also draws attention to the Flood and parallels it to
his “coming [Greek, erkhomenon].” (Mt 24:38, 42) It is
therefore Armageddon’s destruction that wipes away the
old heaven and earth. According to both Jesus and Peter
the destruction of the old heavens and earth takes place
before the 1,000 years, not after them.
Once the old heavens and earth are destroyed, a new
heavens and earth appears! “We, according to his
promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein
dwelleth righteousness.” (2Pe 3:13) And because the old
heavens and earth are gone, Revelation 20:11, 12 shows
that the earthly resurrection can begin.
Summarizing the order based on all three passages
relating to the old heavens and earth in Matthew chapter
87
24, 2 Peter chapter 3 and Revelation chapter 20, three
things are clear. (1) The old heavens and earth will be
destroyed at a time paralleling the Flood, namely
Armageddon. (2) Then the new heavens and earth come
into existence, and (3) the earthly resurrection follows.
In harmony with these texts, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe
that the earthly resurrection begins after Armageddon
during Christ’s 1,000-year reign. Seventh-day Adventists
have a 1,000-year interval or gap between the destruction
of the old heavens and earth and the creation of the new
heavens and earth. The Bible does not support this gap
theory.
It is important to note that Revelation is not always
written in chronological order. All commentators
recognize this fact. Often the order is topical and this is
the case here. So in Revelation 19:11-20:10 the topic is
mainly the wicked––the end of the wicked world, the
abyssing of Satan and his destruction after 1,000 years.
Then Revelation 20:11 moves back in time to the
destruction of the old heavens and earth 1,000 years
earlier. Noting this time reset is really the key to
understanding the timing of the earthly (the second)
resurrection.
“I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from
whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and
there was found no place for them.”––Re 20:11.
This is a reset to the destruction of the old heaven and
earth at Christ’s “coming”––Armageddon––because that
is when Jesus and Peter said the old heaven and earth will
be destroyed. (2Pe 3:6, 7, 12) Having discussed the
outcome for the wicked and then returned to the
beginning of the 1,000 years afresh, Revelation 20:12-
22:5 changes topic and deals with the outcome for the
faithful and those given the opportunity to be faithful. “I
saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; ... And
the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and
hell delivered up the dead which were in them.”––Re
20:12, 13.
This resurrection occurs after the passing away of the old
heaven and earth at Armageddon. This means that the
Scriptures require a resurrection during the 1,000 years.
During the Millennium faithful men like John the Baptist
and others will not be rulers in the Kingdom of heaven
but will be resurrected on earth. (Mt 11:11) They will not
at first be perfect since they will still need to be “healed.”
(Re 22:2) Healing will not be necessary for those who
have gone to heaven because the resurrection for those
ones makes them incorruptible. (1Co 15:53) Others like
John the Baptist who will live on earth will progress to
perfection by progressively being healed.
 DEFENCE
They will learn righteousness during the Millennium
according to the principle: “when thy judgments are in
the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn
righteousness.” (Isa 26:9; 29:24) When will these
judgments take place?
A comparison of Matthew 12:36 with Revelation 20:4, 6
shows that Judgment Day is the 1,000-year reign. During
this period, texts like Isaiah 11:3-5 will be fulfilled.
“With righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove
with equity for the meek of the earth.” Acts 17:31 also
describes Christ’s judgments at this time. “He hath
appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in
righteousness.” The Greek for “world” at Acts 17:31,
oikoumenen, always refers to an inhabited land or earth.
Really, then, God’s purpose for the earth to be
“inhabited” is never defeated by the Devil, not even for
1,000 years. (Isa 45:18) Entirely without proof Bob
inserts the word “wicked,” claiming that the dead of
Revelation 20:5 are “the wicked dead.” (GCT, page 84)
Really, what would be the point in resurrecting the
incorrigibly wicked dead? To destroy them again? This
could not be because Romans 6:7 says:
“He that is dead is freed [Greek, dedikaiotai, “has been
justified”] from sin.”
No one can be punished after their resurrection for sins
committed in a previous life. Such ‘double jeopardy’
would not be just, and Romans 6:23 shows why.
“The wages sin pays is death.”
The penalty for sin is paid in full death. There are no more
“wages” due and nothing left to punish. The Adventist
idea of a hopeless resurrection for the incorrigibly wicked
at the end of the 1,000 years just to re-destroy them
violates these important Bible principles.
6.6.1 “Lived Not Again”
Since the earth will be populated during the 1,000 years,
why does Revelation 20:5 say that the rest of the dead
“lived not again” until the end of the 1,000 years?
Greek has two words for life, bios and zoe. Bios refers to
matters related to biological life. But “lived” at
Revelation 20:5 translates a different word, ezesan,
which is related to the other word for life, zoe. Zoe never
refers to mere biological existence in the Scriptures. W.E.
Vine says zoe is
“life in the absolute sense, life as God has it ... In
Scripture zoe is ‘the nobler word, expressing as it
continually does, all of highest and best which the
saints possess in God.’”––An Expository Dictionary of
New Testament Words, under the subject heading
“Life.”
88
Zoe has to do with life par excellence and ultimately
perfection of life. The dead of Revelation 20:5 will be
alive biologically during the Millennium, but will ‘come
to life’––to real life, perfection of life, zoe life––after
they pass the final test at the end of the 1,000 years and
are granted the right to everlasting life. Until then they
are not fully alive in the zoe sense.
Their circumstances might be compared with Adam and
Eve in the garden of Eden. Although they were
biologically alive, they were not alive in the zoe sense.
The Greek Septuagint uses zoe to refer to the life they
could have received if they had remained faithful. The
right to eat from “the tree of life [zoes] ... and live
[zesetai, a verbal form of zoe] for ever” was reserved until
after they had passed their test of faithfulness. (Ge 3:22)
Of course, they did not prove faithful and were never
given that zoe life.
In a similar way, during the 1,000 years the resurrected
dead will be biologically alive but not in the zoe sense.
Only after passing the final test and being allowed to eat
from the symbolic “tree of life [zoes]” mentioned at
Revelation 22:2 will they finally receive the endless life
––the zoe life––that Adam and Eve never attained.
6.7 New Jerusalem Symbolic
Next the subject turns to “New Jerusalem” on pages 85,
86. Jehovah’s Witnesses view this as a symbolic city,
rather than a literal one.
“Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s
wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great
and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from
God.”––Re 21:9, 10.
The Bible interprets itself here. New Jerusalem is the
Lamb’s wife, not a literal city of stones. It is where
“angels” reside, it rests on the “twelve apostles” and it is
connected with the twelve tribes of (spiritual) Israel. (Re
21:12, 14) According to Paul, the Lamb’s wife is the
Christian church composed of anointed Christians.
“I have espoused you [the Christian congregation] to
one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin
to Christ.” ––2Co 11:2.
It is certain, then, that New Jerusalem is a symbolic city,
not a literal one. It is symbolic of the Christian church
married to Christ.
Just as Babylon the Great, the “great city” and woman of
Revelation 17:18, is really a false religious organization,
New Jerusalem, the “great city” and woman of
Revelation 21:9, 10, is really a contrasting true religious
organization.
 DEFENCE
Bob’s literal interpretation for New Jerusalem is very
inconsistent. Other physical locations in the Revelation
such as Sodom, Egypt, the Euphrates, Armageddon and
Babylon they regard as symbolic. (Re 11:8; 16:12, 16;
17:5) Ellen G. White wrote the following in explanation
of the Egypt and Sodom at Revelation 11:8.
“‘The great city” in whose streets the witnesses are
slain, and where their dead bodies lie, is ‘spiritually’
Egypt… When the message was brought him by
Moses, in the name of the Lord, Pharaoh proudly
answered, ‘Who is Jehovah, that I should hearken unto
His voice to let Israel go? I know not Jehovah, and
moreover I will not let Israel go.” (Exodus 5:2.) This
is atheism, and the nation represented by Egypt would
give voice to a similar denial of the claims of the living
God, and would manifest a like spirit of unbelief and
defiance. ‘The great city’ is also compared,
‘spiritually,’ to Sodom. The corruption of Sodom in
breaking the law of God was especially manifested in
licentiousness. And this sin was also to be a pre-
eminent characteristic of the nation that should fulfil
the specifications of this scripture.”––The Great
Controversy (1950 edition), page 269. (Emphasis
ours.)
So Adventist scholar Angel Manuel Rodriguez says:
“There are various other examples from the book of
Revelation itself, but the best is probably Babylon. It
is no longer a city in Mesopotamia but a symbol of
global apostasy and rebellion against God. This
interpretational movement from a limited
geographical area to a universal phenomenon is also
supported by Ellen G. White in the context of
apocalyptic prophecies. She takes the apocalyptic
reference to Egypt to represent the spirit of the French
Revolution that has now reached global dimensions in
the form of atheism.”––Ministry, January 2012, page
7. (Emphasis ours.)
We can only wonder why New Jerusalem must be a
literal city when Adventists interpret Babylon the Great,
Egypt, Sodom and even Israel to be symbolic.
Holding New Jerusalem to be literal is also unreasonable.
If its circumference is to be 12,000 stadia or 2,200
kilometres and if its height is to be 550 kilometres, it
would cover a territory about 14 times as large as modern
Israel. (Re 21:16) It would be unliveable for humans and
Gog and Magog could not realistically attack it.
New Jerusalem is called the “holy city” at Revelation
21:2. This is not the first time. It is also called the “holy
34See the Adventist amazingdiscoveries.org website commentary on Revelation 11:2, viewed December 2, 2017; The Great
Controversy, page 266.
89
city” at Revelation 11:2. There, the Gentiles are said to
‘tread the city underfoot.’ Adventists generally and Ellen
G. White herself take this holy city––New Jerusalem––
to represent the true Christian Church which was
trampled by papal religion for a period of 1,260 years. 34
This shows that even Adventists understand New
Jerusalem symbolically, at least in Revelation chapter 11.
Why it must be considered literal in Revelation chapter
21 is unclear.
What about New Jerusalem “coming down,” or
“descending” out of heaven? (Re 21:2, 10) Would this
mean that it must literally sit on earth? No. This language
is well-established symbolic language for action
extending from heaven to earth. At Revelation 13:13, for
example, the two-horned beast makes fire “come down”
from heaven to earth. Commenting on this verse,
Adventist scholar Angel Manuel Rodriguez says it is not
the descent of literal fire but a “symbolism.” ([Adventist]
Biblical Research Institute, accessed online at
www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org on July 27, 2016)
It is arbitrary to interpret New Jerusalem’s “coming
down,” or “descending” as symbolic in one text and
literal in others without any apparent reason. So in what
sense will New Jerusalem descend?
The bride of Christ––New Jerusalem––will act toward
the earth in its kingly capacity, extending its rulership
earthward and in this sense symbolically descending to
the earth, but not literally. It can be compared with the
reference at Exodus 19:18 which says that “the LORD
[Jehovah] descended upon [Mount Sinai] in fire.” Are we
to think of God as literally there on the mountain? No.
Rodriguez says:
“His fiery appearance indicates His presence in a
particular place while remaining distant and
unapproachable because of His holiness.”––Ibid.
As an aside, this description sounds very much like an
invisible presence! Whatever, note that ‘coming down’
or ‘descending’ is not to be taken literally, especially in a
book of “signs” like Revelation. (Re 1:1) At Sinai
Jehovah visited or attended to his people without literally
descending. There are many other scriptural examples of
God visiting figuratively. (Ge 21:1; Ex 3:16; 4:31; 1Sa
2:21; Isa 26:14; Zec 10:3; Lu 1:68) He is even said to
have ‘tented with’ and ‘dwelt in the midst of ’ his Israelite
people symbolically. (2Sa 7:6; Zec 2:10, 11) None of this
was literal.
As far as God literally living on earth, Solomon asked:
 DEFENCE
“Will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the
heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee.”
––1Ki 8:27.
God could not literally live on earth, but he could say that
“mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually” in
a spiritual sense. (1Ki 7:16) God never dwelt literally in
the temple or in Israel but he did dwell there spiritually.
New Jerusalem is therefore a symbolic city, symbolic of
the bride of Christ––Christians resurrected to heaven.
God dwells among them as if in a temple.
6.8 The Camp of the Saints
Bob asserts that “the camp of the saints” and “the beloved
city” at Revelation 20:9 are identical. (GCT, page 85) But
this is not likely in view of the two definite articles that
appear before “camp” and “beloved city.” The articles set
“the” camp of the saints and “the” beloved city as distinct
from each other.
It is true that a camp is “a temporary home,” but in
Biblical usage a camp is a temporary home outside a city.
It is not the city itself. Therefore, “the camp of the holy
ones” must represent those on earth outside the heavenly
location of New Jerusalem––those outside the Kingdom
headquarters––but who support it.
Gog and Magog will attack the heavenly New Jerusalem
and its earthly camp outside the city. They can attack the
heavenly “holy city” in the same way that the Gentiles
can tread the same city underfoot at Revelation 11:2. By
attacking the “holy ones” they attack “the beloved city”
because any attack on his people Jesus counts as an attack
on himself after the principle at Matthew 25:40, 45.
6.9 Burning the Wicked––When?
Bob’s rule of interpretation is fine, to check Scripture
with Scripture to avoid reaching “weird, fanciful
conclusions.” But to imply that Jehovah’s Witnesses’
doctrinal system is weird and fanciful is unfair.
Adventists are not unified in interpretation themselves.
For example, there are “diversities of views” in the
interpretations of the 7 trumpets proposed by Adventists
U. Smith, E. Thiele, R. Naden, C. Maxwell, W. Shea, A.
Treiyer and by J. Paulien, H. LaRondelle and R.
Stefanovic.––Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven
Trumpets of Revelation, by Angel Manuel Rodriguez. in
“Ministry,” January 2012, pages 6-10.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not tied to philosophical
theories of interpretation like the Adventists’ historicist
approach to Revelation. By paying close attention to the
35For example, 1 Kings 19:18 helps explain Revelation 11:13; 1 Chronicles 24:5-19 helps explain Revelation 4:4; and Isaiah 1:10
and Isaiah 19:19 help explain Revelation 11:8.
90
“signs” in Revelation and to other parts of the Bible that
help to explain them is a better approach to studying and
interpreting difficult passages. 35 (Re 1:1) Of course, the
Witnesses do not claim that their understanding of
Revelation or anything else is perfect. As mentioned
earlier, their current commentary states:
“It is not claimed that the explanations in this
publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say:
‘Do not interpretations belong to God?’ (Genesis
40:8)”––Revelation–Its Grand Climax at Hand, 1988,
page 9.
Earlier parts of God’s Word often provide just the clues
needed to understand its symbols. However, what Bob
says on page 86 shows that he does not adhere to his own
rule of checking Scripture with Scripture.
He says that Malachi 4:1-3 refers to fire coming out of
heaven at the end of the 1,000 years. Read the passage:
“Behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; ...
and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the
LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor
branch… And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they
shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that
I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.” Bob connects
this with Revelation 21:9.
However, Matthew 13:42 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8 also
describe the destruction of the wicked at Christ’s coming
as destruction by fire. Why does Bob insist that Malachi
chapter 4 refers to the end of the Millennium instead of
the Armageddon destruction? There is no good reason.
Bob is credited in the Seventh-day Adventist community
with being an expert on Jehovah’s Witnesses. “His
knowledge of the Watchtower history and teaching is
devastating,” says Clarice. (GCT, page 89) Yet when
Nanna misrepresents the Witnesses’ teachings on pages
86, 87 Bob does not correct her misunderstanding.
Instead, he builds on it to further his argument.
He asks whether the tree of life in the Paradise restored
is real, literal. (Re 22:2) She answers: “Yes, indeed.”
Then he asks whether the river is real. (Re 22:1) “Yes, I
guess so.” Jehovah’s Witnesses believe neither. But Bob
opportunistically takes advantage of Nanna’s
misunderstanding to argue that therefore the city––New
Jerusalem––must be a real, literal city. Bob has not
proven his point. His argument is founded on an elderly
woman’s misunderstanding, knowing full well that
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe what Nanna
supposes. This is unfair.
 DEFENCE
6.10 New Heavens and New Earth––When?
Bob claims that Isaiah 65:21-25 applies after the 1,000
years. (GCT, page 86) However, as discussed above, the
new heavens and new earth come into existence right
after the destruction of the old heaven and earth. 36 The
timing of similar events at the Flood as discussed by Peter
proves it.––2Pe 3:5-13.
So all the beautiful prophecies of Psalm 37:10, 11, 29 and
Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:21-25 are to be fulfilled during the
1,000-year reign of Christ. God does not need to desolate
the earth and leave it vacant for 1,000 years to fulfil his
purpose.
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens;
God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath
established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to
be inhabited.”––Isa 45:18.
Desolating the earth is Satan’s purpose, not God’s. It
would be a defeat for Jehovah to concede to Satan even
1,000 years of an uninhabited earth contrary to His stated
purpose. We should never forget that if Christ and those
taken with him to heaven reign “with Christ a thousand
36 See point 6.6 above.
91
years” they would have no one on earth to reign over?
Would such a rulership serve any real purpose? Would it
bring glory to God, whose Kingdom it ultimately is?
Remember Proverbs 14:28:
“In the multitude of people is the king’s honour: but in
the want of people is the destruction of the prince.”
What a dishonour an Adventist Millennium without
earthly subjects would be to Christ and his resurrected
bride! Instead, true Biblical resurrection and Millennial
teachings do bring honour to Jehovah.
Those who rule as kings have no one over whom to rule
under the Adventist scheme. It would be a meaningless
and shameful kingship. Adventists assign a meaning for
the abyss––a desolate earth––that they do not assign to
the same word elsewhere in Revelation. They take the
Isaiah and Jeremiah desolation of Jerusalem and Judah
out of context and apply it to the whole earth. They teach
that parts of Ezekiel chapter 38 will not be fulfilled. They
also maintain that of all the cities and locations
mentioned in Revelation, only New Jerusalem is literal.
DEFENCE

92
 DEFENCE
7
One God … and Who is Jehovah?
Chapters 11 and 12 of Channel discuss the Trinity.
Seventh-day Adventists affirm and Jehovah’s Witnesses
deny the doctrine. The booklet criticizes the Witnesses
for their position but fails to concede and account for the
fact that that the Adventist Church was not Trinitarian in
its earliest years. (See Appendix 1.) Even today non-
Trinitarianism is a minority movement within the Church
and those adhering to it are not disfellowshipped for
apostasy.
7.1 What Did Ellen G. White Believe?
Bob is very critical about changes in the teachings of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet, Adventist Denis Fortin of the
Baden-Wurttemberg Conference, Stuttgart, Germany,
speaks of
“three periods of development in Adventist history:
1. Anti-Trinitarianism : 1846-1888
2. Dissatisfaction with Anti-Trinitarianism: 1888-
1898
3. Paradigm shift: 1898-1915”
––Ellen G. White and God: One, Two or Three?,” July
2007.
In 70 years, Ellen G. White never once used the word
Trinity in any of her many writings. Some of her
statements seem consistent with certain features of the
doctrine. So she says:
“This Saviour was the brightness of His Father’s glory
and the express image of His person. He possessed
divine majesty, perfection and excellence. He was
equal with God.”––Testimonies for the Church,
Volume 2, 1869, page 200.
This sounds Trinitarian, but at other times White said that
Christ did not always possess this equality, that he
possessed it only because the Father “ordained” or
“invested” or ‘gave’ him equality and divine authority.
“The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that
he might in the presence of all the angels confer
special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the
throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of
holy angels was gathered around them. The Father
then made known that it was ordained by himself that
Christ should be equal with himself; so that wherever
was the presence of his Son, it was as his own
presence. His word was to be obeyed as readily as the
93
word of the Father. His Son he had invested with
authority to command the heavenly host.”––Ellen G.
White, The Signs of the Times, January 9, 1879; also,
Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, pages 18, 19.
(Emphasis ours.)
“The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between
God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the
personality and individuality of each. [Hebrews 1:1-5
is then quoted.] God is the Father of Christ; Christ is
the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted
position. He has been made equal with the Father. All
the counsels of God are opened to His Son.”––Ellen
G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Volume 8,
1904, page 268. (Emphasis ours.)
Today’s Adventists would never say that Christ was
‘ordained’, ‘invested’ or ‘given’ equality with the Father
because their understanding now is that the Son was
always equal with the Father. Ellen G. White was not a
conventional Trinitarian.
More than this, she was often very unsure about the holy
spirit. On the one hand, she calls the holy spirit “the third
person of the Godhead.” (Special Testimonies for
Ministers and Workers, Number 10, 1897, page 25; The
Desire of Ages, 1898, page 671) But then she says:
“Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be
your example, rather than the greatest and most
learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus
Christ whom he has sent. The Father and the Son
alone are to be exalted.”––Ellen White, The Youth’s
Instructor, July 7, 1898. (Emphasis ours.)
“Alone”? What about the holy spirit? Was ‘he’ not
exalted? White’s statement does not show a keen
awareness of the Trinity.
The examples cited above show that in 1898 she
considered the Father and Son alone to be exalted––no
mention of the holy spirit––and that in 1904 she was still
teaching that the equality of the Son with the Father was
not inherent, but was something given to him by the
Father. So Adventist Jerry Moon says:
“Her writings about the Godhead show a clear
progression, not primarily from anti- to
protrinitarianism, but from relative ambiguity to
greater specificity. Some of her early statements are
capable of various interpretations, but her later
statements, 1898-1906, are explicit to the point of
 DEFENCE
being dogmatic.”––As quoted in Ellen G. White and
God: One, Two or Three?”, July 2007.
This explains why Ellen G. White never contradicted her
husband James White’s explicit anti-Trinitarian
statements. (The Day Star, January 24, 1846) She was
very tentative in the face of the non-Trinitarianism in her
church. It is true that some of her statements were more
favourable to the Trinity toward the end of her life, but
her Trinitarian message developed gradually. A Church-
sponsored article by Adventist scholar Gerhard Pfandl
summarizes the beginning of the official acceptance of
the Trinity.
“The first positive reference to the Trinity in Adventist
literature appeared in the Bible Students’ Library
series in 1892. The Bible Students’ Library was ‘a
series of pamphlets, designed for the public,
containing brief and pointed essays on Bible doctrines,
the fulfillment of prophecy, and other aspects of SDA
teachings.’ Pamphlet number 90 was entitled ‘The
Bible Doctrine of the Trinity.’ What is significant is
the fact that the author, Samuel Spear, was not an
Adventist. The pamphlet was a reprint of an article
from the New York Independent of November 14,
1889. While teaching the doctrine of ‘one God
subsisting and acting in three persons,’ Spear insists
on the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.
‘The subordination of Christ, as revealed in the Bible’
he says, ‘is not adequately explained by referring it
simply to His human nature. ... His subordination
extends to His divine as well as His human nature.’
Although this pamphlet was certainly an improvement
on previous positions it still fell short of the true
picture of the Trinity. Nevertheless, the fact that it was
printed by Pacific Press indicates that the concept of
the Trinity was beginning to be accepted by the
church. The breakthrough came with the publication
of Ellen White’s article ‘Christ the Life-giver’ in Signs
of the Times in 1897, and the book The Desire of Ages
in 1898.”––“The Doctrine of the Trinity Among
Adventists,” Biblical Research Institute, June 1999.
The “breakthrough” year was 1897, more than 50 years
after White began her prophetic ministry and 34 years
after the establishment of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church! If Adventist ‘truth’ was originally non-
Trinitarian and the Church only gradually came to a
position diametrically opposed to its original position, we
can ask Bob the question he asks of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“If it [in this case, non-Trinitarianism] was taught as
truth then [until 1897] ... why should it be error
now?”––GCT, page 66.
Bob is ‘throwing stones in a his own glass house.’ For the
past 50 years, Price has accused Jehovah’s Witnesses
94
over doctrinal changes, but in his writings against the
Witnesses he never once concedes the monumental
change in Adventist doctrine over the Trinity.
Apparently oblivious to the contradiction, he is very
certain of the Trinity and arraigns a list of texts in support
of the teaching which has only really been the official
doctrine of his church since 1931 or even later, according
to some.
7.2 Isaiah 9:6––One God or Two?
Bob claims that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in two
Gods, not one. One is Jehovah, the Father, the Almighty
God. The other is Jesus, the Mighty God. (GCT, page 90)
It is true that both Jehovah and Jesus are called God or a
god in the Scriptures.––Isa 9:6; Joh 1:1, 18; 20:28.
However, Bob does not account for the fact that the Bible
also calls prominent, created and faithful representatives
of Jehovah––human and angelic––“God.” For example,
at Exodus 7:1 Moses is called “God.” At Judges 13:2, 21,
22 an angel is called “God.” At Psalm 8:5 angels are
called “gods” and at Psalm 82:1, 6 human judges are
called “gods.”
If this were the sense in which Jesus is God, or a god,
there would be no conflict with the Bible’s “one God”
teaching because, like these others, he would be a God
acting only as a representative of the true and one God,
Jehovah. Of course, God’s representatives are not him.
Could Jesus be a god in this restricted and representative
sense? Yes, very likely. For one thing, Deuteronomy
18:18 describes Jesus as a prophet like Moses. If Moses
is “God” in a limited sense, as he is, it would be expected
that Jesus would be God in the same limited sense. Of
course, Jesus is greater than Moses and therefore more
deserving of the title than Moses. But neither Jesus,
Moses nor any of these other Gods or gods is ever called
Almighty God.––Ge 17:1.
Adventists object that Isaiah 43:10 prevents any
possibility of created gods.––GCT, page 90.
“Before me there was no God formed, neither shall
there be after me.”
Consider the context because it is vital to understanding
the text. Isaiah chapters 42 to 44 argue for the unique
Godship of Jehovah as part of a contrast with the pagan
gods of the surrounding nations. The contrast is between
the true God and the pagan idol gods.
Note the important word “formed.” “Formed” how? The
context speaks about “graven images” and “molten
images” that were formed by the pagan nations. (Isa
42:8, 17) So Isaiah 44:8-10 says:
 DEFENCE
“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God: I
know not any. They that make a graven image are all
of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not
profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not,
nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath
formed a god, or molten a graven image that is
profitable for nothing?”
Note again the word “formed,” the same word used at
Isaiah 43:10. That ‘formation’ is physical, the forming of
idols by their worshipers. (Isa 44:11-17) While the true
God is the Former of others, the pagan gods form nothing
and need to be formed themselves by men. (Isa 43:1, 7,
21; 44:2, 21, 24). Compare Isaiah 44:10, 12, where
“fashioneth” also comes from the Hebrew “to form.”
So when Jehovah says at Isaiah 43:10 that “there was no
God formed,” he was speaking about the ‘forming’ of
gods of the kind in the context, that is, the pagan gods
formed, graven or molten as images by their worshippers.
Of course, because Jehovah is eternal, none of these
image-gods was formed before Jehovah and neither will
any of them be formed after Jehovah.
However, the text is clearly not referring to Moses, the
angels, or the Israelite judges when it says no gods were
formed. Why not? Because the Bible calls them gods in
a good way and we cannot just delete those references
from the Scriptures. When the context is considered,
then, there is no valid argument in Isaiah 43:10 against
Jesus being a god of this kind either.
Jehovah is a “mighty God.” (Isa 10:21) More than that,
he is “Almighty God [Hebrew, ’El shaddai],” without
peer as to mightiness. (Ge 17:1) Jesus, on the other hand,
is “mighty” but never “Almighty.” And so the difference
between the Father and the Son is clearly seen. Both are
mighty but only one is Almighty. It is the same
distinction mentioned at John 10:29: “My Father ... is
greater than all.” And “My Father is greater than I.” (Joh
14:28) “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6 is not a title that
uniquely identifies Jesus as the Most High God.37
Bob believes that the title “mighty God” means that Jesus
is Almighty God. How, then, does he deal with Jesus’
other title, “everlasting Father,” in the same verse? (Isa
9:6) Would he consistently argue that Jesus is the same
as the Father, or is part of the Father? Bob could not say
so, for the Trinity doctrine specifically prevents that
explanation. Jesus is not the Father.
37Ezekiel 32:21 uses the plural form of ‘mighty god.’ “The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell.”
The English Standard Version renders “strong among the mighty” as “mighty chiefs.” Other translations say “mighty leaders”
(New International Version) and “mighty ones” (New American Standard Bible). But the Hebrew reads ‘mighty gods.’ “Mighty
God” is therefore not a term unique to Jehovah.
95
Just as Jesus is a Father in a different sense to the
heavenly Father, so he is a God in a different sense to
Jehovah God. Jesus’ Godship is similar to, but greater
than, the godship of the other loyal servants of Jehovah
that we have already mentioned.––Isa 53:10.
7.3 Matthew 1:23––Emmanuel
Bob cites Matthew 1:23 to prove that Jesus is God.
“They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.”
The verse quotes Isaiah 7:14. Regarding the quotation,
The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology (1986), Volume 2, pages 86, 87, states:
“The name Emmanuel which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and
8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ ... In the context of
the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given
to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that
the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and
Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to
refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and
its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence
among his people ... [Emmanuel] could be a general
statement that the birth and naming of the special child
will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us. …
The point of the present passage [Matthew 1:23] is to
see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God,
comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both
births signify God’s presence with his people through
a child.” "
Yes, the first Emmanuel was a human who was not God.
The meaning of that name does not force us to view him
as God. The mere application of the name to Jesus in a
secondary sense should not force that conclusion either.
Names were sometimes almost prophetic, expressing a
hope for a person’s life. The Jews also incorporated
“God,” “Jehovah” and “Jah” into their children’s names
freely and so many Israelites came to be named after their
God. These parents were not claiming that their children
were God. Eliathar means “God has come.” (1Ch 25:4)
Elpaal means “God of doing [or, creating].” (1Ch 8:11)
Elihu means “God is he” and Jehu means “Jehovah is he.”
(Job 32:2; 2Ki 9:14) We can only imagine Bob’s delight
if Jesus had been named Elihu or Jehu! But, really, this
naming convention does not imply that anyone is God.
 DEFENCE

7.4 John 20:28––My God simply required as a matter of grammar that ho be used
when addressing someone.
The Adventist booklet raises another important text on
page 90. As mentioned above, Jehovah’s Witnesses actually agree
that Jesus is theos––God or god––in the same sense as
“My Lord [ho kyrios] and my God [ho theos].” other prominent representatives were God. (Ex 7:1; Ps
Bob says that the New World Translation usually renders 8:5; 82:1, 6; Joh 10:34, 35) However his Godship is
ho kyrios as “Jehovah” in the Christian Greek Scriptures. “mighty,” not “Almighty.” (Ge 17:1; Isa 9:6) So the
He is not right in this. Ho kyrios usually refers to Christ. Father outranks him as to Godship.
It is the anarthrous kyrios––kyrios without the article–– Jesus himself says: “I ascend unto my Father, and your
that more often refers to Jehovah. So it is unsurprising Father; and to my God, and your God.” (Joh 20:17) The
that Jesus is called ho kyrios. Why, though, is Christ Father is Jesus’ God, but the reverse is never true. Jesus
called ho theos, a term usually reserved for God? is never the Father’s God.
Trinitarians usually emphasize that ho theos, “the God,”
7.5 Philippians 2:6––Equality?
is very different to theos, “a god.” Explaining why, A.T.
Robertson comments: Whether or not Philippians 2:6 supports the Trinity
depends on the translation of the verse and its context.
“Here we have an old Greek idiom intensified by the
(GCT, page 90) There have been alternative translations
Hebrew and the Aramaic usage in which tongues the
suggested.
vocative regularly has the article. ... In Jo. 20:28 ho
kyrios mou kai ho theos mou the form is nominative, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
but the case is vocative. Jesus receives the words as to be equal with God.”––King James Version.
direct address.”––A New Short Grammar of the Greek
“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count
Testament, page 282.
equality with God a thing to be grasped.”––Revised
In Greek, the vocative case––the form of a word used Standard Version.
when addressing someone––“regularly has the article.”
The King James Version inserts the pronoun “it,” which
Hebrew and Aramaic are similar. Since Thomas used one
is not in the Greek, saying he “thought it not robbery to
of these three languages when he spoke to Jesus and,
be equal with God.” Omitting the “it,” there would be no
since John recorded his comments in Greek, it is hardly
support for the Trinity. It would read: he ‘thought not
surprising that theos has the article. As Robertson says, it
robbery to be equal with God.’ The sense then would be
was idiomatic and to be expected. This means that
that Jesus did not even contemplate grasping equality
Thomas was probably not making a doctrinal point by the
with God.
way he addressed Jesus.
One commentary discusses the alternative translations.
As further evidence that the article used this way is not
doctrinally significant, C.F.D. Moule says: “Thought it not robbery is one translation of the key-
word Harames which may be taken actively as in [the
“Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article
King James Version] or passively as in [the Revised
may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic
Version]: ‘counted it not a prize to be on an equality
idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense.
with God’. Both versions are linguistically possible.
A noun in the construct case in Hebrew is never
The real difficulty is encountered in the question:
allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes
Does it mean that Christ enjoyed equality with God
be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek
but surrendered it by becoming man, or that He could
equivalent phrase: angelos kyriou might be a
have grasped at equality with God by self-assertion,
Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kyriou.
but declined to do so ... ?”––The Epistle of Paul to the
Conversely, the use of the article with a virtual
Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, pages
Vocative (cf. John xx. 28 referred to above, and I Pet.
97, 98.
ii. I8ff.) may also be due to Semitic idiom.”––An
Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, page 117. This is the main question. The Greek is oukh harpagmon
hegesato to einai isa theo, which the Revised Standard
Moule cites the articular theos of John 20:28 as an
Version renders: “who, though he was in the form of God,
example of “the influence of Semitic idiom rather than
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
deliberate desire to modify the sense.” Really, then, the
Equality with God was a state or condition beyond being
ho-theos vocative is not necessarily intended to mean that
“in the form of God” and something for which Jesus did
Jesus was “the God.” The Greek and Hebrew languages
not attempt to ‘grasp [harpagmon].’

96
 DEFENCE
A Trinitarian would usually argue for a meaning for
harpagmon like ‘retain’ or ‘hold onto,’ so that Christ held
onto something he already possessed, namely “equality
with God.”
The non-Trinitarian would argue that harpagmon means
‘seize’ or ‘grasp,’ so that Christ did not consider seizing
something he did not already possess, namely “equality
with God.” In the latter view, despite being in God’s
“form,” Christ was not originally equal with God and
took no interest in grasping for equality. Clearly, the
meaning of harpagmon is crucial to understanding the
meaning of Philippians 2:6.
So what does harpagmon mean, ‘hold onto’ or ‘seize’?
One Greek scholar makes the following comments.
“It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the
verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to
snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast;’ and the
second interpretation hardly does justice to the
structure of the whole sentence as well as to the force
of ‘exalted to the highest place’ in verse 9.”––The
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The Epistle of
Paul to the Philippians, R. Martin, page 101.
Martin shows that the real meaning of harpagmon is “to
seize,” a meaning inconsistent with the notion of
retaining or holding onto something already possessed.
Even clearer are the following comments.
“We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of
its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’
‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’
‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide
from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally
different, ‘hold fast.’”––The Expositor’s Greek
Testament Volume 3, pages 436, 437.
Not a single Biblical example can be given of harpazo
meaning ‘to hold onto’ something already possessed.
Trinitarians need such a meaning to prove that Jesus
‘held onto’ his Trinitarian equality. But the word
invariably means ‘to seize’ or ‘grasp’ something not
already held. Why would Paul have used harpagmon if
Christ were already equal to God? He would not because
Jesus could not be tempted to ‘seize’ something he
already possessed. Only if he did not already possess
equality might he have been tempted to grasp it.
Then there is the matter of context. The lesson is one of
humility. Because he was humble, far from grasping
upward for equality, Jesus chose to go the other way,
lowering himself. (Php 2:7) If Jesus were already equal,
and never surrendered that equality when he came to
earth, he would not have exemplified humility as well.
On the other hand, the fact that Jesus had opposing
options––(1) a proud thrust for equality with God, or (2)
97
a humble submission to God as superior––demonstrates
the real meaning of humility for humans, to exercise
humility even when faced the option of grasping for
higher authority.
However, regardless of the meaning of harpagmon, who
receives the greater glory in the final analysis? Look at
Paul’s conclusion.
“Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”––Php 2:11.
When all is said and done, the Father is clearly supreme.
7.6 1 Timothy 3:16––God or He?
Almost unbelievably, Bob endorses a very poor
translation in support of the Trinity, (GCT, page 90) The
King James Version reads: “God was manifest in the
flesh.” The trouble for Bob is that “God” is not in the
original Greek at this place. The Revised Standard
Version reflects the manuscript evidence better.
“He was manifested in the flesh.”
In a lengthy comment, B.M. Metzger notes that “God”
was a very late edition to the Bible text.
“The reading which, on the basis of external evidence
and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise
of the others is hos. It is supported by the earliest and
best uncials ... Furthermore, since the neuter relative
ho must have arisen as a scribal correction of hos (to
bring the relative into concord with mysterion), the
witnesses which read ho ... also indirectly presuppose
hos as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads
theos ... Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than
the eighth or ninth century ... supports theos; all
ancient versions presuppose hos or ho; and no patristic
writer prior to the last third of the fourth century
testifies to the reading theos. The reading theos arose
either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC
as C, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a
substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less
probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.”––
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
page 641.
This shows that the earliest reading of theos occurred, not
in Biblical texts, but in patristic writings from the end of
the fourth century when the Trinity was an issue in the
Church. Again the New World Translation is found
accurate in a contested rendering, in this case: “He was
made manifest in flesh.”
7.7 Titus 2:13––God and Saviour?
We assume that the Titus 3:14 cited on page 90 of the
online edition of Channel is meant to be Titus 2:13. In
1798 Granville Sharp proposed what he believed to be a
 DEFENCE
consistent grammatical rule involving the Greek
conjunction kai, meaning “and.” He found that, where
two singular nouns are linked by kai, they apply to the
same person if the first noun is preceded by the definite
article “the” and the second noun is not. Titus 2:13 has
this word order.
“of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Adventists and others say that this word order shows that
“God” and “Jesus Christ” are the same person here
because “God” is preceded by the article and “Jesus
Christ” is not.
However, as explained by Henry Alford, there are
reasons to believe that “the great God” and “our Saviour
Jesus Christ” are different persons and that Granville
Sharp’s Rule does not apply in this case. They include
these. (1) Soter (“Saviour”) was a word which gradually
dropped the article and became a proper name. (1Ti 1:1;
4:10) Sharp’s Rule specifically excludes proper names.
(2) Hemon (“our”) is connected to the words “Saviour
Jesus Christ” and where hemon is connected to nouns the
article is often absent, meaning that its absence may not
be significant at Titus 2:13. (Cp. Lu 1:78; Ro 1:7; 1Co
1:3; 2:7; 10:11; 2Co 1:2) (3) Prefixing an appositional
designation like “Saviour” to a proper name like “Jesus”
frequently causes the omission of the article. (2Co 1:2;
6:18; Ga 1:3; Eph 1:2; 6:23; Php 1:2; 2:11; 3:20; 2Th
1:12; Jude 4) (4) Jesus Christ is nowhere else called ‘God
and Saviour.’ (The Greek Testament, Volume III, pages
420, 421) So it may not be significant that the article is
missing before “Saviour.”
There are two other factors showing that Titus 2:13 does
not identify God and Christ as identical. First, the
Septuagint rendering at Proverbs 24:21, ton theon ... kai
basilea, speaks about two different individuals, ‘the God
and king.’ This is the same article-noun-kai-noun
construction as Titus 2:13 with an article before “God”
but none before “king.” God and the king were neither
identical nor equal, so it is a clear exception to Granville
Sharp’s rule.
Second, the third-century Sahidic Coptic version at Titus
2:13 reads noute.mn penswthr ihsous pecristos, “God,
and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Its translator(s) understood
“God” and “Jesus Christ” to be two entities, not one. The
Coptic translators did not know of Granville Sharp’s rule
even though they were familiar with Greek. 38
38 Commentator N.J.D. White also arrives at this conclusion. “The grammatical argument––‘the identity of reference of two
substantives when under the vinculum of a common article’––is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into
consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before soter [‘Saviour’] in I Tim. I.I,
iv. I0.”––The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume 4, page 195.
98
7.8 Hebrews 1:8––O God?
Bob criticizes the New World Translation over its
translation of Hebrews 1:8. (GCT, pages 90, 97, 98) The
booklet’s character David finds its rendering hard to
understand and Bob says: “If you knew Greek and
Hebrew, you would be still more displeased.” The King
James Version and New World Translation translate the
text this way.
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and for ever.”––King
James Version.
“God is your throne forever.”––New World
Translation.
This is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which in the first place
was addressed to a king. The psalmist obviously did not
consider the king to be God, and would not have
addressed him as such. It calls into question whether “O
God” is really the correct translation.
The writer of Hebrews quotes from the Greek Septuagint
(LXX) version of Psalm 45:6 rather than from the
Hebrew. From a purely grammatical perspective there are
two ways to translate the passage. The Greek reads: “ho
[the] thronos [throne] sou [of you] ho [the] theos [God].”
Bob says Jehovah’s Witnesses incorrectly translate it.
But Greek scholar A.T. Robertson says:
“It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative
(address with the nominative form as in John 20:28
with the Messiah termed theos as is possible, John
1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate)
with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy
throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.”––Word
Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson,
Volume V, comments on Hebrews 1:8.
Bob is not right. The Greek allows both translations. In
fact, “God is thy throne” is a ‘sensible’ translation!
Regarding the choice between vocative and nominative,
the following comments by B.F. Westcott are relevant.
“The LXX. admits of two renderings: ho theos can be
taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God,
... therefore, O God, Thy God ...) or it can be taken as
the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is
Thy throne, or Thy throne is God ...) ... It is scarcely
possible that Elohim in the original can be addressed
to the king. The presumption therefore is against the
belief that ho theos is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on
the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the
rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God),
 DEFENCE

that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the
immovable Rock.”––The Epistle to the Hebrews,
pages 25, 26.
This is not the only evidence in support of the New World
Translation’s rendering.39 The idea of God being Jesus’
throne is no more difficult to understand than God being
called a person’s Rock or shield.
God is the ultimate authority underpinning Jesus’
authority, as Jesus admitted: “All power [literally,
‘authority’] is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Mt
28:18) Jehovah is the Source of Jesus’ delegated
authority.
The very next verse at Hebrews 1:9 is clear that the Father
is God, and Jesus’ God at that. The Father is “thy God.”
Jesus is never once called the Father’s God in the Bible.
When it comes to godship the Father is superior.
7.9 Holy Spirit––Impersonal
Bob criticizes Jehovah’s Witnesses for denying the
personality of the spirit. He says that the holy spirit is a
person because it guides, pleads and grieves, and it is true
that the Bible does use this kind of language. (Page 91;
Joh 16:13; Ro 8:26, 34; Eph 4:30) The question is
whether this is literal or figurative.
What is clear, though, is that Bob does not tell the whole
truth about Ellen G. White’s teachings on this subject.
7.9.1 Holy Spirit––Ellen G. White’s Views
Her references to the holy spirit are confusing, to say the
least. As a result, the identity of the spirit is a hot topic in
Adventism today. Sometimes White referred to the holy
spirit as a person, and at other times as “it.” Here is a
sample.
“We should pray as earnestly for the descent of the
Holy Spirit as the disciples prayed on the Day of
Pentecost. If they needed it at that time, we need it
more today.”––Colporteur Ministry, page 104.
“When the Spirit of God takes possession of the heart,
it transforms the life.”––Ibid., page 106.
“God’s Spirit will not always be grieved. It will depart
if grieved a little longer.”––Testimonies to the Church
1:124. (Emphasis ours.)
“Unless the Holy Spirit shall do its office work
upon the human heart, the character will not be
developed after the divine similitude.”––1888
Materials, page 1249. (Emphasis ours.)
“The Holy Spirit takes possession of every one who
has a willing mind, not that that person may work
the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit may work
its miracle through the grace that is poured upon the
human agency. ... The Holy Spirit does not work
upon the human heart to compel you to give
yourself to Christ, to force you to yield your
conscience: but it shines into the chambers of the
mind in a way to convict of sin, and to entice you
unto righteousness. If you do not confess Christ
now, the time will come when, overwhelmed with
a sense of the great things that you have lost, you
will make confession.”––The Youth’s Instructor,
August 1, 1895. (Emphasis ours.)
According to Ellen G. White, the holy spirit can be called
“it.” It is unfair to hide these important quotations. Or is
Bob ignorant of them? Jehovah’s Witnesses for their part
can only agree that the spirit is impersonal.
White sometimes spoke of the spirit as the “power” of
Christ or God.40 This is not quite correct because spirit
and power are separate at Luke 1:17; Acts 10:38 and 1
Corinthians 2:4. Still, power is an inanimate quality.
Why, then, she sometimes refers to the spirit as a person?
It seems to be because she thought of the spirit as Christ
himself. She says:
“Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in
every place personally; therefore it was altogether for
their advantage that He should leave them, go to His
father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on
earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself, divested of the
personality of humanity, and independent thereof. He
would represent Himself as present in all places by His
Holy Spirit as the Omnipresent.”––Ellen G. White,
Letter 119, February 18, 1895. (Emphasis ours.)

39 J. Beduhn says: “... on the basis of linguistics, ho theos is more likely to mean ‘God,’ as it does hundreds of times throughout the
New Testament, than ‘O God,’ a meaning it has in only three other places in the New Testament. Furthermore, there is no other
example in the Bible where the expression ‘forever’ stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb ‘to be,’ as it would if the
sentence were read ‘Your throne is forever.’ ‘Forever’ always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb, or
predicate noun or pronoun. Moreover, there is no other way to say ‘God is your throne’ than the way Hebrews 1:8 reads. There is,
however, another way to say ‘Your throne, O God,’ namely, by using the direct address (vocative) form thee rather than the subject
(nomi”native) form ho theos.”––Truth in Translation, page 99.
40 Signs of the Times, November 23, 1891; Review and Herald, November 19, 1908.

