C H A P T E R   XIV

ELLEN G. WHITE ON THE ABSOLUTE DEITY OF CHRIST

In this chapter the purpose of the writer is to trace in brief outline the teachings of Ellen G. White on the pre-existence and Deity of Christ. The two fundamental questions to be answered are, (1) did Ellen G. White support the view of the Adventist Arians that there was a time when Christ did not exist and, (2) did she concur with their teaching that Christ as God, was, and is, subordinate to the Father?

THE ETERNAL PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST

Ellen G. White stated categorically many times that there never was a time when Christ did not exist. He was not brought into existence by the Father either by a process of creation or of eternal generation. He has always been with the Father. He did not have a beginning. The following are just a few of the many quotations that could be cited as proof that this was her view:

But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of Myself." (John 10:18), He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.¹

He is the eternal self-existent Son.²

But while God‘s Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father.³

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . 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.⁴

Christ shows then that, although they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.⁵

From eternity Christ has been man’s Redeemer.⁶

The Adventist Arians had seen the Trinitarian position as destructive of the truth of the atonement, but in 1898 Ellen G. White demonstrated that their own view produced that unfortunate result. She wrote:

In consenting to become man, Christ manifested a humility that is the marvel of the heavenly intelligences. The act of consenting to be a man would be no humiliation were it not for the fact of Christ’s exalted pre-existence.⁷

Thus it was "Christ’s exalted pre-existence" that rendered the incarnation a humiliation and qualified Christ to atone for human sin. Beings whose existence was purely derived could never have paid the price of human redemption.

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER BEFORE THE INCARNATION

There are many statements in the writings of Ellen G. white which effectively contradict any suggestion that prior to the incarnation Christ was in any sense subordinate to the Father. Repeatedly she stressed that Christ was equal with the Father in power, position and authority, that in fact He was God in the highest sense:

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore….⁸

Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father.⁹

To save the transgressor of God’s law, Christ, the one equal with the Father, came to live heaven before men, that they might learn to know what it is to have heaven in the heart.¹⁰

The only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of his Son, equal with himself, possessing the attributes of God. Though so highly exalted, Christ consented to assume human nature, that he might work in behalf of man, and reconcile to God his disloyal subjects.¹¹

Some have regarded this equality with the Father as having been conferred upon Christ. His is said to be a delegated authority, hence He is not the supreme God in the same sense as is the Father. This, of course, could not be true since "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense."^l2 But those who have propagated this view find what appears to be support for it in The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1:

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 His 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 the Son to work in union with Himself in the anticipated creation of 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.¹³

There followed considerable altercation between the angels supporting Lucifer and those supporting Christ. The loyal angels sought to convince the disloyal of the justice of God:

They clearly set forth that Jesus was the Son of God, existing with him before the angels were created; and that he had ever stood at the right hand of God and his mild, loving authority had not heretofore been questioned….¹⁴

There are two interpretations to this whole passage. One is that of the Arians who would contend that the Father had conferred supreme power and authority equal to His own upon Christ. The other is that the passage refers to an announcement to the angels of a situation that had existed from the ages of eternity. According to this latter interpretation Christ had always been in the position of complete equality with the Father as the supreme Sovereign of heaven, but because of the defection of Lucifer and because of his subtle insinuations a special reiteration of Christ’s exalted position was necessary. The very fact that the loyal angels urged the unchanged status of Christ as an argument for accepting the Father’s announcement proves that the announcement was not the inauguration of something new, but a definition and declaration of the position which Christ had always sustained.

That this is the only tenable interpretation of the passage is effectively demonstrated by reference to a parallel passage in Patriarchs and Prophets:

The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which they had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute ruler had been appointed them, and to his authority all must pay homage. Such were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were fast obtaining in the heavenly courts.

