The nature of God can never be fully understood by finite creatures and will ever remain to some extent a mystery apart from what has been revealed (Deut 29:29; 1 Cor 2:9–12). The most complete revelation of God is found in His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1–3). But what does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus “the Son of God”? Increasingly this question is asked and different answers given. Some try to suggest that Jesus is the “literal” or “actual” Son of God, meaning by such an expression that He was literally begotten by the Father sometime in eternity past.¹ They object to making Jesus’ unique relation to the Father as the Son of God merely metaphorical and see Proverbs 8:22–28 as describing a literal birth of the Son by the Father so that it is a literal Sonship, not a metapho.²

It is true that the divine Father-Son relationship cannot be fully encapsulated within the limited conception of metaphor. A real and genuine relation is being indicated. As Jesus Himself describes it, “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt 11:27).³ This unity of Christ with the Father is at least threefold—a oneness of nature, a spiritual oneness of character, and a volitional oneness of purpose.

The description of the Son in a given verse of Scripture is amenable to more than one interpretation; the same terminology can have different nuances. For example, “Son of Man” in the Gospels may sometimes mean “human being” (Matt 8:20), similar to references in the Hebrew Bible to Ezekiel as “son of man” (Heb. ben ’ādam),⁴ while at other times this title is like the heavenly “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13 (e.g., Matt 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30). Jesus as “Son” should not be underinterpreted, nor overinterpreted; we should allow it to be biblically interpreted and accept all that Scripture includes in its meaning.

An important hermeneutical principle is that unclear Bible passages are to be understood in the light of clearer statements that bear on the same subject. So, it is helpful to look first at the Gospels—especially the Gospel of John, which has perhaps the clearest revelation of who Jesus is as the Son of God. Then we will consider some misunderstood statements of Paul within the larger context of his epistles (1 Cor 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Eph 4:4–6; Rom 15:6; 1 Thess 1:9–10). These examples are taken as illustrative of a sound hermeneutical method by which the divine revelation given in regard to the Father and the Son may be understood within the larger context of Scripture. Finally, some consideration will be given to insights found in the writings of Ellen G. White.

Jesus as Son in the Gospels

At the outset, the New Testament presents Jesus as our God and Savior because only God can save us; we need to know not only how we are saved, but by whom. “God has chosen gradually to reveal Himself through the pages of the Bible in harmony with our ability to comprehend it and our need to know more about who He is and His work for our salvation.”⁵ Thus, Jesus is identified as the fulfillment of prophetic hopes, including as the promised “Son” (Matt 1:22–23; Luke 1:32; cf. Isa 7:14; 9:6–7). One of Matthew’s most important themes is Jesus as the Son of God.⁶ “Jesus is the ideal Israel—God’s ‘Son’: called out of Egypt (2:15), passing through the waters of baptism (3:16–17), being tempted in the wilderness and succeeding where Israel failed (4:3, 6).”⁷ His incarnation reflects the involvement of all three Persons of the Trinity. The virginal conception of Jesus through the agency of the Holy Spirit enables Mary to “bear a Son” who would “save His people from their sins” (Matt 1:21 NASB95). According to Luke, the angel Gabriel revealed to her how it could be that she would have a son despite being a virgin: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).⁸ The language describes an unfathomable miracle of creation not unlike the creation of the first human being; since no “word” (Gk. rhēma) of God can fail, Mary responds, “Let it be to me according to your word [rhēma]” (vv. 37–38).⁹ Similarly, John explicitly alludes to Genesis, that “the Word became [Gk. egeneto] flesh” (John 1:14),¹⁰ the divine Son of God took on humanity.

Similarly, at the commencement of Jesus’ messianic ministry, the activity of all three Persons is seen:

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.¹¹ (Matt 3:16–17)

God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were deeply involved both in the birth of Jesus and at the beginning of His ministry when He was anointed as the promised Messiah and Savior from sin. His unique role as Son within the triune Godhead is emphasized by Jesus Himself in prayer to His Father (Luke 10:21–22) and in His affirmation of Peter’s confession of Him as “the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16–17). Heaven’s revelation alone enables us to see Jesus as the truly divine Son.¹² Such also occurred when, in connection with the darkness lifting, the earthquake, and other supernatural manifestations, the centurion and others guarding the cross “were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matt 27:54 ESV). This declaration “would involve some understanding of Christ’s character and lineage as divine, even if the full significance of that title would not be comprehensible apart from the teachings of Jesus about the heavenly Father and the nature of His kingdom."¹³