99
 DEFENCE
Note that she believed that the spirit is Christ acting apart
from his humanity. This explains why White sometimes
represented the spirit as a person––Christ “Himself” ––
and at other times called it an “it.” She referred to the
spirit as a “power” representing Christ. Christ’s
personality, she believed, is represented by the spirit and
in that sense it is a person.
It also explains why she said that Satan was next in
authority after Christ, and why at times she speaks
without apparently being conscious of the spirit.
“Satan, next to Christ, was … highest in power and
glory.”––Signs of the Times, July 23, 1902. (Emphasis
ours.)
“Satan, who was once a beautiful angel in the
heavenly courts, became a fallen angel because he did
not want to occupy a secondary place, but to be next
to God. He would have the Lord Jesus become second
to him, for his own glory was precious in his own
sight. He was jealous of Christ, the Saviour …
Although in the beginning Satan was an exalted angel
of great glory in the heavenly courts, that glory
became extinguished through his craving to be the
highest one next to God.”––Ellen G. White,
Manuscript 74, March 20, 1910. (Emphasis ours.)
“Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, 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 God.”––Patriarchs and
Prophets, page 33. (Emphasis ours.)
The holy spirit does not seem to figure in White’s mind.
There is God, Christ and Satan. Would the spirit not
“enter into all the counsels … of God” too, if a person?
7.9.2 Holy Spirit––Pronouns
Sometimes the holy spirit is referred to in the Scriptures
using personal pronouns like “he” or “himself.” Why?
Wisdom is an excellent example. Although impersonal,
wisdom is sometimes and rarely personified. Proverbs
1:20-33; 8:1-36 are examples where feminine forms are
used for wisdom in the Hebrew.
The King James Version uses “she,” “her,” “I” and “me”
in rendering these forms when speaking of wisdom. So
do other English translations. (Revised Standard Version,
An American Translation) It is also said to have very
personal-sounding attributes. It ‘cries out,’ ‘utters her
voice,’ ‘calls,’ ‘speaks,’ ‘dwells,’ ‘finds out knowledge,’
‘hates,’ ‘has strength,’ ‘loves’ and ‘leads.’ Jesus himself
personifies wisdom at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35,
where he says it has “children.” Despite these
personifications, no one argues that wisdom is a person
because no one presupposes wisdom to be a person.
100
Like wisdom, holy spirit is an extension of God’s
personality in the sense that what it does is what God
causes it to do. As Jesus states at John 16:13: “He [the
spirit] shall not speak of himself.” If the holy spirit itself
does not speak, who is the source of the spirit’s speech?
At John 15:26 Jesus says the spirit “proceedeth from the
Father.” The Father is the ultimate Source of the spirit, so
references to its ‘teaching,’ ‘testifying,’ ‘reproving,’
‘guiding,’ ‘hearing’ and ‘speaking’ actually tell us about
God’s actions using the holy spirit instrumentally.
The Greek pronouns for “he” and “himself” that are
sometimes used of the spirit are masculine only for
grammatical reasons, to agree with the word “Comforter”
which is masculine in Greek. (Joh 16:7) So they do not
mean that the spirit is a person.
In a similar way, to agree with the neuter Greek word
“spirit” the Greek pronoun for “it” is used at John 14:17.
Even the King James Version refers to the spirit as ‘itself’
at Romans 8:16, 26. But too is a grammatical agreement
only. It does not prove that the spirit is not a person.
Personal and impersonal pronouns are not helpful in
deciding the question either way.
7.9.3 Verbs That Seem Personal
When Paul ascribes ‘grieving’––a personal emotion––to
the holy spirit he uses the kind of language that is used
figuratively of impersonal things in other texts. (Eph
4:30) It is understandable that someone believing the
spirit to be a person will see proof here.
However, will he see proof that the roadways of
Jerusalem were persons in the question: “The ways of
Zion do mourn”? (La 1:4) Or that the land of Judah is a
person? “For this shall the earth mourn?” (Jer 4:28; Cp.
Isa 3:26; Jer 12:4; 14:2; La 2:8; Ho 4:3) Mourning is a
personal function too, but it also applies figuratively to
things that are not personal.
The Scriptures say that non-personal things like the
heavens, earth, mountains, fields and trees experience
joy. (Ps 96:11, 12; Isa 14:8; 35:1, 2; 44:23) Does anyone
argue that these things are persons because they mourn
or are joyful? No, because no one has a doctrine
presupposing roadways, mountains and trees to be
persons. When the mind-set is not there presuming them
to beyersons, it is easy to recognize figurative language.
But assuming the spirit to be a person, Trinitarians apply
very similar figurative language literally. In Greek,
“grieve” must be allowed a figurative meaning. There is
documented evidence that the Greeks used “grieve” this
way. In the “Epistle to Diognetus,” a professed Christian
work of the second or third century, “grieve” is used of
something inanimate.
 DEFENCE
“The grace of the prophets is recognized … If thou
grieve [same verb, lypeo] not this grace thou shalt
understand.”––“Epistle to Diognetus,” The Apostolic
Fathers, pages 499 (text) and 510 (translation); See
also Early Christian Writings, page 183.
Yes, according to this Greek writer, grace could be
‘grieved,’ and grace is certainly impersonal. For
something to “grieve” does not necessarily imply
personality. Really, if something like grace is known to
be impersonal, no confusion results if verbs like “grieve,”
“mourn” or ‘be joyful’ are used when speaking about it.
But a casual reader's preconception can affect his
understanding. But “grieve” does not of itself imply
personality of itself because can be figurative.
Ellen G. White herself saw no inconsistency in referring
to the holy spirit as a neuter “it” that could be “grieved.”
“It will depart if grieved a little longer.”––Testimonies
to the Church 1:124. (Emphasis ours.)
When we remember Jesus’ comment that the holy spirit
“proceedeth from the Father,” anyone who disregards the
promptings of the holy spirit grieves it figuratively and
grieves the Father who sent it. (Joh 15:26) He feels that
grief in a very personal way. His spirit is an expression
of the his concern for his creation and any disregard is
disregard for God himself.––Ps 95:10; 1Th 4:8.
For the same reason, it is not surprising that the spirit
“pleads” or “maketh intercession,” as does Jesus. (Ro
8:26, 34) The holy spirit, proceeding from the Father,
intervenes in our behalf when we have “infirmities” and
difficulty being specific in prayer. Very often the
prayerful thoughts that we need are contained in prayers
already recorded in God’s Word under the influence of
holy spirit. They express God’s mind on the matter and
he accepts them in our behalf.
However, to say that “the Spirit itself maketh
intercession” no more makes the spirit God than the
similar expression “the scripture saith” in the very next
chapter makes Scripture God.––Ro 9:17.
7.10 Lying to the Spirit
Using Acts 5:3, 4, Bob argues that the holy spirit is God
because lying to the spirit is the same as lying to God.––
GCT, pages 91, 92.
“Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy
Ghost … ? … thou hast not lied unto men, but unto
God.”
This is the only passage Bob is able to quote that seems
clearly to call the holy spirit God. If he misunderstands
this text his premise is on shaky grounds. The problem
with the Trinitarian argument is that the Bible often uses
this kind of language where something done to a
101
something inanimate is counted as if it were done to a
person.
Trinitarians hardly ever notice that in the same chapter of
Acts wise Gamaliel shows that opposing something
impersonal can be the same as opposing someone
personal. Gamaliel’s counsel is:
“If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to
nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest
haply ye be found even to fight against God.”––Ac
5:38, 39.
Gamaliel counted fighting the impersonal “counsel or …
work … of God” as fighting the personal God, not
because the “work” was God but because it came from
God. The comparison with Acts 5:3, 4 is clear. Opposing
something impersonal––like God’s work or his holy
spirit––is opposing God, but neither are God.
There are other examples. Malachi 1:7 says that the
Israelites showed that they considered Jehovah’s table to
be “contemptible” by presenting polluted bread on his
altar. In the process they polluted Jehovah. God’s altar
was an inanimate object but it was essential to true
worship and disrespecting it was disrespect for God, the
person. No Trinitarian would even make the case that the
altar was God because they do not presuppose that it was.
There are similar references in which actions taken
against humans are counted as actions against God
because they represented him. Numbers 14:2 says Israel
murmured against Moses and Aaron, but Numbers 14:26,
27 says they murmured against Jehovah. They were not
Jehovah. They acted in his behalf.––Cp. Ac 9:5; Php 3:6.
At Acts 5:3, 4 the point is not that the holy spirit is God,
but that lying to the spirit amounts to lying to God since
God uses his spirit to deal with men.
Even so, is it possible to lie to the holy spirit if it is not a
person? Yes. James 3:14 says: “lie not against the truth.”
Or consider Job 34:6: “Should I lie against my right?”
Job’s right––his judgment––was also impersonal. It is
possible to lie against something impersonal.
7.11 The Spirit Is Impersonal
Think now of the many reasons to view the holy spirit as
impersonal. The Bible says that people were “filled with,”
‘baptized with’ or ‘anointed with the Holy Ghost.’ (Lu
1:41; Mt 3:11; Ac 10:38) Can a person be filled with
another person? There are no other Bible examples of
this. There are references to being “filled” with
impersonal qualities, but never to being filled with a
person.––Lu 2:40; 4:28; 5:26; 6:11; 15:16; Joh 16:6; Ac
3:10; 5:17; 13:52; Ro 1:28, 29; 15:14; 2Co 7:4; Php 1:11.
Just as John baptised Jesus “with water [en hydati,
Greek],” God baptised Jesus ‘with holy spirit [en
 DEFENCE
pneumati hagio] and fire [pyri].’ The constructions are
the same for water as for holy spirit and fire, the
preposition en (meaning “with”) being used with the
words for water, holy spirit and fire in the instrumental
case. Obviously, water and fire are not persons.
In their textbook, H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey point out
that the instrumental case in phrases like this specifically
relates to impersonal things.
“The Instrumental of Means. Quite obviously this is
the use lying closest to the root meaning of the case in
the New Testament. It is the method for expressing
impersonal means, while personal agent is usually
expressed by hypo with the ablative.”––A Manual
Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 890.
If the spirit were a “personal agent,” hypo with the
ablative case would have been expected, but en is there
instead. The Bible never uses en with ‘baptise’ in the
instrumental case where persons are the instrument of
baptism. “Baptized into Jesus Christ” is found, but never
‘baptised with Jesus Christ.’ (Ro 6:3) The expression
suggests impersonality.
The references to being ‘anointed with the Holy Ghost’
imply impersonality because oil was the instrument of
anointing and, of course, the oil was inanimate. (Ex 27:7;
30:25; Le 8:10; Nu 35:25) The Bible never associates an
anointing instrument with anything personal.
It should be noted too that at Acts 10:38 Peter says that
Jesus was anointed “with the Holy Ghost and with
power.” The link of power with holy spirit suggests that
the spirit is not a person just as power is not a person.
Some “of the spirit” can be taken from one person and
given to another. (Nu 11:17, 25) And Acts 2:17 according
to the Greek speaks about God pouring out, not ‘his
spirit,’ but “of [his] Spirit” upon all flesh. Why the
genitive case, “of my Spirit” here? It implies that it is
possible for God to give some part of his spirit but not
some other part.
In the heavenly visions the holy spirit never appears as
an independent person. In the Hebrew Scriptures at Isaiah
chapter 6, Ezekiel chapter 1 and Daniel chapter 7 there is
no mention of the spirit as a person. In the Christian
Scriptures at Acts 7:55, 56 Stephen makes no mention of
seeing the holy spirit as person. In John’s vision of
heaven at Revelation chapters 4 and 5 the spirit is seen
but not as a person. It is described as “the seven Spirits
of God,” seven lamps of fire and the seven eyes of the
Lamb. (Re 4:5; 5:6) It is never once a distinct and
independent person.
This is the Bible’s presentation of the holy spirit if we
view the subject as a whole. Despite the occasional
personification, the spirit is not a person.
102
7.12 Matthew 28:19––Three Persons, One Name?
On page 92, Bob argues from Matthew 28:19 that the
three members of the Trinity are collectively one God,
called by one name.
“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
However, J. McClintock and J. Strong’s Cyclopedia of
Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
places this text with Matthew 3:16, 17; 1 Peter 1:2; 2
Corinthians 13:14 and John 14:26 as texts that cannot of
themselves prove the equality of the Father, Son and holy
spirit.
“The first class of texts, taken, by itself, proves only
that there are the three subjects named, and that there
is a difference between them; that the Father in certain
respects differs from the Son, etc.; but it does not
prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to
the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor.”––
Volume X, page 552.
It is a fallacy to interpret a Bible passage in support of a
teaching like the Trinity that developed centuries later.
When other texts with similar grammatical constructions
are interpreted, they are never explained as Trinitarians
explain Matthew 28:19. No one explains “Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob” at Matthew 8:11 to be a trinity. And
“God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels” at
1 Timothy 5:21 are never explained as a Trinity or a
multi-personal unity.
Regarding the singular “name” at Matthew 28:19, this
kind of language is used elsewhere of multiple unequal
persons. We discuss this at point 7.18.1 below. For now,
we can note just one example at Genesis 48:16.
“The name [singular] of my fathers [plural] Abraham
and Isaac.”
Note, one “name” for two persons different in substance
and age, persons who were certainly no Trinity.
7.13 Illustrations that Do Not Fit
There are no illustrations that adequately explain the
contradictions inherent in the Trinity, but Bob attempts
one when he argues that a married couple are “one”
despite being “two different persons.” (GCT, page 90)
His illustration does not fit the Trinity because a married
couple, while “one flesh” in a figurative sense by virtue
of their marriage covenant, are not only two distinct
persons but two distinct substances––two separate
Beings. The Trinity does not allow two substances.
Substance is supposed to be the uniting element in the
Trinity, and unless the Father, Son and holy spirit share
exactly the same substance or Being there is no Trinity.
 DEFENCE
At one point Ellen G. White seemed to agree with the
traditional Trinity teaching that Jesus and the Father and
the Son share the same substance. She says:
“Jesus said, ‘I and my Father are one.’ The words of
Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the
claim that he and the Father were of one substance,
possessing the same attributes.”––Signs of the Times,
November 27, 1893, page 54. (Emphasis ours.)
“Substance” is the English equivalent of the Greek ousia,
meaning “being.” When White says “one substance” she
agrees with Protestant Trinitarianism. “One substance,”
or ‘one Being,’ comes from the Greek homoousios. There
cannot be one substance and at the same time three
Beings. Modern Adventism generally agrees with this.
But White elsewhere and some Adventists today refer to
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three Beings. This
variant view is not the Trinity that was formulated in the
fourth century. For a discussion of this contradiction, see
point 11.6 below.
Bob attempts another illustration when he says that there
are three persons in one God in the same way that several
members make up a government. “No single member is
the government, but all go to make up that government
as single members.” (GCT, page 92) Again, the problem
is that Bob’s illustration does not fit the Trinity. As he
says, no single member is entitled to be called the “the
government” but the Trinity doctrine teaches that each
member of the Trinity is entitled to be called God. And
no two members are equally old, have equal knowledge
and equal authority as the members of the Trinity should
have.
This is the problem that bedevils all Trinitarian
illustrations, including the triangle, the head with three
faces and the three-leaf clover. No one part has any claim
to being called the whole.
7.14 Genesis 1:26––Elohim
When Bob says on page 92 that the plural Hebrew word
for “God,” Elohim, suggests a multi-personal God, he
unintentionally makes himself a polytheist, a worshipper
of plural gods. He also argues that “us” at Genesis 1:26
implies three members in the Trinity.
“God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness.”
A writer familiar with the Hebrew language, Aaron
Ember, examined the issue maintains that it is unlikely
that Elohim is a plural in any ordinary numerical sense.
“Several phenomena in the universe were designated
in Hebrew by plural expressions because they inspired
the Hebrew mind with the idea of greatness, majesty,
grandeur, and holiness … the Persian king … is
103
designated in a number of passages in the O T by the
pl[ural] melakhim ‘kings,’ i.e., The Great King, and
the Persian Empire by the pl[ural] mamlakhoth,
‘kingdoms,’ i.e., The Great Kingdom… Various
theories have been advanced to explain the use of the
plural form elohim as a designation of the God of
Israel. Least plausible is the view of the old
theologians, beginning with Peter Lombard (12th
century), that we have in the plural form a reference to
the Trinity. ... That the language of the O T has entirely
given up the idea of plurality in elohim (as applied to
the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that
it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal
predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute …
elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural,
denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The
Great God. It ranks with the .plurals adonim
[“master”] and baalim [“lord”] employed with
reference to human beings.”––The American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Volume XXI.
At Judges 16:23 a form of elohim is used to describe the
god Dagon, but the verb there is singular where the
reference is to a single god. At 1 Samuel 5:7 Dagon is
again referred to by a plural form of “god.” There is no
evidence that this Dagon––this elohim––was a trinity.
The nouns “God” as applied to Chemosh of the Moabites
and Milcom of the Ammonites at 1 Kings 11:33 are also
plurals. As applied to Baal-zebub at 2 Kings 1:2, 3 it is
also plural. None of these gods were trinities. And at 2
Kings 19:37 a plural form of “god” is used of the
Assyrian god Nisroch who was also a single god. So is
Marduk at Daniel 1:2.
The consequence of viewing Elohim as a plural of
number rather than a “plural of majesty” is that it
suggests that “gods” (plural) made heaven and earth. But
this would be pure polytheism. The fact that Elohim is
not a plural of number is confirmed when Genesis 3:5
reads “God knows,” with a singular verb, as of one
person, rather than ‘God know’ as of three. Does “us”
mean that there were multiple persons in Elohim? Noted
nineteenth-century scholar F. Delitzsch states:
“A plural cannot be shown in Holy Scripture where
God is speaking of himself.”––A New Commentary on
Genesis.
So it is unlikely that God is speaking just of himself at
Genesis 1:26. Rather than “us” referring to multiple
persons within God, there is a simpler explanation.
Normally, a person uses “us” to include himself and some
entirely different person. In the same way, God––Elohim,
one person––is speaking to an entirely separate person.
This is how “let us” is used in other places in the book of
Genesis. At Genesis 11:3 people of the land of Shinar
 DEFENCE

“said one to another, Go to, let us make brick.” In this
case, “us” surely does not imply that they were some kind
of multiple personality in unity.
At Genesis 11:4 “they said, Go to, let us build us a city.”
They were simply different beings speaking to each
other. They were obviously not trinities, not equal in any
trinitarian sense. In agreement with these examples, who
is the person of a different substance that God was
speaking to at Genesis 1:26?
A clue is found in the latter part of the clause: “Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness.” The
heavenly person mentioned by Paul as being in the image
of God before the creation of mankind is his only-
begotten Son, Jesus Christ in his pre-human existence.
Ellen G. White agreed that “us” was not used to indicate
a multiplicity of persons in one Being, as the Trinity is
usually defined. She says:
“After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it,
the Father and Son carried out their purpose … And
now God said to His Son, ‘Let us make man in our
image.’”––The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, pages
24, 25. (Emphasis ours.)
White means that, in saying “let us,” God is not talking
to himself as a multiple Being, three-in-one. No. God is
simply the Father talking to his Son.
At Colossians 1:15, 16 Paul says: “He [the Son] is the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature: For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth.” (He 1:2) The one that God
refers to as being in his “image” and who would assist
him to “make man” was that mighty spirit Son. Logically,
it is to this Son that Almighty God is speaking at Genesis
1:26. The foregoing applies equally to other texts that
Bob uses, Genesis 3:22; 11:6, 7.––GCT, page 96.
The expression “our image” at Genesis 1:26 in no way
suggests that the Father and the Son share the same
substance. The verse says that man was to be made in
their image and, of course, once he was created Adam did
not share their substance. Much later the apostle Paul
speaks about Christians being renewed “after the image
of him that created him.” (Col 3:10) Again, their being in
God’s image does not them of one substance with him.
So “image” does not imply substance.
7.15 God’s Name––Jehovah
On page 93, Bob says: “Even if we could be sure about
the exact name [of God], I don’t think I’d be using it a
great deal.” Why then, does the Bible use the name over
six and a half thousand times?
Especially when reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, the
so-called ‘Old Testament,’ why would Bob not want to
use God’s personal name when it is right there in the
original text? The name Jehovah is used more often than
all other forms of reference such as God, Lord and
Saviour combined. Surely this must be significant. 41
The reason usually given for abandoning the name is that
it appears only in the so-called ‘Old Testament.’ But the
use of God’s name among his people was not just an ‘Old
Testament’ practice. Consider Christian-Scripture, or
‘New-Testament,’ references to the name.
Jesus says: “Hallowed be thy name.” (Mt 6:9) “I have
manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me
... Holy Father, keep through thine own name those
whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we
are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in
thy name … I have declared unto them thy name, and will
declare it.” (Joh 17:6, 11, 12, 26) The Christian church is
to be “a people for his [God’s] name ... upon whom my
[God’s] name is called.”––Ac 15:14, 17.
Given Bob’s attitude, it is little wonder that Seventh-day
Adventists are not known as a people for God’s name.
But Seventh-day Adventists today are certainly not
imitating Jesus and his first-century apostolic church that
gave due attention to the divine name.

41
Psalm 138:2 in the King James Version says that God ‘hast magnified [his] word above all [his] name,’ and editions of the New
World Translation prior to its 2013 revision were similar. At least one Seventh-day Adventist has explained this to mean that the
Ten Commandments are more important than God’s name Jehovah. However, apart from the fact that there is no indication
whatever in the psalm that David had the Ten Commandments especially in mind, it is noteworthy that some modern scholars
believe the King James rendering may be in need of correction. There is a problem with the Hebrew text at this place, so a footnote
in the New Jerusalem Bible says: “Text uncertain.” The New Revised Standard Version reads: “you have exalted your name and
your word above everything.” In a footnote it says that this rendering is by way of a “Cn,” a correction. The “Abbreviations” table
at the front of this Bible explain that a correction is “made where the text has suffered in transmission and the versions provide no
satisfactory restoration but where the Standard Bible Committee agrees with the judgment of competent scholars as to the most
probable reconstruction of the original text.” The New International Version agrees with the corrected rendering. The latest edition
of the New World Translation also agrees, “For you have magnified your saying and your name above everything else.” This verse
does not imply that the Ten Commandments are greater than Jehovah’s name.

104
 DEFENCE

However, the first-century focus on the divine name was
not just to be something temporary. The book of
Revelation shows that true Christians would to the end be
clearly identified by God’s name. At Revelation 3:12
Jesus says that he would write “the name of my God” on
them. It would be the name of the Father that would
identify them.
The original Greek text at Revelation 14:1 shows that
true Christians have “his [Jesus’] name and his Father’s
name written on their foreheads.” (Revised Standard
Version) The forehead was the place that the name of a
person’s master was prominently displayed. This
indicates that the name of Jesus’ Father, described as
different from Jesus’ own name, would be associated
prominently with true Christians.
How is the name of the Father written on Adventists’
foreheads? How is it prominently displayed? It is not.
Remember Bob: “I don’t think I’d be using it a great
deal.” But the Father’s name Jehovah is intimately
associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Adventist objection that Jehovah is not the correct
pronunciation of God’s name is not a valid concern.
Adventists have no problem calling the Son of God Jesus,
which is only an approximation of its Greek
pronunciation, Iesous, and quite different from the
pronunciation Yeshua that was most likely used in the
first-century by Jewish Christians.
Is it fair to make an issue of the pronunciation of God’s
name but then to accept without question an inexact
pronunciation of Jesus’ name? Adventists believe Jesus
to be God, so why would they not be as fussy about the
exact pronunciation of Jesus’ name as they are about the
name Jehovah?
Although Jehovah may not be the original pronunciation
of God’s name, it preserves its four consonants, JHVH,
because the letters J and V are virtual equivalents for Y
and W in many European languages. Ellen G. White
made reference to God’s name hundreds of times and was
happy to use its Anglicized form, Jehovah. 42 Bob
contradicts the example of his own prophet!
7.16 Revelation 3:14––the Beginning of Creation
Jesus is described at Revelation 3:14 as
“the Amen, ... the beginning [Greek, arkhe] of the
creation of God.”
Bob tries to explain “beginning” as if it means beginner,
originator or source. (GCT, page 94) Arkhe is used 58
times in the Scriptures, which should be enough to get a
good picture of its meaning.
Never once is arkhe used in the sense of ‘beginner.’
Respected scholar and commentator Albert Barnes says
regarding arkhe:
“The word properly refers to the commencement of a
thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly
primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy
in the sense of causing anything to exist … The word
is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as
denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the
sense that he caused it to have an existence … If it
were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was,
in fact, a created being, and the first that God had
made, it cannot be denied that this language would
appropriately express that fact.”––Barnes’ Notes on
the New Testament, page 1569.
Of course, being a Trinitarian, Barnes does not accept
that Christ was a created being but he at least concedes
the true meaning of the word. C.F. Burney states that
those insisting on the meaning ‘originator’ or ‘beginner’
“have not a shadow of authority for limiting [arkhe] in
meaning to ‘the source of God's creation.’”––“Christ
as the APXH of Creation,” in Journal of Theological
Studies 27, page 177.
So Revelation 3:14 clearly teaches that Jesus was God’s
original creation. As such, his existence is derived from
the Father and therefore could not be described as equal
with God in age.
7.16.1 Jesus as the Beginning
There is a helpful passage at Proverbs 8:22-24 that helps
us understand the meaning of the word “beginning.”
“The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
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.”
This passage applies to the wisdom of God. (Pr 8:1, 12)
However, note that the particular wisdom described was
“possessed,” “set up” and “brought forth,” so it is not a
wisdom that always existed such as God’s own wisdom
which always existed. That wisdom was never created or
produced; it was not “brought forth.” (Job 9:4; 12:13;
28:20, 23; Ro 11:33-36) But the wisdom of Proverbs
8:22-30 is different. It is a wisdom capable of being “set
up” at a particular “beginning.”