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.¹⁵

This passage is in complete agreement with the former one. The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, was published in 1870 and Patriarchs and Prophets in 1890, but the view of the question as presented in both is identical. The proclamation by the Father of the position of the Son was a necessary restatement of a situation that had never been otherwise.  If Ellen G. White had intended to convey that Christ was elevated by the Father to His position of equality she would have been contradicting her other utterances to the effect that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. he was God from all eternity, God over all blessed forevermore…."¹⁶

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER DURING THE INCARNATION

There is no intimation in the writings of Ellen G. White that when He took on human nature, Christ ceased to be God equal with the Father. On the contrary she abundantly testifies to Christ’s complete equality with the Father at every stage of His earthly existence. As a babe in the manger He was still the mighty God:

How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem’s manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one.¹⁷

As a child Christ was still the mighty God equal with the Father:

What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The Son of man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity. . . . ¹⁸

To the Jews Christ "announced himself to be the self-existent one."¹⁹ He "claimed equal rights with God in doing a work equally sacred, and of the same character with that which engaged the Father in Heaven."²⁰ Christ claimed equality with the Father and the prerogatives of Deity in the highest sense.²¹ The mysterious unity that existed between Christ and the Father prior to the incarnation was retained during the Saviour’s life on earth. God was still one God: "From all eternity Christ was united with the Father, and when he took upon himself human nature, he was still one with God. He is the link that unites God with humanity."²² Christ gave up heaven for the period of His earthly ministry, He veiled His glory in humanity, He chose not to use certain aspects of His divine power and knowledge, but He was still the supreme Sovereign of the universe:

But although Christ’s divine glory was for a time veiled and eclipsed by His assuming humanity, yet He did not cease to be God when He became man. The human did not take the place of the divine, nor the divine the human. This is the mystery of godliness. The two expressions "human" and "divine" were, in Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct individuality. Though Christ humbled Himself to become inn, the Godhead was still His own. His deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been entrusted the oracles of heaven Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven.²³

What a subject for thought, for deep, earnest contemplation! So infinitely great that He was the Majesty of heaven, and yet He stooped so low, without losing one atom of His dignity and glory!²⁴

DID CHRIST USE HIS OWN DIVINE POWER DURING THE INCARNATION?

Ellen G. White lays it down as an unvarying rule that Christ never performed miracles on His own behalf. His divine power was not employed to alleviate His own suffering, to supply His own needs or to overcome temptation. In these respects Christ remained as a man entirely dependent upon His Father. Speaking of the temptation in the wilderness Ellen G. White wrote, "Neither here nor at any subsequent time in his earthly life did he work a miracle in his own behalf."²⁵ In reference to His overcoming temptation she wrote, "he overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power."²⁶

The question arises as to whether Christ used His own divine power in working miracles for others. Was this miracle working power His own or was it given Him by the Father as it was later conferred upon the Apostles? Ellen G. White wrote:

The world’s Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the authority of God. He declared that he had no existence separate from the Father. The authority by which he spoke, and wrought miracles, was expressly his own, yet he assures us that he and the Father are one.²⁷

On the other hand the following apparently contradictory statement appears in The Desire of Ages:

In all that He did, Christ was co-operating with His Father. Ever He had been careful to make it evident that He did not work independently; it was by faith and prayer that He wrought His miracles. ²⁸

This latter statement appears in the chapter , "Lazarus, Come Forth." This chapter presents the raising of Lazarus as the most convincing evidence of Christ’s divinity. Throughout the chapter the impression is given that the power of Christ manifested in this remarkable way was not in any sense derived, but His own inherent power as God, the Life-giver. Mary and Martha were not alone in their time of trial when Lazarus was sick unto death. "Christ beheld the whole scene, and after the death of lazarus the bereaved sisters were upheld by his grace."²⁹ The author proceeds:

Had He restored him from illness to health, the miracle that is the most positive evidence of His divine character would not have been performed.

Had Christ been in the sickroom, Lazarus would not have died; for Satan would have had no power over him. Death could not have aimed his dart at Lazarus in the presence of the Life-giver. Therefore Christ remained away.³⁰

This miracle was to be the greatest evidence to the skeptical contemporary Jew of the Deity of Christ:

This crowning miracle, the raising of Lazarus, was to set the seal of God on His work and on His claim to divinity.³¹

This miracle which Christ was about to perform, in raising Lazarus from the dead, would represent the resurrection of all the righteous dead, By His word and His works He declared Himself the Author of the resurrection.³²

But how could all this be true unless the power Christ displayed in raising Lazarus were His own power as God, equal with the Father? How do we reconcile the statement that it was by faith and prayer that Christ performed His miracles with the apparently contradictory one that "The authority by which He spoke, and wrought miracles, was expressly His own"?³³

The Desire of Ages provides us with other evidence of Christ’s use of His own underived, divine, miracle working power. For instance, the chapter "Thou Canst Make Me Clean" deals with Christ’s forgiving and healing the paralytic who was let down through the roof of the house. Ellen G. White speaks of the Saviour’s previous work for this man:

The Saviour looked upon the mournful countenance, and saw the pleading eyes fixed upon Him. He understood the case; He had drawn to Himself that perplexed and doubting spirit. While the paralytic was yet at home, the Saviour had brought conviction to his conscience. When he repented of his sins, and believed in the power of Jesus to make him whole, the life-giving mercies of the Saviour had first blessed his longing heart. Jesus had watched the first glimmer of faith grow into a belief that He was the sinner’s only helper, and had seen it grow stronger with every effort to come into His presence.

