6. The Clear Word On the Godhead – Proclamation! Online Magazine

In this chapter we look at the Adventist teaching on the Godhead and how The Clear Word distorts some very important passages of Scripture on the nature of the Godhead and on the deity of Jesus Christ. Some of the wording in the various editions of The Clear Word has changed over time, so we’ll need to look at the first edition, The Clear Word Bible, at times to discern the author’s initial position and then to compare it with later editions.

We will also look at the historic teachings about the Trinity in Seventh-day Adventism to determine why Blanco has distorted various passages of the Bible when He refers to God.

Early in their history the Adventists were clearly anti-trinitarian and Arian. Although some of their expressions have changed over time, we will see that Adventism still has room for anti-trinitarianism.

Early in their history the Adventists were clearly anti-trinitarian and Arian. Although some of their expressions have changed over time, we will see that Adventism still has room for anti-trinitarianism. Those who use The Clear Word as a Bible will find the non-trinitarian god endorsed by Ellen White represented throughout its text.

Fundamental Belief number two is the current Adventist statement on the Godhead and reads as follows:

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.¹

The question to be asked is this: does the term “three co-eternal Persons” agree with other Christian creeds where it is stated that the three persons are of one essence or are one being?

To answer this question we do not have far to look. A book that explains what the Adventists have denied and believed over time regarding the Trinity was published in 2002. Entitled The Trinity, it was written by three men of whom one is a professor of religion, and the two others teach church history at Andrews Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, MI. In this book the authors have been honest about the historical position of the Adventist Church since its inception. According to this book, the three “co-eternal persons” are not one being, but three beings:

“Person” as applied to God indicates a being with personality, intellect and will.²

According to this explanation, the words “beings” and “persons” are interchangeable. Therefore, when their fundamental belief states that there are three persons in the Godhead, internally they can (and do) believe that there are three beings in the Godhead.

The whole phenomenon of “intercession” implies willing, active intervention between two personal beings.³

Here the authors, writing about the internal relationship between the Father and the Son, reveal that they, as representatives of Adventist understanding, believe that there are “two personal beings” in the Godhead. This admission indicates that the Adventist Godhead is comprised of more than one “being”. They go on to state:

Once more, only a divine person can truly know what is in the mind and heart of another divine being.⁴

Here again the authors equate the terms “person” and “being”. This equation negates the ancient Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:4 which is repeated throughout Scripture:

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”

God is one Being, not three, and He is expressed in three Persons. To equate “being” with “person” removes the oneness of God—the shared substance of the Trinity—and yields a tritheism instead of a Trinity. To be sure, the Trinity is a mystery not fully explained to us, but the oneness of God is affirmed throughout Scripture. The three Persons cannot be separated in their work and purpose and attributes. They share substance. The Adventist Godhead, however, does not share substance. We see the Adventist tritheism clearly in the following quote:

Here are three divine beings lined up together in such a way as to point to Their oneness of purpose in imparting grace and love to God’s people through Their deep fellowship with one another and the redeemed.⁵

These authors have boldly presented tritheism in this work that is purported to be supporting the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Yet the authors betray that their unique view of the “trinity” is not the same as the classic, biblical view of our God who is one. Thus the book does the opposite of its stated purpose.

On the one hand, the book The Trinity accurately reveals the historic Adventist anti-trinitarian position. On the other hand, it must be seen as a promotion of cultic theology. Consider, for example, the following quote:

“… they [early Adventists] initially rejected the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which clearly contained elements not evident in Scripture.”⁶

Not surprisingly, not only was anti-trinitarianism a problem in early Adventism, but it has seen a resurgence within the organization in recent decades. The authors document this trend:

Not only are there increasing reports of pockets of anti-Trinitarian revival in various regions across North America [in Adventist Churches], but via the Internet its influence has spread around the world. As this grassroots Arian or anti-Trinitarian movement gains ground, local churches increasingly find themselves drawn into debate over the issues.⁷

The authors of this book, The Trinity, define Adventist anti-trinitarianism along the following timeline:

1846-1888Anti-Trinitarian Dominance
1888-1898Beginnings of Dissatisfaction with Anti-Trinitarianism
1898-1915Paradigm shift
1915-1946Decline of Anti-Trinitarianism
1946-PresentTrinitarian Dominance⁸

It is interesting to note that the “Decline of Anti-Trinitarianism” did not begin to occur until the death of the prophetess of the Adventist organization in 1915.