42
Jehovah Is Our King, page 12; See also point 11.7.

105
 DEFENCE
So what is the wisdom that had a beginning? The
Christian Scriptures identify Jesus as the essence of
divine wisdom. Colossians 2:3 says of him, “in him are
hid all the treasures of wisdom.” 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30
goes further, calling him “the wisdom of God.” So is
Proverbs saying that Jesus was that created wisdom?
Seventh-day Adventists cannot avoid the application of
Proverbs 8:22 to Jesus because, before quoting that text,
Ellen G. White herself writes:
“The Son of God declares concerning Himself …”––
Patriarchs and Prophets, page 33. (Emphasis ours.)
It is not only White and Jehovah’s Witnesses that make
this connection. The early Christians understood that
Proverbs 8:22-30 applied to Christ. Scholar E.J. Fortman
writes:
“Paul applied it [Proverbs 8:22-31] to the Son of God.
The Apologists used it to prove to Gentile and Jew the
pre-existence of the Word and His role in creation.”
Paul’s application of Proverbs 8:22-30 to Jesus was not
by direct quotation, but Fortman sees an allusion to it in
Colossians 1:15. Commenting directly on the Proverbs
passage, early Christian Apologist Justin says:
“The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was
begotten by the Father before all things created; and
that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that
which begets, any one will admit.”––Dialogue with
Trypho, quoted in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by
A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, American Reprint of the
Edinburgh Edition, 1885, Volume I, page 264.
By applying Proverbs 8:22-30 to Jesus as the “offspring”
of the Father, Justin indicates that he understood Jesus to
be the “wisdom” discussed there.
What does the word “possessed [qanah, Hebrew]” at
Proverbs 8:22 mean? When the Septuagint translated it,
it used the Greek verb ‘created [ektisen].’ Was this
correct? If so, there are obvious and profound
implications for Christ. H would be a created wisdom,
personified. A respected dictionary defines the meaning
of qanah.
“‘to get, acquire, earn.’ These basic meanings are
dominant in the Old Testament, but certain poetic
passages have long suggested that this verb means
‘create.’ In Gen. 14:19, Melchizedek blessed Abram
and said: ‘Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker [KJV, ‘possessor’] of heaven and earth (RSV).
Gen. 14:22 repeats this divine epithet. Deut 32:6
43
The only other way the Scriptures use the expression ‘firstborn of something’ is in calling someone the firstborn of a parent. For
example, at Genesis 46:8 Reuben is called the firstborn of Jacob. But this usage is irrelevant to our discussion because Colossians
1:15 is not implying that “every creature” was the parent of Jesus Christ.
106
makes this meaning certain in that qanah is parallel to
asah, ‘to make.’: ‘Is he not your father, who created
(qanah) you, who made (asah) you and established
(kun) you?’ (RSV) Ps. 78:54; 139:13; and Prov. 8:22-
23 also suggest the idea of creation. The cognate
languages usually follow the Hebrew in the basic
meaning of ‘to get, acquire.’ Ugaritic, however, attests
the meaning ‘create.’ In fact, qny is the primary
Ugaritic term to express creation. The close
relationship of Hebrew and Ugaritic and the
contextual meaning of qanah as ‘create’ in the Old
Testament passages cited above argue for the use of
qanah as a synonym for ‘create’ along with bara,
asah, and yasar.”––Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, under
“To Create.”
Yes, “created” is valid and the Septuagint is justified in
its translation. The wisdom of Proverbs 8:22 was created.
Bible translators understand Revelation 3:14 to be
derived from Proverbs 8:22 because both texts use the
words ‘created’ and ‘beginning.’
7.17 Colossians 1:15-18––the Firstborn of …
Jesus is described in Colossians chapter 1 as
“the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all
things created.”
Adventists point to verse 18, “that in all things he might
have the pre-eminence,” and explain the comment about
Jesus being “firstborn” in terms of pre-eminence rather
than being first created.––GCT, pages 94, 95.
However, Bob’s pre-eminence argument fails to note that
a son’s pre-eminence was usually based on his being the
first born; that he was firstborn in both senses, first in
order and therefore in pre-eminence. In any case, the
word “firstborn” should not be looked at in isolation. At
Colossians 1:15 “firstborn” is part of a phrase. Jesus is
not just “firstborn” but “firstborn of every creature.”
When a person or animal was the firstborn “of”
something, he was part of that other thing. So the
Septuagint at Genesis 4:4 reads: “And Abel also brought
of the first born of his sheep.” The firstborn was a part of
that flock. This is the usual meaning of the phrase
“firstborn of [something].”43––Ex 11:5; 12:29; 13:13, 15.
In harmony with such language, Christ was be a part of
––a member of––creation, irrespective of what
“firstborn” might mean as a word in isolation. So even if
were true that “firstborn” signified pre-eminence, the
 DEFENCE
longer expression “firstborn of every creature” would
still mean that the person with the pre-eminence was part
of creation. Jehovah’s Witnesses take into consideration
the whole expression “firstborn of every creature” in
understanding the meaning of “firstborn.”
On the other hand, Adventists focus on the word
“firstborn” alone and look for an example of “firstborn”
used figuratively. As Trinitarians usually do, Bob refers
to Psalm 89:27 which calls David God’s “firstborn.”
(GCT, page 94) His point is that David was neither God’s
first creation nor even Jesse’s firstborn son. He was
firstborn in the sense that he became Jesse’s pre-eminent
son. Bob argues that this is the sense in which Jesus was
firstborn.
But Psalm 89:27 is not really comparable with Colossians
1:15 because it uses “firstborn” in isolation, not as
Colossians 1:15 does, as part of the longer phrase
“firstborn of [something].” If Psalm 89:27 refers to
David, it is because his role as firstborn was something
given to him. “I will make him my firstborn, higher than
the kings of the earth.”
For David it was an appointment to a position he had not
previously possessed. This is quite different to Jesus’
position as firstborn mentioned at Colossians 1:15.
Psalm 89:27 may be a prophetic reference to Jesus as
God’s “firstborn” Son who was to be more exalted than
any other king. At Ezekiel 34:24 the Messiah is referred
to as “my servant David” and the same may be true at
Psalm 89:27.
Bob points to Ephraim and Israel as firstborns at
Jeremiah 31:9 and Exodus 4:22, but the same is true of
them. (GCT, page 94) Both Ephraim and Israel became
firstborns by specific appointment. According to Genesis
48:17-20, Ephraim was not a firstborn by nature but was
assigned that role by special appointment.
Although similar, the case of Israel was slightly different.
Deuteronomy 32:18 describes Israel as the nation that
God “begat.” He “formed [Israel] from the womb” as a
nation. (Isa 43:1; 44:2) Therefore, in a sense he was the
“Father” of that nation. Being called firstborn indicates
that Israel was the ‘first’ nation God chose in harmony
with his promise to Abraham.––2Sa 7:23, 24; Ps 147:20.
However, none of these firstborns pointed to by Bob were
firstborns “of [something].” Even if they had been, they
would still have been part of that ‘something.’ And even
if “firstborn” certainly meant pre-eminence, Jesus would
still be ‘the pre-eminent one of every creature’ and
44 See point 2.5.
107
therefore part of creation. (Col 1:15) “Of every creature”
marks him as part of creation.
Further, if “firstborn” referred only to pre-eminence, it
might be expected that the Father and the holy spirit
would also be firstborns, but this is never the case. Would
they not also be pre-eminent? Really, the primacy
explanation, even if valid, cannot negate the fact that the
firstborn “of ” something is part of that other thing.
What about Bob’s argument that at Colossians 1:18 Jesus
was not “first-born [sic] from the dead” literally? He
argues that others were resurrected before Christ, so in
this case being called “firstborn” must mean pre-
eminence. (GCT, page 95) However, in a similar but not
identical reference, Acts 26:23 describes Christ as “the
first that should rise from the dead.” “Firstborn” is not
used here, so it should be clear that pre-eminence is not
involved in this case. What does “first” mean?
Paul did not mean that Jesus was the first ever to rise
literally. But this does not mean that he was not first in
some sense. There were many ways in which he was
“firstborn” or “first” in order. He was the first raised to
immortality.44 (1Ti 6:16) He was the “forerunner” of
those who will go to heaven and a forerunner always goes
first. (He 6:19, 20) He is the “firstfruits” in the “order” of
the heavenly resurrection, according to Paul.––1Co
15:20, 23.
So “first,” “firstborn” and “firstfruits” all include the
thought of first in order, not pre-eminence alone. In any
case, does not “firstborn from the dead” prove that Christ
was once dead? If so, “firstborn of every creature” proves
that he was once created.
On page 98 Bob objects to the word “other” in the New
World Translation at Colossians 1:16, 17. Prior to 2006,
this translation bracketed “other.”
“By means of him all [other] things were created in the
heavens and upon the earth, ... All [other] things have
been created through him and for him.”
From 2006 the New World Translation stopped enclosing
“other” in brackets because ‘other’ is a sense inherent in
panta, not an arbitrary insertion. Blass and Debrunner
call this ellipsis in their Greek Grammar.
“Ellipsis (brachylogy) in the broad sense applies to
any idea which is not fully expressed grammatically
and leaves it to the hearer or reader to supply the
omission because it is self-evident.”––A Greek
Grammar of New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, Section 479, page 253.
 DEFENCE
These scholars note that “other” is one of the elliptical
‘ideas’ often left unexpressed.
“The omission of the notion ‘other, whatever’
(§306(5)) is specifically Greek.”––Ibid., Section 480,
page 254.
So it is no surprise to find that panta often has this sense
of “all other.” Luke 13:2 is an example in the Revised
Standard Version. “Do you think that these Galileans
were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because
they suffered thus?” In this place the Jerusalem Bible,
Living Bible, Today’s English Version, New
International Version, English Standard Version and The
New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips) also use
“other” although it does not appear in the Greek. Why?
“Other” is “self-evident.” (Ibid., page 253) It is vital to
the true meaning of the text. Some Galileans had died but
“other Galileans” had not. Both groups were Galileans.
Not to use “other” would mean that ‘these Galileans were
worse sinners than all the Galileans,’ implying that the
first group somehow were not Galileans. So “other” is
vital here. It includes something inherent in panta––all
other than those already mentioned. It distinguishes
between the two groups of Galileans. Translations using
“other” at Luke 13:2 are never criticized because it is
valid.
At Matthew 26:35; Luke 21:29; 1 Corinthians 6:18 and
Philippians 2:21 “other” appears in many translations to
complete the sense already there in panta. Does Bob
object to these too? No. He is only criticizing the New
World Translation because he has the Trinity to defend.
What about Colossians 1:16, 17? “All things” clearly has
a limited meaning here because Christ and his Father are
exceptions to the “things” that were created, so “all
things” cannot mean absolutely all things. In this case,
then, panta must be allowed its elliptical sense, “all
other.” The same points apply to John 1:3, 4.
7.18 Who was the Creator?
Bob moves quickly from saying that “God created all
things by Jesus Christ” to the more dogmatic “God the
Son ... created man” and “Christ ... was the Creator.”
(GCT, page 95) But the Bible never uses this kind of
language. It never calls Jesus the Creator and never uses
‘create’ of Jesus as Bob does. Ellen G. White herself
never uses the expression “God the Son” as Bob does.
This kind of language is a modern Adventist ‘change.’
What about the way the King James Version renders
Colossians 1:16? “By [Greek, en] him [auto,
instrumental case] were all things created.” Does en
really mean “by” when it is used with a noun or pronoun
in the instrumental case like this? Does it imply a creative
108
role for Jesus? Consider these comments about en by
H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey.
“With the instrumental case: with, by means of.”––A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page
105.
The better translation of en in this setting would be ‘by
means of him all things were created.’ Is this very
different from ‘by Jesus all things were created’? Yes,
very different, as an ‘instrument’ is different from the one
that wields it. As Dana and Mantey go on to say:
“En is used in Heb. 1:1, 2 with about the same force
that dia with the genitive has, ho theos lalesas tois
patrasin en tois prophetais ep’ eskhatou ton hemeron
touton elalesen humin en huio, God spoke through
prophets then, but now through a son (cf. Mt. 12:27,
28).”––Ibid., page 106.
These scholars advise that en with the instrumental case
is essentially the same as dia with the genitive case. So
Hebrews 1:1 says “God spoke through [en] the prophets
[instrumental case, Greek].” If fact, in this case Dana and
Mantey translate en “through” rather than “by” because
the prophets did not originate their messages. They were
the instruments through whom God spoke.
If this is what en with the instrumental means at Hebrews
1:1, Colossians 1:16 it would correspondingly mean that
things were created “by means of” or “through” Jesus as
God’s intermediary.
Regarding en, F. Blass and A. Debrunner say:
“Instrumental en. The use of en owes its extension
especially to the imitation of Hebrew constructions ...
It is used for the simple instr. ... , but (1) also to
designate a personal agent: en to arkhonti (‘by means
of’) ton daimonion ekballei ta daimonia Mt 9:34 (,
12:24).”––A Greek Grammar of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature, pages 117, 118.
Note that en with the instrumental case can designate
personal agency. “By means of” is a good translation in
this situation, as the grammar suggests.
In agreement with this, reputable translations accept that
en with the instrumental case points to agency rather than
authorship at Colossians 1:16a. Some even translate en
as “through.” (The New Testament in Modern English
(J.B. Phillips), New Berkeley Version) Others like the
New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New International
Version and the New American Bible use “through” to
translate en with the instrumental case at Hebrews 1:1
where the prophets were intermediaries. Why not accept
a similar translation at Colossians 1:16a? God created
using Jesus as his instrument but Jesus was not the author
of that creation, the Creator.
 DEFENCE
As mentioned, the Bible never uses the title ‘Creator’ of
Jesus. Paul is specific in his use of prepositions at 1
Corinthians 8:6 to show that he regarded Christ as the
agent in creation rather than the Creator.
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of [ex, from
ek, meaning ‘out of ’] whom are all things, and we in
him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by [di’, from dia,
meaning ‘through’] whom are all things, and we by
him.”
While both ek and dia are used of the Father, ek is never
used of Jesus in connection with creation because Jesus
was not the Creator. Although Bob insists that Genesis
1:26 implies that Jesus created man, creation was not
“of,” or “out of,” Jesus as the Creator. (GCT, page 95)
Creation was “out of ” the Father, the Source of creation.
Jesus was his agent.
7.19 Who Is Jehovah?
Bob and his Adventist Church hold that each member of
the Trinity is Jehovah. Naturally, Jehovah’s Witnesses
are very interested in Jehovah’s identity because it goes
to the meaning of their own name.
7.19.1 One “Name,” Three Persons?
On page 96, Bob argues that “since the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit have the one ‘name’ (Matthew 28:19),”
Jesus’ name must be Jehovah. But as mentioned above,
“name” in this verse does not refer to a literal name. 45 So
at Genesis 48:16 we note Jacob speaking of
“the name [singular] of my fathers [plural] Abraham
and Isaac.”
Note, one “name” in respect of two persons who are equal
in neither substance nor age. Using “name” in the
singular this way avoids repeating the word “name”
unnecessarily. Other examples of a singular “name”
being used when speaking about more than one person
appear at Genesis 5:2, “he ... called their name [singular]
Adam, in the day when they were created” and at Genesis
48:6, “the name [singular] of their brethren.”
Deuteronomy 18:20 refers to “the name [singular] of
other gods [plural].” Apparently, Matthew originally
wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, so it is no surprise to see the
same idiom at Matthew 28:19.46 The Trinity can no more
be proven from the singular “name” here than in those
earlier texts.
In any case, “name” in a setting like this does not refer to
a personal name. “In the name of the Father” at Matthew
28:19 in Greek is eis to onoma tou patros, where eis is a
preposition meaning “into,” followed by to onoma in the
45 See point 7.12.
46 De viris inlustribus, Chapter III, Jerome.
109
accusative case meaning “the name” and tou patros in the
genitive case meaning “the Father.” Exactly the same
word order appears at Matthew 10:41 where Jesus says:
“He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet
shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth
a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall
receive a righteous man’s reward.”
“In the name of a prophet” translates the Greek eis
[preposition] onoma [noun in the accusative case]
prophetou [noun in the genitive case]. Similarly, “in the
name of a righteous man” in Greek is eis [preposition]
onoma [noun in the accusative case] dikaiou [noun in the
genitive case]. These use onoma (“name”) exactly as
Matthew 28:19 does with precisely the same preposition-
accusative-genitive word order. Why is this significant?
No one would argue that Matthew 10:41 is talking about
the personal name of a particular prophet or righteous
man. Instead, “name” in this setting points to his
authoritative position or role. This is so clear that modern
translators do not use the word “name” at all.
“He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet.”
––Revised Standard Version.
“Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a
prophet.”––New International Version.
“Anyone who welcomes a prophet because he is a
prophet.”––Jerusalem Bible.
“Whoever receives a prophet as a prophet.”––New
English Bible.
Jesus commends those who receive a prophet because of
his role as a prophet, confirming that “name” refers to
authority or position rather than to a personal name.
The same is true of Matthew 28:19. The word order is the
same. Therefore, ‘the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost’ is not a personal name. It points to their authority
or position that is acknowledged and respected by
Christians at baptism. So W.E. Vine says regarding
onoma:
“The phrases rendered ‘in the name’ ... may be
analysed as follows: ... (4) in recognition of the
authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of
relying or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cf. 28:19.”––
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,
under “Name.”
Yes, “in the name of” means recognizing “the authority”
of that one rather than a personal name. Bob misreads it
when he says the “name” is Jehovah.
 DEFENCE
7.19.2 “Jehovah” and “Us”
To argue from Genesis 3:22; 11:6, 7 that Jesus is Jehovah
just because Jehovah uses the word “us” is false
reasoning. (GCT, page 96) We have already discussed the
logical and Scriptural fallacies of this kind of argument. 47
7.19.3 “Spirit of Jehovah”
To use the phrase “spirit of Jehovah” as if it somehow
supports the contention that the Spirit is Jehovah simply
does not make sense. (GCT, pages 96, 97) Otherwise,
what sense would we make of the “voice of Jehovah” at
Genesis 3:8 or the “face of Jehovah” in the same verse?
Would those phrases mean that the name of God’s voice
is Jehovah and that the name of God’s face is Jehovah?
Does the fact that Psalm 1:2 mentions the “law of
Jehovah” mean that the name of God’s law is Jehovah?
No, the argument is clearly nonsense.
Perhaps Bob forgot to notice the word “of.” The spirit is
not Jehovah. It is the “spirit of Jehovah.” It belongs to
him and emanates from him as its ultimate Source.
7.19.4 The Meaning of Jesus’ Name
Regarding the argument on page 97 that the name Jesus
means “Jehovah is Saviour,” the name Jesus is the Greek
form of the Hebrew Joshua. (He 4:8) If the name proves
that Jesus is Jehovah, it also proves that Joshua was
Jehovah. And there is another Jesus at Colossians 4:11.
Was he also Jehovah? No. Bob’s argument is very weak.
We have already considered the incorporation of the
divine name into other names.48 None of those with
names like this were Jehovah.
7.19.5 First and Last
Bob next begins a series of comparison texts to prove that
Jesus is Jehovah. The first involves the title ‘the first and
the last.’ (GCT, page 97) When used of Almighty God,
‘first and last’ is unqualified. It involves his existence as
“the beginning and the end.” (Isa 44:6; Re 1:8; 22:13)
Jehovah is ‘first and last’ in an absolute sense; no one
existed before him or will live after him.
Revelation 1:8 states that the Alpha and Omega is “the
Lord God,” according to the best ancient manuscripts and
most modern translations. Is this Alpha and Omega
Jesus? Jesus Christ is never called “Lord God” anywhere
else in Scripture. It is an expression reserved for the
Father. The text also says that Alpha and Omega “is, and
... was, and ... is to come,” and Revelation 1:4, 5 shows
that the person this refers to is someone other than Jesus.
47 See point 7.14.
48 See point 7.3.
110
However, when ‘first and last’ is used of Jesus Christ it
is strictly qualified. For example, at Revelation 1:17, 18
Jesus says: “Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he
that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for
evermore.” Here Jesus is ‘first and last’ specifically in
connection with his death and resurrection. Is this
apparent limitation a coincidence?
No. At Revelation 2:8 the same qualification is repeated
when an angel calls Jesus “the first and the last, which
was dead, and is alive.” Again, he is ‘first and last’ in a
specific connection, death and resurrection.
‘First and last’ is also restricted when it applies to Jesus
at Revelation 1:5 where he is called “the first begotten of
the dead.” Everyone would concede that at least here
“first” has a restricted rather than an absolute application.
This makes three uses of the word “first” in 24 verses of
Revelation and in each case the reference is to the
resurrection of Christ.
A term or expression like ‘first and last’ that applies to
one person absolutely can apply to another person more
restrictedly. So Isaiah 43:11 says there is no Saviour but
God, but at Judges 3:9 “saviour” is applied to a human
judge who served as an agent of God. At Revelation
17:14 Jesus is called “King of kings,” but at Ezra 7:12
and Daniel 2:37 human kings are called the same thing.
At John 8:12 Jesus is called “the light of the world,” but
at Matthew 5:14 the same is said of his disciples. So
descriptors like “Saviour” are not unique to God
Jesus was ‘first and last’ specifically regarding
resurrection to immortal life. His was unique. He “was
the first that should rise from the dead,” “the firstborn
from the dead.” (Ac 26:23; Col 1:18; cp. 1Co 15:20) The
resurrections prior to his were not like his. He was a
“forerunner” into heaven for others. (He 6:20) His
resurrection was also “last” in that, while “God hath
raised [Jesus] up,” all others will be raised by Jesus with
the authority delegated to him by the Father. (Ac 2:24;
Joh 5:26) In this way Jesus was the “last” to be
resurrected to immortal heavenly life by the Father
without the involvement of a delegated agent.
The Bible restricts the application of ‘first and last’ when
Jesus Christ is involved to the subject of death and
resurrection.
Writing about Alpha and Omega about Alpha and Omega
at Revelation 22:12, 13, Henry Alford says:
“these words have hitherto been said by the Father: see
above, ch. i. 8, xxi. 6, and notes. And in all probability
 DEFENCE
it is so here likewise, whether we assume the words to
be spoken by Christ in God’s name, or by the Eternal
Father Himself.”––The Greek Testament, Notes on
Revelation 22:13.
There are many reasons to agree with Alford. First, there
is nothing in verses 12-15 to suggest that the new speaker
is Christ. Second, Jesus speaks later, in verse 16, where
he says: “I Jesus ...” This suggests that at that point Jesus
is a new speaker introducing himself.
There are precedents for a new speaker giving his name
before delivering a message. For example, at Revelation
1:9, just after Alpha and Omega speaks a new speaker
John is introduced by the words “I John.” This clearly
indicates a change to a different speaker because no one
would argue that John is the Alpha and Omega of verse
8.
See also Revelation 22:8, 17 which also introduce new
speakers by name or title before, not in the middle of their
other comments. The implication is that Alpha and
Omega is someone different to Jesus.
Then again, at Revelation 22:12 Alpha and Omega says:
“I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every
man according as his work shall be.” These words allude
to Isaiah 40:10; 62:11 which describe “the Lord GOD” or
“the LORD” ‘coming’ with a “reward” and a “work.” The
context portrays this person as the Father, indicating that
he is the Alpha and Omega.––Isa 63:16; 64:8.
Another factor is that Alpha and Omega describes his
reward as “my reward.” (Re 22:12) “Reward” is
mentioned only once more in the Revelation, at
Revelation 11:18. Whose reward is it there? Revelation
11:15 speaks about “the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his
Christ.” The “Lord” is someone different from Christ
here, and just a few verses later he is identified as “Lord
God Almighty.” (Re 11:17) Revelation 11:18 then adds
that this “Lord God Almighty,” who, as verse 15 shows,
is not Christ, gives a “reward” to the saints.
Yes, the giver of the reward is someone other than Christ.
It is certain, then, that at Revelation 22:13 the person who
speaks about “my reward” is the Father, not the Son.49
Another important point is that the words in verse 15
about sorcerers, murderers and idolaters correspond
closely to Revelation 21:8, which mention the same kinds
of sinners and there the Father is definitely the speaker.
Compare Revelation 21:7, where Christians are said to be
‘sons,’ rather than ‘brothers,’ of Alpha and Omega.
49The words “do his commandments” at Revelation 22:14 might seem to suggest that Jesus as Alpha and Omega is encouraging
us to obey his Father’s commandments, but those words were no part of John’s original writings.
111
And again, the Scriptures speak of the Father as ‘coming’
in various senses. Malachi 3:1 and Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8
are examples. In fact, paralleling the Revelation 22:12
comment about “coming quickly,” Malachi 3:1, 5 speaks
of the Father as coming “suddenly” and ‘swiftly.’ This
‘coming’ could as easily be the Father’ coming. But the
Alpha and Omega is clearly the Father of Jesus Christ.
7.19.6 Rock
Bob notes that both Jesus is Jehovah are rocks. (GCT,
page 97) Other texts like Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:6
speak of Christ as a rock or stone and help us understand.
At Romans 9:33 the apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 28:16
where it is clear that the “stone” or “rock” is someone
different from Jehovah. Note the distinction.
“Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD [Hebrew,
Jehovah], Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a
stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone.”
Jehovah ‘lays’ the stone. He is not the stone himself. The
distinction between the two is clear.
Peter also quotes Isaiah 28:16, where the same distinction
is noted. At Psalm 118:22, 23 we read:
“The stone which the builders refused is become the
head stone of the corner. This is the LORD’s doing; it
is marvellous in our eyes.”
The “stone” is not Jehovah. It is “the LORD’s doing.” So
Christ is not Jehovah in this case either.
As mentioned above, at times terms like “first and last”
or “saviour” can apply to one person in a primary, even
absolute, sense but then to others in a secondary sense.
“Rock” is one of those terms. But if every reference to
someone as a rock were to mean that he was Jehovah,
how would we explain Isaiah 51:1, 2 where the same
Hebrew word for “rock” is applied to Abraham?
“Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye
that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are
hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that
bare you.”
W.E. Vine says of this verse:
“Finally, Abraham is the source (rock) from which
Israel was hewn.”––An Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words, W.E. Vine, under “Rock.”
Clearly, there is no firm rule that “rock” must refer only
to Jehovah. Abraham was not Jehovah. This points to the
 DEFENCE
flaw in the argument that God and Christ are of the same
substance based on their being rocks.
7.19.7 The Way of Jehovah
Bob notes that John the Baptist prepared “the way of the
LORD” and identifies Jesus with that “LORD,” Jehovah,
because Jesus was the one who walked on that “way.”
(GCT, page 97) Isaiah chapter 40 was fulfilled in the sixth
century BCE. Isaiah 40:1, 2 foretells the release of the
Jews from captivity and verse 3 says a highway would be
straightened for them to return home. But at no time did
Jehovah personally walk on “the way of the LORD.”
The Jews were the ones who returned to their homeland
on the “way.” Were they Jehovah? No, they walked his
“way” while representing him as his people. In the first
century John the Baptist prepared the way of Jehovah, but
again Jehovah did not appear on earth. Jesus walked that
‘way’ while representing God on earth, but this did not
mean that he was Jehovah personally any more than those
Jews were.
7.19.8 God is Your Throne
Bob compares these texts to show that Jesus is addressed
as “God.” (GCT, page 97) We have already discussed
them above.50
7.19.9 Jesus and Creation
Also on page 97, Bob points to a passage about creation
in the 102nd Psalm that applied first to Jehovah. He notes
that the writer of Hebrews, likely Paul, applies it to
Christ. So Bob’s conclusion is that Jesus must be
Jehovah. But what point was Paul trying to demonstrate
by quoting the psalm?
Before quoting the psalm, he said: “God, ... hath in these
last days spoken unto us by his Son, ... by [Greek, dia,
‘through’] whom also he made the worlds.” (He 1:1, 2)
So God as the Creator used Jesus his agent to assist him
in the work. It is hardly surprising therefore that Paul
would quote a passage about creation that originally
applied to God and give it an application it to Jesus, his
agent.
This quotation convention is neither unique nor unusual.
Texts that apply to one person at first are at times applied
to someone different, and this is true especially in
Hebrews chapters 1 and 2.
Consider two examples. Hebrews 1:5b says: “I will be to
him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.” This is a quote
from 2 Samuel 7:14 where, according to context, the
50 See point 7.8.
51 See point 7.14.
112
“Father” is God and the “son” is Solomon. Making a
first-century application, Hebrews calls Christ the Son. Is
Paul misapplying the quotation, or is he perhaps saying
that Christ is Solomon? Neither. He is simply making a
secondary application to Christ as the “son.”
Any suggestion that Paul’s quotation means that Jesus is
Solomon is impossible because Jesus said he was
“greater than Solomon.” (Mt 12:42) Even though Paul
quotes 2 Samuel 7:14, applying it to Jesus, not even Bob
would confuse Christ with Solomon because he does not
presuppose Jesus to be Solomon. But because of
Trinitarian bias Bob inconsistently finds it easy to see the
Trinity in the secondary application of Psalm 102:24-27
to Christ at Hebrews 1:10-12.
As another example, at Hebrews 2:13 Jesus is quoted as
saying: “Behold I and the children which God hath given
me.” This is a quote from Isaiah 8:18 where the “I” and
the “me” were Isaiah. However, at Hebrews 2:13 Paul
applies the words of Isaiah to Christ in a secondary way.
Bob would never conclude from this that Christ is Isaiah.
Why not? Because he does not presuppose Christ to be
Isaiah. But because of Trinitarian bias he identifies Christ
with Jehovah because of Paul’s similar quotation at
Hebrews 1:10-12.
The fact that Paul quotes from the Psalm does not mean
that Jesus is God, especially in view of the statement that
he has only just made at Hebrews 1:9 that the Father is
“thy God,” that is, Jesus’ God. This is never reversed.
Jesus is never called the Father’s God. Some of the
expressions in the psalm about how the world was made
simply applied to Jesus since it was through Jesus that
God made the world.––He 1:1, 2.
7.19.10 How Isaiah Saw Jesus’ Glory
John 12:40 quotes Isaiah 6:10 and then follows: “These
things said Esaias, when he saw his glory.” (Joh 12:41)
Adventists point out that Isaiah chapter 6 is about
Jehovah. For instance, Isaiah 6:1 says: “I saw also the
Lord sitting upon a throne.” In verse 3 this “Lord” is
called “the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts.” So they claim that
when John says that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory, Jesus must
be Jehovah.––GCT, page 97.
Jehovah is not the only one mentioned by Isaiah in
chapter 6. In verse 8 Jehovah says: “Whom shall I send,
and who will go for us?” The “us” indicates at least one
person other than Jehovah. We say this because there is
no example in Scripture of a plural like “us” being used
when God speaks of himself.51
 DEFENCE
The context does not directly state the identity of the
person Jehovah was talking to, but it could not have been
Isaiah. The person most closely associated with the
Father during in heaven was Jesus. This would not be the
first time Jesus was included under the pronoun “us.”
Genesis 1:26 is a similar reference in connection with his
role as God’s agent in creation.––He 1:2.
John says that Isaiah “saw his glory” and Jesus spoke of
“the glory that I had with thee before the world was.” (Joh
17:5) The “us” at Isaiah 6:8 and these comments of Jesus
about the glory he experienced “with” his Father leave no
doubt that Isaiah would have seen Jesus in the Isaiah
chapter 6 vision, but there is no proof in this that he saw
Jesus as Jehovah.
7.19.11 How Jesus Judges
These three texts cited on page 97 read: “God shall bring
every work into judgment.” (Ec 12:14) “We must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ.” (2Co 5:10)
“The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son.” (Joh 5:22) Bob believes that
these texts support the Trinity because they mean that
Jesus must be God in order to judge.
However, Trinitarians place themselves on the horns of a
dilemma in using these texts against Jehovah’s
Witnesses. Why? Because Peter makes clear that “the
Father ... judgeth.” (1Pe 1:17) So Jesus cannot mean at
John 5:22 that the Father absolutely never judges and if
Adventists wish to argue that the Father never judges––
that only Jesus judges––they contradict Peter.
Even Christians are judges in this life and in heaven. At
1 Corinthians 5:3, regarding a sinner in the congregation,
Paul says: “I ... have judged already ... concerning him.”
And at 1 Corinthians 5:12 he adds: “Do not ye judge them
that are within [the church]?” (1Co 6:2; Mt 19:28; Re
20:4) Are these judges members of the Trinity? Hardly.
The key to understanding Jesus’ role as a judge lies in the
fact that the Father “hath committed all judgment unto the
Son.” “Committed” indicates an assignment. “And [God]
hath given him authority to execute judgment also.” (Joh
5:27) The Father remains the ultimate Judge who
delegates judgment to subordinates, whether humans, to
resurrected ones or to Christ. Clearly, their assignments
as judges do not mean that any of these must be God.
7.19.12 Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath
In the King James Version at Exodus 20:10 the seventh
day is called “the sabbath of the LORD [Hebrew,
Jehovah] thy God.” Later Jesus says: “the Son of man is
52 See point 7.8.
113
Lord also of the sabbath.” (Mr 2:28) Because of this Bob
identifies Jesus as Jehovah.––GCT, page 97.
His argument is weak and it demonstrates how
Trinitarians will see the doctrine almost everywhere.
Even grammatically, the two statements are not saying
the same thing. Exodus 20:10 says the Sabbath is “of the
LORD.” It belonged to Jehovah. But Mark 2:28 is not
talking about ownership. It is saying that Jesus is “Lord
... of the Sabbath,” the master of it. Jesus is not quoting
Exodus 20:10. The Greek in Mark is also different to the
Septuagint in Exodus. At Exodus 20:10 the Septuagint
reads:
“sabbata [Sabbath] kyrio [to Lord] to [to the] theo [to
God].”
Compare this to Mark 2:28.
“kyrios [Lord]] ... tou [of the] sabbatou [Sabbath].”
In Exodus the dative case is used, identifying the person
to or for whom the day was to be observed. The Sabbath
was kept “to God.” The Israelites were to keep it for him.
However, in Mark the genitive case is used, showing
Christ’s relationship to the day. It was not kept to or for
him, but he was its “Lord,” or master.
Similar examples of kyrios with the genitive case show
that this kind of language indicates the authority of the
kyrios over the person(s) indicated in the genitive. So
Jesus “is Lord [kyrios] of all [genitive].” (Ac 10:36) God
is “Lord [kyrios] of heaven and earth [genitive].” (Ac
17:24) In a similar way, Jesus had authority over the
Sabbath but it was not kept for him.
Still, how could Jesus even be the Lord of––the master
of––the Sabbath if he were not God? By appointment.
“All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” (Mt
11:27) Authority over the Sabbath was a gift from God.
“Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into
his hands ...” (Joh 13:3) In fact, the gift of “all things,”
including the Sabbath, shows that the two are not equal.
Where do we read of Jesus gifting his Father such things?
7.20 God as Jesus’ Throne
Has the New World Translation “mutilated” Hebrews
1:8? (GCT, pages 97, 98) We have considered the verse. 52
It is enough here to note the comments of Jason Beduhn.
“... on the basis of linguistics, ho theos is more likely
to mean ‘God,’ as it does hundreds of times
throughout the New Testament, than ‘O God,’ a
meaning it has in only three other places in the New
Testament. Furthermore, there is no other example in
the Bible where the expression ‘forever’ stands alone
 DEFENCE
as a predicate phrase with the verb ‘to be,’ as it would
if the sentence were read ‘Your throne is forever.’
‘Forever’ always functions as a phrase complementing
either an action verb, or predicate noun or pronoun.
Moreover, there is no other way to say ‘God is your
throne’ than the way Hebrews 1:8 reads. There is,
however, another way to say ‘Your throne, O God,’
namely, by using the direct address (vocative) form
thee rather than the subject (nominative) form ho
theos.”––Truth in Translation, page 99.
Remember that Hebrews 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6
which was first addressed to a human king. Surely the
psalmist did not think of that king as Almighty God, so it
is hardly likely that he would have addressed him as such.
If Paul had the psalmist’s view, it is unlikely that he calls
Jesus God in Hebrews either, although it would have
been proper to address him that way in a secondary sense.
7:21 Other
We have already discussed the elliptical “other” above.53
Because Bob criticizes it here, we might recall the
comments by F. Blass and A Debrunner.––GCT, page 98.
“Ellipsis (brachylogy) in the broad sense applies to
any idea which is not fully expressed grammatically
and leaves it to the hearer or reader to supply the
omission because it is self-evident… The omission of
the notion ‘other, whatever’ (§306(5)) is specifically
Greek.”––A Greek Grammar of New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, Sections 479, 480,
pages 253, 254.
“Other” is an elliptical idea including something “self-
evident” that is often left unexpressed in Greek. English
translations use “other” in similar places and Adventists
do not complain about them. They object to it at
Colossians 1:16, 17 only because it touches the Trinity.
7.22 The Hebrew Imperfect State
Bob criticizes the New World Translation rendering of
Genesis 2:1-3. (GCT, pages 98, 99) We have discussed
this criticism above,54 but recall James Washington
Watts’ comments about imperfect Hebrew verbs.
“The fundamental characteristic of all imperfects is
incompleteness… The incompleteness of these
imperfects, when they are in the indicative mood,
appears either in a progressive form or a frequentative
form. The context is relied upon to indicate one or the
other, for the structure of the verb is the same in both
cases. If the context indicates a single act or state, the
force is progressive. The action is pictured in the
53 See point 7.17.
54 See point 4.18.
114
process of development. In such case the primary idea
of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its
full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like
‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the
translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full
force.”––A Distinctive Translation of Genesis, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1963, pages 129, 130.
Note the comments about the need for an auxiliary word
like “proceed.” The New World Translation, especially
in its editions prior to 2013, is one of few that bring out
“the full force” of the imperfect state.
7.23 Godhead
Although Ellen G. White did not refer to the term Trinity
in her writings, she did use the word “Godhead.” (Desire
of Ages, page 671; Signs of the Times, May 19, 1904) In
the Christian Scriptures, some words are derived from
theos (god) and relate to what is divine. Those words are
theios, theiotes and theotes at Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20;
Colossians 2:9 and 2 Peter 1:3, 4. With White, Bob is
happy to use the word “Godhead” that some Trinitarian
translations use in these texts.––GCT, page 92.
These few texts have become something of a focal point
for a minority of modern-day Adventists who wish to
return to the Church’s original non-Trinitarian stance.
They prefer “Godhead” to “Trinity,” believing it to be the
only Scriptural term that incorporates God the Father and
God the Son, but not the holy spirit. Because “Godhead”
in the King James Version comes from three different
Greek words, we must consider each text in turn.
7.23.1 Acts 17:29 and the Godhead
At Acts 17:29 “Godhead” in the King James Version
translates theion, a form of the noun theios. Theion is
singular and does not contain the thought of several
persons in one. The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia says that theion
“is derived from the adjective theios, meaning
‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’”––Volume 1, page 913.
Liddell and Scott define its meaning as “the Divine
Being, Deity ... godlike.”––Greek-English Lexicon, page
313.
Therefore, theion can be understood to refer either to a
person (“the Divine Being”) or to a quality (“divine,”
“godlike”). Some translators like the Revised Standard
Version, New International Version, Jerusalem Bible,
New English Bible and English Standard Version opt for
the former, while others like The Bible–An American
 DEFENCE
Translation [E.J. Goodspeed] and Today’s English
Version opt for the latter.
“Godhead” is an arbitrary translation and one that is
particularly loaded because of its close association with
the Trinity doctrine. The Greek itself contains absolutely
no hint of what many today would think of when reading
the word Godhead, that is, a multiplicity of persons in one
Trinitarian substance. So the vast majority of modern
translations do not use “Godhead” at Acts 17:29.
The same Greek word is used twice at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 and
there even the King James Version translates it “divine”
rather than “Godhead.”
7.23.2 Romans 1:20 and the Godhead
At Romans 1:20 the Greek for “Godhead” is theiotes,
which W.E. Vine defines as
“the attributes of God, His ‘divine’ nature and
properties.”––An Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words, page 179.
This agrees with Liddell and Scott’s definition: “divine
nature, divinity.”––Greek-English Lexicon (Abridged),
page 313.
It is consistent with Paul’s context to translate theiotes
this way. He is not arguing that God as multiple persons
can be fully understood from creation but that creation
gives evidence of his invisible divine qualities. One of
the things discernible in the physical creation that Paul
specifically cites is God’s “eternal power.” Rendering
theiotes “Godhead” as if it means a compound divine
Being or Beings is therefore missing the point.
In this place the New World Translation fittingly uses the
term “Godship,” which refers to his qualities as God.
Again, “Godhead” is entirely inappropriate because
theiotes does not contain the thought usually conveyed
by the word Godhead today, namely three-in-one. Hence,
some modern translations like the Revised Standard
Version and Jerusalem Bible opt for “deity” and others
like the New International Version and New Revised
Standard Version “divine nature.”
Regardless of the translation, though, the text is not even
discussing Jesus Christ or the holy spirit so it cannot be
used to support the Trinity doctrine.
7.23.3 Colossians 2:9 and the Godhead
Colossians 2:9 does refer to Christ, however. In the King
James Version it reads: “For in him [Christ] dwelleth all
the fulness of the Godhead [from the Greek theotes]
bodily.”
Theotes comes from the word for “God,” theos. The
suffix -tes is added to its stem theo- to yield the abstract
115
noun theotes. Grammarian W.F. Howard discusses nouns
like this this under the heading “Abstract nouns in -tes: ”
“152. These are nearly all formed from adjectives in -
o-, with the result that the suffix -otes is regularly
attached to the consonantal stems as well. From nouns
in -o- : theotes, adelphotes (note extension of meaning
to concrete and collective sense. See Vocab.).”––A
Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume II, page
367.
It should be noted, therefore, that theotes is an abstract
noun that can have a concrete or collective meaning,
similar to adelphotes. F. Blass and A Debrunner refer to
the -otes suffix under the heading “Abstract substantives
from adjectives (and substantives).” They confirm that
nouns like this are “abstract.”
It would be helpful, then, to see how adelphotes is
translated. This would give us at least some idea about
the possible meaning of theotes. Adelphotes comes from
adelphos, meaning “brother.” Adelphotes appears at 1
Peter 2:17 where it is translated “brotherhood” in most
versions. It also appears as a singular noun at 1 Peter 5:9
where the Revised Standard Version and the English
Standard Version also use “brotherhood.”
Adelphotes in these cases means ‘brother’ in abstract––
‘brotherhood’––rather than any particular brother.
Individual members of a brotherhood would be brothers,
of course, but not equal in age, authority or substance.
The -tes ending simply does not contain that thought of
equality where adelphotes is concerned.
If theotes is similar to adelphotes, its meaning would be
‘godhood’ in abstract rather than “Godhead” with its
implications of equality in age and authority. It would
imply that Jesus is a god and the Bible does call Jesus
“God.” (Isa 9:6; Joh 1:1, 18; 20:28) But we have seen that
angels are also called “gods,” as Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews
2:7 show. So while ‘godhood’ confirms Jesus’ divinity,
it would no more imply equality with the Father than the
‘godhood’ of angels implies that they are equal with Him.
And it says nothing about equality in age and authority,
any more than adelphotes does.
Concerning the translation of Colossians 2:9 in Today’s
English Version, the Translator’s Handbook says:
“The full content of divine nature: the word translated
‘divine nature’ (or ‘deity’ RSV) occurs only here in
the NT. … As in 1:19, Paul here emphasizes that all of
God’s nature is present in Christ, not diluted or
dispersed among intermediary spiritual beings. This
does not imply, of course, that there was no more
‘divine nature’ left in God, nor does it say that Christ
is God.”
 DEFENCE
The World Translation correctly renders theotes as
“divine qualities.”
Showing that anointed Christians will partake in “divine
nature,” Peter says: “that … ye might be partakers of the
divine nature.” (2Pe 1:3, 4) Bob would not insist that
these Christians will join the Godhead. Colossians 2:9
does not suggest that Christ is part of it either.
7.24 Jesus Not the Creator
This text reads: “God, who created all things by Jesus
Christ.” (King James Version) In the first edition of his
booklet Bob criticizes the New World Translation for
omitting the words: “by Jesus Christ.” The King James
Version is based on the Received Text which contains
those words.
However, more recent study involving hundreds of extra
manuscripts, many much older than those available to the
translators of the King James Version, has resulted in
better master texts on which to base translations. These
texts do not include the words in question. They are now
considered unlikely to have been written by Paul.
The Revised Standard Version, The New Testament in
Modern English (J.B. Phillips), the New International
Version, the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible
delete these words. Bob does not criticize those other
translations. No. His special focus is on Jehovah’s
Witnesses, and whatever argument he can arraign against
them seems to be fair game.
7.25 The Trinity’s Pagan Origins
Some have tried to divorce the Trinity from its pagan
roots. So it has been argued that trinities in pagan
religions are based on the father-mother-son concept, but
that this is different from the ‘Scriptural’ Trinity. 55
In Egypt, it is true, a god was viewed as being married to
a goddess who bore him a son, forming a ‘holy-family’
trinity of father, mother and son. But this was only one
type of pagan trinity. To focus on one type like the
Egyptian type as if this were they only type is unfair.
There were many pagan trinities that were not family
trinities. Adventists may point to Brahma, Shiva, and
Vishnu of the Hindus as a family trinity but all three were
male gods, not father, mother and son. In Babylon the
male Sin, the male Shamash, and the female Ishtar were
not a father-mother-son trinity either. Neither were Anu,
Enlil, and Ea family triads. They were all males.
55 “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists,” Gerhard Pfandl, Biblical Research Institute, viewed at
https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/search/site/trinity
116
So the argument that a ‘Biblical’ Trinity differs from
pagan trinities because the latter are of a different type
fails. All of the earliest trinities were pagan, not Biblical.
7.26 General Comments
From the beginning, the Israelites believed that God was
one. Deuteronomy 6:4 says:
“The LORD [Hebrew, Jehovah] our God is one LORD
[Jehovah].”
7.26.1 “One Jehovah”
What does “one mean? Trinitarians sometimes say that
the Hebrew word for “one,” echad, means, not just “one,”
but a “compound unity.” They say that there is a different
word for a single one, yachid, and that the absence of
yachid at Deuteronomy 6:4 is significant.
They believe that echad allows for a Trinity. For
example, Genesis 2:24 describes Adam and Eve as “one
[echad] flesh”––two persons in one flesh––and Numbers
13:23 speaks of “one [echad] cluster of grapes”––many
grapes in one cluster. So the argument is that echad can
include a plurality like the Trinity. Price does not use this
argument but what can we say about it?
Yes, there is another word for “one.” However, it is used
rarely, only 12 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Echad is
the standard word for “one,” is used about 960 times and
is the most frequent adjective in the Hebrew Bible.
It is the word used when we read of “one place” (Ge 1:9);
“one man” (Ge 42:13); “one law” (Ex 12:49); “one side”
(Ex 25:12); “one ewe lamb” (Le 14:10); “one of his
brethren” (Le 25:48); “one rod” (Nu 17:3); “one soul”
(Nu 31:28); “one of these cities” (De 4:42); “one way”
(De 28:7); “one ephah” (1Sa1:24); “one went out into the
field” (2Ki 4:39); “one day or two.” (Ezr 10:13); “one
shepherd” (Ezekiel 37:24); “one basket” (Jeremiah 24:2);
“one [thing]” (Psalm 27:4); “two are better than one” (Ec
4:9); and “Abraham was one.” (Eze 33:24) In all of these
echad is a simple and singular ‘one.’
Those few texts that may seem to have collective sense
where echad is concerned have a noun used with echad
that can have a collective sense. In other words, the
plurality is in the noun, not in echad. At Genesis 2:24,
where a married couple is described as “one flesh,” the
plural sense is in the word “flesh,” not in the “one.”
“Flesh” also has the same kind of collective sense at
Genesis 29:14; 37:27. And “cluster” obviously has a
collective sense. (Nu 13:23) Echad, though, always
 DEFENCE
means “one” even in these texts just as it does
everywhere else, including Deuteronomy 6:4.
7.26.2 “The LORD” and the “Lord”
The Scriptures differentiate Jehovah from the “Lord”
Jesus. For example, Psalm 110:1 says:
“The LORD [Hebrew, Jehovah] said unto my Lord
[Jesus], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool.”
The “LORD,” upper case, translates the Hebrew word that
is Anglicized as Jehovah. The “Lord,” with lower case
letters, is not Jehovah. At Luke 20:41-43 and Acts 2:34,
35 where Psalm 110:1 is quoted, both Jesus and Peter
explain the “Lord” to be Jesus.
The dynamic at work at Psalm 110:1 shows Jesus
receiving direction from Jehovah and sitting at his right
hand. Therefore, not only are the Father and Jesus
different persons but Jehovah and Jesus are different
persons. This latter distinction is not allowable under the
terms of the Trinity doctrine.
Other texts showing the difference between Jehovah and
Jesus are Psalm 2:2 when compared with Acts 4:26, 27;
Psalm 2:7 compared with Hebrews 5:5; Psalm 16:8
compared with Acts 2:25ff.; and Psalm 110:4 compared
with Hebrews 5:5, 6. All of these show, not only a
distinction between the Father and Jesus such as the
Trinity allows, but between Jehovah and Jesus.
7.26.3 “One God” and “the Only True God”
Then there is the ‘oneness’ of God. Wherever in the ‘New
Testament’ the doctrine of “one God”––monotheism––is
taught and where Jesus Christ is mentioned in the same
context, Jesus is not identified as that “one God.” So even
when Jesus is mentioned, we find “one God, the Father”
and the “one God and Father.” (1Co 8:6; Eph 4:5, 6; 1Ti
2:5) The one God is identified as the Father, and Jesus is
presented as separate from the one God.
In fact, the expression “one God” is never used either of
the Son or of the holy spirit in the entire Bible. Why can
the Father be called “one God” but Jesus and the holy
spirit never can? Jesus’ godship must therefore be
secondary to the Father’s Godship.
At John 17:3 Jesus clearly identifies the Father as “the
only true God,” referring in prayer to “thee [the Father,
verse 1] the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” Nowhere
else in the Bible does anyone use “only” when speaking
to another person in such a way as to include himself, so
it is unlikely that Jesus was including himself as part of
“the only true God.”
At 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10 the “true God” is marked as
the Father and as different from Jesus Christ in these
117
words: “ye turned to God from idols to serve the living
and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, ...
even Jesus.” The “one God,” the “true God” and “the
only true God” in the Christian Bible is always the
Father, not the Son.
On earth Jesus was subordinate to his Father. He called
the Father “my God” but the Father never calls Jesus “my
God,” so the Father must be superior as to Godship. “My
Father is greater than I,” says Jesus. (Joh 14:28) “My
Father, which gave them me, is greater than all.” (Joh
10:29) “All” would include both Jesus and the holy spirit.
Trinitarians usually explain this in terms of Jesus’ time
on earth. Even if this were true of him, why was the
Father greater than the holy spirit who was not on earth?
Confirming Jesus’ subordination we read: “The Son can
do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for
what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise.” (Joh 5:19) “To sit on my right hand, and on my
left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for
whom it is prepared of my Father.”––Mt 20:23.
When he returned to heaven, Jesus was subordinate to,
and will ever remain subordinate to, God. This is not only
as a Son to a Father, but as a Son to God. Paul writes:
“The head of Christ is God.” (1Co 11:3) Note that God is
the head of Christ not just as Father but as God.
Therefore, Christ’s subordination cannot be explained as
a function of their Father-Son relationship.
Again: “When all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all
things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1Co 15:28)
In terms of Godship the Father will always have Jesus as
a subject.
7.26.4 Jesus Derives Life from the Father
Apart from texts that we have considered above such as
Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14, other texts show
that the Son derived his life from the Father. John 6:57,
for example, quotes Jesus as saying: “As the living Father
hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth
me, even he shall live by me.”
Trinitarians often speak about Jesus’ Sonship as if it does
not mean that he actually derived his life from God. To
them it is a spiritual relationship between co-equal and
co-eternal persons. Yet, these verses show that Jesus lives
due to the Father in the same manner, as indicated by the
“so,” that his followers will live due to him. The
statements are parallel.
If the life imparted to Christians is real corporeal life, the
life given to Jesus by his Father must be real life, not the
life of a spiritual relationship only. Of course, if Jesus
receives his life from someone else, he cannot be God.
 DEFENCE
The expression “God the Son” used by Bob on page 95
is not Biblical. It reflects fourth-century thinking. The
faithful Biblical expression is “Son of God.” (Mr 1:1; Joh
1:34) Even Ellen G. White never uses “God the Son” in
more than 100,000 pages of writing. For that matter, she
never once uses “God the Father” or “God the Holy
Spirit” either! Bob charges Jehovah’s Witnesses with
changes, but his own language is a clear change from
Ellen G. White’s.
Roman Catholic Church authorities could not even agree
on a Trinity formula until the fourth century, hundreds of
years into the apostasy. The Trinity only gradually
infiltrated the Adventist Church, receiving official
acceptance only after 70 years! See Appendix 1 for
further information about the non-Trinitarian background
of Adventism and its gradual adoption into the Church. It
was an incremental but major denominational change
that is well documented by Church scholars but which
Price fails even to discuss, much less concede.
The Trinity attacks God’s sovereignty because it pares
the Father’s worship down to just a third, so that the Son
has now outshone the Father. Most ‘Christians’ feel a
stronger bond to Jesus than to a Father whose name has
practically been eliminated. It serves Satan’s purpose to
divide God’s worship this way. It would be expected that
the doctrine of God would be among the first doctrines
the Devil would attack. The Bible, on the other hand,
teaches that Jehovah is one undivided God to be
differentiated from the Lord Jesus Christ.
118
“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”––De 6:4.
“The LORD [Jehovah, Hebrew] said unto to my Lord
[Jesus] …”––Ps 110:1.
“They might know thee [the Father; cp. Verse 1] the
only true God, and Jesus Christ.”––Joh 17:3.
“There is but one God, the Father, … and one Lord
Jesus Christ.” ––1Co 8:6.
“There is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus.”––1Ti 2:5.
A clear distinction between Jehovah God the Father and
his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is evident in the Bible.
Adventists once agreed with this, before the change.
Adventists opposed the Trinity for decades and Ellen G.
White made no objection until much later. Her
Trinitarianism emerged later. The Scriptures teach that
there is one God. Some created servants of the one God
are also called gods. As God’s Son, Jesus is more
qualified than those to bear the title God. He is never
called the Creator, although he assisted in creation. He is
never called Jehovah, a name reserved for the Father.
Although inconsistent on the subject, Ellen G. White
repeatedly called the holy spirit “it.” Jehovah’s Witnesses
agree with Adventism’s first non-Trinitarian position, not
with their changed, official pro-Trinity stance.
 DEFENCE
8
Questions
Chapter 13 of Channel raises a number of further
questions. Of these, Revelation 20:5 and Hebrews 11:5
have been discussed above.56
8.1 Sabbath in the New Earth?
Isaiah 66:22, 23 is used to prove that there will be a
Sabbath in the new earth.––GCT, page 100.
“It shall come to pass that from one new moon to
another, and from one sabbath to another shall all
flesh come to worship before me.”
Seventh-day Adventists should argue in for literal new
moon observance in the new earth if they wish to use this
passage to argue for literal Sabbath observance because
both are mentioned here. New moon observance was part
of the Law of Moses but Adventists do not believe that
they will be kept in the new earth. (Nu 10:10; 28:11) Why
would they argue for one and not the other?
Paul mentions Sabbaths and new moons together at
Colossians 2:16. “Let no man judge you ... In respect of
an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.”
When listed together here it is to the effect that neither
new moon nor Sabbath need be kept. They are a
“shadow.” (Col 2:17)
It is clear that Paul is referring to weekly, not annual,
sabbaths at Colossians 2:16 because of the increasing
frequency: holyday (annual), new moon (monthly),
sabbath days (weekly). Sabbaths marked out the weeks
and new moons the months. (De 5:14; Nu 10:10) What,
then, is the real meaning of Isaiah 66:22, 23? In the
“body”––the reality––of these new moon and Sabbath
observances there will be regular worship of God.57
Lorna believes that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have the
timing of the beginning of the heavenly resurrection
“straight.” (GCT, pages 101, 102) We have already
explained why the heavenly resurrection begins, not at
Christ’s coming, but at and during his presence.58
It is Adventists who do not have the timing of people
going to heaven straight, teaching as they do that Enoch
and Elijah went to heaven hundreds of years before
Christ, even though Christ was the “forerunner” of those
56 For Revelation 20:5 see point 6.6 and for Hebrews 11:5 see point 5.4.
57 For a more complete discussion of Colossians 2:16, 17 see point 4.12.
58 See points 2.9.1 and 6.1.
119
who go to heaven. (He 6:20) When Jesus was on earth he
said:
“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven.”––Joh 3:13.
To say that Enoch and Elijah ascended to heaven
hundreds and thousands of years earlier contradicts
Christ. Lorna really should have checked, but sadly and
by her own admission she made her decision to become
an Adventist before she had all the facts.––GCT, page 78.
8.2 Jewellery
Can Christians wear “pearls and other outward
ornaments”? Adventists say no, quoting 1 Timothy 2:9,
10 and 1 Peter 3:1-4. (GCT, page 102) In the first century
it was customary for pagans to go to great lengths to braid
the hair with gold ornaments. However, not all feminine
ornament is forbidden in the Scriptures.
The wording of Peter’s comment makes clear that the
Adventists’ extreme view of jewellery was not his point.
He says regarding Christian women:
“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning
of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or putting
on of apparel.”––1Pe 3:3.
Note the words in italics because they expose the
weakness in Bob’s application of the passage. Does Peter
really mean that Christian sisters should not wear
“apparel”––in Greek, himation––that is, clothing? He did
not want them to walk about naked, surely! Jesus himself
wore a himation! (Mt 14:36) Really, then, Peter’s point
is not what Christians may or may not wear, but where
their emphasis should be, on the humble adornment of
the heart. There is counsel against jewellery in the Bible,
but only in the context of ‘haughtiness.’––Isa 3:16-22.
On the other hand, many of God’s approved servants
wore jewellery. (Ge 24:53; Ex 3:22; 2Sa 1:24; Jer 2:32;
Lu 15:22) Jewellery was even used in a positive way to
illustrate profound spiritual truths. For example, Jehovah
himself says of the Israelites:
“I [Jehovah] decked thee also with ornaments, and I
put bracelets upon thy hands and a chain on thy neck.
 DEFENCE
And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thy
ears, and a beautiful crown on your head.”––Eze
16:11, 12.
“The LORD … hath clothed me with the garments of
salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of
righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with
ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her
jewels.”––Isa 61:10.
Would God have used this language positively, even in a
figurative sense, if he had regarded jewellery as
inherently sinful? And how could he have compared the
way he honoured Israel with a bridegroom and bride’s
ornaments if they never used ornaments?––Cp. Pr 25:12.
The Church itself has been very inconsistent about
jewellery. In 1972 the Annual Council of the General
Conference stated that baptism was not to be denied to
those who wear a wedding ring. It also said:
“That in the area of personal adornment, necklaces,
earrings, bracelets, and rings (including engagement
rings) should not be worn. Articles such as watches,
brooches, cuff links, tie clasps, etc., should be chosen
in harmony with the Christian principles of simplicity,
modesty, and economy.”
What an arbitrary direction! It seems the aim was to
distinguish between items used purely for adornment and
those with some practical purpose.
Look at the inconsistencies, though. The wedding ring
was allowed (or reluctantly tolerated) at baptism because
it could be seen as having a practical purpose, being a
public evidence of marriage. But the engagement ring
which also has a practical purpose––advertising that a
person is not available for courtship––was denied.
Brooches, cuff links and tie clasps were allowed, but
these hardly ever serve a truly practical purpose.
The Adventist blanket rejection of jewellery is both
inconsistent and unscriptural.
8.3 Sunday, Christmas and Birthdays
On page 102 Bob charges that Jehovah’s Witnesses are
inconsistent about Sunday and Christmas because they
have meetings on Sunday and yet do not observe
Christmas. But, as with so many of his arguments, Bob
has not thought his accusation through. The Witnesses
are perfectly consistent. As a matter of observance, they
keep none of these days as special. They do not keep
Sunday as the Sabbath or as the Lord’s Day. And they do
not keep Christmas as a holy day either.
59 See point 4.10.
120
It is true that Sunday has long been a pagan day of
worship. Still, the earliest Christians set the example that
we cannot evade. Despite the fact that there was never a
command, they did meet on Sunday, at least
occasionally. (Joh 20:26; Ac 2:1) When they met on
Sunday it was not because they were observing the
Sabbath, the Lord’s Day or Jesus’ resurrection day.
In the same way, when Jehovah’s Witnesses meet on
Sundays it is for practical purposes. It is often the day that
most people are available to accept their invitation to
attend meetings. The Christian Scriptures contain not a
single command to meet on Saturdays, nor is there even
one ‘New Testament’ example of a Christian church
meeting on the Sabbath.59
Many congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses regularly
meet on Saturdays by congregational consent or if their
Kingdom Halls are occupied by multiple congregations
on Sundays. They hold regular meetings if they coincide
with Christmas day, but never as a Christmas service.
Staff in Watchtower Society branch offices work normal
shifts on Sundays and Christmas days. There are no
closures for New Year’s Day, Easter or any of the
national holidays. It is actually Adventists that are
inconsistent because they observe Christmas knowing
full well its pagan religious background while at the same
time making a great deal of the pagan religious
background of Sunday.
Shortly after Price published his booklet criticizing
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Australian Adventist magazine
Signs of the Times of December 1968 displayed a cover
commemorating Jesus’ birth. Yet the Catholic
Encyclopaedia says:
“Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the
Church.”
It is not just a matter of innocent tradition, either. Almost
every facet of Christmas is either based on a lie or on
paganism. The date is false. The story of kings bringing
gifts to Jesus as a newborn babe in a manger is a lie.
Christmas customs borrowed from paganism include the
tree, the gifts, the mistletoe, the feasting and the merry-
making. Adventists know these things yet celebrate
Christmas anyway.
Adventists are also happy to celebrate birthdays but there
is not one recorded instance of a true servant of God
celebrating a birthday in Bible times, although it was a
common pagan practice at the time. Only pagans are
noted for celebrating birthdays.––Ge 40:20; Mt 14:6.
 DEFENCE
The Jews and the earliest Christians took the view that it
was inappropriate to celebrate birthdays. So professed
Christian Origen of the third century said:
“Of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is
recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet
on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and
Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on
which they were born into this world below.”
M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia says that the Jews
“regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous
worship.”––Volume I, page 817.
So Historian Augustus Neander writes:
“The notion of a birthday festival was far from the
ideas of the Christians of this period.”––The History
of the Christian Religion and Church, During the
Three First Centuries, page 190.
The Lore of Birthdays adds:
“Mesopotamia and Egypt, the cradles of civilization,
were also the first lands in which men remembered
and honoured their birthdays. The keeping of birthday
records was important in ancient times principally
because a birth date was essential for the casting of a
horoscope.”
Clearly, birthdays were not just pagan secular customs,
but pagan religious customs. The important question is:
What would be wrong with adopting pagan religious
celebrations if the pagan element has long been
forgotten? We only need to enquire after God’s view to
decide. To the Israelites he warned:
“When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations
from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them,
and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by
following them, after that they be destroyed from
before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods,
saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even
so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the
LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD,
which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for
even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in
the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command
you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor
diminish from it.”––De 12:29-32.
Even after pagan nations had been destroyed, the
Israelites were still not to adopt pagan religious practices.
The law about avoiding pagan customs remained in the
Law for 1,500 years. The Jews could never “add”
religious customs like the birthdays of the pagans to their
own customs. Reinforcing this later, Jeremiah 10:2 says:
121
“Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the
heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven;
for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs
of the people are vain.”
In Christianity the principle that pagan religious customs
should not be added to pure worship remained.
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:
for what fellowship hath righteousness with
unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with
darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ...
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye
separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean
thing.”––2Co 6:14-17.
Even if men have forgotten the origin of Christmas and
birthdays, God remembers and it matters to him.
The comparison Bob uses does not fit his argument: “The
pagans had weddings also, but we will not stop getting
married because they married.” (GCT, page 102) Yes,
pagans married, but marriage was instituted by God. (Ge
2:22) “God hath joined [them] together.” (Mt 19:6) The
Witnesses observe marriage, baptism and the Lord’s
Supper because they were divinely instituted religious
observances. Birthday observances, though, were pagan
from the beginning, being connected with astrology.
God’s people did not celebrate them.
8.4 Flag and Anthem
On page 103, Bob says that we should stand and salute
the flag and stand for the national anthem. Jehovah’s
Witnesses honour and respect national governments. (Ro
13:1-7; 1Pe 2:13-18) They also “flee from idolatry.” (Ac
5:39; 1Co 10:14) The same Commandment says:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or
any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them.”
––Ex 20:4, 5.
Bob says that flags and national anthems “are tokens of
loyalty and honor.” (GCT, page 103) This is not true.
When a person salutes a flag he does not salute ‘loyalty
or honor.’ He salutes his country and what it stands for,
because a flag represents a nation. It is the embodiment
of the nation––an image of it. Is it wrong to make a
solemn gesture to such an image? Well, when compared
with the commandment, what is a flag?
The Australian flag contains stars, the “likeness of
[things] in heaven above.” When a person makes a
special gesture toward that flag, he makes it to stars
which are the ‘likenesses of things in heaven above.’ The
flag is therefore an image. Adventists may wish to debate
 DEFENCE
whether there is a difference between ‘saluting’ and
‘bowing down,’ but Jehovah’s Witnesses do not entertain
such fine distinctions where their worship is involved.
The Australian and British flags contain the Union Jack,
a combination of St. Andrew’s Cross, St. George’s Cross
and St. Patrick’s Cross. These were the patron saints of
England, Scotland and Ireland. The uniting of these
kingdoms into one United Kingdom is represented by the
uniting of the three religious crosses in the Union Jack.
So when a person performs a solemn gesture toward the
flag, he not only violates the principle inherent in the
commandment, but participates in the worship of
Scottish, English and Irish Protestants who teach
doctrines such as hellfire contrary to God’s Word.60
There is no Biblical example of any servant of God
performing a gesture to any symbol representing a state
or ruler. Quite to the contrary. The three young Hebrews
in Babylon refused any physical gesture to an image. The
proportions of that image show that it was not the image
of a human such as Nebuchadnezzar. It likely represented
the state itself, just as the flag does today.––Da 3:1, 18.
Anthems are often petitions to God to act on behalf of the
state or its leaders. “God save our gracious Queen” is an
example. They are songs that represent the country in
which a person lives, so they serve the same purpose as
flags and any gesture in response is idolatry.
Bob says that Adventists would stand or perform some
other respectful action in the presence of a ruler. So
would Jehovah’s Witnesses. Bowing is proper out of
respect for other humans and is clearly authorized. (Ge
23:7; 27:29; 49:8; 1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 24:20; 2Ki 2:15) But
performing the same act to an object or song that
represents a human or nation would be wrong because a
representation is an image.
The tendency of Adventists toward nationalism described
by Bob has led the Adventist Church into what was at
first implicit and then later explicit support of worldly
governments in wartime.
“During World War II Adventists proudly answered
the call to duty in the United States, but also, and more
disconcertingly, in Nazi Germany. ... In the post-
Vietnam era, thousands of Adventists voluntarily
joined the US armed forces as full combatants.
Adventist chaplains were recruited to minister to these
fighters ‘without passing judgment’, which in turn
encouraged more Adventists to enlist. ... At a camp-
60If it should seem we inconsistently quote the Ten Commandments here, we do so because 1 Corinthians 10:14 contains the
Christian law against idolatry. Exodus 20:4, 5 merely helps us to define idolatry. In a similar way, Paul quotes from the Law of
Moses at 1 Corinthians 9:8, 9, applying a principle to Christians.
122
meeting in Northern California, a patriotic song
service was followed by a 21 gun salute with live
ammunition. And near the end of the American
bombing campaign in Afghanistan, the General
Conference organized a special weekend to honor the
US military and send care packages overseas––not
care packages to the afflicted Afghanis, but stuffed
animals to US bomber crews stationed at Diego Garcia
Air Force Base in the Pacific Ocean. Little thought
was given by the planners of the event to the history
of American policy in the Middle East, or the
estimated 3,400 Afghani civilians killed by US
bombs––four hundred more innocent people than
perished on September 11.”––A Brief History of
Seventh-day Adventists in Times of War, Ronald
Osborn, Adventist Peace Fellowship.
For a fuller description of this deplorable record, see a
Seventh-day Adventist’s own description of Adventists
at war in Appendix 5.
8.5 Worship or Obeisance?
On page 103, Bob says that his church would kneel in
worship if Jesus entered. Jehovah’s Witnesses would also
kneel, but Jesus also says: “Thou shalt worship the Lord
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Mt 4:10) Jesus
worshipped someone else, his Father Jehovah.
The King James Version makes it seem that the early
Christians worshipped Jesus, saying: “They came and
held him by the feet, and worshipped [from proskyneo.
Greek] him.” (Mt 28:9) What does proskyneo mean? A
lexicon says it is
“used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself
before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his
garment, the ground.”––A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker,
page 716.
Worship is not the only meaning of proskyneo, but it
could include worship. So a dictionary defines it:
“To make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros,
“towards,” and kuneo, “to kiss”) … to worship”––
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E.
Vine, under “Worship.”
Proskyneo has a range of meanings. It does not always
refer to worship. Consider the corresponding Hebrew
word. Isaiah 27:13 says that God should be ‘worshipped
[shachah].’ But Genesis 23:7 says that Abraham ‘bowed
 DEFENCE
down to [shachah]’ the sons of Heth. (Ge 23:7) The word
is used again for God’s servants bowing out of respect to
a king, a prophet, a person in authority, an older person,
or even a stranger.––Ge 19:1, 2; 1Sa 24:8; 2Ki 2:15; Ru
2:8-10; 1Ki 2:19.
The fundamental meaning of shachah is to bow down
respectfully. It can mean, but does not always mean,
worship. When David was king of Israel, he accepted
‘worship’ of a limited kind. 1 Chronicles 29:20 reads:
“David said to all the congregation, Now bless the
LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the
LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their
heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.”
Because “worshipped” seems inappropriate in this case
because it is directed to the king, translators often switch
to something like “paid homage.” (English Standard
Version, New American Standard Version) Using
shachah, 2 Samuel 14:22 and 1 Kings 1:31 say that Joab
and Bathsheba bowed down to David. Was David God,
then?
No. This was not “worship” in the fullest sense. The King
James Version translates shachah “worship” when
directed to God but ‘bow down’ when directed to men.
The object of attention determines the translation.
The Greek form proskyneo is used when an angel says:
“Worship God.” (Re 19:10) So the word refers to worship
when God is its object. However, as in the Hebrew
Scriptures, when humans ‘bow down’ properly and
respectfully to other humans, proskyneo does not mean
‘worship.’
For example, many translations avoid the word
“worship” at Matthew 18:26 because its object is a
human king. “So the servant fell on his knees.” (Revised
Standard Version) “The man fell prostrate at his master’s
feet.” (New English Bible) “At this the servant fell on his
knees before his master.” (The New Testament in Modern
English [J.B. Phillips]) “The servant fell on his knees
before him.” (New International Version) Apart from the
King James Version, almost none of the translators use
‘worship’ because it relates to a human master, so
‘worship’ is really inappropriate here.
123
At Revelation 3:9 proskyneo is used when Jesus says that
he will make evildoers ‘worship’ at the feet of Christians.
Is this full worship? No. It is the wicked ‘bowing down’
in acknowledgment of them. Some translations suggest
better renderings. “I will make them come and bow down
before your feet.” (Revised Standard Version) “Fall
down at your feet.” (New English Bible) “Bow down
before your feet.” (The New Testament in Modern
English [J.B. Phillips]) “Fall down at your feet.” (New
International Version) Yes, the fundamental meaning of
proskyneo is bow down. It clearly does not always mean
“worship” because Jesus was not encouraging idolatry in
this case.
Of course, even in English there are remnants of a
secondary meaning for ‘worship,’ now almost obsolete,
a meaning that includes humans as its object. Under this
meaning, ‘worship’ is defined as
“to honour, show respect for: ‘with my body I thee
worship’ (Marriage Service). Phr. to worship the
ground a person treads on, entertain the intensest
affection for him (her).” Hence comes the practice that
persists in some jurisdictions of calling magistrates
“Your Worship.”––Webster.
Proskyneo should be translated “worship” when it refers
to Almighty God but “bow down,” or similar, when it
refers to humans. Translators who believe that Jesus is
Almighty God naturally render proskyneo as “worship”
if it is directed him. But it is their Trinitarian viewpoint
rather than the word itself that leads them to that position.
Bob teaches Sabbath observance in the new earth but not
a new moon observance. He argues against jewellery
despite the fact that there are many positive references to
its use among God’s people, including jewellery
symbolic of spiritual beauty. He teaches that it is proper
to perform a solemn act before an image of stars and
crosses on a flag, claiming that this can be called respect,
not worship. We have seen that it is proper to bow
respectfully to a person, but not to an image. For this
reason, early servants of God bowed to Jesus and others,
but never bowed before images. The Greek word relating
to this act does not uniquely refer to worship.
DEFENCE