Now in words that fell like music on the sufferer’s ear, the Saviour said, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee."³⁴

The power manifested here was not such that any man is able to derive from God. Under no circumstances can mere man forgive sins. The Saviour used His healing power on this occasion as evidence of His power to forgive sins. Prior to this he had exercised His divine power to bring conviction to the heart of this soul. Here we have Christ using His power as the Deity for a lost and physically ill individual. The healing power that Christ displayed was the identical power that He used In the original creation of man:

It required nothing less than creative power to restore health to that decaying body. The same voice that spoke life to man created from the dust of the earth had spoken life to the decaying paralytic.³⁵

On the other hand The Desire of Ages contains indications that some of Christ’s miracles were performed by faith in and dependence upon His Father rather than by the exercise of His own authority as Deity. For instance when He stilled the storm on Galilee He is said not to have done so by exercise of His own power:

When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart. But He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the "master of earth and sea and sky" that He reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down and He says, "I can of mine own self do nothing." John 5:30. He trusted in the Father’s might. It was in faith—faith in God's love and care—that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God.³⁶

In one instance we have Christ using His underived, creative power to heal a dying paralytic. In another instance the power of the Father, available to Christ because of His faith, was the source of the miracle. Whatever conclusion is drawn must take two factors into account. First, all Christ’s miracles were performed by "faith and prayer." The statement in The Desire of Ages declaring this is a general one.³⁷ It comes within a chapter which narrates the raising of Lazarus, a miracle which above all others was evidence of Christ’s power as Deity. Then even this miracle was in some sense performed by "faith and prayer." Second, some of Christ’s miracles resulted from the exercise of His own power as God. Others resulted from the exercise of the Father’s power in response to Christ’s faith.

The present writer concludes that Christ’s use of His divine was always within the context of faith in the Father. In some instances the power He used was His own, but He had accepted the limitations of man and thus imposed upon Himself limitations in regard to the direction of its use. As man He was a dependent human being. On occasions He exercised His own creative power, that which was His as God, which was "unborrowed and underived," and which in the beginning He had used in the creation of the world. The direction as to the use of this power came from the Father because Christ had accepted the limitations of humanity. Perhaps the fact that the stilling of the sea was the Father’s act in response to Christ’s faith, rather than an instance of exercise of Christ’s own authority as Deity, is to be explained by the fact that the miracle was to some extent for His own benefit and, as previously pointed out, never did He perform a miracle for His own benefit.

At all events the evidence is overwhelmingly opposed to the view of the Adventist Arian that the divine in Christ during the incarnation was an inferior divinity entirely subordinate to that of the Father.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CHRIST’S DEITY WHEN HE DIED?

This question was a crucial one for the Adventist Arian. He rejected Trinitarianism because it taught that the divine in Christ did not die, but that it ascended to the Father when the human Christ expired on the Cross. The Arian saw this as an inadequate human sacrifice. He believed the Deity did die. This was possible because the divine in Christ was an inferior delegated divinity. It would have been impossible, so the Arian declared, for the supreme Father to have died in this way.

Ellen G. White emphasized on a number of occasions that the Deity did not die:

Humanity died; divinity did not die.³⁸

The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."³⁹

When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.⁴⁰

Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the resurrection, and the life."⁴¹

It is true that there are certain statements in the writings of Ellen G. White which may appear to teach otherwise. For instance, "nature sympathized with the suffering of its author. the heaving earth, the rent rocks, proclaimed that it was the Son of God who died."⁴² Some would interpret this to mean that the divine in Christ died. Since it was the Deity who was the Author of nature, it was the Deity who was suffering and dying. The following page of the same work refers to the "sacrifice which was made by the Majesty of Heaven in dying in man’s stead."⁴³ Earlier in the same work Ellen G. White wrote, "the divine Son of God was fainting, dying."⁴⁴

One suggested reconciliation of the apparent contradiction between these two sets of passages would be that Christ did not die in the normal sense of the term. His life was not taken from Him, for He possessed a divine self. He gave up His life voluntarily.⁴⁵ Therefore He was really and absolutely dead in His human and divine natures, but the act of giving up His own life is to be regarded as something distinct from death. Therefore, some would suggest, it is still true to say that the Deity did not die."