The Gospel of John presents the most extensive revelation of Jesus as the Son found anywhere in Scripture, and much of this is in the form of self-revelation. John 1:1, despite its seeming simplicity, is breathtaking in its depth. Use of the Greek article ho (the) and its strategic omission distinguish God the Father (ho theos) from “The Word” (ho logos), and clarify the relation between them.¹⁴ Significantly, John focuses here on who and what “The Word” is because he recognizes this needs further inspired clarification. John 1:1 identifies the Word, through a deliberate allusion to Genesis 1:1, as existing “in the beginning.” The Greek phrase (en archē) does not actually have an article because it is impossible to define that point in time.

Similarly, Genesis 1:1 uses language to describe God’s creation of the universe in an indefinite past, while the rest of Genesis 1 focuses on God’s creation of the earth’s biosphere and life on it.¹⁵ The absence of the article in the final clause of John 1:1 (“The Word was God”) makes two things clear: (1) the Word is God, and (2) the Word is a separate Person from the Father. Had the article been used with both nouns, it would provide two descriptions of a single Person, in which case it could be paraphrased as “The Word is the same Person as the Father.” However, the Greek construction excludes this possibility, instead emphasizing the nature of the Word as truly divine, truly God, and yet distinct from the Father.

It is not revealed exactly how far back in time, prior to the creation of the universe, the Word had an existence. But the implication from verse 2 (“the same was in the beginning with God”) is that He has always existed side by side with the Father. “Thus, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.”¹⁶ Jesus Himself implies the same when He says, “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). This special relation enables the Son to uniquely reveal the Father as “the Word made flesh” (1:14, 18; 12:45; 14:9).

The culmination of John’s breathtaking description of the Word comes in verse 3, with the affirmation that “All things came to exist through Him, and without Him nothing came to exist that had existed” (1:3, author’s translation). God the Father through the active agency of the Word created all things. Three times in verse three John uses the Greek word egeneto (“came to exist”) which appears twenty times in the Septuagint of Genesis 1,¹⁷ confirming that this is the primary Old Testament background of the passage. By contrast, the Word always “was” (Gk. ēn), pointing “to eternal existence on the part of Christ."¹⁸

We turn now to John 17, often called Jesus’ high priestly prayer because He intercedes for His disciples and for all who will believe in Him through their word (vv. 9, 20). The prayer begins with Jesus’ request that the Son might be glorified by the Father so that the Father might be glorified by the Son (v. 1), stressing again the congruence and mutuality of Their relationship. It is no accident that John’s Gospel refrains from referring to Jesus as the Son prior to the incarnation, and that the first mention of it is by John the Baptist (1:34), whom the Synoptic Gospels also indicate as bearing prophetic witness to Jesus, together with the voice from heaven, as the Son (Matt 3:11–17; Mark 1:7–11; Luke 3:15–22).

Furthermore, the classic passages in which Jesus confesses His preexistence together with the Father employ the language of “I am” (Gk. egō eimi), not Son-language (John 8:58; 14:6, 10; 17:21). By contrast, Jesus’ self-revelation as the Son in the Gospel of John is always in the context of the incarnation (e.g., John 3:13–14, 16–18; 6:27, 40; 8:28; 10:36). Jesus also describes Himself with many physical metaphors: “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48), “I am the door” (John 10:7, 9), “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11, 14), “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). Jesus frequently employed such metaphors to describe spiritual realities that would otherwise be difficult to understand. The same is true of Jesus as “the Son of God.” It describes a spiritual reality, not a physical one! All four Gospels recognize this principle.

Seen in this light, Jesus’ reference in prayer to His Father as “the only true God” and to Himself as “Jesus Christ whom You have sent” makes perfect sense as specifying the only way of salvation—Jesus had to be born into our world as a human being. It is Christ’s life and death during the incarnation by which the plan of salvation was confirmed and the covenant promise ratified (John 17:4). Jesus is not making a philosophical statement about the nature of the Father and the Son. John’s Gospel has already made clear the nature of that relationship as it pertained before the incarnation as well as the voluntary submission of the Son during the incarnation (e.g., John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 12:49; 14:10). The resumption of that unique relationship after the resurrection is also referenced repeatedly (e.g., John 13:1; 16:28; 17:5, 11, 13; cf. 1:1–3).