124
 DEFENCE
9
Baptised into Christ
Moving toward the end of the story, Channel chapter 14
explains how shortly before his baptism as a Seventh-day
Adventist David studied Adventist history and its
understanding of prophecy. We are told that a picture
emerged of “an organization led by God, going steadily
forward, with its truths becoming clearer and more
beautiful with the passing years.” (GCT, page 106) We
have seen that this picture is simply not true.
9.1 Fundamental Change
In Chapter 1 of this study we saw that the Adventist
Church has taught many things as truth––even
fundamental things––which were later changed. We have
found that its members have become deeply implicated
in war, that the moral standards of the organization have
dropped to the point where unscriptural divorce and even
polygamy is tolerated under certain circumstances.
We found that even the writings of the Church’s prophet
have been changed, sometimes by herself, sometimes by
others. Changes in her writings were in factual details,
changed because Ellen G. White was simply wrong. Her
prophecies were also unreliable. What seemed like
remarkable insights into historical events very often
turned out to be copied from previous historians.
Today other issues like the ordination of women concern
the Church when, really, the Scriptures are clear. Women
should not be ordained as ministers. (1Ti 2:11, 12; 3:1-
13) Price contributed toward the 800-page book Here We
Stand: Evaluating New Trends in the Church, a book that
presents evidence that Adventism is not a church “going
steadily forward ... with the passing years” as he claims.
9.2 The Great Controversy
David apparently read and enjoyed Ellen G. White’s The
Great Controversy. Had he been more discerning he
might have noted evidence that he was not reading “the
spirit of prophecy.”
For example, on page 434 of The Great Controversy
White quotes Matthew 5:18: “‘Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.’
Matthew 5:18.” She quotes this text to show that the Ten-
Commandment law is immutable, but failing to quote the
rest of the sentence which is vital to understanding the
text: “till all be fulfilled.” This is so vital because in the
61 See point 1.5.17.
125
previous verse Jesus had said: “I came, not to destroy, but
to fulfill.” (Mt 5:17) Taken together, the two verses show
that God’s law could pass away once it had been fulfilled
by Jesus, the very opposite of what White wanted to
teach. She did not quote the verse fairly, but selectively.
Similarly, on page 466 of The Great Controversy Ellen
G. White says: “The apostle James, who wrote after the
death of Christ, refers to the Decalogue as “the royal law”
and “the perfect law of liberty. James 2:8; 1:25.” Is this
right? James 2:8 quotes “the royal law:” “Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.” (Le 19:18) This is not in the
Ten Commandments. It is in the ‘Ceremonial Law.’
Of course, any Bible interpreter or writer can make
mistakes like these, but The Great Controversy is
supposedly part of ‘the spirit of prophecy.’ It has
survived several revisions, even with White’s consent,
and it still contains these errors. The same can be said for
the historical errors in her writings noted above. 61 What
this means is something that Seventh-day Adventists
cannot bear, that she was simply a fallible student of the
Scriptures and church history like many others, and not
especially gifted at that.
In the past, converts to Seventh-day Adventism were
impressed that a simple young woman could write a
lengthy and detailed exposition like The Great
Controversy. It lent authority to her claim to be a prophet.
There seemed no other explanation for such insightful
writing. No doubt David was very impressed with it for
reasons like this. Today we know that large portions, if
not the majority, of her work was copied from others. It
was largely a summary of their material, none of which
had any special claim to inspiration.
From early times, Adventists were aware that copying the
ideas and writings of others was unethical, even in the
nineteenth century. So in an article in the Adventist paper
Review and Herald of September 6, 1864, we read:
“PLAGIARISM
This is a word that is used to signify ‘literary theft’, or
taking the productions of another and passing them off
as one's own.
In the ‘World’s Crisis’ of Aug 23, 1864, we find a
piece of poetry duly headed, ‘For the World’s Crisis,’
 DEFENCE
and signed ‘Luthera B. Weaver’. What was our
surprise, therefore to find in this piece our familiar
hymn, ‘Long upon the mountain weary have the
scattered flock been torn.’ This piece was written by
Annie R. Smith, and was first published in the Review,
vol ii, no. 8, Dec 9, 1851 and has been in our hymn
book ever since the first edition thereafter issued....
We are perfectly willing that pieces from the Review,
or any of our books should be published to any extent,
and all we ask is, that simple justice be done us, by due
credit being given.”
If this was the standard expected in the Adventist
publishing community in 1864, we might have expected
that Ellen G. White, of all people, would have adhered to
it. But Adventist apologists concede that at least 10% to
20% of her writings were copied from others without
“credit being given.” This also applies to the Great
Controversy, the book that so deeply impressed David.
Elsewhere, White says she wrote under the influence of
the holy spirit. She claimed to be careful in using
quotation marks, at least in quoting angels but not,
apparently, in quoting men.
“Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the
Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them,
yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen
126
are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an
angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.”
––Selected Messages, Book 1, page 37. (Emphasis
ours.)
The Adventist Church vigorously defends her against
charges of plagiarism, but whether her copying was
plagiarism by nineteenth-century standards or not is
really not the point. Her Great Controversy material was
simply not original, and there was no special miraculous,
prophetic gift required to produce it, especially since she
had assistants to help her.
The Great Controversy is one of Ellen G. White’s most
important works. It is heavily used by the Church as an
evangelizing tool. However, the evidence shows that it is
largely based on the written works of others who were
not Adventists. It includes errors, some of which were
corrected with White’s agreement and others after her
death. Some errors remain. All writers make mistakes
and Ellen G. White can be forgiven hers, but Bob held
Jehovah’s Witnesses to a standard that his own prophet
could not meet. His attack was therefore unreasonable
and unfair.
 DEFENCE
10
Watchtower … 1975
In later printings of Channel, Price includes an Appendix
A that lists some Watchtower publications that he says
“suggested that the End would come in 1975.” (GCT,
page 112) Again, he deals in half-truths and is less than
fair in dealing with the evidence.
10.1 October 1966
Taking his examples in chronological order, the first is in
the book Life Everlasting–in Freedom of the Sons of God,
published in 1966. The section he quotes reads:
“According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six
thousand years from man’s creation will end in 1975,
and the seventh period of a thousand years of human
history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E. So six
thousand years of man’s existence on earth will soon
be up, yes, within this generation.”––Page 29.
Price underlines various words in this quotation, but
which of them prove his point that it “suggested the End
would come in 1975”? Read it again. There is nothing
about the end of the world; only about the end of 6,000
years. Commenting on the same book and 1975, the
Watchtower of October 15, 1966 discussed some
comments made by the Watchtower Society’s vice-
president Frederick Franz.
“At the Baltimore assembly Brother Franz in his
closing remarks made some interesting comments
regarding the year 1975. He began casually by saying,
“Just before I got on the platform a young man came
to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean? Does
it mean this, that or any other thing?’” In part, Brother
Franz went on to say: ‘You have noticed the chart [on
pages 31-35 in the book Life Everlasting–in Freedom
of the Sons of God]. It shows that 6,000 years of
human experience will end in 1975, about nine years
from now. What does that mean? Does it mean that
God’s rest day began 4026 B.C.E.? It could have. The
Life Everlasting book does not say it did not. The book
merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or
reject it. If that is the case, what does that mean to us?
[He went into some length showing the feasibility of
the 4026 B.C.E. date as being the beginning of God’s
rest day.]
‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean,
dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that
Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan
bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are
127
possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the
Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it
mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be
made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then
Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we
are not saying. All things are possible with God. But
we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in
saying anything that is going to happen between now
and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends:
Time is short. Time is running out, no question about
that.”
These words were clearly precautionary. ‘You can accept
it or reject it. It could. It could. All things are possible. It
could. It could. We are not saying. All things are possible.
Don’t any of you be specific.’ Nothing could be clearer
than that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not suggesting that
the end “would” come in 1975 as Price claims. A “could”
is not a “would.”
10.2 May 1968
Next was the Watchtower of May 1, 1968, pages 270-
277, which Bob cites but does not quote, and no wonder.
It states:
“To calculate where man is in the stream of time
relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need
to determine how long a time has elapsed from the
year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From
the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E.,
there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of
1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was
no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the
autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025
and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn
of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight
years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the
seventh day.”
Eight years from 1967 ended in 1975. At the time the
Watchtower made this statement it was understood that
1975 would mark both the end of 6,000 years since Adam
was created and the end of the first 6,000 years of God’s
7,000-year rest day.
The two periods were understood to run parallel.
Although 1975 has never been gainsaid as the end of
6,000 years since creation, it was an error to link it to the
end of the first 6,000 years of God’s seventh creative day.
The Witnesses no longer make this link.
 DEFENCE
Price fails to point out, however, that the same article
stated the following.
“Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle
of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what
any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning
that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32)
Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a
certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is
running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be
not to be awake and alert to the limited time
remaining, to the earthshaking events soon to take
place, and to the need to work out one’s salvation!”––
Page 272.
How fair is it to cite this article under the heading
Watchtower Publications which suggested the End would
come in 1975 when it did no such thing?
10.3 August 1968––a Correction
Then the August 15, 1968 Watchtower made an almost
immediate correction to the May edition. First it stressed
what had been stressed before––that Jehovah’s Witnesses
were not predicting the end in or before 1975. Then it was
admitted that the chronology was at best reasonably
accurate. Finally, it showed that, although 1975 would
likely mark 6,000 years since Adam was created, it would
not necessarily mean that 6,000 of the 7,000 years of
God’s creative rest day would expire in that year.
“Are we to assume from this study that the battle of
Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975,
and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ
will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how
closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s
existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-
year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel
with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be
by mere chance or accident but will be according to
Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our
chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate
(but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points
to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of
man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean
that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of
Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because
after his creation Adam lived some time during the
“sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would
need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to
determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period
or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the
“seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative
“day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar
year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a
difference of weeks or months, not years.”
128
Again, when citing the August 15 Watchtower he fails to
quote the exact passage that states that the end would
come by 1975. He could not quote it because it was not
there! Yet he places the article under his heading
Watchtower Publications which suggested the End would
come in 1975. As any fair reader can see, the Watchtower
made no such claim, either in May or in August of 1968.
10.4 May 1974
The revised Channel cites the May 1974 Kingdom
Ministry article “How Are You Using Your Life?”
“Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and
property and planning to finish out the rest of their
days in this old system in the pioneer service.
Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time
remaining before the wicked world’s end.––1 John
2:17.”
Price implies that it was not appropriate for the
Watchtower Society to commend those who made this
decision. Christians of Bible times always thought of the
end as imminent, possibly even during their lifetimes. So
the apostle Peter says: “the end of all things is at hand.”
(1Pe 4:7) Paul writes: “the night is far spent, the day is at
hand” and “the God of peace shall bruise Satan under
your feet shortly.” (Ro 13:12; 16:20) John quotes Jesus
who speaks of “the things which must shortly be done”
and “I am coming quickly.”––Re 22:6, 20.
Today we are almost 2,000 years closer to the end. Surely
no Christian today can be criticized for proclaiming that
the end is near. This awareness stimulates some, but not
all, to make decisions to live simply.
“The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have
nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his
head.”––Mt 8:20.
Was Jesus’ personal decision appropriate? Absolutely!
Would it have been wrong to commend him for it? No.
Jehovah’s Witnesses admire Jesus for his focus on
preaching and disciple-making. Some have been able to
imitate him and surely they are to be commended too.
The decisions that Jehovah’s Witnesses made were
always commendable personal decisions similar to those
made by some of the first-century Christians.
“As many as were possessors of lands or houses sold
them, and brought the prices of the things that were
sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and
distribution was made unto every man according as he
had need.”––Ac 4:34, 35.
Yes, early Christians sold property in support of true
worship. It was voluntary, and it was well reported on.
Individual Witnesses have done something similar. After
the sales of their properties, the funds remained their
 DEFENCE

own, to be used as they saw fit. There is no organizational
tithe or claim on their funds.
However, the comments in the May 1974 issue of
Kingdom Ministry were not unique. The Watchtower has
reported on Witnesses selling their homes to free
themselves for a larger share in preaching activities for
years before and after 1975.
The Watchtower reported favourably on specific
individuals with this self-sacrificing spirit in 1958, 1966,
1967, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1991.62 These are just
a few of many such references. More recently, the
October 15, 2014 issue reported a similar instance. (Page
19) It is always commendable to follow the self-
sacrificing example of the Lord.
10.5 Perspective
It is true that some of Jehovah’s Witnesses expected more
of 1975 than they should have. The Watchtower Society
later conceded that its comments played a role in building
expectations for 1975.
“With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting–in
Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to
how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of
Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s
existence, considerable expectation was aroused
regarding the year 1975. There were statements made
then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a
possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such
cautionary information, there were other statements
published that implied that such realization of hopes
by that year was more of a probability than a mere
possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter
statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary
ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation
already initiated.
In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower,
commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights
on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been
disappointed through not following this line of
thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his
viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that
failed or deceived him and brought disappointment,
but that his own understanding was based on wrong
premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower
included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with
the publication of the information [italics in the
original publication] that contributed to the buildup of
hopes centered on that date.”––Watchtower, March
15, 1980, pages 17, 18.
In particular, the statements that linked the expiry
of 6,000 years since Adam’s creation with the
expiry of 6,000 years of God’s rest day were
unfortunate because they led to the anticipation that
the Millennium might begin in 1975. Still,
Jehovah’s Witnesses were not claiming inspiration
when making any of these comments. As Franz
said: “The book merely presents the chronology.
You can accept it or reject it.”
10.6 Other Wrong Expectations
Long before these modern-day statements by Jehovah’s
Witnesses, some of the most influential Protestant leaders
also had wrong expectations. Martin Luther believed that
the end would come in his day. He said that the Turkish
war would be “the final wrath of God, in which the world
will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog
and Magog and set free His own” and that “Christ has
given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment
Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can
certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door.”–
–“Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish
Threat in Eine Heerpredigt–wider den Tuerken [Army
Sermon Against the Turks],” John T. Baldwin, Andrews
University Seminary Studies 33.2, Autumn 1995, pages
196, 201.
Methodist founder John Wesley made some precise and
definite predictions for 1836. His prediction was, “1836
The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the
fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the
repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of
the ‘little time,’ and of the three times and a half; the
destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan.”––
Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, viewed at
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxviii.xxiii.html
in 2016.
In 1950, Billy Graham said: “I sincerely believe that the
Lord draweth nigh. We may have another year, maybe
two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and
Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years
and it’s all going to be over.”––Quoted in “The Growth
of Fundamentalist Apocalyptic in the United States,” in
The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, page 534.
These were false predictions, not false prophecies. None
claimed inspiration. Adventists accept Luther, Wesley

62
See issues of October 1, 1958, page 600; July 15, 1966, page 444; February 1, 1967, page 82; October 1, 1981, page 15; June
15, 1982, page 7; October 15, 1986, page 17; February 1, 1990, page 30; May 1, 1991, page 27.

129
 DEFENCE
and Graham as fellow Christians despite their failed
expectations based on study and interpretation.
Of course, Adventists also accept Ellen G. White despite
her failed predictions. In the 1850’s she said:
“Some are looking too far off for the coming of the
Lord. Time has continued a few years longer than they
expected; therefore they think it may continue a few
years more, and in this way their minds are being led
from present truth, out after the world. ... I saw that the
time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly
finished and that time can last but a very little longer.
… In a view given June 27, 1850, my accompanying
angel said, ‘Time is almost finished.’ ... Said the angel,
‘Get ready, get ready, get ready. ...’ I saw that there
was a great work to do for them and but little time in
which to do it. ... Then I saw the seven last plagues
were soon to be poured out upon those who have no
shelter. … But now time is almost finished, and what
we have been years learning, they [“they who of late
have embraced the truth”] will have to learn in a few
months. They will also have much to unlearn and
much to learn again.”––Early Writings, pages 58, 64,
67. (Emphasis ours.)
“I was shown the company present at the Conference.
Said the angel, ‘Some food for worms, some subjects
of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and
remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of
Jesus.’”––Testimonies for the Church, Volume 1,
pages 131, 132.
Obviously, not one of that company lived to be translated
at Christ’s coming.63 Adventists satisfy themselves that
these were examples of genuine but conditional
prophecy. If so, none of Ellen G. White’s prophecies ever
63
See other examples at point 1.5.15.
64
For example, see “Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It Works,” Roger W. Coon, in Journal of Adventist Education.
Volume 44, Numbers 1, 2, 3, October, 1981 to March, 1982.
130
had to come true. No matter the explanation, these were
prophecies that were not fulfilled, yet Price criticizes
Jehovah’s Witnesses for unfulfilled predictions despite
the Witnesses never claiming inspiration. The double
standard is hardly fair.
Seventh-day Adventists are more precariously positioned
than Martin Luther, John Wesley, Billy Graham and
Jehovah’s Witnesses because, to this day, they claim that
Ellen G. White was inspired. These others’ predictions
were not inspired. Hers are supposed to have been.
Adventists have given considerable attention to Ellen G.
White’s unfulfilled prophecies, attempting to explain
them.64 Whatever the explanations, the fact remains that
she made predictions that did not come true. Price uses
unfulfilled expectation as a weapon against Jehovah’s
Witnesses. In fairness he should have taken into account
these other unfulfilled predictions.
It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses pointed forward to
1975 as the 6,000th anniversary of Adam’s creation.
Even today, the Witnesses maintain the relative accuracy
of this date, even though they concede that Bible
chronology is an inexact science. Their error was not so
much in linking 1975 with the expiry of 6,000 years from
Adam’s creation but linking it with the end of the first
6,000 years of the seventh creative day, which implied to
some that the 1,000-year reign of Christ was due. The
Watchtower Society later conceded this error in writing.
However, at no time did the official literature of
Jehovah’s Witnesses predict the end of the world in that
year.
 DEFENCE
11
Our Friends
In 1974 Price published Our Friends: the Jehovah's
Witnesses, a summary of his evidence against the
Witnesses. He issued its twelfth edition in 2005. Many of
the points made in this shorter document repeat those in
the larger booklet, but there are some new arguments
advanced. We will comment on some of them.
Surprisingly, he suggests that Seventh-day Adventists
resort to dishonesty in speaking with Jehovah’s
Witnesses. He says: “Tell them you have some literature
that is stumbling you and you need them to give you some
answers to the questions you have found.” (OF, page 3)
But this is a ruse. The literature they have is their own
literature, including the publications by Price. Adventists
would not be stumbled by them. That would be a lie.
11.1 Submit or Surrender?
Price criticizes Jehovah’s Witnesses for submitting to
their Governing Body. (OF, page 4) If he were as expert
in Seventh-day Adventist documents as in Jehovah’s
Witnesses’, he would be aware that Ellen G. White
recommended something similar to her Church.
“When the judgment of the General Conference,
which is the highest authority that God has upon the
earth, is exercised, private independence and private
judgment must not be maintained, but be
surrendered.”––Testimonies for the Church, Volume
3, page 492.
His criticism is unfair, then. His Church requires the
same.
Price also disagrees with disfellowshipping those who
persistently criticize the organization, misinterpreting
Matthew 18:17 about treating wrongdoers as “a man of
the nations and as a tax collector.” He says the Jews
“talked and interacted” with Gentiles. Yes, they
interacted at a formal or business level.
Still, at Acts 10:28, Paul says “it is an unlawful thing for
a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one
of another nation.” This was the prevailing view when
Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 18:17 and this is how
those who heard him would have understood his
instruction on how to treat disfellowshipped persons.––
Cp. Joh 18:28.
65 See points 2.12, 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3, 2.12.4, 2.12.5, 2.12.6.
131
11.2 Westcott and Hort
Price also criticizes the New World Translation for using
the Westcott and Hort master text. (OF, page 5) But in
1981 Bruce Metzger said:
“The international committee that produced the
United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not
only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic
text, but followed their methodology in giving
attention to both external and internal consideration.”
––Cited in Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, page
264.
The Westcott and Hort text has been an excellent Greek
text. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not blindly
follow it. The original 1950 edition of the New World
Translation also took into consideration second- and
third-century papyri.
The 2013 revision of the New World Translation also
used the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts
that had become available since 1950. The translation
committee was never solely reliant on Frederick Franz
for its translation expertise. The committee still functions
today, long after Franz’ death in 1992.
Next is more criticism over changes in doctrine and
expectations. (OF, pages 5-9) We refer the reader to the
discussion of these issues in our Chapter 1 above.
11.3 Chronology
Page 10 of Our Friends challenges the Witnesses’
understanding of chronology and we have discussed this
above.65 He claims that the 70 years of Jeremiah 25:11,
12; 29:10 ran from 605 to 536 BCE. However, there are
problems at both ends.
For 605 BCE to be the correct start date under the
Adventist chronology, the 70 years would have had to
start in the third year of Jehoiakim, which was also the
first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar
would have had to have taken exiles in that year.
But we know that no exiles were taken in 605 BCE
because Jeremiah 52:28-30 is clear that “all” the people
taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar were taken in his
seventh year, eighteenth year and twenty-third year.
There was no exile in his first year. Additionally, the 70-
 DEFENCE
years prophecy was not even issued until the fourth year
of Jehoiakim. (Jer 25:1, 11) The 70 years were still in the
future when Adventists suppose it had already begun.
At the other end of the 70-year period, Adventists need
the “first year” of Cyrus to extend to 536 BCE even to
get close to a 70-year exile. (Ezr 1:1) Given that Cyrus
conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, this is most unlikely.
Even if it could be extended to 536 BCE, Adventists can
only get an approximate 70 years from 605 BCE to 536
BCE by their ‘inclusive reckoning.’
The Witnesses’ calculation, by contrast, yields an exact
70 years, from the seventh month of 2 Kings 25:25, 26 to
the seventh month of Ezra 3:1.
11.3.1 Devastations, Plural
Price argues that the use of “devastations,” plural, at
Daniel 9:2 proves that there were multiple devastations
extending back 20 years before the final destruction of
Jerusalem. However, the Bible does not use the word
‘devastation’ to describe any event during those 20 years.
The Hebrew word chorbah simply means “ruins.”
Naturally, there were multiple ruins caused by the final
destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. So Jeremiah 27:17
speaks of the chorbah of Jerusalem and Ezra 9:9 the
chorbah of the temple. The King James Version renders
this as the “waste” of the city and the “desolations” of the
temple despite the fact that these were destroyed only the
once. (Jer 27:17; Ezr 9:9) So chorbah simply functions
like the English word ‘ruins.’ One destruction causes
many ruins.
11.3.2 Misquote?
Price claims that the book Babylon the Great Has Fallen,
page 134, misquotes Harper’s Bible Dictionary. (OF,
page 10) The first thing to note is that the Witness
publication does not quote the dictionary. There are no
direct quotation marks. It does, however, cite it. The
citation appears at the end of a paragraph and Harper’s
dictionary does support some of the points made in that
paragraph.
The main point of the paragraph in the Babylon book and
its preceding paragraph is to establish that the “three
years” of Jehoiakim’s kingship under Nebuchadnezzar
mentioned at 2 Kings 24:1 were the ninth, tenth and
eleventh years of his total reign. (Babylon, page 133)
Babylon says that it must have been in Jehoiakim’s eighth
year that Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal,
that his ninth year would have been Jehoiakim’s first year
of kingship as a vassal and that in the third year after that
––Jehoiakim’s eleventh year––Jehoiakim rebelled and
Nebuchadnezzar returned and punished him.
132
Harper’s Bible Dictionary supports this main point. It
says that “within seven years” of the beginning of
Jehoiakim’s reign the Chaldeans superseded the
Egyptians as the controlling power. This supports the
argument in Babylon the Great Has Fallen that the three
years of Jehoiakim’s vassalage under Nebuchadnezzar
were not the first three years of Jehoiakim’s total reign
because the Babylonians were not even in control at that
time.
Then Harper’s dictionary says, and Price even underlines
it, that Jeremiah’s prophecy at Jeremiah 36:1-26 “was
fulfilled with the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings
24:1; Dan. 1:1), whom Jehoiakim served three years, but
against whom he at length rebelled.” (Harper’s Bible
Dictionary, page 306) The Jeremiah chapter 36 prophecy
that Harper cites is dated to the fourth and fifth years of
Jehoiakim. It makes no reference to a visit by
Nebuchadnezzar in Jehoiakim’s first year but foretells
one for the future.––Jer 36:1, 9, 29.
By linking the “three years” and “the third year” of 2
Kings 24:1 and Daniel 1:1 to Jeremiah 36:1-26, Harper’s
Bible Dictionary supports the main point being made in
Babylon the Great Has Fallen.
This does not mean that Harper’s supports 618 BCE as
the date of Jehoiakim’s eleventh year, the third year of
his vassalage to Babylon. Even before it cited the
dictionary, the Babylon book had made clear that its
chronology differed from that of secular historians.––
Page 122; cp. page 138.
Perhaps it could have been made clearer on page 134 that
the dictionary was not supporting the 618 BCE date, but
any reader following the book’s argumentation from
page 122 would have realized as much.
Still, there are a number of important points in the
paragraphs on pages 133, 134 of the Babylon book that
are supported by Harper’s dictionary, so it was valid to
cite it.
11.4 Coming and Parousia
In our Chapter 2 we discussed many of the points Price
raises on Christ’s coming and parousia. (OF, page 12)
We need only respond to a couple of his points here. He
makes out that between 1958 and 1989 the Watchtower
Society ‘altered its emphasis’ and began using the clause
“turning His attention” to the earth to describe the events
of 1914. Then what about the following comments in
1955?
“He returns or “visits” the earth as did Jehovah in
times past, by turning his attention to things of
earth.”––Watchtower, February 15, 1955, pages 102,
103.
 DEFENCE
This expression was not a change of emphasis after all.
He also cites Revelation 22:12 as if it proves that “all”
rewards are given at Christ’s coming, but the word “all”
is not mentioned in the text. It simply says: “My reward
is with me.” The Scriptures show there are different kinds
of rewards, some rewards even being given now. (Ps
127:3; 1Co 9:18) The reward given at Christ’s coming is
not necessarily the only reward.
As far as Price’s contention that the ‘eyes’ of Revelation
1:7 could not be the eyes of understanding because they
are the eyes of the wicked, Revelation 3:17, 18 describes
disobedient, spiritually blind Laodicean Christians as
needing to take steps so that their “eyes” would again be
able to “see,” figuratively. (OF, page 13) Yes, the
disobedient and the wicked have eyes too. Otherwise,
Ephesians 1:18 would not be able to say: “He has
enlightened the eyes of your heart.” All humans,
including the wicked, have figurative eyes. They may not
see with them now, but they will eventually.
Price chides Jehovah’s Witnesses for teaching that those
anointed Christians who die after the beginning of
Christ’s parousia in 1914 are immediately raised when
they die. (OF, page 13) We have already discussed the
basis for this position.66
However, Seventh-day Adventists believe Enoch and
Elijah were translated to heaven thousands of years
before 1914, while the Bible flatly contradicts the claim
that anyone went to heaven before Christ.––Joh 3:13; He
11:13, 39, 40.
11.5 Salvation
Straw-man arguments are not beyond Price. He quotes
Acts 4:12 about salvation only being in Jesus and about
no other name being given under heaven by which we
must get saved, and then says “the Society does not
teach” this. (OF, page 14) But Jehovah’s Witnesses have
always taught this. Take this comment in 1968.
“It is vital for us to appreciate that these blessings will
come to mankind only through Jesus Christ. For this
reason, God inspired the apostle Peter to say of Jesus:
‘There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not
another name under heaven that has been given among
men by which we must get saved.’ (Acts 4:12)”––
Watchtower, November 15, 1968, page 675.
(Emphasis ours.)
Clearly, he is mistaken again. He quotes 1 John 5:11-13
to prove that ‘salvation by faith is ours now,’ implying
that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe salvation to be a
present reality. (OF, page 14) This nothing but another
66 See point 6.2.
133
straw-man argument. Note what they really believe.
Awake! magazine says:
“To the question ‘Are you saved?’ he can give the
truthful reply, ‘Yes, thus far I am saved.’ ‘But,’
someone may ask, ‘why do you say “thus far”? Were
not the early Christians sure that they already were
saved?’ In a sense, yes, for they met the conditions for
being forgiven and saved from their sins. We read: ‘By
this undeserved kindness, indeed, you have been
saved,’ and ‘according to his mercy he saved us
through the bath that brought us to life.’ [Eph. 2:8;
Titus 3:5] Yet, they knew that they had not been
completely saved for all time. Having accepted Jesus,
God’s means of salvation, they had to continue in the
way of salvation. That is why they were told: ‘Keep
working out your own salvation with fear and
trembling,’ and, ‘Now our salvation is nearer than at
the time when we became believers.’ (Phil. 2:12; Rom.
13:11) They had yet to make their salvation sure for
all eternity by enduring in the way of salvation.—
Matt. 10:22; Rev. 2:10.”—Awake!, November 8,
1973, page 28. (Emphasis theirs.)
Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are saved by faith
now, but they also take into account the Bible’s full range
of statements regarding salvation. In the Bible, salvation
is past, present and future. Sometimes it is past: “You
have been saved.” (Eph 2:5, Greek) Sometimes it is
present: “You are being saved.” (1Co 15:2, Greek) And
sometime it is future: “We shall be saved.”—Ro 5:9, 10.
So what did Ellen G. White teach that was so different?
She says:
“Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere in
their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel
that they are saved. This is misleading. Everyone
should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even
when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He
accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation.
God’s Word declares, ‘Many shall be purified, and
made white, and tried’ (Dan. 12:10). Only he who
endures the trial will receive the crown of life (James
1:12).”—Christ’s Object Lessons, page 155.
(Emphasis ours.)
So Price’s implication that Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the
present reality of salvation is not only unfair because it
contradicts the Witnesses’ written statement on the
subject but because it fails to note that Ellen G. White
takes a similar position.
Actually, White was more extreme in her statement that
Christians “should never be taught to say or feel that they
 DEFENCE
are saved.” Once again, for all his supposed expertise in
the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he fails to note
teachings of his own prophet and denomination that blunt
his attacks.
For the comments about resurrection bodies on page 14
of Our Friends, please see our comments above. 67 Note
especially Price’s misunderstanding that “flesh and
blood” refers to corruption, impurity and imperfection
carried in bodies and blood streams. “Flesh and blood”
never refers to sin and imperfection in the Scriptures. It
always refers simply to humanity, as already discussed.68
Also misleading are the comments that “God will reside
in the holy city on the earth.” (OF, page 15) The language
of Revelation 21:3 about God ‘residing’ with his people
and ‘himself’ being with them were figures of speech that
were common to the pre-Christian period when God
obviously did not live on earth literally. So Jehovah says:
“I shall dwell among the children of Israel.” (1Ki 6:13)
And Asaph speaks of “this mount Zion, wherein thou hast
dwelt.”––Ps 74:2.
Despite this, and showing that such remarks are
figurative, Solomon says: “Will God indeed dwell on the
earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot
contain thee; how much less this house that I have
builded? … hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place.” (1Ki
8:27, 30) So when king Abijah says: “God himself is with
us for our captain,” he does not mean that God was
personally and literally living on earth.—2Ch13:12.
Price accuses Jehovah’s Witnesses of confusing literal
and symbolic references in Revelation. (OF, page 14) But
Adventists are masters at this. They interpret God’s
‘dwelling’ at Revelation 21:3 as literal but the “new
earth” of Revelation 21:1 as only figuratively new. They
understand it to be the same earth renewed, not a brand-
new earth. “New Jerusalem” they say is a literal city but
the “tabernacle” will not literally be a tabernacle of
animal skins. (Re 21:2, 3)
They also inconsistently explain the “fountain of the
water of life” as literal but the “lake which burneth with
fire and brimstone” as symbolic.—Re 21:6, 8.
11.6 Trinity
Price further accuses Jehovah’s Witnesses of erecting a
“straw man” portrayal of the Trinity as one person with
three heads. (OF, page 16) However, any illustrations of
the Trinity in Watchtower publications are those that
Trinitarians themselves have drawn.
67 See point 5.6.
68 See point 2.2 and chapter 5.
134
The Witnesses understand the doctrine at least as well as
Trinitarians can explain it, and they present it accurately
in their literature. So even before the first edition of Our
Friends was published, the Awake! magazine said:
“What did the Trinitarians believe? Their doctrine is
defined today as ‘the threefold personality of the one
Divine Being,’ in which ‘God the Father, God the Son
and God the Holy Ghost’ are said to be of the same
substance, coequal, and alike uncreated and
omnipotent.”—January 8, 1973, page 16.
This definition accurately describes the Protestant
Trinity. At one time Ellen G. White supported this
conventional Trinity.
“Jesus said, ‘I and my Father are one.’ The words of
Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the
claim that he and the Father were of one substance,
possessing the same attributes.”––Signs of the Times,
November 27, 1893, page 54. (Emphasis ours.)
She uses the word “substance,” the same word used by
Catholic and Protestant theologians. It comes from the
Greek ousia and means “Being.” The Protestant Trinity
is that there are three persons in one Being, and White
agreed.
However, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has
departed from this traditional understanding of the
Trinity accepted by Protestants. So Adventists often
speak of ‘three Beings’ now, rather than one. (Ministry,
Glynn Parfitt, June 2011)
White herself was equivocal about this. Although she had
previously spoken of the Father and the Son as being “of
one substance,” she later used the expression “three
Beings” in a sermon delivered on October 20, 1906.
“You are born unto God, and you stand under the
sanction and the power of the three holiest Beings in
heaven, who are able to keep you from falling.”—
Sermons and Talks, Volume 1, page 367. (Emphasis
ours.)
Some claim that this statement was not really original
with White and that it was the mistaken wording of her
stenographer. However, the White Estate has verified the
accuracy of the wording, publishing the actual typed
manuscript of the sermon in White’s 1906 letter book.
We know that the manuscript was in her personal
possession in 1906 because she published parts of the
sermon in the December 13, 1906 issue of Review and
Herald.—“Ellen White’s Trinitarian Statements: What
 DEFENCE
Did She Actually Write?”, Tim Poirier, in Ellen White
and Current Issues Symposium 2006, pages 39, 42.
Discussing other writings of Ellen G. White, the White
Estate confirms this, speaking of “her belief that [there
are] three beings in the Godhead.” (Ibid., page 30) This
is certainly not the Protestant Trinity with its three
persons [hypostases] in one Being [homoousios].69 So
while Price criticizes Jehovah’s Witnesses for portraying
the Trinity incorrectly, Ellen G. White changed her
version of it and Adventists are not teaching the historic
Trinity but a heavily modified version of it.
Price presents a list of attributes that he argues proves the
holy spirit has a personality. We have already explained
why the impersonal spirit is personified in this way and
have shown that Ellen G. White spoke of the spirit as
“it.”70 So the points in his list are unsurprising,
particularly when it is kept in mind that the spirit
proceeds from God and therefore expresses God’s
emotion, intellect and will.—Joh 15:26.
The spirit does not speak independently as an expression
of individual, personal intellect. (Joh 16:13) Yet Bob
cites 2 Corinthians 2:11 as proof that the holy spirit does
have intellect. “For what man knoweth the things of a
man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”
If this proves the spirit a person, it also proves that “the
spirit of man which is in him” is a person. But the seventh
Fundamental Belief of the Adventist Church makes clear
that the body, mind and spirit of a man are “indivisible.”
The spirit of man is not a unique person, so 2 Corinthians
2:11 cannot prove that the holy spirit is a person either.
No, this text shows that the spirit is an agency or function
of God indivisible from him as far as personality is
concerned. As such, each and every one of the functions
of the holy spirit listed by Price reflect God’s personality.
Hebrews 9:14 is also quoted as if its reference to “the
eternal Spirit” proves the spirit’s personality. (OF, page
16) Then what would the terms “everlasting
consolation,” “eternal glory,” “everlasting covenant,”
“everlasting kingdom” or “everlasting gospel” prove?
Certainly not that any of these are persons in their own
right.—2Th 2:16; 2Ti 2:10; He 13:20; 2Pe 1:11; Re 14:6.
Price argues that blasphemy against the holy spirit proves
the spirit to be a person. (Mt 12:31; OF, page 16)) Since
the holy spirit comes from God, speaking against his
spirit is really speaking against Jehovah. (Cp. Ac 5:39)
But Price fails to note that it is possible to blaspheme
69 Homoousios is not a Biblical term, just as ‘Trinity’ is neither a Biblical word nor concept.
70 See point 7.9.
71 See points 7.22.1, 7.22.2, 7.22.3.
135
inanimate things that represent God. So the beast in
Revelation blasphemed God’s tabernacle. (Re 13:6) The
way of the truth can also be blasphemed. (2Pe 2:2, Greek)
These things can be blasphemed, not because they are
persons, but because ultimately God himself is the one
blasphemed.
We have already discussed the King James Version’s use
of the one word “Godhead” to translate three separate,
but related, Greek words. 71 (OF, page 17) The word
comes from a Middle-English word “godhed, from god +
–hed –hood.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary, under
“Godhead”) Its real meaning, then, is “Godhood.” Since
Jesus is a god, “divine,” “Godship” or even “Godhood”
are acceptable translations. However, not one of these
words contain the thought of a “tri-in-unity” in the Greek.
Price underscores the capitalized “God” at Isaiah 9:6 as
if the capital G makes Jesus different from “angels,
humans and other powerful ones as god.” (OF, page 17)
He forgets that neither Hebrew nor Greek had such
capitals. And even if they did, Jehovah says that Moses
would “serve as God,” capital G, to Aaron. (Ex 4:16,
King James Version) Was Moses Almighty God? Clearly
not. The capital does not signify this.
Jesus is not Almighty. Matthew 28:18 states that all
authority has been “given” to the Son of God. There are
two things to note about Jesus’ authority. First, that he
did not have such authority before it was given. Second,
that he will eventually return Kingdom authority to the
Father. (1Co 15:24, 28) Therefore, Jesus’ authority is
derived and much of it is temporary, not inherent as it
should be if he were part of a triune God.
At times the reasoning of Price’s summary is particularly
weak. It explains Isaiah 44:6 to mean there are two
Jehovahs. (OF, page 17) “Thus saith the LORD the King
of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the
first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.”
Trinitarians like to stress the words “and his” as Price
does, as if Jehovah was Jehovah’s redeemer.
However, such an explanation would conflict with a
similar “and his” just one chapter later at Isaiah 45:11.
“Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his
[Israel’s] Maker.” Clearly, in this case Jehovah was not
Jehovah’s Maker. “And his” simply links two
descriptions of the same person, Jehovah, namely “Holy
One” and “Maker.” In the same way, at Isaiah 44:6 “and
his” also links two descriptions of the same person,
namely, “King” and “redeemer.” But there are not two
Jehovahs in either text.
 DEFENCE
Price also claims there two Jehovahs at Genesis 19:24.
“Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” (OF,
page 17) But in Hebrew as in English a person can speak
about himself, using his own name, without meaning
another person. So we read: “David … said, what can
David say more unto thee?” (2Sa 7:18, 20; 22:1, 51) This
second “David” is just David himself, the same one. In a
similar way, a person’s name can be used a second time
in a sentence simply to refer to the same person.
In similar fashion, “Solomon assembled the elders of
Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the
fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in
Jerusalem.” (1Ki 8:1; cp. Da 3:28) Were there two
Solomons? No, just one. Really, there is no need to read
two Jehovahs into Genesis 19:24 any more than multiple
persons into these other texts.
The difficulty for Trinitarians is the Scriptural limitation,
“The LORD [Jehovah] our God is one LORD [Jehovah].”
(De 6:4) There cannot be three Jehovahs. Anyone
arguing for three Jehovahs misunderstands the Trinity
because even that doctrine defines God as three persons
in one Jehovah, not two or three.
Price’s claim that “divine beings are inclusive—not
independent of one another” cannot be proven. It is a
philosophical assertion. Note that he does not cite a Bible
text to prove it. (OF, page 17) In fact, 2 Peter 1:4 says
that Christians will be partakers of “divine nature,” and
there is no proof that their divinity will merge them into
an inclusive relationship like the Trinity. For lack of
evidence, we must assume that they will retain their
independence. It is what makes them individuals.
11.7 Names of God
Contrary to Price’s comments, Jehovah is still God’s
unique name. (OF, page 18) When Moses asks what he
should say to the Israelites about God’s “name,” God’s
reply begins “I Am that I Am.” at Exodus 3:14. But God
does not call that title his “name.” Answering Moses’
question more specifically, Exodus 3:15, 16 goes on:
“This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah …
has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, … gather
the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘Jehovah … has
appeared to me.”—New World Translation.
God only ever calls “Jehovah” his “name.” Neither
Almighty (Shaddai), “I Am that I Am” (Ehyeh Asher
Ehyeh), Lord (Adonai), Father, or any other title is ever
called his “name” in the Scriptures.
The 1969 Witness publication Kingdom Interlinear
Translation that Price quotes does not agree that there are
72 Viewed at http://ellenwhite.org/content/file/sacred-name-god#document on March 29, 2017.
136
ten names for God. That notion comes from Jerome of
the fourth century CE. The Kingdom Interlinear
Translation quotes and cites Jerome’s 25th letter to
Marcella in which Jerome listed ten names for God, the
ninth of which was the Tetragrammaton, which, because
of the of the shape of the Hebrew letters in the Greek text,
many mistook for the letters “Pi Pi.”
Price denies it, but the Bible is specific that Jesus did use
and teach others to use God’s name. (OF, page 18; Mt
6:9; Joh 12:28; 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Since the only “name”
of God is YHWH in the Scriptures, Jesus must have used
whatever pronunciation of that name that was common in
his day. The Jewish Talmud accuses Jesus of performing
miracles while pronouncing God’s name. Such a
concession by his enemies is significant.
Price expresses surprise that Jehovah’s Witnesses would
retain the pronunciation Jehovah while inclining toward
Yahweh as possibly more correct. It is hard to understand
this objection when Ellen G. White, supposedly under
inspiration, happily used the name Jehovah. William
Fagal, director of the Ellen G. White Estate, stated that
she used “Jehovah” over 2,000 times in her writings. 72
She never uses “Yahweh.” So Ellen G. White also uses a
name that Price says comes “from the dark ages and
tradition.” “Amazing …!”—OF, page 18.
The lack of an exact pronunciation is not the real
stumbling block for Adventists. Remember Bob? “Even
if we could be sure about the exact name, I don’t think
I’d be using it a great deal.” (GCT, page 93) No. He
wouldn’t use it anyway!
The point is that Jesus and the apostles used the
pronunciation of names common in their time. So in
Hebrew Jesus’ name was pronounced Yehoshua and in
Aramaic Yeshua, but the Bible writers used the Greek
form common in their day, Iesous (pronounced,
approximately, Ee.ay’.sous). Today we say ‘Jesus’ and
no one complains about the pronunciation, not even those
who worship him as God. If Trinitarians really object to
using inexact names, they should never call him ‘Jesus’
again! The fact that Adventists do use the name Jesus
must mean that it is also valid to use Jehovah, the most
common pronunciation for God’s name today.
Price argues that neither the Jews, the temple nor
Jerusalem were literally called Jehovah. True, no one
says that they were. But they were all intimately
connected with that name. The Bible writers used it
nearly 7,000 times and it appears in the secular records
of the period. This is a far cry from “I don’t think I’d be
using it a great deal.”
 DEFENCE
We have already discussed the meaning of the name
Jesus.73 Price criticizes the use of “other” at Philippians
2:9. We have also discussed the propriety of using
“other” in certain texts. If the word were not to be used
in this text it would be saying that Jesus was given the
name higher than the names of the Father and the holy
spirit. No exceptions; “every” would mean every.
Someone might say, ‘No. He was given the name equal
with theirs.’ What name, then? Jehovah? Did he not
already share that name with the Father and the holy spirit
from eternity, if the Trinity were true? Then to translate
“God also hath … given him a name which is above every
name” would be to give him a name higher than Jehovah,
the name of the other two members of the Trinity.
Surely, then, it is more reasonable to consider the
possibility that this is an example of ellipsis—
brachylogy—best translated using “other.”74
Price claims that the context “demands” that kyrios at 1
Corinthians 12:3 be translated “Jehovah.” (OF, page 19)
Is this true? The New World Translation uses “Jehovah”
in the Christian Scriptures in limited circumstances,
namely, (1) where kyrios appears in a quotation from a
Hebrew-Scripture text that contains the name, (2) where
kyrios appears in the immediate vicinity of such a
quotation, (3) where kyrios appears in an expression that
usually contains the divine name in Hebrew or, (4) where
the context makes clear that the kyrios is God. How do
these guidelines apply to 1 Corinthians 12:3?
“Jehovah” appears 15 times in First Corinthians in the
New World Translation. They can be arranged under the
aforementioned categories as follows: (1) 1 Corinthians
1:31; 2:16; 3:20; 4:4; 10:9; 10:21 (twice), 22, 26; 14:21;
(2) 1 Corinthians 16:7; (3) 1 Corinthians 11:32; 16:10
and (4) 1 Corinthians 4:19; 7:17. So is there anything in
the context of 1 Corinthians 12:3 that “demands” that
kyrios should be translated “Jehovah” as Price insists?
There are no quotations or allusions to passages in the
Hebrew Scriptures containing the name Jehovah, so
categories (1), (2) and (3) are eliminated. As far as
category (4) is concerned, there is another kyrios in the
context, but only someone distinct from God. (1Co 12:4-
6) Far from the context demanding that kyrios at 1
Corinthians 12:3 be translated Jehovah, it demands that
Jesus be a Lord distinct from God.
73 See also points 7.3, 7.18.4.
74 See point 7.16.
75 See point 7.2.
76 See point 7:17.
77 See point 7.16.
78 See points 7.13, 11.6.
137
Actually, it is Paul’s custom in First Corinthians to
separate and clearly distinguish Jesus from God when it
comes to Lordship.—1Co 1:3, 9; 6:14; 8:6.
11.8 Mighty God
As to whether a “Mighty God” must be Jehovah, see
above.75 (OF, page 19) The fact that Jesus was not the
Creator but was the one “through” whom all things were
created has also been discussed.76 Price highlights “all
things” at John 1:3 but fails to realize that “all things,”
with or without the use of the English word “other” in
translation, can mean all things with an exception, the
exception being the main person involved in the action,
as it does at Hebrews 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:27.
11.9 “A Wicked Addition”?
Price calls the use of “other” at Colossians 1:16, 17 “a
wicked addition.” (OF, page 19) We have discussed this
above.77 Using “other” is standard translation practice.
At Luke 13:2 it is used in the Jerusalem Bible, Living
Bible, Today’s English Version, New International
Version, English Standard Version and The New
Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips) the same
way.
The New English Bible uses “other” at Luke 21:29. The
New International Version, Revised Standard Version,
The New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips),
New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and the English
Standard Version all use “other” at 1 Corinthians 6:18.
The New International Version and New American Bible
use “other” at Matthew 26:35. The New Testament in
Modern English (J.B. Phillips), the Jerusalem Bible the
New International Version, Today’s English Version, the
New English Bible and the New American Bible all use
“other” at Luke 3:19.
Are any of these “wicked”? No. Price does not complain
unless it affects the Trinity. This is hardly fair.
11.10 Two Jehovahs?
Contradicting Deuteronomy 6:4 about “one Jehovah,”
Price argues that there are two. (OF, page 19) We have
discussed his texts above.78 He uses Genesis 18:1-33 to
show that Jesus appeared to Abraham as Jehovah, trying
to evade the problem that no one can see God by quoting
 DEFENCE
John 5:37; 6:46 to mean that, although it was impossible
to see the Father, it was possible to see Jesus as Jehovah.
He misses that fact that it is not just the Father that no
man can see but Jehovah that no man can see.
“And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto Moses, … Thou
canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me,
and live.”—Ex 33:17-20.
No man can see “Jehovah,” so if Jesus were really
Jehovah, Abraham could never have seen him. How,
then, can Jehovah’s appearance in Genesis chapter 18 be
explained? Other Bible passages explain.
First, the Jehovah mentioned at Genesis chapter 18 is
described as a man, one of “three men” that appeared.
(Ge 18:2) But the Scriptures are absolutely clear that
Jehovah is “not a man.” (Nu 23:19; Job 32:13; Ho 11:9)
Second, angels are sometimes called men when they
visited the earth, and they are also called by the name
Jehovah at times. For example, the angel who spoke to
Sarah at Genesis 16:7-13 is called “Jehovah.” And the
angel who appeared to Moses in the account at Exodus
3:2, 4, 7 is called “Jehovah.” At Judges 6:12, 14-16 an
angel is three times called “Jehovah.” Of course, angels
can only bear that name representatively. (Cp. Jg 13:21,
22) So there are not multiple Jehovahs, but just one
whose angels use his name to represent him.
11.11 “I Am”
Price seems to quote John 8:56-58 as if it means that
Abraham saw Jesus literally. (OF, page 19) If so, he is
mistaken. Abraham saw the “promises,” including the
Messianic “seed,” not literally, but by faith. So Hebrews
11:8, 13 says that by faith he ‘saw them afar off.’—He
11:17.
Jesus is not the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14. First, the Greek
for “I am” in John 8:58 is ego eimi. At Exodus 3:14 there
are two titles, the longer form “I AM THAT I AM” and the
shorter one “I AM.” In the Greek Septuagint of this text
the longer expression is ego eimi ho on and the shorter ho
on.
If Jesus were quoting Exodus he would be quoting the
shorter form, since he said “I am,” not “I am that I am.”
But in Exodus the shorter form is not ego eimi. It is ho
on. As F.F. Bruce correctly observed:
“If a direct reference had been intended to Ex. 3:14 in
the present passage, one might have expected ho on
rather than ego eimi.”––The Gospel of John, page 193)
So Jesus is clearly not quoting the Exodus 3:14 “I Am”!
Of Exodus 3:14, D. Hutchison says:
“A lot of people look at that [John 8:58] and they think
immediately back to the Old Testament in Exodus
138
3:14. But you know in Exodus, when the Greeks
translated that last phrase ‘I am that I am,’ the last ‘I
am’ which is really the title of God, they didn’t use
ego eimi. They used a different form of that word but
not that form. And I don’t think that that phrase goes
back to that verse in Exodus.”––Bible Faculty Series,
Gospel and The Person of Jesus Christ, The Master’s
College Chapel CD, October 29, 2004.
Price challenges the New World Translation’s rendering
on grammatical grounds. But the King James Version
itself uses the English perfect tense, similar to “I have
been,” to translate the Greek present in other texts. (Joh
14:9; 15:27) So consider the following comments by
grammarians. G.B. Winer writes:
“Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense
(Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which
commenced at an earlier period but still continues,––a
state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 ap´ arkhes met´
emou este, viii. 58 prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi.”
––A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament,
page 267.
Ego eimi is therefore not just a title. It “expresses a state
... in its duration” because it expresses the fact of Jesus’
existence ‘commencing at an earlier period but still
continuing.’ The “duration” of Christ's existence from
before Abraham’s day until Jesus’ day is clearly in view.
How, then, should ego eimi be translated?
The third volume of A Grammar of New Testament Greek
shows that, although the form is a Greek present tense,
the sense is the same as a perfect tense.
“The Present which indicates the continuance of an
action during the past and up to the moment of
speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only
difference being that the action is conceived as still in
progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]:
Lk 248 137 (idoi tria ete aph’ hou erkhetai) 1529
(tosauta ete douleuo soi, and I still do), Jn 56 858 (eimi)
…”––A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume
III, page 62. (Emphasis for “virtually the same as
Perfective” ours.)
Note that John 8:58 is given as one example of this usage.
If eimi “is virtually the same as Perfective,” the English
perfect tense should logically be used, and the translation
should be: “I have been.” Confirming this, under
“Extension from Past,” K.L. McKay explains that the
John 8:58 construction expresses duration of existence.
“When used with an expression of either past time or
extent of time with past implications … the present
tense signals an activity begun in the past and
continuing to present time.”––A New Syntax of the
 DEFENCE
Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual
Approach, page 42.
McKay uses Luke 13:7; 15:29; John 14:9; Acts 27:33;
and John 8:58 as examples. For John 8:58 he suggests the
translation: “I have been in existence since before
Abraham was born.” (Emphasis ours.) Another
Trinitarian scholar, William Loader concludes that ego
eimi did not constitute a divine claim.
“In [John] 6:20, 8:25, 28 and 58 Jesus uses the
absolute, ‘ego eimi’ (lit. ‘I am’). In 8:25, 28 the
context favours the meaning, ‘I am what I claim to be’,
understood in terms of the revealer pattern (so: esp
8:28). In 6:20 Jesus is identifying himself: ‘It is I (not
a ghost or the like)’ and in 8:58 the text need mean no
more than I am and was in existence before Abraham,
still a majestic claim but not an allusion to the divine
name.”––The Christology of the Fourth Gospel,
Structures and Issues, page 52.
Third, what can we say about the Jews’ reaction? They
wanted to stone him. (John 8:59) But was this really
because he had used a divine title? Jesus had used ego
eimi before at John 8:24, 28 and the Jews had not tried to
kill him then. There must be another reason.
The friction between Jesus and the Jews was gradually
increasing in John chapter 8. Jesus ratchets up the
pressure: “ye … shall die in your sins” (John 8:21), “ye
are of your father the devil” (John 8:44) and “ye are not
of God.” (John 8:47) So they say: “Thou art a Samaritan,
and hast a devil.” (John 8:48) Then at John 8:55 Jesus
calls them liars: “If I should say, I know him not, I shall
be a liar like unto you.” When, finally, he says he existed
“before Abraham was” it was more than the Jews could
bear. Why would this statement be so offensive?
“Jesus’ argument is that he has seniority over
Abraham, and so by the standards of Jewish society,
he has greater authority than the patriarch.”––Truth in
Translation, J. Beduhn, page 11.
This claim, with its implication that he was the Messiah,
was so offensive that it pushed the Jews to the brink.
A person who is convinced that Christ is the “I Am” of
Exodus 3:14 will see great significance in its use at John
8:58. But would he see the same significance in the words
of a formerly blind beggar in the next chapter of John's
gospel who, when asked whether he was the same person
his neighbours had seen sitting and begging, replied: “I
am he [ego eimi]”? (Joh 9:9) These are the same words
just used by Jesus. If ego eimi at John 8:58 proves Jesus
is God, what does the beggar’s comment prove? He was
79 See point 7.2.
139
certainly not claiming to be God. Ego eimi is not a divine
title.
11.12 Jesus Called God
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny that Jesus is called God.
What they deny is that this makes Jesus equal to his
Father, the Almighty God. Price concedes that others in
the Bible are called gods, even faithful men and angels.
(Ex 4:16; 7:1; Jg 13:21, 22; Ps 8:5; 82:1, 6; Joh 10:34,
35) This must mean that to be called God does not
necessarily make one Almighty God. The Hebrews and
Greeks did not capitalize words to highlight or emphasize
them, so we cannot go by the capital G.
We have already considered Isaiah 9:6.79 At John 1:1,
“God” as it relates to Jesus the Word is in the predicate
position. A noun in this position would normally attract
the English “a” in translation––“a god.” Trinitarians will
dispute this but the King James Version inserts “a”
regularly with nouns in that position. So we read “a
prophet” at John 4:19, “a devil” at John 6:70, “a
murderer” and “a liar” at John 8:44, “a prophet” at John
9:17, “a thief” at John 10:1, “an hireling” at John 10:13,
“a man” at John 10:33 and “a thief” at John 12:6. All
translations do this.
But of course “a god” at John 1:1 is a special problem for
Trinitarians because it affects their doctrine. To say that
Jesus was “a god” would be different to calling him the
Almighty God. Grammarians H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey
show that it is correct to use “a” in places like this.
“The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from
the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenephon’s
Anabasis 1:4:6, emporion d’ en to khorion, and the
place was a market, we have a parallel case to what
we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the
word was deity. The article points out the subject in
these examples. Neither was the place the only
market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean
if the article were also used with theos. As it stands,
the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in
theos.”––Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, pages 148, 149.
The final sentence makes clear that Dana and Mantey
support the Trinity. Even so, they render the quotation
from Xenophon: “the place was a market” and call this
“a parallel case to … John 1:1.” (Emphasis ours.) So they
could have used “a” in translating John 1:1, “the word
was a god.” Even though they know this and use “a” in
other places, Trinitarians just cannot take that extra step
 DEFENCE