The present writer objects to this position on the grounds that the Deity is immortal and therefore cannot die in any sense. It is impossible for an immortal being to give up life. Immortality is deathlessness. To argue that the Deity did not die, but was in fact dead, is to involve oneself in unnecessary manipulation of language. If as Ellen G. White says, it was impossible for Deity to die then undoubtedly she meant just that.

Christ during the incarnation was a God-man. He is referred to many times in the writings of Ellen G. White as the divine Son of God, and as the Majesty of Heaven. These terms are used to refer to the God-man. The human element of Christ’s nature was not divine and had never existed in heaven. But since Christ was God in human flesh, terms which technically refer only to His divine nature are used to refer to the total Being including His human nature. "Majesty of Heaven" technically refers to the divine, but Ellen G. White uses it to refer to the totality of His existence including the human. It would not therefore be incorrect for Ellen G. White to use the terms "divine Son of God" and "majesty of heaven" in the untechnical sense when speaking of the death of Christ. The very name "Christ," when used to refer to His earthly existence, involves both the human and the divine. She speaks of Christ being hungry, thirsty and weary.⁴⁶ In these instances obviously the emphasis is on the human aspect of his nature, the term "Christ" being used in the sense of the total Being. Just so, when she speaks of the death of the "majesty of heaven" it would appear she is using the term in an untechnical, accommodated sense. Since elsewhere she categorically denies the possibility of the Deity dying it seems reasonable to conclude that when she speaks of the death of the "divine Son of God" she is using the general term which, in this particular context, has special reference to the death of the human in Christ.

Ellen G. White explains at least in part what happened to the Deity element of Christ’s nature when He died on Calvary:

When He closed His eyes in death upon the Cross, the soul of Christ did not go at once to heaven, as many believe, or how could His words be true—"I am not yet ascended to my Father"? The Spirit of Jesus slept in the tomb with His body, and did not wing its way to heaven, there to maintain a separate existence, and to look down upon the mourning disciples embalming the body from which it had taken flight. All that comprised the life and intelligence of Jesus remained with His body in the sepulcher; and when He came forth it was as a whole being; He did not have to summon His spirit from heaven.⁴⁷

The precise condition of the Deity aspect of Christ’s nature during the brief period of His incarnation in the tomb is undoubtedly one of the deepest mysteries of the Gospel. The Arians were right in denying that the divine Christ ascended to heaven when the human expired on the Cross, but they were wrong, according to Ellen G. White, in postulating the death of Deity.

As further evidence, the circumstances of the resurrection may be cited. Ellen G. White speaks of Christ as a prisoner in the tomb. Only the Father could release Him:

He who died for the sins of the world was to remain in the tomb the allotted time. He was in that stony prison house as a prisoner of divine justice. He was responsible to the judge of the universe. He was bearing the sins of the world, and His Father only could release Him.⁴⁸

It was the angel who called Christ in the name of the Father to rise from the tomb.⁴⁹ It was the "spirit which raised jesus from the dead."⁵⁰ But nonetheless Jesus came forth "to Life that was in Himself:"

When the voice of the angel was heard saying, "Thy Father calls Thee," He who had said, "I lay down My life, that I might take it again," "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up," came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the Resurrection, and the Life." In His divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death.⁵¹

The passage clearly implies that Christ’s coming forth "to life that was in himself" was in view of the fact that "Deity did not die."

How then is answered the objection of the Adventist Arian that the sacrifice was a purely human one and therefore no atonement for human sin? Any answer can only be tentative and partial for here we are delving into the deep mysteries of the atonement.  Ellen G. White wrote of the intense suffering of Christ in view of the separation from His Father, resulting from human sin being laid upon Him.  Twice before Calvary He almost died as a result of the imputation of human guilt and the consequent separation from His Father.  These two occasions were in the wilderness of temptation and in Gethsernane.⁵² Finally this separation broke the heart of the Son of God:

The sins of the world were upon him, also the sense of his Father’s wrath as he suffers the penalty of the law transgressed. It was these that crushed his divine soul. It was the hiding of his Father’s Face—a sense that his own dear Father had forsaken him—which brought despair.⁵³

The separation of Christ from the Father involved the separation of absolute God from absolute God. It involved the temporary severing of the mysterious unity that is God. Of the Gethsemane experience Ellen G. White wrote, "as Christ felt His unity with the Father broken up, He feared that in His human nature He would be unable to endure the coming conflict with the powers of darkness."⁵⁴ Finally the severing of this divine unity broke the heart of the Son of God:

But now with the terrible weight of guilt He bears, He cannot see the Father’s reconciling face. The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man. . . .