Jesus as Son in the Pauline Epistles

Turning to the epistles of Paul, we find the apostle’s description of Jesus as God’s Son to be extensive in detail and comprehensive in scope. Our focus here is especially on those passages that have sometimes been misunderstood as teaching something different from what we have seen in John.

Some, for example, point to Romans 15:6: “that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” On the surface, this verse could suggest a literal Father-Son relationship between God and Jesus, because God is called the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”¹⁹ But in what sense is this meant by Paul? The Greek is more simply and naturally understood with theos (God) governing tou kyriou (of the Lord).²⁰ The main thrust of the passage is clear from the previous verse, which is a prayer that God would grant Christians “to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus” (Rom 15:5, emphasis supplied). That is, according to the life Jesus lived on earth, having the attitude of compassion and love that He expressed toward others and encouraged among His disciples. This attitude is to guide Christians in their actions with each other. Oneness of mind and speech, in accordance with Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17:20–21), would glorify God, who sent His Son Jesus into the world to save us.

There is no hint of a reference to Christ’s preexistence here or that Paul in any way intended this as an ontological statement of Christ’s nature. Rather, God is the Father of Jesus Christ in the sense that He was intimately involved in the incarnation of Jesus as a human being at His birth (John 3:16; cf. Luke 1:35) and publicly proclaimed Him as the messianic Son at His baptism (Matt 3:16–17). Thus, Paul at the outset of this epistle describes Jesus as God’s “Son . . . who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” and recognized as “the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:3–4). When Paul refers to Jesus as God’s Son it is always in light of the incarnation.²¹

Turning to 1 Corinthians 8:6, the context is the worship of idols (and the eating of food offered to them) in contrast to worship of the true God. Paul identifies the Father and the Son in turn as “one God” and “one Lord.” Initially, this might seem to distinguish Jesus as a somewhat lesser personage than God the Father. But the unified Old Testament concept of God and Lord should be kept in mind.²² In fact, the repetition here by Paul of the word “one” in the context of God and Lord alludes to the classic confession of God as One in the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (Deut 6:4),²³ which in its context designates Lord and God as “the same (one) God”²⁴ to warn against the worship of other gods (Deut 6:14–15).²⁵ Paul here, as with other New Testament writers, “affirms the Christian belief in monotheism.”²⁶ He “has glossed ‘God’ with ‘the Father’, and ‘Lord’ with ‘Jesus Christ’, adding in each case an explanatory phrase: ‘God’ is the Father, ‘from whom are all things and we to him’, and the ‘Lord’ is Jesus the Messiah, ‘through whom are all things and we through him.” In short, in his interpretation of the Shema, Paul has produced “a sort of christological monotheism.”²⁷ If Paul’s reference to Jesus as “Lord” should be taken to mean that Jesus is never to be called “God” (despite clear New Testament evidence to the contrary), then based on such an interpretation of this verse the Father should never be called “Lord”!²⁸ Yet this is clearly not Paul’s meaning because the rest of the verse indicates that “all things” came into existence through Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6b). “If all creation thus exists because of Him, He cannot Himself belong to creation. And if Jesus is not created, He is truly God in the sense in which we use the word ‘God.’ Only God is uncreated."²⁹

Furthermore, by applying the Shema not only to the Father but also to Jesus, Paul (like other New Testament writers)³⁰ identifies Jesus with Yahweh in the Old Testament. Notice several similar examples in which Paul quotes Old Testament passages referring to God, but applies them to Jesus:

For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom 10:13, emphasis supplied, quoting Joel 2:32).

“For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?” (Rom 11:34, emphasis supplied, quoting Isa 40:13).

“That, as it is written, ‘He who glories, let him glory in the Lord’” (1 Cor 1:31, emphasis supplied, quoting Jer 9:24).