at John 1:1 because it would mean surrendering a
favourite proof text.
John 20:28 is similar in that Jesus is called God just as
others were called God. (Ex 4:16; 7:1; Jg 13:21, 22; Ps
8:5; 82:1, 6; Joh 10:34, 35) Again, this does not make any
of them Almighty God. The main difference is that at
John 20:28 “God” is ho theos, a term usually reserved for
Jehovah. In this setting, however, ho does not modify the
sense of the noun, meaning it is not the same as calling
Jesus Almighty God. Why not?
C.F.D. Moule says that nouns must take the article ho in
this setting as a matter of grammar.
“In John xx. 28 Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou, it is
to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case
used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive
could not be anarthrous (see Hoskyns and Davey,
Commentary, in loc.); the article before theos may,
therefore, not be significant.”––An Idiom Book of New
Testament Greek, page 116.
Yes, “the article [ho] before theos may ... not be
significant.” This makes ho theos the virtual equivalent
of theos alone, in full agreement with other Scriptural
usage, where Jesus is called theos, but not ho theos. Other
grammarians agree.––A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T.
Robertson, page 461.
Romans 9:5 can be translated more than one way. The
King James Version says “… concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” This way,
Christ is called God. But it can also be translated: “…
according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all
be blessed for ever.” (Revised Standard Version) Note
the stop after Christ. From “God” onward there is a praise
or doxology addressed to God. So The New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:
“Rom. 9:5 is disputed . . . It would be easy, and
linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression
to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is
God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ
would not be equated absolutely with God, but only
described as a being of divine nature, for the word
theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does
not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more
probable explanation is that the statement is a
doxology directed to God.”––Volume 2, page 80.
Note that even if the King James Version were correct at
Romans 9:5, Christ would possess divine nature but
would not be “equated absolutely with God” because
theos lacks the article.
Titus 2:13,80 Hebrews 1:8;81 Colossians 2:9;82 Isaiah 9:683
have all been discussed above. The fact that Jesus is
“Eternal Father” is taken by Price as a proof of Jesus’
deity. (OF, page 20; Isa 9:6) However, there is nothing to
say that “eternal” points back to the eternal past. It points
forward to the future because in no sense was Jesus a
“Father” until after he sacrificed his life. As Isaiah 53:10
says: “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days.” In these
prophetic words, Jesus’ becoming a father and extending
his life are directly related to providing a sacrifice for sin.
In any case, “eternal” does not suggest Jesus is Almighty
God. Even Christians will gain “life eternal.”––Joh 17:3.
Price also points to Christ’s titles “Lord of lords” and
“King of kings” as proof that he is God. (OF, page 20;
1Ti 6:15; Re 17:14) He assumes that 1 Timothy 6:15
applies to God when it really applies to Christ. 84
That point aside, sometimes a term that applies to one
person in an absolute way applies to another in a
restricted way. So while Jesus is “King of kings,” other
kings are described the same way at Ezra 7:12; Ezekiel
26:7 and Daniel 2:37. It is a mistake to confine the title
to Jesus.
Similarly, Isaiah 43:11 says that God is the only Saviour
but at Judges 3:9 a human judge is called a “savior.” And
at John 8:12 Jesus is called “the light of the world,” but
Matthew 5:14 calls his disciples “the light of the world.”
So it is possible for descriptions like ‘Lord of lords’ and
‘King of kings’ to apply to one person in an absolute
sense and to others in a more limited sense.
Price interprets Matthew 18:20 through Trinitarian eyes,
arguing that “there I am in their midst” suggests Jesus’
omnipresence. (OF, page 20) But he reads too much into
the text, unaware of his Trinitarian bias. How would he
understand Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 5:3, 4 that he
was present “in spirit” despite being absent in body?
Does that make Paul omnipresent? Price would never
argue that way because he has no bias that Paul is
omnipresent. Clearly, both expressions are figurative.
Price does not show an awareness of Ellen G. White’s
teaching about omnipresence. She wrote:

80 See point 7.7.

81 See point 7.8.
82 See point 7.22.3.
83 See point 7.2.
84 Jesus is most likely the Potentate mentioned here. See point 2.5.

140
 DEFENCE
“Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in
every place personally; therefore it was altogether for
their advantage that He should leave them, go to His
Father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on
earth.”—Letter 119–1895, February 18, 1895,
paragraph 18. (Emphasis ours.)
Overall, her teaching is that Christ is not omnipresent but
that the holy spirit is omnipresent.
Our Friends next claims that Christ is omniscient,
quoting John 21:17: “Lord, you know all things.” (OF,
page 20) This application is flawed. Otherwise, what
would we make of Mark 13:32: “But of that day and that
hour knoweth no man [literally, ‘no one’], not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father”?
This proves that there were things that Jesus did not
know.
He was not omniscient. Mark 13:32 also proves that the
holy spirit is not omniscient, because ‘no one’ knew the
day and hour, not even the holy spirit. So the expression
“all things” at John 21:17 clearly allowed exceptions. 85
As far as Jesus’ supposed omnipotence is concerned,
Colossians 1:16, 17 does not say Jesus created all things.
It says “by [Greek, en] him [auto, instrumental case] were
all things created.” What does en mean when used with
the instrumental case like this? Dana and Mantey
comment on the meaning of en.
“With the instrumental case: with, by means of.”––A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H.E.
Dana and J.R. Mantey, page 105.
“By means of.” Is that very different from saying that all
things were made “by” Jesus as Creator? Yes, as an
‘instrument’ is different from the one that wields it. “By
means of” is a good translation that expresses Jesus’ role
as God’s agent in creation. Search as we may, the verb
‘create’ is never used of Jesus. The grammar continues:
“En is used in Heb. 1:1, 2 with about the same force
that dia with the genitive has, ho theos lalesas tois
patrasin en tois prophetais ep’ eskhatou ton hemeron
touton elalesen humin en huio, God spoke through
prophets then, but now through a son (cf. Mt. 12:27,
28).”––Ibid., page 106.
So en with the instrumental case is essentially the same
as dia with the genitive.
Hebrews 1:1 uses en with the instrumental when it says
that “God spoke through [Greek, en] the prophets.” Note
that Dana and Mantey use “through” rather than “by” to
translate en because the prophets were not the creators
85 “All” can allow for exceptions.––Lu 2:1; Ro 1:1; 1Co 15:27.
86 See point 8.5.
141
of––the originators of––their words. They were merely
instruments in the hands of God. The language in relation
to Christ is no different. He was not the Creator of––the
originator of––all things, but God’s agent.
Hebrews 1:3 says nothing about Christ being omnipotent.
It speaks only of “his power.” But the power was not his
inherently. By his own admission, “all power is given
unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Mt 28:18) But this
wording cannot mean that Christ has all power and the
Father has none, because Paul, speaking about “the
Father,” refers to “the exceeding greatness of his power.”
(Eph 1:17, 19)
The Father is the Source of Jesus’ power. “Thou [the
Father] hast given him power over all flesh ...” (Joh 17:2)
“All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” (Mt
11:27) God chooses to have Jesus––his appointed agent,
according to Hebrews 1:2––sustain the universe by
power delegated to him. This does not make Jesus
omnipotent. The Source of his power is omnipotent.
Price says that the prophets spoke in the third person:
“Thus saith the Lord,” whereas Jesus says “I say unto
you.” (Mt 5:18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34) Jesus certainly
“taught them as one that had authority” and he had
greater authority than the prophets and it was proper for
him to emphasize it. (Mark 1:22) But Jesus knew full
well that the authority he exercised was derived. “All
power [exousia, “authority”] is given unto me in heaven
and in earth.”––Mt 28:18.
So Jesus stresses that his words were from the Father.
“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” (Joh 7:16)
“The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment,
what I should say, and what I should speak.” (Joh 12:49)
“The words which thou [the Father] gavest me.”––Joh
17:8.
Paul confirms it. “God, who at sundry times and in divers
manners spake in time past unto the fathers by [en] the
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by [en]
his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things.” (He
1:1, 2) This last text shows that, despite Jesus’ “I say”
statements, the things he spoke did not originate in the
Son. They came from the Father through Jesus.
We have already discussed the meaning of the verb
related to worship, proskyneo.86 Price believes John
14:14 is an invitation to pray to Jesus. He points to the
Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation: “ask me.”
Based on certain ancient manuscripts, especially those in
the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, some translations
like the New American Standard Version, read: “If you
 DEFENCE

ask Me anything in My name, I will do (it.)” Which is
correct, “ask” or “ask me”?
The Sahidic Coptic text of the second and third Christian
centuries is also in the Alexandrian family but does not
have the “me.” It reads: “If you should ask anything in
my name, this I will do.”
Many modern translations do not use “me” because the
manuscript evidence is equivocal. (New King James
Version, Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible,
New English Bible, Darby, Webster’s, World English
Bible, Young’s Literal Bible) The expression seems
tautological. To “ask me...in my name” is repetitive and
unnecessary.
Jesus spoke these words while he was still on earth, so he
may have been encouraging his disciples to ask him for
things while he was with them on earth. In that case, he
would not have been talking about prayer. He had just
mentioned prayer in the previous verse. (Joh 14:13) So
he could have been referring to other requests. More
important, though, is the Bible’s wider context.
Nowhere else does Jesus request that prayer be addressed
to himself. He himself directed prayer to the Father and
specifically advises us to do the same.––Mt 6:9.
Bob points to Acts 7:59 and Revelation 22:20 as
examples of prayer directed to Jesus. But Acts 7:59 is not
prayer. The context says that Stephen “saw” Jesus and
God. (Ac 7:55) It was a vision and Stephen addressed a
person that he could “see” there in the vision. He was not
praying to someone he could not see as we do in ordinary
prayer. Does this make a difference?
Yes. His words are similar to those of the apostle John
when he spoke to one of the 24 elders that he “saw” in
vision. (Re 4:4) He even called the elder “lord.” “Sir
[kyrie, meaning “lord”], thou knowest.” (Re 7:14) Was
that a prayer? No. And when John says at Revelation
10:9: “And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, …,”
was John praying to that angel? No.
From these examples we can see that talking to someone
seen in vision is not prayer. At Revelation 22:19, 20 Jesus
speaks and John responds: “Come, Lord Jesus.” Was this
prayer? Again, no. Jesus had been a character in John’s
vision from the beginning. He “saw him.” (Re 1:17-19)
It was natural for John to respond to Jesus in a setting like
this, but it was not regular prayer.
Under the heading “Jehovah,” Price compares Hebrew-
Scripture and Greek-Scripture texts that he believes
prove that Jesus is God. We have already considered the
Isaiah 40:10/Revelation 22:12 comparison. 87 His
application mistakenly assumes that Revelation 22:12
applies to Christ. But Jesus is not introduced until a few
verses later at Revelation 22:16, where he begins as a new
speaker: “I Jesus …”
There are precedents for this kind of language to indicate
a change of speaker. For example, at Revelation 1:9 there
is a change from Alpha and Omega to a new speaker
introduced by the words “I John.” No one would argue
that John is Alpha and Omega.
Similar introductions at Revelation 22:8, 17 introduce
new speakers by name or designation before, not in the
middle of, their comments. Just as there is a change of
speakers from an angel at Revelation 22:9-11 to Alpha
and Omega in Revelation 22:12-15, it would not be
unusual for an abrupt change from Alpha and Omega to
Jesus in verse 16.
We have considered the Isaiah 44:6/Revelation 22:1388
and Psalm 102:24/Hebrews 1:1089 comparisons above.
Isaiah 43:11 says “I, even I, am the LORD: and beside me
there is no saviour.” Of course, Jesus Christ is also
mankind’s saviour. (Lu 2:11; Ac 5:31; 13:23) Some have
drawn the conclusion from this that Jesus must be God.
They think that “no savior” excludes all others. Yet texts
like Judges 3:9, 15; 2 Kings 13:5; Nehemiah 9:27 and
Obadiah 21 show that there are others called ‘saviours.’
Why does Isaiah 43:11 use apparently exclusive
language, then?
Because Jehovah is the only Source of salvation and,
although the term also properly applies to them, other
“saviours” are saviours only as agents of God. The
difference is between source and agency.
The Deuteronomy 32:4/1 Corinthians 10:4 comparison
has also been considered above.90
Next, Price compares Isaiah 45:21, 23 with Philippians
2:10 and claims that they show that “every knee” bends
to Jesus because he is Jehovah. But he forgets to cite
Philippians 2:11: “to the glory of God the Father.” In
Isaiah, Jehovah says: “That unto me every knee shall
bow, every tongue shall swear.” Philippians says: “That
at the name of [but literally in the Greek, not “at,” but “in
the name of”] Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”––Php2:10,11.

87 See point 7.18.5.

88 See point 7.18.5.
89 See point 7.18.9.
90 See point 7.18.6.

142
 DEFENCE
The first passage is saying that knees will bow and
tongues will swear to Jehovah. The second is saying that
“in the name of” Jesus knees will bow and tongues will
confess him to the glory of someone else, to God the
Father. Paul very often uses this expression ‘in the name
of Jesus’ to show that Christians approach God through
him and that there is a distinction between Jesus and
God.––1Co 6:11; Eph 5:20; Col 3:17.
Price invites a comparison of Psalm 68:18, which is
addressed to Jehovah, with Ephesians 4:8, which is
applied to Christ. The psalm had its first fulfilment in
King David’s day. Psalm 68:7-17 show that historical
events leading up to David’s day are in view, including
the events at Sinai, in the wilderness, during the conquest
of Canaan and right up to what is called God’s ascent into
his holy place. This latter event is mentioned again at
verses 24, 25 where it is accompanied with great
rejoicing and musical accompaniment. The references
are to the events of 2 Samuel 5:7 and 1 Chronicles 13:8;
15:3, 16 when David captured Jerusalem and brought the
ark of the covenant there. At that time, men who had been
taken captive during the conquest of the land were made
available for various forms of work.––Cp. Ezr 8:20.
Of course, God himself did not literally ascend Mount
Zion and pitch his tent of worship there. David as the
representative of Jehovah did that. Jehovah is spoken of
as doing those things in Psalm 68:18 because his
representative was there. David was not God, of course.
The representation involved in the Psalm logically
applies also to its application to Christ at Ephesians 4:8.
Just like David, Jesus was not Jehovah but represented
Jehovah in the ascent to the heavenly holy place. In these
ways, the Psalm 68:18 events which applied first to
David secondarily applied to Christ. But neither David
nor Christ was God.
11.13 Attempted Answers
Revelation 3:14 has already been considered.91 As to
whether the New World Translation mistranslated the
Greek tou theou as “by God ” instead of “of God,” the
genitive case here could either mean the creation
possessed by God or it could mean the creation produced
by God. Why?
The idea that it was God’s creation, produced by him,
would result if tou theou is a subjective genitive. One
grammar says: “We have the subjective genitive when
the noun in the genitive produces the action, being
91 See point 7.15.
92 See point 7.16.
93 See point 7.15.1.
94 John 20:28 is not an exception to this rule See point 7.4.
143
therefore related as subject to the verbal idea of the noun
modified. … The preaching of Jesus Christ. Rom.
16:25.” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey, page 78) In
Revelation 3:14 God certainly produces the creation, so
the New World Translation properly views it as
subjective genitive and it translates accordingly, “by
God.”
However, whether “of God” or “by God” is correct does
not materially affect the question because in either case
Jesus is still the “beginning,” not the “beginner” of
creation as shown in point 7.15 above. Colossians 1:15
has already been considered.92 Price refers to the
translation of qanah at Proverbs 8:23. He means Proverbs
8:22. We have discussed this above.93
Price’s reasoning on John 1:1 is faulty when he says that
Jesus can be “with” God and yet “be” God in the same
way that “a person can be with a human being and at the
same time be a human being.” The problem is that he uses
“a human being” twice in parallel. His example seems to
work for him because he has constructed it to work.
However, his example is a fallacy because it is not
analogous to John 1:1. The verse does not say ‘with a
God … was a god’ but “with the God … was [no article]
god.” The neat parallel in Price’s example is not there in
the Greek. The verse does not place “the God” in parallel
with another ‘the God.’
Price’s argument really implies that ‘Jesus could be with
ho theos and at the same time be ho theos.’ But the
insurmountable problem with this is that Jesus is never
called ho theos in the Scriptures.94 Price’s illustration
does not fit the original language. He cannot prove
something the Bible never teaches by this kind of
reasoning.
Instead, the use or non-use of the article is crucial to
understanding John 1:1. W. Barclay, a well-known
Trinitarian Bible translator, argues that “the Word was
God” is not the correct rendering at John 1:1c.
“When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of
it, it becomes rather a description than an
identification, and has the character of an adjective
rather than that of a noun. We can see exactly the same
in English. If I say: ‘James is the man’, then I identify
James with some definite man whom I have in mind;
but, if I say: ‘James is man’, then I am simply
describing James as human, and the word man has
become a description and not an identification. If John
 DEFENCE

had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article
in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have
identified the logos with God, but because he has no
definite article in front of theos it becomes a
description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The
translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily,
‘The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to
the same order of being as God’ … John is not here
identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply,
he does not say that Jesus was God.”––Many
Witnesses, One Lord, pages 23, 24.
Price’s teaching that Jesus is of the same “essence”
(Greek, ousia) as the Father is borrowed straight from the
Roman Catholic Trinity debates. (OF, page 20) In
Trinitarianism, “essence” is just another word for
“substance” or “Being.” It comes from the Greek term
ousia that was used to describe the Trinity union in the
fourth century. It is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures
this way, but is part of a doctrinal construct from the
fourth century CE, deep into the apostasy period of the
church.
Following the traditional concept, Price uses “essence,”
ousia, singular, to describe all three persons of the
Trinity––three persons in one essence, or Being. The
problem is that his Church now teaches a different
Trinity. Adventists use the word “Being” in the plural,
‘three Beings’ rather than one.––Ministry, Glynn Parfitt,
June 2011.
Ellen G. White is on record as stating that the Father and
Christ were of “one substance.”95 However, she herself
used the expression “three Beings” in a sermon delivered
on October 20, 1906.
“You are born unto God, and you stand under the
sanction and the power of the three holiest Beings in
heaven, who are able to keep you from falling.”—
Sermons and Talks, Volume 1, page 367. (Emphasis
ours.)
In this case, White taught that there are three Beings, not
one. Some challenge this reference but we have
considered their challenge above.96 She certainly taught
at least two Beings, Father and Son.
“Christ the Word, the only-begotten of God, was one
with the eternal Father,––one in nature, in character,
and in purpose,––the only being in all the universe that
could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.
By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all
heavenly beings.”––The Great Controversy, page 493.
(Emphasis ours.)
“The only Being who was one with God lived the law
in humanity, descended to the lowly life of a common
labourer, and toiled at the carpenter’s bench with His
earthly parent.”––Signs of the Times, October 14,
1897. (Emphasis ours.)
The use of “only” in these two latter quotations is
certainly strange if Ellen G. White believed the Trinity.
Was the holy spirit not also a Being? She seems confused
about the whole subject, whether there is one substance,
two Beings or three Beings. Although Adventists like to
think of themselves as Protestants, the multiple-Being
teaching that they have inherited from White is a
fundamental departure from the Protestant Trinity.
On page 20, Price explains John 14:28, “My Father is
greater than I” in terms of “rank” rather than essence. So
he feels free arbitrarily to assign the word “essence” to
John 1:1 but not to John 14:28. In fact, it appears in
neither. The Father is simply “greater.” Of course, it
includes being greater in rank but there is nothing in the
verse to restrict it to rank. Price is simply accommodating
the Bible to his Trinitarian theology, making the text fit
his doctrine.
Look at the word “greater [Greek, meizon]” in other
verses in John. We read about greater works, a greater
witness, greater sin and greater speed. (Joh 1:50; 5:20,
36; 10:29; 14:12; 15:13; 19:11; 20:4) And, yes,
sometimes rank is involved. (Joh 4:12; 8:53; 13:16;
15:20) But meizon is not restricted to rank.
Price tries to use a husband-and-wife illustration, saying:
“the Bible says the husband is greater (in rank) than the
wife.” (Emphasis his.) The Bible does not say that the
husband is “greater.” Price continues to misunderstand
“essence,” claiming that, although unequal in rank, the
couple are equal “in essence” because they are both
human. He seems to be saying humans share one essence
because they are human.
If White is right that there are multiple Beings and if the
Trinity is true, Price’s illustration fails him. A husband
and wife do not share ‘the same essence’ or ‘being’ as he
claims. Just because they are both human does mean they
are of the same essence. A husband and wife are different
beings—different essences—in every way. They are
unequal in age, knowledge, power and authority. All
Trinitarian illustrations fail like this.
Our Friends offers John 5:23 as evidence that Jesus is
“equally Divine:” “That all men should honour the Son,
even as they honour the Father.” “Even as” is the Greek

95 See point 7.13.

96 See point 11.6.

144
 DEFENCE
kathos. At John 5:23 kathos points to similarity but not to
equality in degree.
Demonstrating this, what does kathos mean at John 3:14?
“As [kathos] Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.”
Jesus was not fastened on a pole exactly as that serpent,
but they were similar.
Kathos is used again at John 15:10: “If ye keep my
commandments ... even as [kathos] I have kept my
Father’s commandments.” Due to imperfection, there is
no equality in the degree of the obedience of Christians
but they can obey in a manner similar to Jesus. These
examples from the Gospel of John alone show that kathos
does not necessarily mean equality in degree.
The thought instead is a similarity in kind rather than
equality and this is also seen in other Christian Scripture
writings. “Then I shall know even as [kathos] I am
known.” (1Co 13:12) But Paul’s knowledge will never be
equal to God’s knowledge of him in degree.
These are just a few of the many examples that could be
cited to demonstrate the same point. (Lu 6:36; Joh 13:15;
13:34; 15:12; 17:11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23; Ro 15:7; Eph
4:32; 5:2; 1Jo 2:6; 3:3, 7; 4:17) It is a misuse of kathos to
claim that it indicates equality in degree. John 5:23
establishes that Jesus is due honour just as his Father is
due honour, but not to the same degree.
We have considered Matthew 28:1897 and John 5:22
above.98
Price argues from John 1:3 that Jesus “created all things.”
The verse actually says that “all things were made [dia]
him.” Does this mean that Jesus was the Creator? Note
these comments from a well-known grammar.
“Although dia is used occasionally to express agency,
it does not approximate the full strength of hypo. This
distinction throws light on Jesus’ relation to the
creation, implying that Jesus was not the absolute,
independent creator, but rather the intermediate agent
in creation. See Jn. 1:3, panta di’ autou egeneto.”––A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H.E.
Dana and J.R. Mantey, page 102.
Later this grammar states under the sub-heading “The
Passive with Intermediate Agent:”
“When the agent is the medium through which the
original cause has effected the action expressed by the
passive verb, the regular construction is dia with the
genitive…. Jn. 1:3. Here God the Father is thought of
97 See point 7.6.
98 See point 7.19.11.
145
as the original cause of creation, and the logos as the
intermediate agent.”––Ibid., page 162.
Contrary to Price’s contention, Jesus is the agent through
whom creation was effected. The Creator is the Father.
So Trinitarian A.E Knoch explains:
“Our common version, however, misleads us on this
matter. In the first chapter of John's accounts we read
that ‘All things were made by him’ (John 1:3), and
again, ‘the world was made by him’ (John 1:10). In
both cases it should be through. The Logos, or Word,
of God was the means of making all, not the efficient
first Cause of all. Christ is never set forth as the
absolute Source.”––Christ and Deity, page 45.
It is surprising when he tries to account for Mark 13:32
that Price says perhaps Jesus “chose not to know” the day
and the hour of his coming. He seems to have forgotten
that on the very same page he quoted John 21:17 to prove
that, while on earth, Jesus knew all things. It is not
possible to “know all things” on the one hand and to
choose not to know one of those very important things on
the other.
He tries to explain the fact that God does ‘not die’ in the
only way he can, by seeking refuge in the Trinitarian
‘dual nature’ theory––that Jesus was a God-man––so that
his human nature died but his divine nature did not. (Hab
1:12) The only Bible text that could possibly support
such a theory is John 3:13 in the King James Version but
its final clause “which is in heaven” is an uninspired
addition to the text.
So Bruce Metzger of the Editorial Committee of the
United Bible Society writes:
“The majority of the Committee, impressed by the
quality of the external attestation supporting the
shorter reading, regarded the words [ho on en to
ourano, “which is in heaven”] as an interpretative
gloss, reflecting later Christological development.”––
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
page 204.
This is the only text directly supporting Price’s theory
and it was a “later Christological development.” too.
If Jesus’ human nature died and his divine nature did not,
the divine nature that remained would have remained
alive. The divine Jesus would not have died. This must
be the reason Price quotes John 2:19-21: “I will raise it
up.” He means that Jesus was still alive to resurrect
himself. Was this life after death, at least for Jesus?
 DEFENCE

No. The Scriptures repeatedly witness that the Father
raised Jesus from the dead. (Ac 2:32, 33; 1Co 15:15; Ga
1:1) This explains why John uses the passive voice at
John 2:22: “When, therefore, he was risen [Greek,
egerthe] from the dead ...” Jesus did not cause the rising.
He “was risen.” So Greek scholar A.T. Robertson says:
“Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three
days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will
raise himself from the dead independently of the
Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”––Word
Pictures in the New Testament, Volume V, page 183.
What about Price’s reference to John 10:18 that Jesus
retained the power to take his life back again? The way
he explains it, Adventists would have to believe that
Christ never really died. They would be teaching life after
death, at least for Jesus. Only his humanity would have
died and rested on the Sabbath but his divinity would not
have died. The real Jesus would not have died, then.
There is a better explanation for John 10:17, 18 that is in
harmony with the fact that the Father raised Jesus. The
text says: “I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No
man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
This commandment have I received of my Father.” These
verbs are all forms of lambano, which can be translated
‘receive’ as well as “take.” So the New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:
“Lambano is theologically significant in its meaning
of receive. It corresponds with God's giving
(didomai): God gives––man receives. (i) Jesus himself
lives by receiving: he has received his commission, the
Spirit, power (Jn 10:18; Acts 2:33; Rev. 2:28 [2:27,
most Bibles]). He is the gift of God and lives by
receiving.”––Volume 3, page 748z.
So John 10:18 agrees that Jesus ‘received’ his life. He did
not ‘take’ it.
Given the evidence that Jesus did not raise himself, it
remains to ask why he says: “I will raise it up”? (Joh
2:20) Prophets sometimes speak of doing things
themselves that in fulfilment will be done by God. (Isa
6:10; Jer 1:10; Eze 43:3) Jesus must have been speaking
prophetically in this sense because just two verses later
John uses the passive voice: “He was risen.” (Joh 2:22)
H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey comment on the passive.
“The passive voice is that use of the verb which
denotes the subject as receiving the action.”––A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page
161. (Emphasis theirs.)
So in the actual fulfilment, he ‘received the action’ of
being raised. He did not raise himself.
Even if Price could not accept all this evidence from the
Scriptures, we might have thought he would at least
believe Ellen G. White, who says:
“He who died for the sins of the world was to remain
in the tomb for the allotted time. He was in that stony
prison house as a prisoner of divine justice, and he was
responsible to the Judge of the universe. He was
bearing the sins of the world, and his Father only
could release him.”––Youth’s Instructor, May 2,
1901, “The Lord Is Risen.” (Emphasis ours.)
“His Father only.” White was more accurately informed
about Jesus’ resurrection than Price.
Price believes that when Jesus uses the expression “the
only true God” he means to include himself. The context
is definitely against this idea. Jesus addresses the
“Father” and calls him “thee the only true God.” (Joh
17:1, 3) Nowhere else in the Bible does a speaker use
“only” of another person in such a way as to include
himself. In fact, terms like “one God” and “true God”
never refer to Jesus.
Wherever “one God” is mentioned and where Jesus
Christ is mentioned in the context, Jesus is not included
as part of the “one God.” So we find the expressions like
“one God, the Father” and “one God and Father.” (1Co
8:6; Eph 4:5, 6; 1Ti 2:5) The “one God” is always the
Father and Jesus is always mentioned separately.
“True God” at 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10 is the Father: “Ye
turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;
And to wait for his Son from heaven, ... even Jesus.” The
“true God” in the Christian Scriptures is the Father, not
the Son.
Price believes that Acts 4:12 explains John 17:3, but it
does not. Acts says: “Neither is there salvation in any
other [than Jesus].” God is obviously the ultimate
Saviour “beside [whom] there is no savior.” (Isa 43:11)
However, this does not mean that he cannot use others as
the agents of his salvation. In pre-Christian times God
used human saviors as agents like this. (Jg 3:9, 15; 2Ki
13:5; Neh 9:27; Ob 21) Jehovah was always the Source
and others were his agents. In a similar way, God as the
ultimate Saviour uses Jesus as his agent of salvation.
Jude says, “to the only God our Savior, through Jesus
Christ our Lord …” (Jude 25, New Revised Standard
Version) So Jude agrees that salvation comes from “the
only God,” but through Jesus Christ. They are both
Saviours, but Jude and John carefully separate “the only
God”––“the only true God”––from Jesus Christ.
11.14 The Cross?
Matthew 27:37 and John 19:19, 20 are clear that a sign
was posted ‘over Jesus head.’ Price presumes to know