Yet even with an organizational swing toward trinitarian language, the issue of who Jesus is was never resolved.

Yet even with an organizational swing toward trinitarian language, the issue of who Jesus is was never resolved. Since the person, nature, and work of Jesus Christ (Christology) is of extreme importance within Christianity, it is odd that Ellen White, with her supposed strong connection to God as His last-day Messenger, did not resolve the issue of Adventism’s Christology. Instead, that issue was left to be a point of contention between Adventists throughout the ages. Adventism’s Arian and anti-trinitarian roots continue to color Adventists’ understanding of the nature of Christ to this day.

Although “Trinitarian dominance” began in 1946, it was a gradual change, one that was still being worked out as late as 1985. In 1985 the Adventist organization published its new hymnal, an update which replaced the previous version published in 1941. In the words to the hymn Holy, Holy, Holy we find a change made between the two editions of the hymnal. In the 1941 hymnal we find this hymn on p. 59, hymn number 73. At the end of the first stanza we read, “God over all who rules eternity!”⁹ In 1985 it was corrected to its original wording of “God in three persons, blessed Trinity!”

It is interesting to note that this and other changes in the hymnal (along with other events within Adventism such as Desmond Ford and his exposé of the Sanctuary doctrine and the plagiarism of Ellen White documented by Walter Rea) coincided with the rise of anti-trinitarianism within Adventism.

The scandal of the heretical and immoral facts of the prophetess’s undocumented copying of other authors’ works and of the totally unbiblical central doctrine on which Adventism was built being made public seemed to trigger a fast “fix” as Adventist leaders revised their public wording in hymns and doctrinal statements to sound “trinitarian” instead of “tritheistic”. Yet many Adventists understood that their religion was not truly trinitarian, and more and more members swung back toward the position of the founders. In fact, Adventist doctrine cannot stand on biblical trinitarianism. It depends upon a different godhead, a “heavenly trio”, as Ellen White called it, the “three Worthies of heaven”.

The three authors of The Trinity confirm this internal shift:

“… it is also true that the denomination in the closing years of the twentieth century and the opening years of the twenty-first has witnessed a resurgence of anti-Trinitarianism and semi-Arianism on the basis that the earliest founders of the denomination held those views.”¹⁰

Ellen White herself was never Trinitarian enough to avoid confusion on the subject within Adventism. The authors of The Trinity state:

In the Desire of Ages she differed sharply with most of the pioneers regarding the preexistence of Christ… Her third sentence in chapter 1 declared: “From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father.” Yet even this was not sufficiently unequivocal to clarify her position regarding the deity of Jesus for, as we have seen, others had used similar language without believing in Christ’s infinitely eternal preexistence.¹¹

The authors of The Trinity become biased when they explain why the pioneers did not accept the current trinitarian view found in other churches. They state:

All of the Adventist objections to the Trinity either rejected extrabiblical speculative forms of Trinity belief or misunderstandings of the Biblical witness. None of them is a valid objection to the true biblical teaching of one God in three persons. Yet all of these objections had biblical texts at their core.¹²

In essence, what the pioneers of Adventism claimed was that there was not another church that was teaching a clear, biblical definition of the Trinity. Protestantism had apostatized from the truth of Scripture, they believed. Not only did early Adventists disbelieve in the Trinity, they also believed that God the Father was in a tangible body. James White, the husband of the Adventist prophetess and one of the founders of Adventist doctrine, wrote:

“… this class can be no other than those who spiritualize away the existence of the Father and the Son, as two distinct, literal, tangible persons. … The way spiritualizers … have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is [sic] first using the old unscriptural trinitarian creed.” (James White, in Day-Star, Jan., 24, 1846).¹³

James White also wrote that God has a body, parts, and passions. In his eight-page pamphlet titled Personality of God, we read the following:

What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image. What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones.¹⁴

He also later wrote an article titled “Christ Equal With God” in the Adventist Review and Herald, Nov., 29, 1877, and his words are quoted in The Trinity:

“Christ is equal with God.” While it did not make him a Trinitarian, another remark in the same article suggests that he was beginning to reexamine the larger picture. “The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three is bad enough,” he [James White] wrote, “but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.”¹⁵

There is no indication in this statement that he was “beginning to reexamine the larger picture.” James remained anti-trinitarian throughout his life, and no recorded corrections to his views were ever given by his prophetess-wife, Ellen. In fact, Ellen White supported her husband’s position throughout her life.