In all these places “Lord” is in small caps because it refers to God (Heb. Yahweh) in the Old Testament passage being quoted, but Paul is talking about Jesus. So, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, when Paul speaks of the Father as “God” and the Son as “Lord,” he is not saying that only the Father is God and that Jesus is some lesser “Lord.” Rather, Jesus is placed on the same level with the Father. In the context of this verse, Paul contrasts the Father as God and Jesus as Lord with pagan deities. “The contrast is between pagan ‘gods’ and the Father as one God, and between pagan ‘many Lords’ and Christ as the one Lord."³¹

One of the clearest Trinitarian formulations in Paul (but see also 1 Cor 12:4–6 and 2 Cor 13:14) is found in Ephesians 4:4–6, which includes reference to the third Person of the Godhead: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” This statement of faith by Paul is an even clearer example of the aforementioned Shema (Deut 6:4) being employed in a Trinitarian formulation. Paul’s statement is distinctive not only in its recognition of the triune God, but also the relation of each Person with Their distinct function(s) within the Godhead:

the Spirit calls and unites believers into “one body”—the church (cf. 2:16–18);

the teaching of the Lord as the “one faith” (cf. v. 13; Rom 10:8; 1 Cor 16:13), His death and resurrection being represented in the “one baptism” (cf. Rom 6:3–4); and

the sovereignty of God as “Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (ESV).

Paul’s emphasis throughout Ephesians is on the church and this is reflected in the order in which the three Persons of the Godhead are mentioned (Spirit, Lord, God and Father). Unity is the main theme here, as the first two words in Greek of each verse make clear (one body, v. 4; one Lord, v. 5; one God, v. 6), as well as the sevenfold repetition of the word “one.” The unity of the triune God is to be reflected in the unity of believers in one body—the church.

Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, that the Christians in Thessalonica had “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,” underscores the fact that virtually all of the converts in Thessalonica were Gentiles, as the historical record in Acts 17:4–5 indicates. Describing God as “the living and true God” alludes to the Old Testament characterization of God in contrast to idols. The reference to Jesus as “His Son,” although describing Him as “from heaven,” is set in the context of the incarnation, as shown by the reference to God’s raising Him from the dead.

The words of Paul regarding Jesus as the “one Mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5), while not describing Christ in terms of Sonship, does distinguish Him from God the Father in terms of His role as the high priestly Mediator in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8:1–2; 9:11, 15). The immediate context describes God in His Old Testament role as “Savior” (v. 3), who wills (Gk. thelei) “all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (v. 4, ESV). The Father’s will and role is ultimately a saving one (1 Tim 4:10), since it is He who has given His Son for the salvation of the world (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). Jesus’ role as Mediator is predicated on the fact of the incarnation, that He is both God and man, and on the redemption (Gk. antilytron) His death accomplished for human beings (1 Tim 2:7).

The meaning of all these passages, when studied in their immediate context, becomes quite clear. None of them in any way denies the full equality of Jesus with the Father. Verses that seem to suggest something else should be interpreted in light of the many clear passages throughout the New Testament which teach that Jesus is God. Paul himself, in Colossians 1:15–17, describes Jesus’ relation to the Father in three important ways: (1) Verse 15 says “He is the image of the invisible God.” This means Jesus is the exact representation of the Father in visible form. (2) Verse 16 says “by Him all things were created. . . . All things were created through Him and for Him.” Therefore, Jesus is the active agent working alongside the Father in creation. (3) Verse 17 says “He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” In other words, Jesus is the One present with the Father in eternity past and able together with the Father to uphold the universe.³²

Jesus as the Son in the Writings of Ellen G. White

Ellen G. White consistently teaches Jesus as equal with the Father, not as some lesser personage or as one who came into existence at some subsequent time to the Father.³³ Even in those places where reference is to Jesus as the Son or as “begotten,” His eternal nature is clear.

In Patriarchs and Prophets, several Bible passages are quoted to describe Jesus in His preincarnate state. Proverbs 8 is quoted, characterizing Him as “an associate” with the Father, “a coworker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings.” After quoting John 1:1–2, the passage continues:

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. “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. “His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Micah 5:2.³⁴

This key statement tells us some important things about the Son. First, White places Him on the same level with the Father, calling him His “coworker.” Second, how Christ functions as “the only begotten of God” is described as being “one with the eternal Father.” The word “eternal” is important here. No limitation is given to the relation the Son has with the Father. The clear implication is that both are eternal, that Jesus has been a coworker with the Father forever in the past, just as He is and will be forever in the future. Significantly, as we have seen, this is precisely the message of John 1:2, which White quotes just before these words, showing that her use of “begotten” refers not to a literal begettal but to an identity of nature that the Son shares with the Father (as John 1:1 indicates). Third, what is meant by the phrase “one in nature” if not some unity of being? Even the fact that Jesus is divine would not by itself be sufficient to suggest they share the same nature any more than one human being is one with another simply because they share the same humanity.