146
 DEFENCE
what the Bible “would have said” if the sign were posted
over Jesus’ vertically raised arms. But what does the
Bible actually say? Simply that the sign was placed above
Jesus’ head. Whether the arms were horizontal or
vertical, the sign was still ‘above Jesus’ head.’
Ezekiel chapter 1 mentions living creatures in heaven
whose “wings were stretched upward.” (Eze 1:11) The
wings were outstretched vertically. Then the account
speaks of a “firmament upon the heads [“over the heads,”
New Revised Standard Version] of the living creature.”
(Eze 1:22) The firmament is spoken of as “over their
heads” even though their wings are raised vertically. In
the same way, the sign could easily be “over [Jesus’]
head” even though his arms were raised vertically.
11.14.1 The Cross?––Hands and Nails
Pointing to John 20:25, which refers to “the print of the
nails” in Jesus’ hands, Price makes the claim: “Only one
nail was used to impale the hands on a stake.” He
assumes that Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that one nail was
used to secure the hands. They do not. Perhaps his hands
were fixed to the stauros side-by-side with a nail through
each hand. Or maybe the hands were fastened wrist-over-
wrist with two nails, one through each hand. No one
today can say how many nails were used to fasten Jesus
to the stake.
However, the nature of the instrument is suggested at
John 3:14: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up.” How
was it “lifted up”? “And Moses made the serpent of brass,
and put it upon a pole.”––Nu 21:9.
It is true that the instrument of Jesus’ death was a cause
for “offense,” but why? (Ga 5:11) To the Jews it was a
“stumblingblock.” (1Co 1:23) It stumbled them because
it was written: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree.” (De 21:23; Ga 3:13) To the Jews Jesus was just a
cursed criminal. The timbers on which Israelite criminals
were hanged after their deaths in the Deuteronomy period
were ordinary timbers. The Hebrew Scriptures never
mention crosses or say that only criminals fastened to
crosses were considered cursed.
Price implies that Jesus’ words to Peter at John 21:18, 19
imply that Jesus was executed on a cross. Jesus says:
“thou shall stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird
thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This
spake he, signifying by what death he [Peter] should
glorify God.” Theis passage is irrelevant to our enquiry
because at John 21:18, 19 Jesus was not speaking about
his own death.
In any case, the Greek word for ‘stretching forth,’
ekteino, simply means ‘outstretching.’ The same Greek
word is used at Matthew 12:13 where Jesus asks a man
147
with a withered man to “stretch out thine hand.” So “he
stretched it forth; and it was restored.” Did Jesus expect
the man to put his hand out to his side in the ‘crucifixion
position’ to be healed? No. He presented it, stretched it
forward, to Jesus. And later, when Jesus “stretched forth
his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my
mother and my brethren,” did he put his hand out
sideways? No. It was “toward his disciples.”––Mt 12:49.
In Peter’s case, he may simply have had to stretch out his
hands in arrest. The ‘girding’ and the ‘carrying’ to the
place of execution would take place after that, as Jesus
says. Summarizing the evidence, Vincent’s Word Studies
says regarding John 21:18:
“‘Stretch forth thy hands.’ The allusion to the
extending of the hands on the cross, which some
interpreters have found here, is fanciful.”
There was a tradition recorded by Eusebius that Peter
“was crucified with his head downward.” (Ecclesiastical
History 3:1) There is no way to verify the tradition. We
cannot go by the word “crucified” because the word
comes from the Latin form of the Greek stauros and “the
Greek word [stauros] properly … means merely a
stake.”—Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature.
11.14.2 The Cross?––Second Century History
Price points to Irenaeus who described the shape of the
stauros as a cross. As a prominent churchman of the
second half of the second century, his opinion is valuable
but not infallible.
Even Adventists would disagree with some of his
comments. For example, he spoke of “the very great, the
very ancient, and universally known Church founded and
organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles,
Peter and Paul … For it is a matter of necessity that every
Church should agree with this Church, on account of its
preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere,
inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved
continuously by those who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus also claimed that “the blessed apostles [Peter
and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church,
committed into the hands of Linus the office of the
episcopate.” (Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book III,
chapter 3, verses 2, 3) And he was a supporter of Sunday
worship. His statements are not always consistent and
reliable.
Written either in the very late first century or early in the
second century, the Epistle of Barnabas 9:7, 8 also
describes a T-shaped cross. Can this account be trusted?
There are good reasons to be cautious. In this period the
apostasy was already underway. (2Th 2:7) No one today
can say who this particular ‘Barnabas’ was. Certainly his
 DEFENCE
Epistle contains much speculative interpretation. It was
not inspired and it dates from 60 to 80 years after Jesus’
execution. However, its author apparently believed that
Christ died on a cross.
Where did he get his information? Was it a historical fact
or had he been influenced by some false tradition, by the
apostasy or by the pagan reverence for the cross that was
common in his day? Writers of the post-apostolic period
surfed a tide of error in adopting myth, mystic ideas and
philosophy in explaining Christianity. The writer of the
Epistle likens the stauros to the Greek letter with the
cross beam along the top, the crux commissa, not the
Latin cross-shape that Adventists use today.
Adventists have their own reasons to challenge the
Epistle because it teaches that the Sabbath has been
annulled. (Epistle of Barnabas 2:5, 6) Not only that, but
it positively affirms that professed Christians observed
Sunday. “Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for
rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and
having been manifested ascended into the heavens.”––
Epistle of Barnabas 15:9.
Dating Sunday observance back to Jesus’ resurrection
and ascension as he does, this ‘Barnabas’ must have
believed that it was the apostolic tradition. He was
wrong, as Adventists know. If he was wrong about
keeping Sunday it is at least possible that he was wrong
about other historical facts like the shape of the cross.
11.14.3 The Cross?––1968 Discoveries
In 1968 there were discovered in a burial cave at Giv'at
ha-Mivtar the remains of a male executed during the
Roman period. A hurried analysis of the remains was
undertaken by Professor Nico Haas and his medical team.
Follow-up articles were published. One by a Vassilios
Tzaferis, the excavator of the site, suggested the position
of the man being executed.
The remains do not really offer the proof that Price
claims. First, the man may not have been executed upon
a cross but may just as well have died on a stake.
Inconsistencies were found both in Professor Haas’
original appraisal and the articles published later that
were based on it. So a re-evaluation was needed.
Second, even if this man died on a cross-shaped
implement it would not prove that Jesus did so. The re-
evaluation was carried out by Joseph Zias of the
Department of Antiquities and Museums, Israel, and
Eliezer Sekeles of the Hebrew University-Hadassah
Medical School, Jerusalem.
Their re-appraisal is found in the article “The Crucified
Man from Giv'at ha-Mitvar: A Reappraisal,” in Israel
Exploration Journal, Volume 25, pages 22-27. Dr. Zias
stated regarding his findings:
148
“... my research on the case from Jerusalem does not
in my opinion, shed any light as to how Jesus was
crucified. All the NT says is that he [Jesus] was
crucified, not how.”––Private e-mail correspondence.
Page 27 of the aforementioned article still shows the man
attached to a cross beam. Does this mean that Zias was
confirming that the man died on a cross? He stated in
response to an enquirer:
“Our reconstruction for the arms being tied in the
manner in the article was purely hypothetical. The
arms could have been tied to the cross in any number
of ways.”––See also “New Analysis of the Crucified
Man,” in Biblical Archaeology Review; Crucifixion in
Antiquity, Joseph Zias.
Zias and Sekeles stated the following about how the man
was attached.
“The literary sources for the Roman period contain
numerous descriptions of crucifixion but few exact
details as to how the condemned were affixed to the
cross. Unfortunately, the direct physical evidence here
is also limited to one right heel calcaneum (heel bone)
pierced by an 11.5 cm iron nail with traces of wood at
both ends.”
Price has apparently not taken this reassessment into
account.
11.14.4 The Cross?––Palatine Hill Graffito
The drawing Price refers to dates from shortly after 200
CE and is claimed to be an ass crucified in mockery of a
Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The “ass” is a
human figure with an animal’s head. Its arms are
extended. There is an inscription saying: “Alexamenos
adores his God.”
However, the two lines that form a cross appear in front
of the body, not behind it, and so it has been pointed out
that the lines that form the cross may not be part of the
original graffito. As can be seen by Price’s copy, the head
is more like a jackal than an ass and so the drawing could
very well be a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis.
And even if the cross on the graffito were original, which
is not certain, there is no firm proof that it was connected
with Christians in the early third century. Professor
Graydon F. Snyder said about the graffito:
“In 1856 a drawing was found in the servants’
quarters of the Imperial Palace in Rome that depicts
a certain Alexamenos gesturing with his right hand
toward a donkey crucified on it. A graffito below the
cross reads: [inscription quoted] ... Presumably this
inscription should be translated ‘Alexamenos,
worship god.’ Though no fixed date can be given for
this drawing, again one can easily assume such a
 DEFENCE
derogatory cartoon did indeed mock the Christian
kerygma. Its use by an opponent of the faith hardly
proves that the cross was an early Christian symbol
… The universal use of the sign of the cross makes
more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early
Christian remains, especially any specific reference
to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree
that the cross, as an artistic reference to the passion
event, cannot be found prior to the time of
Constantine … Others, such as Guarducci, believe
early Christians signalled their faith by writing the
Greek tau––T––larger than the other letters, or by
using common abbreviations like XP to express their
hidden allegiance to Christ. It would be as difficult
to disprove the meanings of a cryptosymbol as to
prove it. The burden of proof lies with those who find
private meanings. While there may very well be a
place in early Christian art for the protective cross of
the social matrix, there is no place for the kerymatic
cross ... There is no place in the third century for a
crucified Christ, or a symbol of divine death.”—
Ante Pacem–Archaeological Evidence of Church
Life Before Constantine, 1985, pages 26-29.
(Emphasis ours.)
Note that these comments also cover Price’s claims for
the Tau that appears in some inscriptions.
11.14.5 The Cross?––Justus Lipsius
Price says that the Kingdom Interlinear Translation
selectively ignores the majority of Justus Lipsius’
illustrations of crosses with cross beams in favour of
his crux simplex, the simple stake. (De Cruce Liber
Primus) Lipsius himself thought of Jesus’ instrument
of execution as a conventional cross. However, his crux
simplex illustration shows that there was also a form
shaped like a stake.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation selected the crux
simplex illustration because it best reflects the
fundamental meaning of stauros. When it mentions
Lipsius’ illustration, it is accurate in saying that the
“crux simplex … is illustrated by the Roman Catholic
scholar Justus Lipsius, of the 16th century.” They
reproduce his illustration only to show that the stauros
did exist in that form.
Showing that Lipsius is not the best authority on the
subject, the Expositor’s Greek Testament says:
“Many questions on which there has been much
discussion suggest themselves e.g., as to the
structure and form of the cross: did it consist of an
upright beam (palus, stipes) and a cross beam
99 See point 4.1.
149
(patibulum, antenna), or of the former only, the
hands being nailed to the beam above the head? (so
Fulda, Das Kreus und die Kreusigung, 1878). Was
Christ's cross a crux commissa (T) or a crux immissa
(t)? Or is this distinction a purely imaginary one, as
Fulda (p. 126) maintains against Justus Lipsius, till
Fulda the great authority on the subject of
crucifixion? The work of the more recent writer
should certainly be consulted before coming to a
final decision of the form of the cross or the method
of crucifixion. …”—Volume 1, pages 328, 329.
(Emphasis ours.)
Herman Fulda, the “more recent writer,” wrote the
book The Cross and Crucifixion in 1878. He is
“against” Lipsius on the shape of the execution
instrument because Lipsius generally favours the T-
shaped cross.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation quotes Fulda in
detail in support of the “stake” rendering. It uses
Lipsius’ crux simplex illustration instead of other
illustrations because it is supported by the best
evidence that the stauros was a simple stake.
11.15 The Commandments
Jehovah’s Witnesses agree with Paul that “by law” is the
knowledge of sin but not ‘by the law [the Law given
through Moses, Moral or Ceremonial]’ only. (Ro 3:20)
The Greek does not have the article, “the.” Whatever
“law” God applies at any given time informs his people
about right and wrong. By this, “sin” is defined.
Price argues on the basis of James 2:10-12 and Galatians
5:3 that there are two ‘whole laws.’ From James he
argues that “the whole law” to be kept by Christians is
the Ten-Commandment Law. (OF, page 22) We have
considered this faulty argument above at point 4.3, noting
that “the whole law” includes the so-called Ceremonial
Law in view of James 2:8. We have also discussed the
storage arrangements for the Ten Commandments
above.99—OF, page 22.
To say that “most churches believe that they should
keep” the Moral Law is hardly convincing. And the fact
that a weekly sabbath is assumed by Catholics and
Protestants has allowed Adventists to make the correct
day the issue, whether Saturday or Sunday. The more
fundamental question should always have been whether
the ‘Moral Law’ is applicable at all.
What of Price’s argument that there is another law also
called “the whole law” that should not be kept now? (Ga
5:3) The more natural and better explanation for the
 DEFENCE
identical expression at Galatians 5:3 and James 2:10 is
that they are the same law, that together they were
“whole.”
11.15.1 “Commandments” Not Always Ten
Price then quotes 1 Corinthians 7:19, that “keeping the
commandments of God is what matters.” We invite him
to prove that Paul intended the Ten Commandments here.
He has no way to demonstrate it because the Bible uses
“commandments” to describe many and various divine
requirements.
Adventists often interpret the “commandments” to mean
the Ten Commandments. However, the interpretative
switch is not always justified.100 The apostle Paul uses
“commandments” at Ephesians 2:15 where Adventists
would not apply it to the Ten Commandments.
Price quotes Matthew 19:16, 17; John 14:15; 1 John 2:3,
4; 5:2, 3 and Revelation 12:17; 14:12 as evidence that
Christians should keep the Ten Commandments.
However, apart from Matthew 19:16, 17, none of these
texts defines what those commandments are, and in
Matthew the context includes, not only the Ten
Commandments, but a quote from the ‘Ceremonial
Law.’—Mt 19:19; Le 19:18.
The words “commandment” and “commandments” in the
Scriptures as a whole sometimes refer to so-called
‘moral’ laws, sometimes to ‘ceremonial’ laws and
sometimes to other totally unrelated laws. (Le 4:2, 13, 22,
27; 26:14; 27:34; De 15:5; 19:9; 28:1, 15; 2Ch 8:12, 13;
1Co 14:37; He 7:5; 1Jo 2:8) This is because the Bible
does not make or authorize the assumption that the term
“commandments” refers to the Ten Commandments the
way that Seventh-day Adventists usually do.
11.15.2 Law and Principle
We have already seen that the principles underlying
almost all of the Ten Commandments have been repeated
in the “law of Christ.”101 Under Christ, those principles
are wider and deeper than they were under the Ten
Commandments.
Jesus points this out at Matthew 5:21, 22. The
Commandment forbids murder but Jesus forbids the
hatred that leads to it. The Commandment forbids
adultery but Jesus forbids the passion that leads to it. (Mt
5:27, 28) There are many more fundamental laws than
ten under Christ’s law and most of them are framed
positively whereas most of the Ten Commandments are
framed negatively.102
100 See point 4.6.
101 See point 4.16.
102 Eight of the Ten Commandments are prohibitions.
150
Price criticizes Jehovah’s Witnesses for seeking to apply
the principles of the Ten Commandments without
believing they are under them as a Law. But Seventh-day
Adventists do the same thing with the ‘Ceremonial Law.’
For example, they obey the principles to love God and
one’s neighbour as oneself even though this is a
requirement of the ‘Ceremonial Law.’—Le 19:18; De
6:5.
Of course, Adventists would quickly say that they keep
this requirement, not because it is in that Law, but
because Jesus himself commanded it. (Mt 22:37, 39)
Exactly! This is the reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses may
appear to be keeping nine of the Ten Commandments. In
fact, the Witnesses keep the principles behind the
Commandments when there are Christian laws based on
the same principles in the Christian Scriptures.
Adventists obey the principle but not the literal
application of the ‘Ceremonial Law’ at Deuteronomy
25:4: “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing
out grain.” Paul draws on this principle at 1 Corinthians
9:9, 10 in connection with the maintenance of Christian
ministers. In the same way, at Acts 23:5 Paul quotes a
principle from the ‘Ceremonial Law’ at Exodus 22:28:
“Thou shalt not … curse the ruler of thy people.”
Or what about Peter’s quotation from the ‘Ceremonial
Law’ at Leviticus 11:44: “Ye shall be holy; for I am
holy”? (1Pe 1:16) Adventists try to apply all these
principles despite the fact that they are based in the
‘Ceremonial Law.’ Why? Because the principles behind
the laws are restated in the ‘New Testament’ as Christian
law.
To use Price’s reasoning we ask: ‘Can Adventists apply
the principles of the Ceremonial Law yet still refuse to
literally keep all the Ceremonial Law?’ Yes, they can and
they do. Adventists apply many of the principles of the
‘Ceremonial Law’ without keeping all of it.
Price concludes page 22 of Our Friends with the same
unsupported explanation he repeats again and again. It is
as if by repetition he will eventually convince us that the
“commandments” in the Scriptures are always the Ten
Commandments, that is, except at Ephesians 2:15. There
is absolutely no evidence that “commandments of God”
at Revelation 12:17; 14:12 are the Ten Commandments.
The “commandments” are not restricted to the Ten.
Price emphasizes that Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day
and made it sacred. (OF, page 23) We have no argument
with that, but there is no requirement in Genesis 2:1-3 for
humans to sabbatize every week. The text only says that
 DEFENCE

God rested. And although Price quotes Exodus 20:8-11
to show that the Sabbath points back to creation, this does
not mean that the weekly Sabbath was permanent from
then on. The Passover was also a memorial of a past
event, but was not permanent.—Ex 12:14, 24-27; 13:8, 9.
We have discussed the Exodus 20:10/Mark 2:27, 28
comparison above.103
There is a chart on page 23 entitled “The Sabbath.” We
have already considered most of the texts on the chart.—
Isa 66:22, 23104; Mk 2:27, 28105; Ge 2:1-3106; 26:5107; Ac
16:13108; 17:2109; Re 12:17110; 14:12111.
The chart also cites Luke 23:56 which says that the
disciples “rested” on the Sabbath after Jesus’ death. Does
this prove that Sabbath-keeping should continue now?
No. The disciples also kept the rest of the Law at that time
before the coming of the holy spirit that would guide
them into “all the truth.” (Joh 16:12, 13) The disciples
were not in “all the truth”—the full light of truth—
immediately after Jesus’ death.
The chart also cites Acts 13:42-44 to prove that the
Sabbath was “kept by … the Early Christian Church.”
But Paul’s Sabbath-day preaching in Pisidian Antioch
was to Jews and proselytes inside and outside the
synagogue. They were not Christian meetings but
preaching opportunities.
Adventists would probably not go to a Jewish synagogue
to share a joint religious service, but they might go there
if there was an opportunity to preach about Christ. In the
same way, Paul’s visit to the synagogue was not a
Christian meeting. It was a preaching opportunity. And
there is nothing to say that Paul himself kept the Sabbath
on these occasions.
However, Price says that the follow-up meeting outside
the synagogue the next week was definitely a Christian
meeting on the Sabbath. (Ac 13:44) Why did the crowd
come to see Paul that day? Price italicizes it: “to hear the
word of Jehovah.” Was Paul holding a Christian Sabbath
meeting or just preaching to a crowd on the Sabbath? His
Sabbath-day preaching was really no different to a pastor
accepting a preaching opportunity in a non-Adventist
Church on a Sunday, as White herself did.
“Ellen White gladly accepted invitations to speak in
other Protestant churches, choosing subject matter that
was appropriate for such services.”––Response to
question, Ellen G. White Estate, viewed April 11,
2017, at egw@egwestate.andrews.edu.
On Sunday December 14, 1884, White held a meeting at
Daggett, California, USA and preached to two railroad
cars full of workers, station employees and many of the
local townspeople. (Review and Herald, February 24,
1885) Obviously, Ellen G. White was not keep a Sunday
Sabbath. It was really no different to Paul’s preaching on
the Sabbath day. Preaching on any given day does not
indicate that a preacher is keeping that day as holy.
Hebrews 4:4-11 was discussed earlier.112
Similar to Acts 13:42, discussed above, Acts 13:14 shows
that Paul and his companions visited a synagogue on the
Sabbath. Then verse 15 shows that they were invited to
speak. This was a preaching opportunity. The Jews were
operating the service, not the Christians, because it was
their meeting, not a Christian meeting. Nothing in the
verse says Paul went to that synagogue with the purpose
of observing the Sabbath. If he had wanted to keep the
Sabbath, he would have met with his Christian brothers.
We discussed Acts 16:13113 and Colossians 2:16, 17114
earlier. And we have already considered Price’s concerns
about the days of creation.115
11.16 Medical Issues
Page 24 of Our Friends criticizes changes in Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ positions on medical matters. He says their
views have caused “untold misery and death.” Perhaps
because it is “untold” that Price fails to quantify the
toll that he claims.
Before considering his specific criticisms, we should
never forget the many Seventh-day Adventist hospitals
and clinics that have administered “untold misery and

103 See point 7.18.12.

104 See point 8.1.
105 See point 7.18.12.
106 See point 4.18.
107 See point 4.6.
108 See point 4.10.
109 See point 4.10.
110 See point 11.15.1.
111 See point 11.15.1.
112 See point 4.18.
113 See point 4.10.
114 See point 4.12.
115 See points 4.18, 4.18.1.

151
 DEFENCE
death” to unborn infants in thousands of abortions
tolerated by the General Conference and its officers. 116
Price’s criticisms of the Witnesses seem insincere,
even hypocritical, in the face of that deplorable record.
11.16.1 Vaccinations
First Price mentions vaccinations. Before 1952,
vaccinations were commented on only in the Golden
Age magazine (later known as Consolation and now
Awake!). These magazines were Watchtower Society
publications, but secondary to the Watchtower
magazine that introduced doctrinal positions or
changes in belief for Jehovah’s Witnesses to support.
The earliest negative references to vaccinations
appeared in the Golden Age in 1921. In those years the
magazine carried many articles written by authors who
were not Bible Students, Jehovah’s Witnesses, but
who had some knowledge of a topic because of their
profession or personal experience. Showing that the
Bible Students were not taking a position of their own,
the magazine published, without comment, articles
both for and against vaccinations in a virtual debate.
Many of them were written by medical doctors. 117
The February 4, 1931, issue of the Golden Age that
Price quotes was written by a certain Chat A. Pattillo
of Virginia, USA, and was again presented as a
contribution by an interested reader. For the first time,
the opinion was expressed that vaccinations were
violations of the law of God. However, like the other
articles before it, the editors of the magazine made no
comment. It was the personal opinion of that writer
and an addition to the debate.
At that time the topic was not picked up in the
Society’s main magazine, the Watchtower, as a new
doctrinal position and no sanctions were applied to any
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, official representatives or
otherwise, who chose to be vaccinated.
In 1939, Consolation magazine ran a long article
critical of vaccinations and this time it was approved
editorially. (May 31, 1939) Interestingly, the article
never once referred to the Bible. It was after the
fashion of much of the criticism in the medical press
of the time regarding vaccines. No doubt many
Witnesses avoided vaccinations due to this
information. But Price says “many died as a result of
this direction.” Well, how many? And who? Of course,
he has already said it is an “untold” number, so he
cannot say. Perhaps there were none.
116 See point 1.5.18.
117 See the Golden Age issues of April 27, July 20 and October 12, 1921.
152
Because high-quality vaccinations were in their
infancy in the 1920’s and 1930’s, many died receiving
them too. It is probably impossible to quantify the
number, either way. The Witnesses in those years
exposed their readership to both sides of the issue. By
1939, as a matter of health, Consolation had come
down on the anti-vaccine side, but it was still not
forbidden for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
This was still the situation in 1944 when the Watch
Tower Society required its representatives to receive
vaccinations for international travel, as noted by Price.
(Faith on the March, A.H. Macmillan, pages 188, 189)
In doing so, it was not violating a religious ruling.
In the Watchtower of December 15, 1952, answering a
question about the Scriptural implications of vaccines,
Jehovah’s Witnesses for the first time adopted an
official doctrinal position on the matter, that
vaccinations do not conflict with Bible principles.
They hold the same position today.
Price concludes that it was because the Society had a
need for international travel that this 1952 ‘change’
was made. He suspects that this was the reason, as he
would, being an opponent of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He
has no proof of this. But there was no ruling from
which to change. While vaccinations were not
recommended on health grounds, they were not
viewed as unscriptural and there was no command to
abstain from them. Like many others in the 1920’s,
1930’s and 1940’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses had an
imperfect understanding of vaccinations.
For her part, Ellen G. White is supposed to have been
inspired. Her health advise is often good, but it is not
always as accurate as it should be for a prophet.
For instance, she says that masturbation causes a long
list of physical conditions such as a lack of beauty, a
lack of strength, a lack of endurance, headache,
catarrh, dizziness, nervousness, pain in the shoulders
and side, a loss of appetite, pain in the back and limbs,
wakefulness, fever, tiredness, exhaustion, sallow
countenance, flushed face, physical decay and even
mortality in youth. (Appeal to Mothers, pages 5, 6)
Most of these claims are manifestly untrue.
Adventist apologists usually minimize the problem,
explaining that she did not mean that everyone would
experience all of these deleterious effects but that
some of the effects do indeed result from the practice.
However, her further claims about masturbation are
even more bizarre.
 DEFENCE
“Everywhere I looked I looked I saw imbecility,
dwarfed forms, crippled limbs, misshapen heads,
and deformity of every description. Sins and crimes,
and the violation of nature’s laws, were shown me
as the causes of this accumulation of human woe
and suffering … If the practice is continued from
the ages of fifteen and upward, nature will protest
against the abuse she has suffered, and continues to
suffer, and will make them pay the penalty for the
transgression of her laws, especially from the ages
of thirty to forty-five, by numerous pains in the
system, and various diseases, such as affection of
the liver and lungs, neuralgia, rheumatism,
affection of the spine, diseased kidneys, and
cancerous humors.”––Ibid., page 18.
She went on to claim that it could result eventually in
death! It was one thing for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who
never claimed inspiration, to have shared negative
information about vaccinations which was already in
the public domain at the time, and entirely another for
an ‘inspired prophet of God’ to issue such
misinformation.
The Witnesses also oppose masturbation, but on
scriptural grounds, not on the basis of such wildly
inaccurate claims.
11.16.2 Organ Transplants
Organ transplants are discussed on page 24 of Our
Friends. It is stated that the Watchtower of November
15, 1967, called them “cannibalistic.” (Pages 702-704)
This was a strong term, but the article ended by saying:
“It should be evident from this discussion that
Christians who have been enlightened by God’s
Word do not need to make these decisions simply
on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can
consider the divine principles recorded in the
Scriptures and use these in making personal
decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting
him and putting their confidence in the future that
he has in store for those who love him.”
Clearly, the decision was left to the ‘personal decision’
of the individual Christian and there were no
disfellowshipping sanctions for receiving an organ
transplant. In fact, during the late 1960’s and 1970’s
Jehovah’s Witnesses were asked to review and answer
questions prior to their baptism to confirm whether or
not they agreed with organizational teachings. 118 All of
the possible reasons for disfellowshipping were
118 Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot, 1967; Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making, 1972.
119 See chapter 3 and points 3.1, 3.2.
153
covered in the books containing those questions, but
organ transplants were never mentioned.
11.16.3 Blood Transfusions
We considered blood transfusions above. 119 But Price
distinguishes between eating blood and transfusing it.
There are several problems with his analysis.
First, he says that blood when eaten changes, is
absorbed into the body and destroyed whereas blood
when transfused remains unchanged. He erects a straw
man here because he makes the question stand or fall
on whether blood changes. The Bible does not even
mention changes when it prohibits blood.
Actually, transfused blood is also absorbed into the
body and eventually replaced in the course of the
body’s renewal process. The molecules comprising the
transfused blood eventually make their way out of the
body by the same process that eaten blood does. The
Bible does not make change the issue. Actually, David
even rejected water to drink that he understood
metaphorically to represent blood. (2Sa 23:15-17)
There was no ‘change’ to worry about in this case.
Second, Price says that Leviticus 17:13-15 requires
that the “blood of beasts and fowls only was
forbidden.” Is he saying, then, that it was acceptable
to eat human blood? Hardly. Price totally misses the
words “all flesh” and “no manner of flesh” in verse 14.
The Mosaic prohibition simply included “all flesh.”
As mentioned, David would not drink water that he
equated with human blood. Clearly, then, the blood of
the ‘beasts and fowls’ of the Leviticus prohibition did
not exhaust the prohibition against blood. Price refers
to fish, and cutting a fish will generally not cause it to
bleed, but the sanctity of “all flesh” is the underlying
principle. So the Watchtower states:
“The blood of every sort of creature represents its
life and is therefore sacred. So if, on cutting a fish
open, a person sees an accumulation of blood, he
should remove it.”––April 1, 1973, page 224.
11.16.4 Meat
Finally, he chides the Witnesses for eating residual
blood in meat, even after bleeding. He says:
“Adventists prefer the bloodless diet of Eden.” He
uses the word “prefer” because he knows that some
Adventists eat flesh. So Ted N.C. Wilson, President of
the General Conference, answering a question as to
why “many of our Adventist pastors eat meat,” say:
 DEFENCE
“We base all our beliefs on the Bible, and while we
encourage a vegetarian diet, the Bible does make
some allowances for eating certain types of meat
(Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14).”––“Is it proper to
eat meat?,” December 30, 2016, viewed April 14,
2017 at perspectives.adventist.org>questions-
answers/go/2016-12-30.
However, in the previous column on the same page
Price says: “Today, faithful Christians … still do not
eat blood.” What is the Seventh-day Adventist Church
doing about their meat-eating, ‘unfaithful’ members,
then? Are they being counselled or censured? Are their
pastors being removed? No. 120
It is not really surprising that some Adventists eat
meat, though, because Ellen G. White herself ate flesh.
She claimed to have had a “vision” on June 6, 1863,
on the subject of health reform, including the need to
abstain from meat. (Review and Herald, October 8,
1867) This made it a ‘divine’ requirement.
Yet by her own admission she ate chicken, venison,
fish, duck and beef at various times and over many
years.––Manuscript Releases, Volume 11, pages 142,
147; Volume 14, pages 318, 319, 330, 353; Signs of
Times, July 18, 1878.
That fact is that White’s health “vision” contradicted
the Bible’s position on eating meat. Whether Adam
and Eve were vegetarians is absolutely irrelevant.
They were also naked and spoke an early version of
Hebrew, yet Adventists do not promote these
practices. The Bible specifically allowed the eating of
meat over a period of thousands of years, beginning
after the Flood and extending into the Law covenant
and Christianity.––Ge 9:3, 4; Le 11:3; 1Co 8:13,
Adventists contend that the prohibition against blood
in Acts chapter 15 refers only to eating blood. Why
would such a law have been needed if Christians did
not eat meat anyway?––Act 15:19, 20.
What about Price’s objection that Jehovah’s Witnesses
eat residual blood in meat, even after bleeding? Of
course, the same would apply to those Adventists who
eat meat, so his objection is a little hypocritical. By
accusing the Witnesses of eating up to 50 percent of
the blood, which may or may not be true, he accuses
not only the Witnesses but God himself who says to
Israel: “Thou mayest eat flesh … Only be sure that
thou eat not the blood … Thou shalt not eat it; thou
shalt pour it upon the earth as water.” (De 12:20-24)
120 We might say that the Adventist attitude to meat––that it is not recommended but that abstinence is not compulsory––is similar
to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ former attitudes to vaccines and organ transplants––that they were not recommended but that abstinence
was not compulsory.
121 See point 8.3.
154
God was satisfied that the meat be eaten after the blood
was poured out. But, of course, Price is not satisfied.
By his objection, Price implies that Jehovah’s
Witnesses would apply Jewish kosher regulations if
they were really serious about avoiding the blood, but
the Witnesses rest their case with God. He knew what
would satisfy his law. These irrational criticisms over
eating meat illustrate the lengths to which Price is
prepared to go to discredit the Witnesses at any cost.
11.17 Organization
Character assassination is not Christian. Price says:
“[Rutherford] seized control of the Society” despite
not being Russell’s choice of successor. (OF, page 25)
This assumes that the Watch Tower Society’s charter
provided for its president to select his successor. It did
not. In January 1917, after Russell’s death, Joseph
Rutherford was unanimously appointed president for
one year. His name was put forward by A.N. Pierson,
not by Rutherford himself. The following January a
board of directors had to be appointed and Rutherford
received the greatest number of votes. From the seven
elected board members, three officers were chosen—
Rutherford as president, C.H. Anderson as vice
president, and W.E. Van Amburgh as secretary-
treasurer. Again, Rutherford did not nominate himself
and was unanimously elected president.
Price claims Rutherford’s wife “left him” and moved
to California because he was choleric, self-righteous
and an alcoholic. His source? An anti-Witness
publication. Price has no reference from Mary
Rutherford herself to this effect. In fact, Sister
Rutherford had poor health and found the winters in
New York difficult to endure, so she and their son
Malcolm moved to California, where the climate was
better for her health. Sister Rutherford died a faithful
Witness on December 17, 1962, at the age of 93.
The notice of her death in the Monrovia, California,
Daily News-Post, stated: “Until poor health confined
her to her home, she took an active part in the
ministerial work of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” An active
Witness, she would have known that the reasons given
by Price are not sufficient grounds for separation.
We have considered birthdays above. 121 Price’s
explanation for the Witnesses’ rejection of Mothers’
Day is pure speculation. It was part of longer process
of distancing the organization from Babylon the Great.
 DEFENCE
The principle is based on Isaiah 52:11: “Depart ye …
touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of
her.”—2Co 6:17; Re 18:4.
The Encyclopædia Britannica (1959) states: “A
festival derived from the custom of mother worship in
ancient Greece. Formal mother worship, with
ceremonies to Cybele, or Rhea, the Great Mother of
the Gods, were performed on the Ides of March
throughout Asia Minor.” Ridding the organization of
things with unclean religious origins began in 1919
and continues. It was a decision of the responsible
brothers in charge of the work, of whom Rutherford
was only one.
We have already discussed Christmas. 122 However, the
reference to the December 25, 1925 comments in the
book Daily Heavenly Manna for the Household of
Faith reflected the Witnesses’ previous view of the
celebration. The Golden Age of December 14, 1927
pointed to its pagan, religious origin. Almost every
single custom connected with it is pagan: the candles,
the tree, the gift-giving, the holly, the ivy, the
mistletoe, the nativity scenes showing wise men in the
manger, the date and the star. So from 1927 forward
the Bible Students stopped celebrating Christmas.
Frankly, Price’s criticism over this rejection of pagan
religious customs is unbelievable in view of chapter
16, “The Pilgrim Fathers,” in Ellen G. White’s The
Great Controversy where White criticizes the English
Reformers for the same thing the Adventist Church is
doing. She says their attitude to the customs––similar
to Price’s attitude to the customs––was very wrong.
“The English Reformers, while renouncing the
doctrines of Romanism, had retained many of its
forms. Thus though the authority and creed of Rome
were rejected, not a few of her customs and
ceremonies were incorporated into the worship of
the Church of England. It was claimed that these
things were not commanded in Scripture, and hence
were nonessential, yet not being forbidden, they
were not intrinsically evil. Their observance tended
to narrow the gulf which separated the reformed
churches from Rome, and it was urged that they
would promote the acceptance of the Protestant
faith by Romanists. To the conservative and
compromising, these arguments seemed
convincing. But there was another class [the
Puritans, including the pilgrim fathers] that did not
so judge. … They reasoned that God has in His
word established the regulations governing His
122 See point 8.3.
155
worship, and that men are not at liberty to add to
these or to detract from them.”––Page 289.
Price’s criticism is condemned by his own prophet!
His Church has adopted pagan religious “customs and
ceremonies” that narrow the gulf between themselves
and Rome. They do not stand with the Puritan pilgrim
fBut rthers who did not celebrate Christmas.
His argument is that opposing Christmas because it is
pagan would mean that we would have to stop
worshipping and praying since the pagans also did
those things. Remember that Christmas, birthdays and
other celebrations originated as pagan religious
observances. Worshipping and praying originated in
true worship and were only afterwards imitated and
corrupted by pagans. The issue is not whether customs
were pagan but whether they were false religious
customs. The Witnesses have no problem using
wedding rings because there is no real evidence that
they originated in pagan religious practices.
Conversely, because the names of the days and months
originated in pagan religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses do
not observe or celebrate any of them. Starting days
counting from midnight is not a false religious custom.
The Witnesses meet on Saturdays or Sundays, not
because they observe the day, but for practical reasons.
11.17.1 Respect, Flag Salute and War
The Witnesses do stand for government officials.
“Jehovah’s witnesses, therefore, properly stand up
or bow down or even prostrate themselves before a
ruler out of honor and respect for his position, if that
is the custom of the land. (Gen. 23:7; 42:6; 44:14)”
––Watchtower, January 15, 1974, page 62.
As the Scripture texts in this quotation show, faithful
servants of Jehovah have assumed special postures out
of respect for others. However, Price’s definition is
arbitrary: “To honor the king one would stand; to
honour his flag one would salute but to worship one
would kneel.” So would he refuse to kneel before
humans?
The Bible reports that Elijah received favourably the
approach of a man that “fell on his knees before
Elijah” out of respect for his role as a “man of God.”
(2Ki 1:13) The prophet did not reject this form of
obeisance as if it exclusively meant worship.
In fact, Adventists themselves customarily kneel down
to wash others’ feet during the ordinance of foot-
 DEFENCE

washing. 123 Surely, then, kneeling can be simply an act
of honour. Of course, when addressing God in prayer,
kneeling is performed worshipfully.
However, special gestures to objects are different and
we have discussed flag salute above. 124 Saluting is
different because it is performed to an object
representing a nation. Solemn actions directed to
objects that represent people or nations is idolatry.
God’s people did not gesture to objects.––Da 3:1, 10.
We have also shown that Adventists can participate in
war and even to kill, contrary to Price’s claim. 125 So it
is surprising that he should raise the subject here, as if
he were proud of their record. He cites Matthew 8:5-
10 which shows that Jesus healed an army officer’s
servant and recommends that Jehovah’s Witnesses do
the same.
If Price knew the Witnesses at all, he would know that
they would assist anyone in these circumstances. What
Jesus did not do, however, was go into the military
forces in combatant roles as Adventists do.
11.17.2 Charities
Our Friends criticizes Jehovah’s Witnesses for
discouraging giving to “any charities other than its
own organization.” (Emphasis ours.) Price’s
accusations are half-truths. There is no blanket rule
preventing the Witnesses from contributing to
charities. The Watchtower makes it clear.
“Whether a dedicated Christian will contribute to
such charitable drives or not is something for each
one to decide for himself. He may justly feel that he
is already using all his available resources in a
charitable work, that of preaching the good news of
God’s kingdom, and that therefore he is not under
obligation to contribute to other forms of charity.
He also might well reason that his money will do
more good if spent in some other way, in view of
the large overhead that certain charitable
organizations have, the officers of some receiving
extremely high salaries. So it would be a burden of
responsibility that each Christian would have to
bear himself as to what would be the best thing for
him to do under the circumstances.—Gal. 6:5.”––
Watchtower, November 1, 1961, page 672.
(Emphasis ours.)
After questioning whether all charities are worthy of
support, Awake! magazine says:
“Do not assume that all organized charities are
either wasteful or fraudulent. Examine the facts,
then make a personal decision whether to give or
not.”––Awake!, June 8, 1993, page 27. (Emphasis
ours.)
What if the charity raises its funds by inviting
Christians to gamble? Then Jehovah’s Witnesses
would not contribute to the charity, however worthy.
Would Seventh-day Adventists do so? Probably not.
Finally, in the Appendix of Our Friends, Price
continues to hammer away at changes in the teachings
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but we have covered this
subject above in our first chapter above. In the context
of the many changes in Adventism over the same
period, though, this is hardly fair.

123 By saying: “Ye should do as I have done to you,” Jesus did not mean to create an ordinance for his disciples. (Joh 13:15) He
calls what he had done “an example [Greek, hypodeigma, a pattern].” This same word is used at Hebrews 8:5 of the high priestly
services at the Israelite tabernacle, which “example” prefigured Jesus’ high priestly service. However, the hypodeigma was not
literally the same as Jesus’ service. The same word is translated “pattern” in the King James Version at Hebrews 9:23 of the earthly
tabernacle which prefigured heavenly things. Those heavenly things were not literally the same as the pattern. The use of
hypodeigma indicates that, in washing his disciples’ feet Jesus was setting an example or pattern of the humility that Christians
should imitate, but not necessarily by exactly the same actions.
124 See point 8.4.
125 See point 1.5.1 and Appendix 4.

156
 DEFENCE
Conclusions
No one should expect to be beyond criticism, and
Jehovah’s Witnesses are used to receiving it. Their public
ministry exposes them to evolution, atheism, agnosticism
and all forms of religious belief. When challenged, the
Witnesses try to respond with mildness and deep
respect.––1Pe 3:15.
If Bruce Price genuinely believed that Jehovah’s
Witnesses were wrong, he was right to challenge their
faith. Jesus forthrightly pointed out the error in others’
beliefs. (Mt 15:7-9) While we may not have the authority
to challenge others’ faith in exactly the same terms, we
are authorized to “make disciples.” (Mt 28:19) This
involves persuading others to abandon false religion.
We have to say, though, that Price’s criticisms do not
stand up to the test of fairness. He made changed
teachings a particular focal point. The criticism assumed
that it is a requirement of true religion never to alter its
teachings. That assumption is a fallacy. It was not true of
God’s people in ancient times and it was not true of the
Protestant reformers. Price’s own Seventh-day Adventist
religion has always been immersed in change. He
criticized the Witnesses over their objection to blood
transfusion but overlooked Adventist changes that allow
their members to be combatants in the military forces and
to elect to have abortions. Price must have known that his
criticism about changes was unfair.
He also criticized Jehovah’s Witnesses for not believing
the Trinity. This may have been fair if Adventists had
never rejected the Trinity. But he must have known that
his Church once opposed the Trinity and only later
accepted it as a change. He knew that some Adventists
believe that the Trinity involves three persons in one
Being while others believe there are three Beings. While
criticizing the Witnesses so harshly for making changes,
he hid these fundamental and contradictory Adventist
changes from Clarice, Lorna and family. Clearly, he was
selective with the facts. Unfair.
Then there was the way he handled the Scriptures.
Following Ellen G. White, he quoted Isaiah and Jeremiah
about the desolation of the earth, or land, of Judah during
the time that the Israelites were in Babylon and applied
those texts to the whole earth during the Millennium. But
according to Revelation, God calls his people out of
Babylon in the pre-Millennial period. This means that
any counterpart of the Judean desolation happens well
before the 1,000 years even begins. Price also used a
passage in Isaiah to show that Gentiles kept the Sabbath
157
but he failed to mention that the very next verse says they
also offered sacrifices. Yes, these were Gentile proselytes
to the Israelite religion, all of it. He said that the Sabbath
will be observed in the new earth but ignored the new
moons in the same verse. He discounted the prophecy in
Ezekiel about burying bones after Armageddon as if it
will never be fulfilled. He argued from the fact that Enoch
did not ‘see death’ that he did not die, when Hebrews
11:13 is clear that he did die. These are just a few
examples of Bob’s unfair use of the Scriptures.
We know from the 2005 book Here We Stand:
Evaluating New Trends in the Church that in later years
Price was well aware of the failings of Adventism. Yet,
without mentioning these he continued his attack on
Jehovah’s Witnesses, releasing the twelfth edition of Our
Friends: the Jehovah's Witnesses that same year. Again,
was this really fair?
Our study defends Jehovah’s Witnesses and, of course, it
is not perfect either. If we have made errors, we should
expect correction. This is the approach to Bible study that
Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken for the last 150 years and
is the reason for the changes in their beliefs. For
information about Jehovah’s Witnesses that is
authoritative and official, see their official website,
jw.org. Please address any comments about this
particular study to gjtstrange1914@gmail.com.
Since Seventh-day Adventists claim that Ellen G.
White’s writings are the ‘spirit of prophecy’ for the last
days, we have been entitled to ‘try this spirit whether it is
of God.’ (1Jo 4:1) We find no real evidence that her
writings were inspired, no matter how ‘inspiration’ is
defined. The Adventist Church walks a tightrope, trying
to maintain a sola scriptura Protestant stance while
accepting Ellen G. White’s writing as the ‘spirit of
prophecy.’ Sometimes, though, a choice has to be made.
Fortunately, Jehovah’s Witnesses have not had this
difficulty. They are not committed forever to the writings
of any uninspired human or to the uninspired teachings
of the Watchtower Society from the past that have proven
to be errors. There will be changes in the future, at least
until “the perfect day.” (Pr 4:18) Until then, Jehovah’s
Witnesses are content in the knowledge that God reserves
some knowledge to himself.
“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but
those things which are revealed belong unto us and to
our children for ever.”––De 29:29.
DEFENCE

158
 DEFENCE
Appendix 1
The Adventist Change to Trinitarianism
The Seventh-day Adventist Church once taught that
the Trinity was false. Its adoption of the doctrine was
incremental and is a major example of change in the
Church.
This article appeared on a Church website.––
https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/search/site/ trinity
“THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AMONG
ADVENTISTS
Gerhard Pfandl
Biblical Research Institute
Silver Spring, MD
June 1999
Introduction
While the Seventh-day Adventist Church today espouses
the doctrine of the Trinity, this has not always been so.
The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates
that from the earliest years of our church to the 1890s a
whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi-Arian
position. The view of Christ presented in those years by
Adventist authors was that there was a time when Christ
did not exist, that His divinity is a delegated divinity, and
that therefore He is inferior to the Father. In regard to the
Holy Spirit, their position was that He was not the third
member of the Godhead but the power of God.
A number of Adventist authors today, who are opposed
to the doctrine of the Trinity, are trying to resurrect the
views of our early pioneers on these issues. They are
urging the church to forsake the “Roman doctrine” of the
Trinity and to accept again the semi-Arian position of our
pioneers.
Definition of Terms
1. Arianism
A teaching which arose in the fourth century AD in
Alexandria. Named after its most prominent
representative Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. It denied
that Jesus Christ was of the same substance (Gk.
homoousios) as the Father and reduced the Son to the
rank of a creature, though pre-existent before the world.
Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicaea (AD
325).
2. Semi-Arianism
159
Semi-Arians attempted a compromise between the
orthodox and Arian position on the nature of Christ. They
rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a
different nature from God (anomoios––dissimilar), but
neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated
that Christ was “of one substance (homoousios) with the
Father.” Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar
(homoios) to the Father, or of like substance
(homoiousios), but still subordinate.
3. Trinitarianism
Trinitarianism is the orthodox belief that there is but one
living and true God. Nevertheless this one God is a unity
of three persons, who are of one substance, power and
eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
4. Anti-Trinitarians
Anti-Trinitarians are people who oppose the doctrine of
the Trinity for various reasons. They may be Arians,
semi-Arians, or hold other views that deny the Trinity.
The Early Pioneers
Two of the principal founders of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, Joseph Bates and James White, were
originally members of the Christian Connection Church
which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. James White
was an ordained minister of that church. When he and
Bates joined the Advent Movement, they continued to
hold the anti-Trinitarian view which they had learned in
the Christian Connection Church.
In 1855 J. White published an article in the Review and
Herald entitled “Preach the Word.” In dealing with Paul’s
statement in 2 Timothy 4:4 “they will turn their ears away
from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” he wrote,
“Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away
the personality of God and His Son Jesus Christ, ... .” 1
Joseph Bates wrote in 1868, “Respecting the trinity, I
concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the
Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being.”2
Other prominent Adventists who spoke out against the
Trinity were J. N. Loughborough, R. F. Cottrell, J. N.
Andrews, and Uriah Smith:
J. N. Loughborough
In response to the question “What serious objection is
there to the doctrine of the Trinity?” Loughborough
 DEFENCE
wrote, “There are many objections which we might urge,
but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them
to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense.
2. It is contrary to scripture [sic]. Its origin is Pagan and
fabulous.”3
R. F. Cottrell
In an article on the Trinity, Cottrell wrote,
To hold the doctrine of the trinity is not so much an
evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that
wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that
this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief,
upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the
popedom, does not say much in its favor.4
J. N. Andrews
In an article concerning the identity of Melchizedek in
Hebrews 7:3, Andrews argued that the words “having
neither beginning of days” cannot be taken literally since
every being in the universe except God the Father has a
beginning. It is in this context that he wrote, “And as to
the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had
God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity
of the past, have a beginning of days.”5
Uriah Smith
In the 1865 edition of the book Thoughts, Critical and
Practical, on the Book of Revelation, Smith called Christ
“the first created being.”6 However, by the time the 1881
edition was published he had modified his view.
Concerning the phrase “the Beginning of the creation of
God” in Revelation 3:14 he wrote, “Some understand by
this language that Christ was the first created being ... But
the language does not necessarily imply that he was
created ... he himself came into existence in a different
manner, as he is called ‘the only begotten’ of the
Father.”7
Our pioneers clearly held Arian or Semi-Arian views in
regard to the person of Christ. They understood “firstborn
over all creation” (Col 1:15) and “only begotten Son”
(John 3:16) in a literal sense. The Father, therefore, was
first and superior, and the Son, who had a beginning
sometime in eternity, was subordinate to the Father. A
corollary of this view was the belief that the Holy Spirit
is an influence or the power of God, but not a person.
The Position of Ellen White
During the early decades of our church Ellen White made
statements which could be interpreted as anti-Trinitarian.
She at times referred to the Holy Spirit as “it,”8 and in the
context of her description of the fall of Satan, she wrote,
A special light beamed in his [Satan’s] countenance, and
shone around him brighter and more beautiful than
160
around the other angels; yet Jesus, God’s dear Son, had
the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one
with the Father before the angels were created. Satan
was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command
which devolved on Christ alone.
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 Christ, his Son, should be
equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of
his Son, it was his own presence. ... His Son would carry
out His will and His purposes, but would do nothing of
himself alone.9
This seems to imply that after the angels were created,
they did not know or recognize that Christ was equal with
the Father and it took a special “heavenly council” to
inform them of this.
On the other hand, if Christ’s equality was a “special
honor” which was conferred upon him, the implication is
that he was not equal to the Father before that time.10 In
the book Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) she wrote, “He
[Satan] was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly
host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he
was clothed with wisdom and glory above them. Yet the
Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and
authority with the Father.”11 Two paragraphs further on
she explains,
There had been no change in the position or authority of
Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his
claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a
statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this
had been the same from the beginning. Many of the
angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions.12
Nevertheless, these kind of statements are used today to
support to the semi-Arian position that some Adventists
have recently begun to advocate.
Could it be that these passages express Ellen White’s
understanding of Christ’s position in heaven at that time?
And that as time progressed she received more light
which eventually led to her very clear Trinitarian
statements in the late 1890s?13
Carsten Johnson
Carsten Johnson, one time professor of theology at
Andrews University, taught that God’s glory consisted
not of his supreme might and majesty but rather of his
humility and self-effacement. His glory was his “going
down” to the level of his creation. And this glory did not
become visible only in Christ’s incarnation, but God has
been like that all the time.
 DEFENCE
The attribute of “going down” is not an attribute of God
developed only at the critical moment when such “going
down” became a desperate necessity, an emergency
measure for the sake of our salvation. It is not limited to
the accident of our father Adam’s fall into sin in the
garden of Eden. It is an effulgence of God’s very being,
all the time. God’s descent into the depths of creation and
redemption is an expression of His constant nature.14
Thus, Johnson believed, that when the angels were
created Christ was already concealing his glory in
humility. From the fact that “the angel of the Lord”
(Judges 6:22) is a divine being, and Michael is called an
angel (1 Thess 4:16), he concluded that Christ at the
creation of the angels identified himself with them.
Therefore when Satan became jealous of Christ, God was
forced to lay bare all the facts. It was in this context that
the events portrayed in Patriarchs and Prophets, page
36-38, took place.
A Principle of Interpretation
Whatever the case, we should not forget that in contrast
to the two or three statements in the books The Spirit of
Prophecy and Patriarchs and Prophets there are a
number of passages where she emphasizes that Christ
was equal with the Father from the beginning,15 and that
he was God essentially and in the highest sense.16
As is the case with ambiguous texts in Scripture, we need
to clarify ambiguous passages in Ellen White with clear
statements on the topic. As we shall see below, during the
1890s several statements came from the pen of Ellen
White which clearly support the Trinitarian concept of
God.
There were also changes in the understanding of the
Godhead in the writings of other Adventist authors as the
nineteenth century progressed. By about 1880 the idea of
Christ as a created being faded away and the concept of
Christ as the “begotten” Son of God, became the standard
position.16 The word “begotten” was taken literally which
meant that Christ at some point in eternity proceeded
from the Father, and was therefore subordinate to Him.
A Time of Transition
The first positive reference to the Trinity in Adventist
literature appeared in the Bible Students’ Library series
in 1892. The Bible Students’ Library was “a series of
pamphlets, designed for the public, containing brief and
pointed essays on Bible doctrines, the fulfillment of
prophecy, and other aspects of SDA teachings.” 17
Pamphlet number 90 was entitled “The Bible Doctrine of
the Trinity.” What is significant is the fact that the author,
Samuel Spear, was not an Adventist. The pamphlet was
a reprint of an article from the New York Independent of
November 14,1889.18
161
While teaching the doctrine of “one God subsisting and
acting in three persons,”19 Spear insists on the eternal
subordination of the Son to the Father. “The
subordination of Christ, as revealed in the Bible” he says,
“is not adequately explained by referring it simply to His
human nature. ... His subordination extends to His divine
as well as His human nature.”20 Although this pamphlet
was certainly an improvement on previous positions it
still fell short of the true picture of the Trinity.
Nevertheless, the fact that it was printed by Pacific Press
indicates that the concept of the Trinity was beginning to
be accepted by the church.
The breakthrough came with the publication of Ellen
White’s article “Christ the Life-giver” in Signs of the
Times in 1897,21 and the book The Desire of Ages in
1898. In “Christ the Life-giver” after quoting John 10:18
“No one takes it [life] from Me, but I lay it down of
Myself,” she says, “In Him was life, original,
unborrowed, underived.”22 In Desire of Ages in the
chapter “The Light of Life” she quotes Jesus’ answer to
the Jews in John 8:58 “Most assuredly, I say to you,
before Abraham was, I AM.” Then she comments,
Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God,
given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal
presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean
Rabbi. He announced Himself to be the self-existent One,
He who had been promised to Israel, “whose goings forth
have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah
5:2 margin.23 (pp. 469-470).
A few pages further in the book, in the chapter “Lazarus,
Come Forth” she repeats her statement from 1897, “In
Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.” 24 These
statements clearly describe Christ as God in the highest
sense. He is not derived from the Father as most
Adventists up to that time believed, nor has divinity been
bestowed upon him. He is the self-existent One, equal to
the Father in every respect. In fact Ellen White had said
that much already in 1897, “He was equal with God,
infinite and omnipotent ... He is the eternal selfexisting
Son.”25
In spite of these clear statements from the pen of Ellen
White, it took many years before this truth was accepted
by the church at large. Not only did Uriah Smith, editor
of the Review and Herald, believe until his death in 1903
that Christ had a beginning, but during the first decades
of this century there were many who held on to the view
that in some way Christ came forth from the Father, i.e.,
he had a beginning, and was therefore inferior to Him.
During the 1919 Bible Conference, for example, Elder
W. W. Prescott made a presentation on “The Person of
Christ.” In the ensuing discussion the question of the
 DEFENCE
Trinity was raised. L. L. Caviness voiced his concern and
said,
I cannot believe that the two persons of the Godhead are
equal, the Father and the Son,––that one is the Father
and the other the Son, and that they might be just as well
the other way round. ... In praying he [Christ] said it was
his wish that the disciples might see the glory which he
had with the Father, and which the Father had given him.
It was not something he had all through eternity, but the
Father had some time given to him the glory of God. He
is divine, but he is the divine Son. I cannot explain further
than that, but I cannot believe the so called Trinitarian
doctrine of the three persons always existing.26
Elder Prescott then raised the question, “Can we believe
in the Deity of Christ without believing in the eternity of
Christ?”27 Some of those present said, “yes.” W. T. Knox
suggested that Christ was the eternal Son in the same
sense that Levi was in the loins of Abraham. He said,
“There came a time––in a way we cannot comprehend
nor the time that we cannot comprehend, when by God’s
mysterious operation the Son sprung from the bosom of
his Father and had a separate existence. ...”28
This discussion indicates that twenty years after Ellen
White’s clear statement on the eternal divinity of Christ
and his absolute equality with the Father, many in the
church still held on to the idea that Christ, although
divine, had a beginning.
The 1931 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs
In 1930 church administrators in Africa requested that the
General Conference include a statement in the Yearbook
of what Seventh-day Adventists believe. “Such a
statement,” they said, “would help government officials
and others to a better understanding of our work.”29
A committee of four (M. E. Kern, E. R. Palmer, C. H.
Watson, F. M. Wilcox) was appointed to draft such a
statement. They produced a 22 point statement which in
1931 was printed in the Adventist Yearbook.
Fundamental Beliefs three and four stated:
That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal
Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent,
omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the
Lord Jesus Christ, 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
Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great
regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt.
28:19.
That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature
and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His
divine nature He took upon Himself the nature of the
human family, lived on the earth as a man, exemplified in
162
His life as our Example the principles of righteousness,
attested His relationship to God by many mighty
miracles, died for our sins on the cross, was raised from
the dead, and ascended to the Father where He ever lives
to make intercession for us. John 1:1, 14; Heb. 2:9-18;
8:1,2; 4:14-16; 7:25.30
These statements fully expressed the biblical doctrine of
the Trinity. Christ is described as “very God,” self-
existent and eternal, and the Holy Spirit is identified as
the third person of the Godhead.
The 1980 Dallas Statement of Fundamental Beliefs
Prior to the 1980 General Conference in Dallas, a
proposed statement of 27 Fundamental Beliefs was sent
to the world divisions. At the conference itself a revised
version, incorporating the many suggestions from the
world field, was discussed and eventually voted as an
expression of the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church. Fundamental Belief number two on
the Godhead states,
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity
of three co-eternal Persons. God 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. 31
Fundamental Belief number four on “The Son” includes
the phrase “Forever truly God, he became also truly
man.”32 And Fundamental Belief number five, entitled
“The Holy Spirit” begins with the sentence, “God the
eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in
Creation, incarnation, and redemption.”33 Thus, the 1980
statement of Fundamental Beliefs fully supports the
doctrine of the Trinity.
Seventh-Day Adventist Anti-Trinitarians
In recent years a number of anti-Trinitarian publications
have appeared in our church, for example, Fred Allaback,
No new leaders ... No new Gods!; Lynnford Beachy, Did
They Believe in the Trinity; Rachel Cory-Kuehl, The
Persons of God; Allen Stump, The Foundation of Our
Faith; and others. The tenor of all these publications is
that “the church as a whole rejected the doctrine of the
Trinity, and it was not until many years after the death of
Ellen G. White that the Adventist church changed their
[sic] position in regards to the Trinity.”34 The doctrine of
the Trinity is seen as “the ‘omega’ of doctrinal apostasy
within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.”35
Therefore, to remain true to God, they claim, we need to
return to the faith of our pioneers and reject the Trinity.
Apart from a few biblical arguments, most of the
arguments advanced to promote this idea are historical;
with the focus on our pioneers and Ellen White:
 DEFENCE