Ellen White herself did not use the term Trinity in her writings. In fact, In all her writings, there is one instance of the word “Trinity”; it is used in a section title of the book Evangelism, on page 616. Some of the terms she used instead were “eternal heavenly dignitaries,” “three highest powers in heaven,” and “three living persons of the heavenly trio.”¹⁶

Like her husband, Ellen believed the Father had a body.

The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.¹⁷

Significantly, the Adventist organization as a whole has never accepted orthodox statements on the nature of the Trinity. Their slow “struggle” towards trinitarianism is described in The Trinity:

The only way the pioneers could separate the biblical elements of Trinitarianism from the traditional elements was to disallow completely tradition as a basis for doctrine, and struggle through the long process of reconstructing their belief on Scripture alone. In doing so, they retraced many steps of the ancient church …. In the course of this journey, the pioneers’ theology showed temporary similarities to some of the historical heresies. Their repudiation of tradition as doctrinal authority was costly in terms of the ostracism they endured as perceived “heretics” and in terms of the time it would take them to discover from Scripture a comprehensive doctrine of God, but the results justify the conclusion that God was leading them all along that path.¹⁸

It is important to recognize that the results of Adventism’s process of developing of their doctrine of God do not justify accepting heresy while “along that path.” Its current fundamental belief on the Godhead is still weak; it allows for anti-trinitarianism, and it uses wording that is not found in Scripture. For example, the first sentence of the belief, as quoted earlier, says: “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.” The phrase “co-eternal Persons” is not found anywhere in Scripture, yet the Adventists claim that they have used only Biblical statements in formulating their beliefs. While deprecating Protestants who accept “tradition”, they themselves have formulated a creed that has become tradition within Adventism.

Most importantly, the Adventist Church has never publicly admitted their mistakes about the Godhead nor repented for teaching heresy.

Most importantly, the Adventist Church has never publicly admitted their mistakes about the Godhead nor repented for teaching heresy. These heresies all still exist in the Adventist organization and can be found amongst the members in any large Adventist congregation or community and on many internet websites.

Given this history, how has Jack Blanco paraphrased passages that are important for establishing the full deity of Jesus Christ and the orthodox statements of trinitarianism? We’ll begin with the Old Testament and quickly move to the New Testament as we compare The Clear Word with the ESV.

Comparing the Texts

There is one textual difference in Genesis between the first edition of The Clear Word Bible and the current edition of The Clear Word which needs to be pointed out. I have put them side-by-side for a closer examination of the passage.

Genesis 1:26–28, 31

The Clear Word Bible, 1^st edition (verses 27, 28)
So they created two human beings, a male and a female who would reflect the oneness in the Godhead. Then God and His Son blessed them and said, “We have given you the capability to produce beings in your image. So be fruitful and fill the earth with people. We are putting you in charge of caring for the fish, the birds and every animal that walks the earth. They will obey you because I have set you over them.”

The Clear Word
But this was not the end of His work for that day. Next He said to His Son, “Now let us make beings who look like us and can reflect our thinking and our personality. Let’s give them the responsibility of ruling over and caring for the fish, the birds and the animals which we created.” So they created two human beings, a male and a female, equal but with different functions, to reflect the unity of the Godhead. Then God and His Son blessed them and said, “We have given you the capability to produce beings in our image. So be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and manage it for us. We have put the two of you in charge of the fish, the birds and all the animals that walk the earth.” … Then God looked at everything He had created through His Son, and it was very good. And the nighttime and the daytime made up the sixth day.

English Standard Version
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”… And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

In the original Clear Word Bible, as well as in the subsequent three editions printed in 1994 and in the 2000 edition, verse 28 contains a phrase that God has given Adam and Eve “the capability to produce beings in your [Adam and Eve’s] image.” In the current edition this has been changed to read “the capability to produce beings in our [God’s] image.” Blanco does not say that God created man in His image, as does the Bible, but he describes what he believes it means to be made in God’s image. He includes the ability to think and to have personality, but the Bible does not state these things. Importantly, Blanco focusses on the physicality of man and his supposition that God is also physical.

Furthermore, Blanco has God telling Adam and Eve to “produce beings in our image”. In the Bible God does not include this command but tells the first couple to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…” Multiplying implies that their offspring would be like them, their parents.