White’s statement describes Christ’s divine nature further by quoting Isaiah 9:6 (MT 9:5), which refers to Jesus as “The mighty God, The everlasting Father.” The Hebrew form of the latter phrase could also be translated “father from eternity.”³⁵ In harmony with this meaning, note that White immediately quotes Micah 5:2 in order to show in what sense Jesus is everlasting, that He has existed “from everlasting,” the same language found in Proverbs 8:23. This biblical affirmation is directional—Jesus is from everlasting (Heb. mîmê ‘ôlām, “from the days of eternity”), meaning everlastingly looking backward to the past. A nearly identical expression in Hebrew referring to eternity past is used also of the Father in Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting [Heb. ûmē‘ôlām ‘ad ‘ôlām, “from eternity to eternity”], You are God.”

Had Jesus been begotten in a literal sense, then it would be difficult to understand how this could be true since He would have had a beginning; He would not have existed “from the days of eternity.” Describing Jesus as the “everlasting Father” shows His identity with God from eternity past. This should guide us in our understanding of the description of Jesus also as “the Son of God.” Many times White describes Jesus as the “eternal Son” or “the eternal Son of God,”³⁶ once as “the eternal Son of the infinite God,” and even as “the eternal, self-existent Son.”³⁷ Notice how this language is connected to clarify the meaning of Proverbs 8:30 (KJV):

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . [Prov 8:22–25, 29–30 quoted] In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.³⁸

If “there never was a time when He [Christ] was not in close fellowship with the eternal God,” then His existence must be as coextensive in eternity past as that of the Father. In the same article, elaborating on Jesus’ statement in John 8:58, that “Before Abraham was, I am,” White writes, “Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.”

We need to accept all these descriptions of who Jesus is, not just one. He is Son. He is eternal. And He is self-existent. The descriptors are unqualified and in no way diminish the Father-Son relation between the two. Nor do they diminish in any way the deity of Christ. He is self-existent. He is not dependent for His existence on anything or anyone outside of Himself. He is eternal, from eternity past to eternity future. Elsewhere White writes,

The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant. . . . Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God. . . . Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.

The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father.³⁹

Here it is affirmed that Jesus “existed from eternity”—in fact, “from all eternity.” The context of this statement describes the rejection by Jews of Christ’s claim to equality with the Father, which is not unlike the attitude expressed by some today who profess to believe in Him.

Christ is not just eternal in the sense that He cannot die, though White explicitly affirms that too: “When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.”⁴⁰ It is important to note what is not said. No reference is made to “His Deity,” as if Christ’s divine nature were separable from that of the Father, but simply to “Deity.” On a related point, White says of her visions, “I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, ‘I am in the express image of My Father’s person.’”⁴¹ So, the Father and the Son can be manifested in two distinguishable forms. But this fact does not negate the reality of their nevertheless sharing a single divine nature.

What, then, is meant by the relation of Jesus to the Father as Son? On the divine level, the unity of Their nature preserves Their distinct Personhood even though it is manifested in two distinguishable visible forms. There may even be a distinction of will, which seems to be hinted at by “the counsel of peace” (Zech 6:13) and that “the Father consulted His Son in regard to at once carrying out their purpose to make man to inhabit the earth.”⁴² This divine unity and distinct Personhood seems to be dimly reflected on the human level by virtue of the fact that human beings have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27).

As White describes it, before the creation of the earth, Lucifer caused confusion among the angels in heaven over the relation of the Son to the Father and this had to be clarified for them:

Lucifer in heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God’s dear Son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. . . . A special light beamed in his countenance and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels; yet Christ, God’s dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Lucifer 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 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, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was His Son to work in union with Himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out His will and His purposes but would do nothing of Himself alone. The Father’s will would be fulfilled in Him.⁴³

While much that characterizes the relation between the Father and the Son has not been revealed, that which has been revealed in the course of the great controversy enables us to understand something of the divine Father-Son relation. Interestingly, even in heaven, God apparently revealed Himself to the angels only gradually, in accordance with their need to understand. Lucifer’s rebellion crystalized in the minds of the unfallen angels the massive and essential difference between Christ as one “equal” with the Father and this “high and exalted” but created angel. The Father, understandably, takes the lead in clarifying that the Son is in fact fully His equal, manifesting the divine presence and authority “to command the heavenly host.” The divine relation, based as it is on the everlasting love that prevails between Them, thereby includes Their mutual agreement on every course of action. The submission of the Son to the Father is a voluntary decision and not a forced or inherent subordination. Under such a model, the relation of guiding (the Father to the universe), together with a mutual giving and respect exemplified between the Father and the Son, would pertain within this ideal model of submission. Nevertheless, there is still much we will never know, and these inspired counsels given regarding the divine relations are important to remember:

“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever.” Deuteronomy 29:29. The revelation of Himself that God has given in His word is for our study. This we may seek to understand. But beyond this we are not to penetrate. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out in conjectures regarding the nature of God, but the effort will be fruitless. This problem has not been given us to solve. No human mind can comprehend God. None are to indulge in speculation regarding His nature. Here silence is eloquence. The Omniscient One is above discussion.

Even the angels were not permitted to share the counsels between the Father and the Son when the plan of salvation was laid. And human beings are not to intrude into the secrets of the Most High. We are as ignorant of God as little children; but, as little children, we may love and obey Him.⁴⁴

Those who seek to define God are on forbidden ground. We are to enter into no controversy regarding God,—what He is and what He is not. He, the Omniscient One, is above discussion.⁴⁵

Notice carefully this next statement by White that equates what Scripture says of God with what it says of Christ:

In regard to the personality and prerogatives of God, where He is, and what He is, this is a subject which we are not to dare to touch. On this theme silence is eloquence. It is those who have no experimental knowledge of God who venture to speculate in regard to Him. Did they know more of Him, they would have less to say about what He is. The one who in the daily life holds closest communion with God, and who has the deepest knowledge of Him, realizes most keenly the utter inability of human beings to explain the Creator. . . .

God always has been. He is the great I AM. The psalmist declares, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.” [Ps 90:2] He is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. [Isa 57:15] “I am the Lord, I change not,” [Mal 3:6] He declares. With Him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. [Jas 1:17] He [Christ] is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” [Heb 13:8] He is infinite and omnipresent. No words of ours can describe His greatness and majesty.⁴⁶

In summary, the statements examined here illustrate clearly that in the writings of Ellen G. White no distinction is made between the Father and the Son in terms of nature, but only of Personhood.

Conclusion

The Bible presents Jesus as the only visible Person of the Godhead, who, like the Father, is divine in every respect and has existed “from everlasting” (Prov 8:23; Mic 5:2). As the New Testament makes clear, these passages refer not to some concrete beginning in the distant past; to the contrary, like the Father, Jesus had no beginning. Interestingly, White explicitly applies these passages to Jesus in order to show not His dissimilarity to the Father, but His identity with Him, and Jesus’ everlasting existence—past, present, and future. This is why she can frequently refer to Him as “the eternal Son” and similar expressions. Her descriptions make clear that both Jesus and the Father have separate visible forms but share the same “one nature” as God. Her writings also make clear that, while They are to be worshipped as God with equal honor and dignity, Their relation to each other as Father and Son uniquely reflects the divine Counsel of Peace between Them in which a mutuality of love and service exists alongside the willing submission of the Son to the Father and the sovereignty of God over the universe, so that He may be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15:28).

The Gospel of John presents Jesus as the eternal Word, existing from eternity with the Father as God and Creator of “all things” (1:1–3). Not until the incarnation through the testimony of John the Baptist is Jesus revealed as “the Son of God.” Significantly, the classic references in John to Christ’s preexistence use egō eimi—the Greek equivalent of YHWH (cf. Exod 3:14 LXX)—rather than the language of Sonship, which is utilized only in light of the incarnation. Jesus’ high priestly prayer in which He describes the Father as “the only true God” and Himself as “Jesus Christ” (using the twin designations of His saving role), whom the Father “has sent” (17:3), must be seen in this light. Similarly, Pauline language that seems to distinguish sharply between the Father as “God” and Jesus as “the Son of God” or “Lord” emphasizes the respective roles of the Father and the Son in the plan (Gk. oikonomia) of salvation (Eph 1:10; 3:9; 1 Tim 1:4; 2:5). This includes the confessional reference to all three Persons of the Godhead in Ephesians 4:4–6. The one reference to the Father as “the living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9) underscores His eternal preeminence in contrast to worthless idols.

Finally, it is important to remember that what we know of God is only “in part” (1 Cor 13:9), and that God has revealed Himself only to the extent we can grasp and benefit from this knowledge (cf. 1 Cor 8:2). There remains a vastness and mystery impossible for finite creatures to explore.