1. All our pioneers, including Ellen White were
antiTrinitarians.36
Answer: It is true that at the beginning our pioneers
expressed their understanding of the Godhead in anti-
Trinitarian terms. Anti-Trinitarianism at that time was
based on three leading ideas: (1) There once was a time
when Christ did not exist. (2) Christ received divinity
from the Father and was therefore inferior to him. (3) The
Holy Spirit is not the third person of the Godhead but
only the power or influence of God and Christ.
All of these ideas were originally held by our pioneers.
However, it is also a historical fact that the understanding
of our pioneers changed over time. For example, (1) In
1846 James White referred to “the old unscriptural
trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus is the eternal God.”37 But
in 1876 he wrote that “S. D. Adventists hold the divinity
of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians, that we
apprehend no trial here.”38 And a year later he declared
his belief in the equality of the Son with the Father and
condemned any view as erroneous that “makes Christ
inferior to the Father.”39 (2) Originally Uriah Smith and
others taught that Christ was the first created being. Later
he adopted the position that Christ was begotten not
created (see p. 3 above). (3) In 1896 W. W. Prescott
wrote,
As Christ was twice born, once in eternity, the only
begotten of the Father, and again in the flesh, thus uniting
the divine with the human in that second birth, so we, who
have been born once already in the flesh, are to have the
second birth, being born again in the Spirit ... 40
Twenty-three years later at the 1919 Bible Conference,
during a discussion on the divinity of Christ, he admitted,
I was in the same place that Brother Daniells was, and
was taught the same things [that Christ was the
beginning of God’s creative work, that to speak of the
third person of the Godhead or of the trinity was
heretical] by authority, and without doing my own
thinking or studying I suppose [sic] I was right. But I
found out something different.41
When he raised the question, “Can we believe in the deity
of Christ without believing in the eternity of Christ?” One
of the participants answered, “I have done so for years.”
To this Prescott replied,
That is my very point––that we have used terms in that
accommodating sense that are not really in harmony with
Scriptural teaching. We believed a long time that Christ
was a created being, In spite of what the Scripture says.
I say this, that passing over the experience I have passed
over myself in this matter––this accommodating use of
term which makes the Deity without eternity, is not my
conception now of the gospel of Christ. I think it falls
short of the whole idea expressed in the Scriptures, and
leaves us not with the kind of Savior I believe in now, but
a sort of human view––a semi-human being. As I view it,
the deity involves eternity. The very expression involves
it. You cannot read the Scripture and have the idea of
deity without eternity.42
As we can see, our pioneers were not locked into one
particular interpretation. When new understanding came,
they changed their views even though at times it took a
long time. Furthermore, we must note that some of their
views as to what was involved in the Trinity were
erroneous, e. g., they thought the Trinity was three
persons in one person, or that Jesus and the Father were
one and the same. Another misconception was the idea
that the Trinity teaches the existence of three Gods. Many
also held the view that belief in the Trinity would
diminish the value of the atonement, i. e., if Christ was
the selfexisting God, he could not have died on Calvary.
If only his humanity died, then his sacrifice was only a
human sacrifice. These misunderstandings contributed to
the rejection of the Trinity.
2. Only after Ellen G. White’s death was the Trinity
doctrine introduced into the church.43
Answer: The historical facts plainly contradict this
statement. As indicated above (p. 6) Ellen White in 1897
and 1898 taught that in Christ “was life, original,
unborrowed, underived.”44 This can only be true if he was
God in the highest sense and did not derive his existence
from the Father. In regard to the Holy Spirit she told the
students at Avondale College in 1899, “We need to
realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as
God is a person, is walking through these grounds.” 45
In the context of the Kellogg crisis, Ellen White in 1905
wrote a warning to our workers connected with the
medical work in which she unambiguously endorsed the
Trinity doctrine.
The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and
is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of
the Godhead manifest. ...
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He
ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the
Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to
all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal
Savior. There are three living persons of the heavenly
trio; in the name of these three great powers – the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit––those who receive Christ
by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-
operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their
efforts to live the new life in Christ.46

163
 DEFENCE
Only someone who believed the Trinity doctrine would
speak of “three living persons in the heavenly trio.” Anti-
Trinitarians would not use such language.
Furthermore, her bold statements on the Trinity took
many by surprise. M. L. Andreasen recounts, “I
remember how astonished we were when Desire of Ages
was first published, for it contained some things that we
believed were unbelievable; among other things the
doctrine of the trinity which was not generally accepted
by Adventists then.”47
During 1909 Andreasen spent three months at Elmshaven
where he was able to look at her handwritten
manuscripts. He wrote,
In her own handwriting I saw the statements which I was
sure she had not written––could not have written.
Especially was I struck with the now familiar quotation
in Desire of Ages, page 530: “In Christ is life, original,
unborrowed, underived.” This statement at that time was
revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my
former view––and that of the denomination––on the deity
of Christ.48
This clearly took place long before Ellen White’s death.
Thus, the charge that only after Ellen G. White’s death
was the Trinity doctrine introduced into the church
cannot be sustained.
3. The Book Evangelism has been manipulated to
support the Trinity.49
Answer: The editorial changes which are found in
Evangelism do not alter the meaning of the statements.
Two examples should be sufficient to prove the point:
a. “We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as
much a person as God is a person, is walking through
these grounds.”50 Allaback gives the larger context which
is as follows:
The Lord instructed us that this was the place in which
we should locate, and we have had every reason to think
that we are in the right place. We have been brought
together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy
Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is
walking through these grounds, that the Lord God is our
keeper, and helper. He hears every word we utter and
knows every thought of the mind.51
Allaback claims, the fact that the sentence in Evangelism
starts in the middle of the original sentence, and the
comma after “grounds” is replaced by a period, changes
the meaning of the statement. He says,
The original and intended meaning of the quotation is
NOT to prove the Holy Spirit to be “another God” along
4. The Trinity doctrine is pagan.56
with the Father and His Son. But rather, that the “Lord”
who “instructed us,” “the Holy Spirit” who “is walking
164
through these grounds,” the “Lord God” who “is our
keeper” and “helper” and who “hears every word” and
“knows every thought,” is one and the same person––
The glorified Jesus Christ. ... Ellen White is saying the
same thing as the Bible. Jesus, “is as much a person” as
God the Father “is a person.” Jesus “is walking through
these grounds.” Jesus “is our keeper, and helper.” Jesus
“hears every word we utter and knows every thought of
the mind.”52
Allaback identifies the Holy Spirit with the Lord God and
refuses to acknowledge that there are two persons
referred to in this quote. In fact in his pamphlet he gives
the Holy Spirit three separate and distinct identities in a
vain attempt to prove that He has no personal existence.
In the above quotation he identifies the Holy Spirit with
Christ. On page 62 he identifies the Holy Spirit with the
Father, and on page 65 with the angels. He writes, “the
term ‘Holy Spirit’ or ‘ghost’ in these ‘three’ quotations
[referring to Ellen White’s statements on the three
heavenly powers], are including (not excluding) the
ministering angels as the ‘third’ power in heaven.”53
b. The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,
and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness
of the Godhead manifest. ... The Comforter that Christ
promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the
Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest
the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe
in Christ as a personal Savior. There are three living
persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three
great powers––the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit––
those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and
these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects
of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. 54
Allaback says, “The above quotation is misinterpreted to
mean: ‘There is a “trio” of three living Gods in the “God
family” (misinterpretation of the “Godhead”), who all
have the same qualities and divine powers.’” He cannot
accept three persons in the Godhead so he paraphrases
the whole passage to give “the correct interpretation.”
The sentence, “There are three living persons of the
heavenly trio” is paraphrased in this way:
Here we see the three great powers of heaven who
manifest, represent and personify God the Father. 1) God
the Father Himself, 2) The Son of God as a representative
of His Father, 3) The Holy Spirit of God and Christ
working in and through holy angels, personifying their
character to lost humanity.55
It is sad to see how a perfectly simple English sentence is
reinterpreted to mean something completely different
from what it actually says.
 DEFENCE
Answer: The doctrine of the Trinity is based on Scripture
not on pagan religions or human philosophy (see “The
Trinity in Scripture”). Similar triadic constellations in
other religions such as Brahma, Siva, and Visnu in
Hinduism; Osiris, Isis, and Horus in the Egyptian
religion; or Nimrod, Ishtar, and Tammuz in Babylon are
based on the family concept––father, mother, and son––
which is not the case in the Christian religion. If there is
any parallelism at all it would be evidence for a satanic
counterfeit such as we find in the book of Revelation (the
dragon, the beast, and the false prophet).
5. The doctrine of the Trinity is Catholic [papal] in origin.57
Answer: The historical record gives us a different
picture. Although the concept of the Trinity is scriptural,
the doctrine was formulated at the ecumenical Council of
Nicaea in AD 325. The Council summoned by Emperor
Constantine assembled in Nicaea (Asia Minor) to deal
with the Arian controversy. Of the 318 bishops only eight
came from the West, the rest were from the Eastern
churches where the bishop of Rome had very little
influence. The bishop of Rome himself was not even
present, he sent two priests to represent him. This clearly
contradicts the claim that the Trinity is of Roman
Catholic origin.
Summary
The early Adventist pioneers were anti-Trinitarians. In
the late 1890s Ellen White published articles and books
in which she made strong statements supporting the
Trinity concept, although she never used the word
“Trinity.” Because many in the church remained opposed
to it, more than three decades would go by before the
church at large accepted the doctrine. In 1931 the
Adventist Yearbook contained a statement of twenty-two
fundamental beliefs, one of which was the Trinity.
The 1980 Dallas statement of Fundamental Beliefs again
reiterates that “there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.”58
Modern Seventh-day Adventist anti-Trinitarians seek to
recover the heritage of our pioneers in regard to the
Trinity. They believe that only after Ellen White’s death
did the doctrine of the Trinity enter the church, and that
her books have been manipulated and changed. As we
have seen the evidence does not support these charges.
While the Trinity is a divine mystery and no mortal man
will ever be able to understand it fully, the Scriptural
evidence clearly indicates the equality and eternal co-
existence of the three persons in the Godhead. While
human reason may not understand it, by faith we can
believe it.
Printed in U.S.A.
165
1
Review and Herald, Dec. 11, 1855, p. 85. 2 Autobiography
(Battle Creek, 1868), 205.
2 Autobiography (Battle Creek, 1868), 205.
3 Review and Herald, Nov. 5, 1861.
4 Ibid., July 6, 1869.
5 Ibid., Sept. 7, 1869.
6 Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Revelation
(Battle Creek, 1865), 59.
7 Ibid., 74. Smith, however, never abandoned his semi-Arian
views. In 1898, five years before his death he published the
book Looking Unto Jesus (Review and Herald, 1898). In the
chapter on “Christ as Creator,” he wrote, “With the Son, the
evolution of deity, as deity, ceased. All else, of things animate
or inanimate, has come in by the creation of the Father and the
Son ...” (page, 13).
8 Testimonies to the Church, 1:124; 1888 Material, 1249;
Pamphlet 154, 4; Youth Instructor, 8-1-1895.
9 Spirit of Prophecy, 1:17, 18 (emphasis supplied).
10 A similar statement is found as late as 1904. At that time she
wrote, “God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God.
To Christ had been given an exalted position. He has been made
equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His
Son” (Testimonies to the Church, 8:268). This statement
appears immediately following a quote from Hebrews 1:1-5,
where reference is made to the fact that Christ after his
ascension is “appointed heir of all things” and is “being made
so much better than the angels.” Her statement in this context
can be seen as an elaboration of the text in Hebrews which
refers to Christ after his ascension.
11 Patriarchs and Prophets, 37.
12 Ibid, 38.
13 Another case of increasing light leading to a clearer
understanding are her statements on the eating of pork. In 1858
she wrote, “If God requires His people to abstain from Swine’s
flesh, He will convict them on the matter” (1T 207). At that time
most Adventists ate pork. After receiving more light on the
subject, she wrote in 1868, “You know that the use of Swine’s
flesh is contrary to His express command, given not because He
wished to especially show His authority, but because it would
be injurious to those who should eat it.” (CD 392).
14 Carsten Johns, “How Could Lucifer Conceive the Idea of a
Rivalry with Jesus Christ” (Unpublished paper, 1976), 9.
15 Fundamentals of Education, 536; Counsels To Parents,
Teachers, and Students, 113; Letter 64, 1909 (Mind, Character,
and Personality, 1:352).
16 Selected Messages, 1:247.
17 Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. “Bible Students’
Library.”
18 This pamphlet is reproduced in M. L. Andreasen, The Book
of Hebrews (Review and Herald, 1948), 115-124.
19 Samuel Spear, “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity,” New
York Independent (November 14,1889), 9.
20 Ibid., 7.
21 Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897.
22 Quoted in Selected Messages, 1:296.
23 The Desire of Ages, 469-470.
24 Ibid., 530.
25 Manuscript 101, 1897; Manuscript Release, 12:395.
26 1919 Bible Conference Transcripts, July 6, 1919, 57.
27 Ibid., 62.
28 Ibid., 64.
 DEFENCE

29 46
GC Committee Minutes, Dec. 29, 1930, p. 195. Ibid., 614-615, emphasis supplied.
30 47
Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook, 1931. Quoted in Russell Holt, “The Doctrine of the Trinity in the
31 Seventh-day Adventists Believe ..., 16. Seventh-day Adventist Denomination” (Term Paper, Andrews
32 Ibid., 36. University, 1969), 20.
33 Ibid., 58. 48 Testimony of M. L. Andreasen, Oct. 15, 1953, DF 961.
34 Lynnford Beachy, Did They Believe in the Trinity (1966), 1. 49 Allaback, 69-70.
35 Fred Allaback, No new leaders ... No new Gods! (Creal 50 Evangelism, 616.
51 Manuscript Release, 7:299.
Spring, Ill, 1995), 38.
36 Ibid., 100. 52 Allaback, 69.
37 The Day-Star, Jan. 21, 1846. 53 Ibid., 65.
38 Review and Herald, Oct 12, 1876. 54 Evangelism, 614-615, emphasis supplied.
39 Ibid., Nov. 29, 1877, 72. 55 Allaback, 71.
40 Ibid., April 14, 1896, 232. 56 Ibid., 46.
41 1919 Bible Conference Transcripts, July 6, 1919, 58. 57 Ibid., 47.
42 Ibid., 62. 58 Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... (Hagerstown, 1988), 16.”
43 Allaback, 11.
44 Selected Messages, 1:296.

45 Evangelism, 616.

166
 DEFENCE
Appendix 2
Signs of the Times and Daniel Chapter 4
This article shows that Daniel chapter 4 has an
application beyond Nebuchadnezzar. Italicized emphasis
is ours. Bold emphasis is original. The article appeared
in the July 1, 1973 Signs of the Times, Australian edition.
“FORD on DANIEL
DANIEL 4
The Centuries in a Nutshell
IN SOME RESPECTS the fourth chapter of Daniel is the
most remarkable chapter of the Bible. It was written as a
public testimony by one of the greatest kings of all time,
telling of his pride, humiliation, and ultimate conversion
to the King of heaven. It warns of a trap that yawns before
many of us—the trap of snatching independence from our
Maker and Lord—a mistake as fatal as severing a tree's
roots from the soil.
Nebuchadnezzar's life prior to the third and fourth
chapters of Daniel is one long success story. As the
‘terrible of the nations’ and the ‘hammer of the whole
earth’ he had subdued by military might all opposition
from surrounding powers. Even the once-mighty Egypt
became subject to the northern conqueror. At his feet
bowed the representatives of all nations and into his
coffers flowed wealth from every quarter. He was
surrounded by the wit and learning of the times, and
under his patronage the arts flourished.
Then it was that this supreme monarch received a dream,
shattering his contentment and clamouring for
interpretation. After the savants of the court had tried and
failed, the prophet Daniel gave an interpretation which
was, in effect, a doom knell. The king had seen a
towering tree whose branches provided fruit and shade
for the earth. Then a Watcher had descended from heaven
with the decree that the tree must be hewn down and its
fruit scattered, leaving but the stump of the roots in the
earth girded by a band of iron and brass. Nebuchadnezzar
had heard the words: ‘This matter is by the decree of the
Watchers, ... to the intent that the living may know that
the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men….’
The chief intent of the story is made clear by the threefold
repetition of the statement that the Most High rules over
and above human government. Both the oppressor and
the oppressed are to remember that there is a heavenly
Watcher who has appointed a boundary beyond which
evil cannot overflow. Men and nations have a
167
probationary period which if not valued, terminates in
judgment and destruction.
‘In the annals of human history the growth of nations, the
rise and fall of empires, appear as dependent on the will
and prowess of man. The shaping of events seems, to a
great degree, to be determined by his power, ambition, or
caprice. But in the Word of God the curtain is drawn
aside, and we behold, behind, above, and through all the
play and counter-play of human interests and power and
passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently,
patiently working out the counsels of His own will.’1
Pride and the Fall
Primarily, the story of Daniel 4 is recorded for the benefit
of individuals. It warns all men that whoever makes his
happiness depend on anything lower than the heavens,
less enduring than the stars, and less stable than the
Creator Himself, invites destruction. Such a one will be
pierced through with many sorrows. The acme of such a
fatal course is found in all the manifestations of human
pride—whether it be pride of talent, appearance, or
position. ‘Before destruction the heart of man is
haughty.’ Proverbs 18: 12.
A haughty heart is the prophetic prelude of evil and is as
surely the sign of destruction as the fall of mercury in the
barometer is the sign of rain. Whenever man dotes on his
own greatness there comes an eclipse of his glory. This
story tells why it should be so. Pride makes the boaster a
beast, as once before it made an angel a devil. The only
safe course is that recommended in both the Old and the
New Testaments: ‘He that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord.’ To this end all need to cherish the awareness that
there is ‘a Watcher and a Holy One’ standing by. ‘As a
shield from temptation and an inspiration to purity and
truth, no other influence can equal the sense of God's
presence.’2
It should also be noted that Nebuchadnezzar is by no
means the only person to become insane because of
refusal to break with sin. And only when his
understanding returned and He acknowledged the
authority of God did the king become fit for rulership
once more. His friends could have cut his hair and clipped
his nails, but without understanding he would have
remained in the field. Mere outward changes in the life
are insufficient. Neither baptism nor the Lord's Supper
make a person fit to live a holy life. Daniel had called for
the proud monarch to repent by breaking off his sins by
 DEFENCE
righteousness, and it is striking that the New Testament,
which mentions baptism only about six times, and the
Lord's Supper no more, stresses repentance over seventy
times.
The first word recorded of the earliest preacher in the
New Testament is ‘repent’ (Matthew 3: 2). The Master
Himself gave the same emphasis as John, His forerunner.
His first word at the opening of His ministry was the
same. When the Christian church was launched at
Pentecost it was a result of heeding the inspired
admonition of Peter to ‘Repent … ’ (Acts 2: 37-39.) And
Christ still says to every one of us, ‘Except ye repent ye
shall all ... perish’ (Luke 13: 3).
Repentance is a change of mind about self, sin, my fellow
men, and God. It means being sorry enough about my
selfishness to quit that manner of life. It means a
continual crying to God for forgiveness and strength.
‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved.’ Romans 10:13.
An Interpretation
The significance of chapter 4 of Daniel is much broader,
however, than a mere homily. Many scholars have
pointed out that the tree in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, like
the image in the earlier account, is a representation of
heathen empires from the time of Daniel till the end.
Nebuchadnezzar is a typical representative of
unbelieving rulers.
‘Now the vision of the tree is not more clearly symbolic
of this remarkable incident in Nebuchadnezzar's life, than
that incident itself is typical of certain moral and
chronological features of the succession of Gentile
monarchies.
The leading moral characteristics of all the four great
empires, of which Nebuchadnezzar was both head and
representative, have been ignorance of God, idolatry, and
cruel persecution of the saints. Nebuchadnezzar, prior to
this incident knew not God. He set up a great image, and
commanded all men, on pain of death, to fall down and
worship it; he cast into the burning fiery furnace the
faithful witnesses who refused to obey the idolatrous
mandate. How have all his successors, with one consent,
followed this example! Idolatry, literal or spiritual, and
persecution, pagan or Papal, have marked the whole
succession of Gentile monarchies. These episodes in
Nebuchadnezzar's life are clearly typical; these features
of his character have been stamped indelibly on all his
successors; these incidents answer to events on the scale
of nations and centuries, with which history makes us
familiar.’3
And the use of the symbols of brass and iron in this
chapter is reminiscent of the metal image previously, just
168
as a tree is frequently the emblem of a nation (see Ezekiel
31, Luke 13:6-9). Even after the fall of Babylon,
represented in this story by Nebuchadnezzar's being
driven from the throne, the roots of Babylonian principles
and illicit worship remained, ultimately sending forth
new shoots more numerous than before.
‘When Babylon fell, the principles by which she had
controlled others were in turn applied to her. Wherever
there is tyranny in government in any nation of the earth
today, it is an offshoot of that root which filled the earth,
the stump of which was allowed to remain until the end
of time.
‘… The mysteries of Greece in a later day were but a
repetition of the Babylonian mysteries….
‘The influence of Babylon in educational lines was no
less marked than her influence in government and
religion, and the educational root of the tree was as
vigorous as the others. We are in the habit of tracing the
educational system of the world to Greece or Egypt; its
principles are older than Greece. They belong to
Babylon…. The so-called “higher education” of today,
which exalts the science of the world above the science
of salvation; which sends forth students bearing worldly
credentials, but not recognized in the books of heaven,
students who love display, who are filled with pride,
selfishness, and self-esteem—this education is a plant
which has sprung from that broad root which supported
the tree representing the Babylonian dominion.’4
Thus, when we read ‘the tree ... is thou, O king,’ we are
to understand the words in the same sense as those of
Daniel 2: 38; ‘Thou art this head of gold.’
Nebuchadnezzar was but the representative of Babylon,
as Babylon itself is the representative of all powers which
oppose the people of God. (See Revelation, chapters 17
and 18.)
Again we quote from Guinness:
‘The king himself represents the succession of imperial
sovereignty till the kingdom of Christ shall come; the
“seven times” that passed over him similarly represents
the whole period of moral and spiritual debasement, and
consequent idolatry and persecution, in the Gentile
kingdoms, from the times of Nebuchadnezzar till the full
redemption of mankind.’5
As with every chapter of Daniel, this one has special
significance for ‘the time of the end.’ We read in
Revelation 17 that the latter-day Babylon, the final
church-state confederacy, will boast, “I sit a queen, and
am no widow, and shall see no sorrow,” but, as with
Nebuchadnezzar, the moment of apparent victory and
vaunted pride will be but the prelude to judgment and
destruction. ‘Therefore shall her plagues come in one
 DEFENCE
day, death, and mourning, and famine; … for strong is
the Lord God who judgeth her.’ Revelation 18: 7, 8.
Even in this day of universal graft and consummate
iniquity there stands amid the shadows ‘a Watcher and a
Holy One.’ ‘The mills of God grind slowly, but they
grind exceeding small.’ Right will not always be on the
scaffold and wrong upon the throne. The hour even now
169
approaches when the principles of righteousness and
truth, and all who honour them, will be vindicated before
men and angels.
1 ‘Education.’
by E. G. White, page 173.
2
Id., page 255.
3 ‘Light for the Last Days,’ by H. G. Guinness, page 42.
4‘Prophetic Waymarks,’ by S. N. Haskell, page 77.
5‘Light for the Last Days,’ by H. G. Guinness, page 42.”
DEFENCE