It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father’s wrath upon Him as man’s substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God.⁵⁵

The severing of the mysterious divine relationship between Father and the Son involved suffering far greater than death, suffering which all heaven knows to have been an abundant provision for the guilt of a lost race.⁵⁶ What mere man has the temerity to demand the death of the immortal Deity to the infinite price paid for human redemption?

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER AFTER THE INCARNATION

The writings of Ellen G. White contain no suggestion that since the incarnation Christ has been delegated a subordinate position in the courts of heaven. There is no intimation that as God He resigned forever any of the prerogatives of God when He died for the sins of man. On the contrary, in unmistakable language it is stated that Christ was restored to His former position in heaven. Referring to Christ’s prayer recorded in John 17:1-5 Ellen G. White wrote:

He is praying to His Father in regard to a glory possessed in His oneness with God. His prayer is that of a mediator; the favor He entreats is the manifestation of that divine glory which was possessed by Him when He was one with God. Let the veil be removed, He says, and let My glory shine forth—the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.⁵⁷

This prayer for the complete restoration of His former status in heaven was answered:

Thus the prayer of Christ was answered. He was glorified with the glory which He had with His Father before the world was. . . .

No words can describe the scene which took place as the Son of God was publicly reinstated in the place of honor and glory which He voluntarily left when He became a man.

And today Christ, glorified, and yet our brother, is our Advocate in the courts of heaven.⁵⁸

There are repeated declarations in the writings of Ellen G. White to the effect that Christ’s position today is one of complete equality with the Father and of supreme authority in heaven and earth. As previously intimated Christ’s oneness with the Father was broken up because of sin, but this oneness was entirely restored. Today Christ stands in precisely the same relationship to the Father as He did before the incarnation:

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.⁵⁹

According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers, as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people.⁶⁰

Ellen G. White effectively answered Uriah Smith’s contention that Christ is the Alpha and Omega only in a subordinate sense. She wrote, "Christ Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the Genesis of the Old Testament, and the revelation of the new."⁶¹ In commenting on Revelation 1:18-20 Ellen G. White stated:

These are wonderfully solemn and significant statements. It was the Source of all mercy and pardon, peace and grace, the self-existent, eternal, unchangeable One, who visited His exiled servant on the isle that is called Patmos.⁶²

Of course these verses in Revelation have obvious reference to Christ. He then is the "self-existent, eternal, unchangeable one." That being so, a change in His status as God is manifestly an impossibility.

CHRIST EQUAL WITH THE FATHER AFTER THE END

Some of the Adventist Arians used 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 as evidence that at the end Christ assumes a subordinate position to the Father. Unfortunately Ellen G. White makes no comment on the central problem of the passage, but nowhere does she give any hint that a change in the status of the Son will be effected at the end of time. On the other hand, she does say much about the exalted position Christ will occupy at the conclusion of the millennium:

In the presence of the assembled inhabitants of earth and heaven takes place the final coronation of the Son of God. And now, invented with supreme majesty and power, the King of Kings pronounces sentence upon the rebels against His government, and executes upon those who have transgressed His law and oppressed His people.⁶³

There can be no reasonable doubt that the King of Kings who at the conclusion of the Millennium is invested with supreme majesty and power before the assembled hosts of the saved and the unsaved is Jesus Christ the Son of God:

As if entranced, the wicked have looked upon the coronation of the Son of God. . . . They witness the outburst of wonder, rapture and adoration from the saved; and as the wave of melody sweeps over the multitudes without the city, all with one voice exclaim, "Marvelous areThy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Saints." (Rev l5:3) and falling prostrate, they worship the Prince of Life.⁶⁴

The hour has come when Christ occupies His rightful position and is glorified above principalities and powers and every name that is named.⁶⁵

Nowhere in the writings of Ellen G. White is there any suggestion that Christ adopts a position subordinate to the Father at any time subsequent to His coronation.⁶⁶