170
 DEFENCE
Appendix 3
77 Questions
The texts highlighted are sometimes used by Seventh-
day Adventists in support of a Christian Sabbath or
adherence to the Ten Commandments.
1. What proof is there that Genesis 2:3 means
Christians should keep Sabbath? None. The verse is
not framed as a Law. It refers to God resting only. God
rested from creating on the seventh day; He did not create
a repeating day of rest for man. Hebrews 3:13-4:9 shows
that the seventh creative day was not a 24-hour day but
was a period continuing in the first century. It was to be
entered into “daily,” not weekly.
2. Does the division of time into seven-day periods in
Noah’s time prove that he was observing the
Sabbath? (Ge 7:4; 8:10) No. Otherwise, would the
division of time into thirty-day months prove that he was
observing the months?––Ge 7:11; cp. 7:24; 8:3, 4.
3. Does Genesis 26:5 show that God’s servants kept
Sabbath before Sinai? No. Abraham kept God’s
commandments, but there is no proof that these were the
Ten Commandments. Much later ‘Ceremonial Law’
requirements were “commandments.” (Le 4:2, 13, 22, 27;
26:14; 27:34; De 15:5; 19:9; 28:1, 15) “Commandments”
does not always mean the Ten.––See also 2Ch 8:12, 13;
1Co 14:37; He 7:5; 1Jo 2:8.
4. Does the word “rest” at Exodus 5:5 mean that the
Israelites were observing the Sabbath in Egypt? No.
The same Hebrew word has a variety of meanings
elsewhere in Scripture other than the rest of Sabbath.––
Ge 8:22; Le 26:6; Neh 4:11; 6:3.
5. Does the fact that Exodus 16:23, 30 records
Sabbath-keeping prior to Sinai prove that the
Sabbath should still be observed now? No.
Circumcision and the Passover were both observed
before Sinai, but neither of them are to be observed now.
––Ge 17:9-14; Ex 12:3, 4.
6. Why is there no definite article with the word
“sabbath” at Exodus 16:23? Because this is the first
time a Sabbath was being given to man. The first time
any holy day is mentioned in scripture, it always lacks the
definite article. (Note that “the holy sabbath” in the King
James Version at Exodus 16:23 does not have “the” in
Hebrew). The holy days are never introduced the first
time in Scripture with the definite article “the” but always
with the indefinite “a” or “an.” The definite article is used
subsequent to the introduction of the holy days. So at
Exodus 16:29 we read “the sabbath.” This proves that the
weekly Sabbath did not exist before Exodus 16:23. Every
171
Jewish holy day follows this same pattern. For example,
Passover was first called “a feast,” without the article (Ex
12:14), but afterwards “the ... Passover.”––Ex 12:27, 43.
7. Does the question “How long ...?” at Exodus 16:28
imply that the Israelites had been keeping Sabbath for
a long time, even decades? No. God used the same
expression to Pharaoh concerning a short period of time.
(Ex 10:3, 7) In fact, it often applies to short periods.––
1Sa 1:14; 16:1; Neh 2:6; Job 8:2; 18:2.
8. Why did the Israelites have such difficulty getting
used to the practicalities of observing the Sabbath if
they had been keeping it for so long? (Ex 16:23-27)
Answer: Because they had not been keeping it in Egypt.
There is no record that the Egyptians allowed them a day
off work.
9. Does the word “Remember” at Exodus 20:8 mean
the Israelites had known the Sabbath for many years?
No. Moses used the same word about the Passover when
it had no previous history.––Ex 13:3.
10. Does the wording of Exodus 20:2, 10, 17 show
that the Ten Commandments were restricted to
Israel? (See also De 5:6, 14, 15, 21) Yes. These verses
say that the people to whom The Ten Commandments
were directed came out of Egypt, had Gentile servants,
gates and working animals. These details are not true of
all nations. They related specifically to Israel.
11. Is the Fourth Commandment about the Sabbath
the “seal” of the Ten Commandments because it
contains the name of God? (Ex 20:10-12) It is not the
only comment in the Ten Commandments that identifies
the One who gave them. Exodus 20:1, 2 identifies
Jehovah. In ancient times, the name of the author of a
document was given at the beginning, not in the middle
of a document. (Ezr 7:12; Isa 1:1; Jer 1:1; Ro 1:1; Jas 1:1;
1Pe 1:1) God’s name is in several commandments, not
just the Fourth. ––Ex 20:5, 7, 12.
12. Does the fact that the Sabbath commandment at
Exodus 20:11 points back to creation mean that the
Sabbath is permanent? No. The Passover was also a
memorial of a past event, but this did not make the
Passover permanent.––Ex 12:14, 24-27; 13:8, 9.
13. Was the Sabbath a “sign” between God and all
nations? No. It was only a sign between God and Israel.–
–Ex 31:13, 17; Eze 20:12.
14. Does Exodus 31:13 say the Sabbath was a ‘seal’?
No. It is called a “sign,” never a seal such as the one at
Revelation 7:4.
15. Does the fact that the Sabbath is said to be “for
ever” at Exodus 31:17 prove that it should continue
 DEFENCE
today? No. God told Abraham regarding circumcision:
“my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting
covenant.” On this basis do we still need to be
circumcised? The same is said of the Passover and other
Mosaic Law features that passed away, like the
tabernacle and the priesthood. “For ever” in Hebrew
means ‘to an indefinite time.’––Ex 12:14; 27:21; 29:42;
30:8, 10, 21; 40:15; Le 3:17; 6:18; 7:36; 23:14, 21, 41;
24:3; Nu 10:8; 15:38.
16. Was the Old Covenant made before Sinai? No.
It and its Ten Commandments was not made before
Sinai.––De 5:3.
17. Is it true that only the Ceremonial Law was
placed outside the ark? (De 31:24-26) No. The law was
hand-written by Moses and placed it in a receptacle at the
side of the ark. The writing was called “the book of the
law.” (De 31:9, 26) Adventists assume that “the book of
the law” included the Ceremonial Law but excluded the
Ten Commandments. Nothing in the Bible says that
Moses excluded the Ten Commandments from the book
that was placed in the outer receptacle. The expression
“the law” included the Ten Commandments. (Ex 24:12)
Moses no doubt included all of the laws of the covenant–
–the Ten Commandments and all the other laws––in “the
book.”
18. If the Ceremonial Law is ceremonial, why is
much of it moral? Much of the ‘Ceremonial Laws’ is
moral. (Ex 22:21, 22; Le 19:2, 16, 18; De 16:13, 18, 19)
In fact, the greatest commandments are not in the “moral
law,” yet they are very moral.––Mt 22:36-38.
19. Were the Ten Commandments given to all
nations? No. They were given to Israel, not other
nations. ––Ex 20:1-3; De 4:8, 10-13, 44; 5:1; Ro 9:4.
20. Are any of the Ceremonial Laws ever called
‘commandments’? Yes. The word ‘commandment(s)’
also applies to ‘ceremonial laws.’ (Le 27:34; Nu 36:13;
De 11:8, 13, 22, 27, 28; 15:5; 19:9; 26:13; Neh 9:13, 14;
Mr 10:4, 5; He 7:5, 18) “Commandments” does not
always mean the Ten.––See also 2Ch 8:12, 13; 1Co
14:37; 1Jo 2:8.
21. Is the Abrahamic covenant a commandment? It
is something God “commanded.” (1Ch 16:15-18) We
should always remember that “commandments” does not
exclusively refer to the Ten Commandments.
22. Does Psalm 19:7 apply exclusively to the Ten
Commandments? No. Even ‘ceremonial laws’ were
“the law of the LORD” in the Scriptures. (1Ch 16:40; 2Ch
31:3, 4) All of God’s laws are perfect. There is no
difference between the laws in this text and at He 7:19.
Hebrews argues that this same perfect law did not perfect
others.
23. Does Psalm 89:27-36 apply to the Ten
Commandments? No. It refers to the Davidic covenant
as verses 3, 4, 19, 33-35 show.
172
24. Does Psalm 119 refer to the Ten
Commandments only? No. There is no proof that this
psalm refers to the Ten Commandments specifically
rather than to all of God’s laws, ceremonial included.
25. Was Israel unique among nations as to receiving
God’s laws? Yes. Ps 147:19, 20 confirms this.
26. Is “the law” at Proverbs 28:9 the Ten
Commandment Law? There is no proof that it refers
only to the Decalogue.
27. Are the “commandments” at Ecclesiastes 12:13
the Ten Commandments? There is no proof that the
“whole obligation” of man is to keep only the Ten
Commandments, as if nothing else is required. The
“commandments” here evidently includes ceremonial as
much as moral laws. “Commandments” does not always
mean the Ten Commandments.––See 2Ch 8:12, 13; 1Co
14:37; He 7:5; 1Jo 2:8.
28. Is “the law” at Isaiah 42:21 the Decalogue?
There is no proof that “the law” here refers only to the
Ten Commandments.
29. Does Isaiah 56:4, 6, 7 prove that Gentiles today
should keep Sabbath? Foreigners are said to keep
Sabbath, but the context shows they also offer sacrifices,
so this cannot prove that Gentiles should keep Sabbath
today unless they should also offer the sacrifices of the
Mosaic Law. Foreigners living with the Israelites were
expected to keep local laws, but this was never true of all
Gentiles.
30. Does Isaiah 58:12, 13, which says to restore the
Sabbath, prove that the Sabbath should be observed
today? No. In context, it clearly applies to literal Israel,
“the house of Jacob.” If it be argued that it also applies to
spiritual Israel, it should consistently refer to a spiritual
Sabbath, not a literal one.––See He 3:13; 4:9.
31. Does the expression “from sabbath to sabbath”
in relation to the new earth at Isaiah 66:22, 23 prove
there will be a literal Sabbath in the “new earth”? No.
If it did, it would also prove there will be “new moon”
observances in the new earth. But Colossians 2:16, 17
argues against this. Instead of religious observances, the
text predicts that worship of God will continue on a
weekly and monthly basis.
32. Does Ezekiel 22:8, 26 have a modern-day
application? Yes, probably. The text initially criticized
the ancient Israelites for not keeping Sabbath. If there
were a modern application, it would be against the
apostate Church of unfaithful spiritual Israelites today.
But if the Israelites today are spiritually so, it must
consistently be the spiritual Sabbath that they disregard,
not the weekly Sabbath.––He 4:9.
33. Does the Daniel 7:25 reference to changing of
“times and laws” refer to the beast’s attack on the
Sabbath? This is the Adventist interpretation, but there
is no objective proof that it refers to the change to a
Sunday Sabbath.
 DEFENCE
34. Which “Law” does Matthew 5:17-19 refer to,
the Moral Law or the Ceremonial Law? The context
shows that Jesus was referring both to moral (Mt 5:21,
27) and ceremonial (Mt 5:31, 33, 38) aspects. This shows
that “the Law” was not divided into two Laws. The terms
“Moral Law” and “Ceremonial Law” are unscriptural.
35. Does Matthew 5:15-17 prove that the Law has
not passed away? The passage mentions not only the
fulfilling of the Sabbath but also of the prophets. Jesus
did not destroy but fulfilled the prophecies relating to
him. They did not later have to be fulfilled again. In the
same way, the Law that he did not destroy but fulfilled
(and which, according to the context, included the Ten
Commandments) did not have to be fulfilled again after
Jesus died. (Lu 24:44; Ac 13:29) Fulfilled, both passed
into history.
36. Are there greater commandments than the Ten
Commandments? Yes. At Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus
spoke of two commandments that are the greatest. They
are in the part of the Law that Adventists call
‘Ceremonial’ and that were kept outside, not inside, the
ark.
37. Does Matthew 24:20 prove that Christians kept
Sabbath after Pentecost? No. Although this is a
reference to the Sabbath after Christ ascended to heaven,
Acts 2:1; 12:3; 13:14 equally refer by name to other
Jewish days that they did not keep. In 66 CE, when
Jewish Christians fled Jerusalem, the Sabbath still existed
in Israel and Christians who did not keep it would have
encountered difficulties. Based on Acts 1:12, a Sabbath
day’s journey was approximately one kilometre. Death
was the penalty for breaking the law in order to flee. (Ex
31:14, 15) So it would have been difficult and dangerous
to attempt to flee to Pella on that day. Besides, the text is
not mentioning the Sabbath and winter as observances––
who ever observed the winter?––but as a difficult day and
a difficult season for travel.
38. Does Mark 2:27 prove that the Sabbath was
given for all mankind, not just the Israelite man? No.
The word “man [anthropos, Greek]” used here means
“mankind” generically, but can refer to mankind of the
Israelite race specifically, rather than to all mankind. See,
for example, Matthew 23:4; Galatians 5:3. Jesus was
addressing the Pharisees who believed that the Sabbath
was for Jews only. If Jesus had meant that the Sabbath
was made for Gentiles, this would have created another
controversy. But there is no indication in the account that
the Pharisees took it that way. It cannot prove that the
Sabbath was made for the entire human race, especially
in view of other texts that clearly state that the Sabbath
was specifically for the Israelites.––Ex 31:13, 17; Eze
20:12.
39. Does “the law of the Lord” at Luke 2:23, 24 refer
exclusively to the Ten Commandments? No. 2
Chronicles 31:3 and Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7, 8, 14, 18 show
173
that this term applies equally to ceremonial aspects of the
Law.
40. Does the fact that Luke 23:56 says the disciples
“rested” on the Sabbath after his death prove that
Sabbath-keeping should continue even after Christ’s
death? No. This was before the coming of the spirit
which would guide them into the truth. (Joh 16:12, 13) In
keeping the Sabbath the disciples were not acting in the
full light of truth.
41. Are there any other texts from the ‘New
Testament’ that show that ‘commandment(s)’ can
refer to many more than the Ten Commandments?
Yes. See John 13:34; 15:12; Acts 1:2; 13:47; 1
Corinthians 14:37; 2 Peter 3:2; 1 John 2:8; 3:23; 4:21; 2
John 4, 6. These are commandments other than Ten
Commandments. We should always remember that the
word “commandments” does not always mean the Ten
Commandments.
42. Did Christians ever meet for worship on
Sundays? Yes. Counting from the Sunday on which
Jesus was resurrected, Jesus met the disciples “after eight
days,” on a Sunday. (Joh 20:19, 26) Acts 2:1 records
another Sunday meeting on the day of Pentecost, 50 days
after the Sunday on which Jesus was raised. (Le 23:15,
16) Acts 20:7 also records a Christian meeting on the first
day of the week. This does not prove that Sunday is the
Christian Sabbath, but it does show that Sunday meetings
are not wrong.
43. Does Acts 13:14, 42-45 prove that Paul kept
Sabbath? No. Paul’s Sabbath-day preaching was to Jews
only. It was not a Christian meeting.
44. Was the Sabbath included among the vital
requirements for Christian living? No. When, at Acts
15:19-28; 21:25, the apostles and elders decided the
“necessary things” from the writings of Moses that
Christians should observe, the Sabbath was not included.
45. Is Acts 16:13 an instance of Christian Sabbath-
keeping? No. Paul went to the river side to preach and
he met a Gentile proselyte to the Jewish religion. This
was no Christian meeting, but an opportunity to preach.
46. Does Acts 17:1, 2 describe Christian Sabbath-
keeping? No. These visits to the synagogue were for
preaching. For “three sabbath days [he] reasoned with
them out of the scriptures.” Why would Paul seek out
Jews at Jewish synagogues for Christian worship?
47. Is Acts 18:4 an instance of Sabbath-keeping? No,
he preached to Jewish non-Christians only. This was not
a Christian meeting.
48. Does Acts 13:14, 15; 42-46; 16:13; 17:1, 2; 18:4,
11 show that Paul kept 84 Sabbaths? No. Acts 18:6
shows that at some point in Corinth Paul transferred his
attention from the Jews to the Gentiles, so most of these
supposed 84 visits to the synagogue cannot be verified.
There were actually only 10 or 12 times he is actually
said to have preached on the Sabbath to Jews. Most
 DEFENCE
importantly, he never met with a Christian congregation
on any of these occasions. There is not a single recorded
worship meeting of Gentile Christians on the seventh day
in the book of Acts. Neither is there even one passage
describing a Sabbath-day meeting of a Christian church
after Pentecost. Jehovah’s Witnesses imitate Paul by
using Saturdays to preach to non-Christians.
49. When Acts 25:8 says that Paul did nothing to
offend the Law of the Jews, does this suggest that he
kept the Sabbath? No. The text does not say that Paul
kept the Sabbath. Even if he did so while in Israelite
territory where the Sabbath was still civil law, he also
circumcised a Christian and cleansed himself
ceremonially. Does this prove that we should be
circumcised and cleansed according to the Law today?
(Ac 16:3; 21:24) Clearly not.
50. Do the Scriptures specifically say the Gentiles
were not given the Law? Yes. Romans 2:14 says “the
Gentiles ... have not the law.” They did not have the Ten
Commandment. At Romans 5:13, 14 the expression
“until the law” shows there was no Ten-Commandment
Law before Sinai.
51. Is the Sabbath the “seal” of God’s Law? Nothing
in the Bible says so. At Romans 4:11, circumcision is
described as a seal, but this is never said of the Sabbath.
52. Does the Law from which we are delivered
include the Ten Commandments? Yes. At Romans 7:6,
7 it is clear that “the law” from which Christians are
delivered includes the Tenth Commandment.
53. In the first century, were Sabbath days a
Christian requirement or were they a conscience
matter? According to Romans 14:5, 6, observance of
certain days is now optional. There is nothing to say that
Paul is speaking only of ceremonial days. Sabbath days
are not a non-negotiable requirement.
54. Does 2 Corinthians 3:6, 7, 9-11, 13 prove that the
Ten Commandments are “abolished”? Yes. “That
which is done away” (verse 11) is the “letter”––the text–
–of the Ten Commandments. The Greek word translated
“that which” is a neuter pronoun. “Ministration” and
“glory” are both feminine nouns, and “death” is
masculine. The only contextual neuter noun is “letter.” It
is the letter of the Ten-Commandment Law that is “done
away.” The Christian ministration is “not in tables of
stone,” not even in heaven.
55. Do the Scriptures discourage Christian Sabbath
observance? Yes. At Galatians 4:9-11 it is said that it is
“vain” to fall back to “days.” These would be weekly
days as the increasing frequency in the sequence “days
[weekly], and months [monthly], and times [annual], and
years [seven- or even fifty-yearly]” suggests.
56. Did the Law covenant given at Mount Sinai
correspond to Sarah or to Hagar? The Law covenant
corresponded to Hagar the bondwoman who was cast out
of Abraham’s family. (Ga 4:24, 25, 30) Given that the
174
Law covenant included the Ten Commandments which
were the very terms of that covenant (De 4:13; He 9:4),
this means the Ten Commandments too were “cast out.”
57. Were the Ten Commandments part of the Old
Covenant––the ‘Old Testament’––that passed away?
Yes. They are called “the words of the covenant.” They
were written on “the tables of the covenant.” (Ex 34:28;
De 4:13; 9:9) Hebrews 8:13; 9:1, 4 makes clear that the
Ten Commandments were an integral part of the Old
Covenant and ‘vanished away’ with it. Hebrews 9:4 even
refers to them as “the tables of the covenant.”
58. Would Christians be lawless without the Ten
Commandments? No. Paul did not want Christians to
get that impression: “Ye have been called unto liberty;
only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by
love serve one another.” (Ga 5:13, 14) The essential
principles of the Decalogue are restated in the ‘New
Testament,’ with the exception of the fourth
commandment. These Christian instructions, rather than
the Ten Commandments, are now the basis for our
obligations to God. The first commandment: compare
Exodus 20:3 with Matthew 4:10; the second: compare
Exodus 20:4, 5 with 1 John 5:21; the third: compare
Exodus 20:7 with John 17:26; Romans 10:13; the fifth:
compare Exodus 20:12 with Ephesians 6:1; the sixth:
compare Exodus 20:13 with Romans 13:9; the seventh:
compare Exodus 20:14 with 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; the
eighth: compare Exodus 20:15 with Ephesians 4:28; the
ninth: compare Exodus 20:16 with Colossians 3:9; the
tenth: compare Exodus 20:17 with Ephesians 5:3. But the
Sabbath was never restated as a requirement after
Pentecost.
59. The Hebrew Scriptures often list Sabbath-
breaking as a sin, but is Sabbath-breaking ever called
a sin after Pentecost? No. Lists of sins in the Christian
Scriptures never include breaking the Sabbath. Romans
1:29-31 lists 19 sins, Galatians 5:19-21 lists 17 and 2
Timothy 3:1-4 lists 18 but none of them calls breaking
the Sabbath a sin.
60. Does Ephesians 2:15 show that the Ten
Commandments were abolished? Yes. It says “the law
of commandments” is abolished. As noted elsewhere,
“commandments” includes all requirements of the Law,
moral and ceremonial. This entire framework was
abolished. Interestingly, this is one text in which
Adventists are not so keen to have the word
“commandments” refer to the Ten Commandments. They
would rather restrict it to the ‘Ceremonial Law.’ But they
do so without evidence.
61. Does the “handwriting of ordinances” at
Colossians 2:14-16 include the Ten Commandments?
Answer: Yes. Moses manually rewrote the whole Law,
including the Ten Commandments and all the other laws,
so it could be said they were handwritten. The text says
they were blotted out, including “holyday, ... new moon,
 DEFENCE
... sabbath days.” “Sabbath days” here is a single Greek
word, but in the plural. Every other time––there are more
that 20––that this plural, sabbaton, appears in the
Christian Scriptures, the so-called ‘New Testament,’ it
refers to the weekly Sabbath. If Paul used sabbaton at
Colossians 2:14-16 to mean monthly Sabbaths, the
sentence would read, “annual Sabbaths, monthly
Sabbaths, and monthly Sabbaths.” If he meant annual
Sabbaths, the meaning would be “annual Sabbaths,
monthly Sabbaths, and annual Sabbaths. But this is
nonsense. The descending frequency, holyday (annual),
new moon (monthly), then “sabbath days” argues that
these Sabbaths were the regular weekly Sabbaths that
were blotted out. This same order was used in the Greek
Septuagint at 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33;
Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11 where the weekly Sabbath was
in view. Whenever the Hebrew Scriptures links the new
moon celebration with the Sabbath, it always refers to the
weekly Sabbath. (2Ki 4:23, 1Ch 23:31, 2Ch 2:4; Neh
10:33; Isa 1:13; 66:23; Eze 45:17; 46.1: Hos 2:11: Am
8:5) In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint uses the
phrase sabbata sabbaton when it refers to annual
Sabbaths, not simply sabbaton as here in Colossians
2:14-17. It is therefore unlikely that Paul meant the
annual sabbaths when he used sabbaton by itself.
62. Does Hebrews 4:9 say that Christians are still to
keep a weekly Sabbath? No. It is a spiritual Sabbath.
The context shows that it is a day described as “Today”
and it is to be kept “daily,” not weekly. (He 3:7, 13; 4:7)
The Sabbath at Hebrews 4:9 is singular (“a rest”), so there
are not two Sabbaths, a spiritual daily one and a literal
weekly one.
63. When Hebrews 7:19 says “the law made nothing
perfect,” was the reference to the ‘Ceremonial Law’?
No. A distinction between the ‘Moral Law’ and
‘Ceremonial Law’ is unscriptural, and the text itself does
not say the reference is to the ‘Ceremonial Law’ as
Adventists might prefer. There is no dichotomy of laws
to be observed when this text is compared with the one at
Psalm 19:7. That text simply says God’s law is perfect,
including the Ten Commandments––did not perfect
others.
64. Should Christians approach Mount Sinai for
instruction? No. Hebrews 12:18, 19 says Christians do
not go there for instruction.
65. Does James 2:10-12 say Christians should keep
the Ten Commandments? No. James speaks of two
distinct groups, one represented by the word
“whosoever” who keep the Ten Commandments, and
then another group he addresses as “ye,” his Christian
readers, who are under a different law, “the law of
liberty.” This distinction is also noted at Galatians 4:31-
5:1. “The law of liberty” is “the law of Christ,” not the
Law from Sinai. (Ga 6:2) He mentions the Ten-
Commandment group only to illustrate that a person who
175
keeps God’s law must keep it all, without favouritism.––
Jas 2:1, 8, 9.
66. It the Ten Commandment Law meant at 1 John
5:3? No. There is no proof whatever that the
commandments here are the Ten. We should always
remember that the word “commandments” does not
always mean the Ten Commandments.––See also 2Ch
8:12, 13; 1Co 14:37; He 7:5; 1Jo 2:8.
67. Is “the Lord’s day” at Revelation 1:10 the
Sabbath? No. “The Lord’s day” is never used elsewhere
in reference to Sabbath. The same Greek word for
“Lord’s,” kyriakos, refers to Jesus, not Jehovah at 1
Corinthians 11:20 and at 1 Corinthians 4:3 hemera
(“day”) refers to a judgment period, not to a specific day.
The “Lord’s day” is therefore not likely the Sabbath, but
rather the future judgment period into which John was
transported by spirit.
68. Is the ‘seal’ at Revelation 7:4 the Sabbath? No.
It is argued concerning “sealed” that the seal is the
Sabbath. In Hebrew, “seal” is chotham; in Greek,
sphragis. In Hebrew “sign” is different word, oth; in
Greek, semeion. They are never defined as equivalent
terms. The “seal” is the holy spirit, not the Sabbath.––
2Co 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30.
69. Since at Revelation 11:19 the ark of the covenant
appears in heaven, does this mean that the Ten
Commandments are now in heaven? No. The context
is loaded with symbols: olive trees, candlesticks, fire
from heaven, a bottomless pit and two ‘spiritual’
locations. It cannot be regarded as literal.
70. Are the “commandments” at Revelation 12:17
the Ten Commandments? There is no evidence that
these “commandments” are the Ten. “Commandments”
does not always mean the Ten Commandments.––See
also 2Ch 8:12, 13; 1Co 14:37; He 7:5; 1Jo 2:8.
71. Is the “mark of the beast” at Revelation 13:16
Sunday worship? There is no evidence that Sunday-
worship is the “mark of the beast.” This incorrect
interpretation seems to derive from the similarly faulty
interpretation that the “seal” of Revelation 7:4 is the
Sabbath.
72. Is the Sunday versus Sabbath conflict described
at Revelation 14:9-12? No. Just as there is no evidence
that the “mark of the beast” refers to Sunday worship,
there is no evidence that “commandments” refers to the
Ten Commandments here. “Commandments” does not
always mean the Ten Commandments.––See also 2Ch
8:12, 13; 1Co 14:37; He 7:5; 1Jo 2:8.
73. If the Sabbath was so important in the early
Church, why are there only two occurrences of the
word from Romans to Revelation? It was not so
important. One reference is in a negative tone at
Colossians 2:16, 17 and the other is to a spiritual Sabbath,
not a literal one, at Hebrews 3:13; 4:9. The answer cannot
be that the Sabbath was so well accepted in the early
 DEFENCE
Church that it did not need to be mentioned, because
much of the teaching in these letters is directed to
Gentiles who had not previously kept it. Compare the
Christian Scriptures’ letters with Adventist literature
which overflows with Sabbath articles. The contrast is
self-evident.
74. Are Australian Adventists who live east of the
original location of Eden actually observing the sixth
day as the Sabbath? Yes. If the Sabbath began in Eden,
Adventists in Australia, who live west of the
International Date Line and who observe the Sabbath
before Adventists in the Middle East, are actually
keeping the sixth day.
75. Why do Adventists arbitrarily accept the 180o
meridian as the point at which the Sabbath begins?
There is no good reason. The 180o meridian and the
International Date Line are entirely arbitrary. Adventists
accept the meridian, with certain exceptions, as valid for
‘practical’ purposes. The whole concept of a date line on
this meridian was an artificial construct of cartographers
adopted at the 1884 International Meridian Conference.
That Fijian and Tongan Adventists worship on different
days just because they lie on opposite sides of the
meridian is not the result of any revealed law of God but
the decision of a committee of men who had no interest
in the seventh-day Sabbath.
76. Why did the post-apostolic church not keep the
Sabbath long before the establishment of the Roman
Catholic Church? Early church writers did not keep the
Sabbath.
(a) Ignatius of Antioch (110CE): “Those who were
brought up in the ancient order of things [Jews] have
come to the possession of a new hope, no longer
observing the Sabbath.”––Letter to the Magnesians 8.
(b) Justin Martyr (155CE): “We too would observe the
fleshly circumcision, and the sabbaths, and in short all the
feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were
enjoined [on] you––namely, on account of your
176
transgressions and the hardness of your heart. ... How is
it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which
do not harm us––I speak of fleshly circumcision and
sabbaths and feasts? ... God enjoined you to keep the
sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as
I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness
and that of your fathers.”––Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
18, 21.
(c) Tertullian (203CE): “Let him who contends that the
sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and
circumcision on the eighth day ... teach us that, for the
time past, righteous men kept the sabbath or practiced
circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’
For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam
uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after
his sinning, if circumcision purges? ... Therefore, since
God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of
the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel,
offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant
of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended ... Noah
also, uncircumcised––yes, and unobservant of the
Sabbath––God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too,
most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of
the sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not
first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal
life, he might show us that we also may, without the
burden of the law of Moses, please God.”––An Answer to
the Jews 2 .
77. Is worshiping on Sunday honouring the sun god
and the papal Sabbath? No. Do Adventists who go to
prayer meetings on Wednesday evening worship the
pagan god Woden? Jesus met with his disciples on the
first day of the week after the resurrection. Was Jesus
honouring the sun god or the papal sabbath? The pagans
of the Roman empire never celebrated a weekly day to
the sun god.
 DEFENCE
Appendix 4
4.1 Seventh-day Adventists and War
The following article documents the activities of the
Seventh-day Adventist church in wartime. It
demonstrates a major change from a non-combatant
position to one that allows individual Adventists to
engage in combatant duties as a personal decision
without sanction. This article appeared on the “Adventist
Peace Fellowship” website.
“A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists in
Times of War
By Ronald Osborn
The Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded by New
England pacifists with intellectual and spiritual roots in
the Radical or Anabaptist Reformation. In the first 60
years of the movement’s history––from its organization
in 1863 until the death of its prophetess, Ellen White, in
1915––Adventism may thus be seen as part of the same
tradition of social and political dissent that gave rise to
Quakers, Mennonites, and other religious communities
committed to the ethics of nonviolence.
This commitment was both formally stated and
rigorously practiced by early Adventists, many of whom
believed that even touching a weapon was sinful. On May
23, 1865, the Review and Herald published a General
Conference resolution ‘as a truthful representation of the
views held by us from the beginning of our existence as
a people, relative to bearing arms.’ The document––
composed in the aftermath of a war that had caused many
abolitionists to abandon their earlier pacifism––affirmed
a legitimate role for the civil government, but declared
that Adventists, as a people, are ‘compelled to decline all
participation in acts of war and bloodshed as being
inconsistent with the duties enjoined upon us by our
divine Master toward our enemies and toward all
mankind.’
During the Spanish-American War of 1898-1899,
Adventists thus emerged as outspoken critics of
America’s imperial foreign policy. In opposition to other
prominent churches that embraced the war as a
Christianizing and civilizing campaign, they pointed to
the glaring inconsistency of linking the cross with
militarism of any sort. ‘Christian love demands that its
possessor shall not make war at all. “Put up again they
sword into his place,” is the word of the Author of
Christianity, the embodiment of Christian love’,
thundered former army sergeant A. T. Jones.
‘Christianity is one thing; war is another, and far different
177
thing. Christians are one sort of people; warriors are
another and different sort of people.’ Percy Magan’s The
Peril of the Republic, rushed to print in 1899, similarly
denounced American actions in the Philippines as mere
‘colonial greed and rapacious lust.’ Better, Magan
argued, ‘for a few missionaries to lose their lives at the
hands of heathen savages than for heathen savages to lose
their lives at the hands of those calling themselves
Christians.’
The Adventist commitment to nonviolence during this
period of the church’s history was based not primarily
upon concern for personal moral purity, but upon a
systematic critique of America’s revered institutions of
power. According to the Adventist reading of the books
of Daniel and Revelation, the United States could not fail
as a nation so long as it remained true to its Republican
and Protestant heritage. Yet the fact that America would
eventually fail was a foregone conclusion. No
nationalistic project could replace the divine plan to
redeem humanity once and for all. The creedalism and
intolerance of the emerging Protestant empire––intent
upon a new union of church and state––coupled with the
social injustice implicit in the economic order, revealed
the seeds of corruption eating at the heart of the American
experiment. The United States, Ellen White, Joseph
Bates, A. T. Jones and other Adventist pioneers declared,
was the beast of Revelation 13, a morally contradictory
amalgamation of dragon and lamb-like qualities, who
‘doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down
from heaven on the earth, and deceiveth them that dwell
on the earth by the means of those miracles.’ Even the
best government in human history, these prophetic
agitators insisted, had feet of clay.
II
From Ellen White’s death in 1915 on, however, the
Anabaptist ethos of the early church rapidly eroded. This
was true in matters of ecclesiastical authority and biblical
hermeneutics, but particularly with regard to the military
and bearing arms. Following World War I the Adventist
commitment to not taking life remained largely intact, yet
church leaders increasingly described Adventists not as
conscientious objectors but as ‘conscientious
cooperators’. The consensus of the new generation was
that it was no longer the church’s role to question the
rightness of US military adventures or foreign policy so
long as Adventist soldiers were allowed to continue in
their peculiar commitment to Sabbath observance.
 DEFENCE
It was in this spirit of patriotic cooperation with the
government that the Adventist Medical Cadet Corp was
created in 1942. The Corp sought to prove that good
Adventists were also ‘good Americans’, eager and
willing to serve in the military, albeit in noncombatant
roles. The Corp thus helped to instil in a generation of
young Adventists a love for the military jack-boot and
bivouac, and the belief that it is honourable to serve
power for the sake of order. Unfortunately, these lessons
could not be confined to one side of the Atlantic. During
World War II Adventists proudly answered the call to
duty in the United States, but also, and more
disconcertingly, in Nazi Germany. While Protestant
leaders of other denominations resisted fascism at
considerable cost, there was no Adventist ‘Confessing
Church’, and up to the outbreak of the war Adventists
even in the United States spoke of Hitler in positive terms
as a fellow vegetarian concerned with matters of bodily
hygiene.
Whereas Adventist complicity in the Nazi onslaught, as
well as the horrors of the Allied bombing campaign,
might have sparked a recommitment to the nonviolent
principles of the church’s pioneers, Adventists from the
1950s on generally saw World War II as a vindication of
violence for a just cause. The idea that loyalty to God and
loyalty to the military were fully compatible became
powerfully entrenched in the minds of many Adventists,
particularly in North America. Pockets of believers in
Germany and other European countries retained the older
ethics of nonviolence; and Russia’s True and Free
Adventists heroically resisted Soviet totalitarianism in
defense of freedom and human rights. But these
pacifists––whose convictions placed them firmly in the
tradition of the church’s founders—were disavowed and
marginalized by presiding church officials. With a
burgeoning network of health and educational
institutions, and ambitious evangelistic campaigns
around the world, maintaining good relations with
government authorities now took precedence over
prophetic and politically dangerous brands of dissent.
With more and more Adventist chaplains rising in
military rank, the church was also already too deeply
invested in the military as an institution to seriously
question the logic of violence, or the rightness of
American foreign policies abroad. The title of the
Adventist chaplaincy’s newsletter, For God and
Country, revealed just how far pietism and patriotism had
come to be wedded in the thinking of church leaders––
and how far Adventists had come since Magan’s Peril of
the Republic.
III
By the time of the Vietnam War the Adventist position
had thus fragmented into incoherency. Some Adventists
178
evaded the draft, others entered as noncombatant medics,
and others avoided direct military action by volunteering
as human guinea pigs in Project White Coat––a research
program with links to the US biological weapons
laboratories at Fort Detrick, Maryland. During the war in
Vietnam significant numbers of Adventists, encouraged
by church officials to perform their patriotic duty
according to ‘the dictates of their conscience’, also
picked up guns and, for the first time, began to kill
according to the dictates of government planners.
In view of the vociferous Adventist response to the
Spanish-American war, the silence of the church during
the war in Indochina ––and particularly the silence of
those chaplains closest to the unfolding catastrophe—
marked a stunning reversal in Adventism’s historic
identity, from fearless agitators to acquiescent mandarins
of the state. Religious leaders of other faiths, such as
Martin Luther King Jr., Thomas Merton, and Abraham
Joshua Heschel, decried the war in unequivocal
language. But through the carpet-bombing with napalm
of hundreds of thousands of defenseless villagers;
through the countless acts of brutality and depredation
against unarmed civilians; through the dumping of
millions of gallons of arsenic-based herbicides on
Vietnamese crops and people––through all of this
Adventists spoke not a word. In a tragically ironic twist,
even as America acted increasingly like the beast
Adventists had long proclaimed it to be, the prophetic
movement proved an increasingly timid and sycophantic
page at the dragon’s side.
In the post-Vietnam era, thousands of Adventists
voluntarily joined the US armed forces as full
combatants. Adventist chaplains were recruited to
minister to these fighters ‘without passing judgment’,
which in turn encouraged more Adventists to enlist. With
large numbers of Adventists on active duty, it is therefore
not surprising that there was not a murmur of disapproval
from the church in the 1970s and 1980s as the US military
abetted Latin American juntas in the slaying of tens of
thousands of impoverished peasants calling for land
reform––many of them Christians who first heard about
the Sabbath Jubilee from socially conscious Catholic
priests.
During the 1990s and at start of the 21st century, the
collapse of the historic Adventist ethic of nonviolence
became apparent in other embarrassing ways. Early
Adventist apocalyptic had led the movement to reject all
acts of violence and bloodshed, but in Waco, Texas in
1993 one-time Adventists played out a new and violent
apocalyptic nightmare on a compound bristling with
weapons. In 1994 significant numbers of Adventist Hutus
in Rwanda participated in the genocide of their Tutsi
countrymen, including an estimated ten thousand
 DEFENCE
Seventh-day Adventists. Through the 1990s—as
Buddhist Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ang San Suu Kyi,
attracted world attention in her nonviolent struggle
against Burma’s military dictatorship––hundreds of
Karen Adventists, whose great-grandparents had been
evangelized by legendary missionary Eric B. Hare,
engaged in a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the
Burmese army with the goal of creating an autonomous
Karen nation. And in 2002 rival militias comprised
largely of Adventists fought for control of the
government of the Solomon Islands.
Yet while Adventists were quick to dismiss these events
as tragic aberrations in the faith, they did not pause to
consider the church’s romance with more devastating
forms of violence sanctified by the state. In 2002 a group
of students from Oakwood College were arrested for gun-
running between New York and Alabama. But the church
saw no reason to disavow the voting records of
Adventism’s two most prominent gun-runners: US
Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Bob
Stump of Arizona, who through the 1990s collected hefty
sums from the National Rifle Association and military
manufacturing lobbyists for helping to grease weapons
sells at home and abroad.
The September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States
saw the final denouement of Adventism as a prophetic
movement that could not be co-opted by nationalistic
crusades. Amid the many heartfelt and sincere
4.2 Adventists in Nazi Germany
German Adventists were complicit in siding with the
Nazis in World War II. This article appeared on the
“Adventist Review” website. The date of article was
August 15, 2005.
“ADVENTIST NEWS
Church Leaders Say ‘We're Sorry’
German and Austrian churches apologize for Holocaust
actions
BY MARK A. KELLNER, assistant director for news
and information of the General Conference
Communication Department
Noting the sixtieth anniversary of the end of World War
II, Seventh-day Adventist church leaders in Germany and
Austria have released a declaration saying they ‘deeply
regret’ any participation in or support of Nazi activities
during the war. The church bodies ‘honestly confess’ a
179
expressions of grief following the tragedy, churches from
coast to coast reflexively wrapped themselves in the flag,
no different from the rest of evangelical America. Sligo
Church in Washington, DC featured a Veteran’s Day
service in which a military honor guard marched down
the center aisle with bolt-action rifles gripped to their
chests. At a camp-meeting in Northern California, a
patriotic song service was followed by a 21 gun salute
with live ammunition. And near the end of the American
bombing campaign in Afghanistan, the General
Conference organized a special weekend to honor the US
military and send care packages overseas—not care
packages to the afflicted Afghanis, but stuffed animals to
US bomber crews stationed at Diego Garcia Air Force
Base in the Pacific Ocean. Little thought was given by
the planners of the event to the history of American
policy in the Middle East, or the estimated 3,400 Afghani
civilians killed by US bombs – four hundred more
innocent people than perished on September 11. Where
Adventists once venerated those Protestant martyrs who
died rather than betray their religious convictions, they
would now honor US soldiers who kill at the bidding of
their political masters. As President George W. Bush
promised to take his war against America’s enemies to
far-flung corners of the globe, one thing was certain:
many Adventists would soon be shipping out to exotic
lands, not as missionaries, but as warriors, assault rifles
in hand.”
failure ‘in following our Lord’ by not protecting Jews,
and others, from that era's genocide, widely known as the
Holocaust. Millions of people perished from war
atrocities, including more than 6 million Jews who were
exterminated in Nazi persecutions during the 12-year
period of 1933 to 1945.
The declaration was initially published in the May 2005
issue of AdventEcho, a monthly German-language
church magazine, and also will appear in other German
publications, said Günther Machel, president of the South
German Union Conference and one of three signatories
to the statement.
A copy of the statement has been provided to Yad
Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes'
Remembrance Authority in Israel, added Rolf Pöhler, a
former North German church area president who is now
 DEFENCE
that region's theological advisor and was involved with
the drafting of the declaration.
‘We deeply regret that the character of National Socialist
dictatorship had not been realized in time and distinctly
enough, and the ungodly nature of [Nazi] ideology had
not clearly been identified,’ the statement, as translated
from German, reads. The church says it also regrets ‘that
in some of our publications … there were found articles
glorifying Adolf Hitler and agreeing with the ideology of
anti-Semitism in a way that is unbelievable from today's
[perspective].’
Church leaders also expressed regret that ‘our peoples
became associated with racial fanaticism destroying the
lives and freedom of 6 million Jews and representatives
of minorities in all of Europe’ and ‘that many Seventh-
day Adventists did not share the need and suffering of
their Jewish fellow-citizens.’
A paramount regret, the statement indicated, was that
German and Austrian Adventist congregations
‘excluded, separated and left [church members who
were] … of Jewish origin to themselves so that they were
delivered to imprisonment, exile or death.’
Under various racial decrees, some Adventist
congregations expelled members of Jewish heritage.
One, Max-Israel Munk, was placed in two concentration
camps by the Nazis and survived and returned to his
church after the war. He said he did not wish to act toward
his congregation in the way in which he had been treated,
according to Daniel Heinz, a church archivist at
Friedensau Adventist University who has studied
Adventist activities during the National Socialist era.
Along with Machel, the other leaders who signed the
statement were Klaus-Juergen van Treeck, North
German Union Conference president, and Herbert
Brugger, president of the Adventist Church in Austria.
Pöhler and Johannes Hartlapp, church historian at
Friedensau, drafted the statement on which the
declaration is based. All three church geographic areas
voted to approve the text, Pöhler said.
In the statement, the three assert that the ‘obedience we
owe to the state authorities does not lead to giving up
biblical convictions and values.’ They said that while
only God can judge the actions of prior generations, ‘in
our day, however, we want to take a decided stand for
right and justice-towards all people.’
Brugger, in a telephone interview, said, ‘Our church
members really appreciated the publishing of this
document.’ No indication of a reaction from Austria's
Jewish community has been received, but Brugger said
the Adventist Church is not as well known in Austria as
some other movements are.
180
Asked how a church that considers keeping the Sabbath
as one of its core beliefs could forsake Jewish Sabbath-
keepers during a time of persecution, Brugger suggested
that it was political, not theological, considerations that
may have led to the strategy.
During World War I a portion of the German Adventist
church had split off, opposing any military service. This
led the National Socialists in 1936 to ban the so-called
‘Reform Movement’ during their time in power. Brugger
said concern over a Nazi closure of the main Adventist
churches may have weighed on leaders in that era.
‘I think during these times the official leaders of our
church were afraid of losing the control over the church
and losing the church because the political authorities had
already … [confused] our church with the Reform
movement,’ he explained. ‘I think our leaders were afraid
to lose the official recognition of our church, so therefore
maybe they were not [as faithful] to our beliefs as would
have been necessary.’
The main
Seventh-day
Adventist
church in
Germany
was also
briefly
banned under
the Nazis,
notes Pöhler.
A quick
reversal by
the regime led to relief among Adventists but also to a
level of cooperation with the government that was
unhealthy.
‘We not only kept silent, but we also published things we
never should have published. We published anti-Semitic
ideas that, from our perspective, weren't really needed,’
Pöhler said in a telephone interview.
‘We had to realize that one wrong statement, one wrong
move by a person meant he could end up in a
concentration camp,’ Pöhler said of that era. ‘[That was
the] reason why we excluded and disfellowshipped
Jewish-born Adventists from our midst: If a local church
had not done this, [the Nazis] would have closed the
church, taken the elder to prison, and it would have meant
the whole church would be forbidden.’
While some European Adventists took courageous stands
to protect Jews, others went along in part because of
concern for their families and churches. It would be
difficult enough for an individual to reach out to a Jewish
person, Pöhler explained, but to risk the lives of those in
a congregation was an added burden. Such caution was
 DEFENCE
even reflected in the nomenclature used by German
Adventists, he said.
Daniel Heinz, director of church archives at the Adventist
university in Friedensau, Germany, said his research into
the stories of Adventists who helped Jews during the war
led to his discovery of those who acted less honorably.
Resistance to Nazi policies, as well as the compassionate
yet brave response of many Christians, among them
Seventh-day Adventists, to protect lives of those under
Nazi persecution, have been documented throughout
Europe, including Poland, Hungary, Holland, and
Denmark.
‘I found some very impressive stories of Adventists who
helped Jews in the Third Reich, risking their lives, and I
found the opposite,’ Heinz said. Among other church
members, one Latvian Adventist family took in a Jewish
man, hid him during the war, and survived. The refugee
became an Adventist believer and church pastor after the
war ended. According to Machel, ‘Sixty years after
181
World War II is late––but we saw it as the last chance for
a declaration.’
Young adult church members reacted positively to the
statement's expressions of concern and contrition.
‘To humbly reveal our sins and failures is the most
important thing God wants us to do,’ said Sara Gehler,
25. ‘And even though 60 years have already passed, I
think it was necessary for us as [the Seventh-day
Adventist] Church to take a stand on the Second World
War.’ She added, ‘It is our duty as Christians to protect
and help those who are weak, helpless, and in need.’
Said John Graz, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty
director for the Adventist world headquarters, ‘For those
who believe in God's love for every member of the
human family, against any kind of discrimination based
on race, religion, or gender, this declaration written by a
generation which had no responsibility in the Holocaust
and the war, but endorse the responsibility of their
parents, will stand as a positive landmark and great
encouragement.’”
DEFENCE

182
 DEFENCE
Appendix 5
Adventist Chaplains and Interfaith Material
The following information package for Adventist
chaplains was produced by Adventist Chaplaincy
Ministries in 2002 using official Church printing
resources. It was issued in the form of a pocket-sized
pamphlet. It illustrates an interfaith trend in the Church.
Adventist Church members were advised of its existence
in the Adventist Review of June 19, 2003. The pamphlet
reads as follows.
“EMERGENCY MINISTRY
INFORMATION AND RESOURCE FOR CLERGY
A Collection of Services and Prayers
From Distinctive Faith Groups
INTRODUCTION
This information is provided as an aid to clergy of various
denominations because they may be called upon to do
emergency ministry. It does not constitute a theological
endorsement of any kind. We hope it will enable you to
minister more effectively from your religious perspective
to individuals of various faiths.
PROTESTANT EMERGENCY MINISTRATION
If a dying person desires religious ministrations, any
baptized person may repeat with him/her (1) the Lords
Prayer, (2) the Apostles Creed, and (3) the Twenty-third
Psalm. It is recommended that this prayer and affirmation
of faith be used regardless of the denomination.
1. The Lords Prayer. ‘Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be
done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and
the glory, for ever. Amen.’
2. The Apostles Creed. ‘I believe in God, the Father
almighty, maker of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus
Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by
the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to hell. The third day He rose again from
the dead. He ascended to heaven, and is seated at the right
hand of God, the Father almighty. From there He will
come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the
Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of
183
saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the
body, and the life everlasting. Amen.’
3. The Twenty-third Psalm. ‘The Lord is my shepherd; I
shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green
pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters. He
restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of
righteousness for His names sake. Yea, though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no
evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they
comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the
presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with
oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy
shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell
in the house of the Lord for ever.’
In the event of death, the following prayer may be said:
‘Depart, brother/sister, out of this world in the name of
the Father who created you, in the name of the Son who
redeemed you, and in the name of the Spirit who made
you whole. Amen.’
Baptism: If a dying person desires baptism and no clergy
is within reach, any baptized person may administer a
baptism, according to the religious background of the
individual (such as pouring water three times on the
brow, immersion, etc.) and by stating: ‘I baptize you in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit. Amen.’
Report the facts to an appropriate clergy-person as soon
as possible.
CATHOLIC EMERGENCY MINISTRATION
If a dying person desires ministry, repeat with him/her
the following:
1. The Hail Mary. ‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is
with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is
the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.’
2. The Act of Contrition. ‘O my God, I am heartily sorry
for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins,
because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because
they offended Thee, my God, who art all-good and
deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help
of Thy grace, to sin no more, and to avoid the near
occasions of sin. Amen.’
 DEFENCE
3. The Sign of the Cross. ‘In the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.’
In the even of death the following prayer may be said:
‘Eternal rest grant unto him/her, O Lord, and let perpetual
light shine upon him/her. May his/her soul and all the
souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God
rest in peace. Amen.’
Baptism: If a dying person desires baptism, pour water
three times on the brow, saying his/her first name and
this: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.’
JEWISH EMERGENCY MINISTRATION
If a dying person desires ministry, repeat with him/her:
1. The Shema. ‘Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord
is one.’
2. The Confession for the Critically Ill. ‘Lord my God,
God of my fathers, before Thee I confess that in Thy hand
alone rests my healing or my death. If it be Thy will, grant
me a perfect healing. Yet if my death be fully determined
by Thee, I will in love accept it at Thy hand. Then may
my death be an atonement for all sins, transgressions, and
for all the wrong which I have committed before Thee.
Amen.’
3. The Twenty-third Psalm. ‘The Lord is my shepherd; I
shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green
pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters. He
restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of
righteousness for His names sake. Yea, though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no
evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they
comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the
presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with
oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy
shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell
in the house of the Lord for ever.’
In the event of death the following prayer may be said:
‘Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon
withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting
light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.
Amen.’
ISLAMIC EMERGENCY MINISTRATION
If a dying person desires religious ministry, repeat with
him/her the following:
1. The Allah Ekber. ‘There is no god but Allah, and
Muhammad is Gods apostle.’
2. The Al-Fatihah. ‘In the name of Allah, Most Gracious,
Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and
Sustainer of the worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment; Thee do we worship, and
184
Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way, the way of
those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy grace, those
whose portion is not wrath, and who go not astray.’
3. The At-Tauhid. ‘In the name of God, Most Gracious,
Most Merciful. Say: He is God, the One! God, the
eternally besought of all! He begetteth not nor was
begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.’
4. The An-Nas. ‘In the name of God, Most Gracious,
Most Merciful. Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,
the King of mankind, the God of mankind, from the evil
of the sneaking whisperer, who whispereth in the hearts
of mankind, of the jinn, and of mankind.’
Following the above passages from the Koran, the
person’s mouth is to be moistened with water.
In the event of death an imam (a Muslim worship leader)
must be summoned to perform the ritual washings and
wrappings to prepare the body for burial.
BUDDHIST EMERGENCY MINISTRATION
If a dying person desires religious ministrations, anyone
may repeat with him the Ti-Sarana:
‘Buddham saranam gacchami
I take refuge in the Buddha.
Dhammam saranam gacchami
I take refuge in the Dhamma.
Sangham saranam gacchami
I take refuge in the Sangha.
And now I betake myself, Lord, to the Blessed One as my
refuge, to the Truth, and to the Order. May the Blessed
One accept me as a disciple, as one who, from this day
forth, as long as life endures, has taken refuge in them.
In the event of death the following prayer may be said:
"Studying the same doctrine, under one master, You and
I are friends. See yonder white mists floating in the air on
the way back to the peaks. This parting may be our last
meeting in this life. Not just in a dream, but in our deep
thought, let us met often hereafter.’
HINDU EMERGENCY MINISTRATION
If a dying person desires religious ministrations, anyone
may encourage him/her to recite ‘Narayana’ (the name of
the Lord Vishnu). If he/she is not able to do so, then
anyone may whisper the name of the Lord in his/her ear.
A spoonful of pure water is then placed in his/her mouth.
The following passage from the Bhagavad Gita may be
read to comfort the person: (Saith Lord Vishnu) ‘Arjuna,
of this be sure: None who pays Me worship of loyalty and
love is ever lost. For whosoever makes Me his haven,
 DEFENCE
base-born though he may be, yes, women too, and
artisans, even serfs, theirs is to tread the highest Way. On
Me thy mind, for Me thy loving service, for Me thy
sacrifice, and to Me thy prostrations: Let thine own self
be integrated, and then shalt thou come to Me, thy
striving bent on Me.’
After death, the body is to be cleansed and dressed, and
the mark of Vishnu placed on his/her forehead. Then the
body is to be cremated and three days later the ashes are
to be immersed in a river. It is believed that the soul will
rest with the ancestors of the persons family at the feet of
God in peace.
ORTHODOX EMERGENCY MINISTRATION
If a dying person desires religious ministry, repeat with
him:
1. The Trisagion. ‘Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy
Immortal: have mercy on us. Holy God, Holy Mighty,
Holy Immortal: have mercy on us. Holy God, Holy
Mighty, Holy Immortal: have mercy on us. Glory to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: now and
ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. All-holy Trinity, have
mercy on us. Lord, cleanse us from our sins. Master,
pardon our transgressions. Holy God, visit and heal our
infirmities for Thy names sake. Lord, have mercy; Lord,
have mercy; Lord, have mercy. Glory to the Father, and
to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: now and ever and unto
ages of ages. Amen’
2. Psalm 51. (From Scripture.)
3. The Nicene Creed. ‘I believe in one God, the Father,
the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all
things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the
Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true
God, begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father,
by whom all things were made; who for us men and for
our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.
And he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and
suffered, and was buried, and the third day He rose again,
according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come
again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose
kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father;
who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped
and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one holy,
catholic, and apostolic church, I acknowledge one
baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen’
185
4. The Lord’s Prayer. ‘Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be
done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and
the glory, for ever. Amen.’
In the event of death, the following prayer may be said:
‘O God of spirits and of all flesh, who has trampled down
death and destroyed the devil, and granted life to Thy
world: Do Thou, O Lord, give rest to the soul of Thy
servant. (Name), who is fallen asleep, in a place of
brightness, a place of refreshment, a place of repose,
where all sickness, sorrow, and sighing have fled away.
Pardon every sin which he/she has committed, whether
by word, deed, or thought, for Thou art a good God and
lovest mankind: because there is no person who lives and
does not sin. Thou alone art without sin. Thy
righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Thy
law is truth. For Thou art the resurrection, and the Lord,
and the repose of Thy servant, (Name), who is fallen
asleep, O Christ our God, and unto Thee do we ascribe
glory, together with Thy Father, who is from everlasting,
and Thine all-holy, and good and life-creating Spirit: now
and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.’
Baptism: If a dying person has not been baptized and
desires to be, pour water three times on the brow, saying
his or her first name and this: ‘I baptize you in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.’
GRIEF MINISTRY
CARING FOR THE DYING
Dying is a process of predictable or random dynamics.
Denial protests, ‘No, it isn’t me!’ Anger asks bitterly,
‘Why me?’ Bargaining post-pones with ‘Yes, it’s me,
but’ Depression in discouragement concludes, ‘Yes, it is
me.’ Acceptance finally acknowledges ‘Yes, it is me, and
I can cope.’
Needs of dying persons include: a supportive
environment; meeting spiritual concerns; knowing life
made a difference; finding meaning; feeling needed;
maintaining control as possible; completing
developmental tasks; overcoming loneliness; a ‘letting
go’ of life; dying with dignity and hope.
Ministry to the dying includes: treat the dying with
dignity; provide presence to the end; encourage
storytelling; listen with sensitivity; help with death
planning as invited; minister to felt needs; assist with
family needs; model appropriate behavior; employ
religious ritual; use spiritual resources to bring comfort
and support.
 DEFENCE

CARING FOR THE BEREAVED Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries

Distributed by:
Ministry to the bereaved helps create a healing
Ministry, International Journal for Pastors
environment as we: listen and encourage telling of
Professional Growth Seminars
experiences and feelings; use word of faith and comfort;
12501 Old Columbia Pike
use religious ritual; care for felt needs; interpret normal
Silver Spring, MD 209046600, USA
grief reactions; never abandon during hard times; honor
301-680-6507; Fax: 301-680-6502
memory of deceased; assist with new activities and
E-mail: 102555.2473@compuserve.com
relationships later on; help discover meaning and hope;
www.ministerialassociation.com
use prayer and scriptural resources, such as Psalm 23;
2002
27;42;46:1-3; Isaiah 41:10; 61:3; John 14:1-3, 27;
Romans 8:31-39; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58; 2 Corinthians
All clergy are eligible to receive six free issues of
1:3-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Peter 1:6-9;
Ministry each year. If you wish to receive your
Revelation 21:1-5.
complimentary subscription, please write or contact us
Printing funded by: at one of the above numbers.
Adventist HealthCare Single copies of this booklet may be obtained by
1801 Research Boulevard, Suite 300 sending a SASE to Ministry. If you wish to obtain
Rockville, MD 20850 quantities, please contact Ministry.”
301-315-3030
Compiled by:

186
 DEFENCE

Index
“Only true God” 7.25.3
Flag 8.4
Flesh and blood 2.2
(References are to chapter points) Gentiles
As proselytes 4.7, 4.9, 4.10
God the Father
1914 2.12 Almighty 7.2
1975 10.1 Is Jesus’ God 7.4
1Th 4:15-17 2.9 “One God” 7.25.3
144,000 5.1, 5.5, 6.6 “Only true God” 7.25.3
Seal 5.1, Appendix 3.11 “Great Controversy” 1.5.17, 9.2
31 AD 2.13 Great multitude 5.1, 5.3
3,500 years darkness? 4.18.1 Great tribulation 2.8.2, ftn.
586 or 607 BCE? 2.12.3 Heaven
7,000-year Sabbath? 4.18 Elijah not there 5.4
Adventists Enoch not there 5.4
Liberal, progressive 1.6 No one before Christ 5.4
Alcohol 1.5.14 Kings 6.1
Anthems 8.4 “Here We Stand” 1.4, 1.5.9, 1.5.10,
Bacchiocchi 1.5.17, 4.12 1.5.11, 1.5.12,
Beginning 7.15.1 1.5.13, 9.1
Bible 1.5.17 Holy Spirit 7.11
Bibliom ancy 5 (introduction) Homosexuality 1.5.2
Birthdays 8.3 Inspiration
Blood 3.1, 11.16.3 Witnesses disclaim 1.3
Bones 6.5 Ellen G. White 1.5.15
Born again 5.1 International Date Line 4.19
Brightness 2.5 Invisibility 2.8.3
Changes in Adventism 1.5 Jehovah
Christmas 8.3 Name 11.7
Church attendance 1.5.10 Not Jesus 7.25.2
Church services 1.5.9 One 7.25.1
Clouds 2.8.3 “One God” 7.25.3
Commandments “Only true God” 7.25.3
Not always the Ten 4.6 Jewellery 8.2
Creation, progressive 4.18, 7.21 Law of liberty 4.3
Creator 7.17 Law of Moses
Daniel chapter 4 2.12.1, Appendix 2 End of the Law 4.2
Daily spiritual rest 4.18 No division 4.11
Desolate earth? 6.3 Life
Divorce 1.5.12 Zoe 6.6.1
Dynamic Adventism 1.6 Manifestation 2.5
Earth Memorial 2.8.2
Bones 6.5 New heavens and earth 6.6, 6.10
Not desolate 6.3 New Jerusalem 6.7
Ecumenism 1.5.7, Appendix 5 Camp 6.8
Elijah 5.4 Old covenant
End of the Law 4.2 Cast out 4.15
Enoch 5.4 Ten Commandments 4.3
Error 1.2 One name 7.12
Eye 2.8.4 “Other” 7.16, 7.20, 11.9
Father Other sheep 6.1.1
Is Jesus’ God 7.25.3 Other worlds 1.5.15
“One God” 7.25.3 Pleiades 1.5.15

187
 DEFENCE

Pollination 4.18.1 Cast out 4.15

Polygamy 1.5.13 Delivered from 4.13
Pork 1.5.4 End of the Law 4.2
Presence 2.3 False contrasts 4.4
Present truth 1.4 Gentile proselytes 4.7
Prophecy 1.5 Law of liberty 4.3
Resurrection Less than God’s name 7.14, ftn.
Body 5.5 Letter done away 4.14
First (heavenly) 2.2 Part of old covenant 4.3
Second (earthly) 6.6, 6.6.1 Storage 4.1
Timing 6.2 Tithing 1.5.5
Return of Christ 2.1 Tree dream 2.12, 2.12.1, 2.12.2,
1914 2.7, 2.12 Appendix 2
586 or 607 BCE? 2.12.3 Tree of life 6.6.1
Clouds 2.8.3 Trinity
Coming 2.4 1Ti 3:16 7.6
Daniel chapter 4 2.12, 2.12.1, Adventists 1.5.3, Appendix 1
2.12.2, Appendix 2 Ac 17:29 7.22.1
Eye 2.8.4 Col 1:15-18 7.16
Ford, D. 2.12.2, Appendix 2 Col 2:9 7.22.3
Here or near? 2.11 De 32:4 7.18.6
Manifestation 2.5 Ellen G. White 7.1
Presence 2.3 Eph 3:9 7.23
Revelation 2.6 Ex 20:10 7.18.12
See 2.8.5 Ge 1:26 7.13
Tree dream 2.12, 2.12.1, 2.12.2, Godhead 7.22
Appendix 2 God the Son 7.25.4
Trumpet 2.9 He 1:8 7.8
VAT4956 2.12.5 Holy Spirit 7.11
Russell and Rutherford 3.3 Isa 6:1-3 7.18.10
Sabbath Isa 9:6 7.2
3,500 years darkness? 4.18.1 Isa 40:3 7.18.7
7,000-year Sabbath? 4.18 Isa 44:6 7.18.5
Bacchiocchi 1.5.17, 4.12 Jehovah not Jesus 7.25.3
Daily spiritual rest 4.18 Joh 20:28 7.4
International Date Line 4.19 Mt 1:23 7.3
Not in new earth 8.1 Mt 28:19 7.12
Not after Pentecost 4.17 “One God” 7.25.3
Not before exodus 4.5 “Only true God” 7.25.3
Questions Appendix 3 Pagan history 7.24
Shadow 4.12 Php 2:6 7.5
Sign 4.8 Ps 102:24-27 7.18.9
Seal 5.1, Appendix 3.11 Re 3:14 7.15
See 2.8.5 Ro 1:20 7.22.2
Shut door 1.5.16 Tit 2:13 7.7
Sin nature 1.5.6 Worship? 8.5
Storage 4.1 VAT4956 2.12.5
Sunday 8.3 War 1.5, Appendix 4
Ten Commandments Women 1.5.8

188
DEFENCE

189
DEFENCE

190
DEFENCE

191