Blanco manages to reverse the significance of God’s creation of humans in God’s image and instead makes them reflectors of His personality and physical characteristics—able, significantly, to produce little god-like creatures.

Blanco manages to reverse the significance of God’s creation of humans in God’s image and instead makes them reflectors of His personality and physical characteristics—able, significantly, to produce little god-like creatures. God never said that Adam and Eve would produce offspring like God although He created man in His image. The emphasis is reversed. Blanco makes god-like creations who produce little god-like babies. God actually made man in His image—a spiritual being—able to multiply themselves and care for creation.

It might seem like a small difference, but the result is vast. Blanco’s view is more “Mormon”, implying that humans have the potential to create little gods. The Bible never describes this idea.

Also, in verse 26 The Clear Word has God and his Son creating beings who “look like” them, rather than creating man in his “image.” This implies that both the Father and Son have tangible bodies that can be “looked at,” which agrees with the early Adventist teaching mentioned above. The Father, however, has never had a tangible body, and the Son did not have a tangible body before his incarnation, when he was conceived in Mary’s womb.

Jesus told the woman at the well in Samaria, recorded for us in John 4:23-24,

“But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. ²⁴ God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

In other words, Jesus is identifying the nature of God. God is not physical. He is spirit, and true worshipers will worship in “spirit and truth”. All of God, including the Son is spirit; Jesus has taken an eternal physical body, but His identity as God will always be “spirit”.

Furthermore, Blanco emphasized that Jesus is “less than” God when he does not say “Let us make man in our image” but says of the Father that He said to His Son… He deliberately separated the Father and made the Son less than Himself. Instead of clarifying the creation account, Blanco diminishes Jesus by splitting apart the reference to “us” and making Jesus the offspring whom God decides to include. Additionally, while Blanco splits apart the “us” of the Trinity and names the Father and Son, he conspicuously does not include the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarians believe that when God said “Let us make man in our image,” the complete Trinity was present: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Blanco has used a phrase from Ellen White and inserted it into the text. Here are the words from the prophetess which Blanco borrowed:

And now God says to his Son, “Let us make man in our image.”¹⁹

Blanco’s Adventist views on the diminished identity of Jesus is emphasized in The Clear Word’s statements on the deity of Christ in the New Testament. The first place we will look is the gospel of John, where Jesus, on several occasions, is identified as God or being equal with God.

We’ll begin our comparisons by looking at the classic passage in John 1:1 as stated in the English Standard Version:

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

It is a beautiful verse, simple and straightforward in the English language. We need not elaborate on the meaning of this verse as that would take volumes to unpack the deeper understanding of this one statement. Yet even at face value we find the truth about Jesus: He Is God.

We’ll begin our comparison using the paraphrase of Blanco’s earliest volume, The New Testament: A Devotional Paraphrase to Stimulate Faith and Growth, with the first edition of The Clear Word Bible, and the current version of The Clear Word.

John 1:1

The New Testament: A Devotional Paraphrase to Stimulate Faith and Growth
Before the beginning of everything, going further back in time than can be imagined, the “Word of God” was there. And the “Word of God” stood by the side of God. And the Word was fully God.

The Easy English Clear Word and The Clear Word for Kids
Jesus has always been with God. He is the Word of God and is equal with God.

The Clear Word Bible, 1^st edition.
In the beginning, going further back in time than can be imagined, the Word of God was there. The Word stood by the side of God, and the Word was fully God.

The Clear Word
From the beginning, the Word of God was there. The Word stood by the side of God, and the Word was fully God.

Uriah Smith, an early Adventist leader and writer, penned the following, a statement revealing the Arian–semi-Arian foundation of the Adventist view of Jesus. The statement’s agreement with the versions of The Clear Word is obvious:

God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be, a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity,—appeared the Word.²⁰

The above examples show that Blanco has made several changes to this text over the years since 1990 when he published his first paraphrase of the New Testament. In the earlier versions he suggested an Arian or semi-Arian position by placing Jesus’ origin “further back in time than can be imagined…” The current version, however, is actually worse. In simplifying the verse, Blanco has now stated that the Word of God existed “From the beginning…” rather than “In the beginning…” As Scripture says.

This phrasing suggests that the origin of the Word occurred at the beginning of God’s creation, rather than having existed from eternity past. Furthermore, by saying that the Word “stood by the side of God” Blanco creates a distinction between the Father and the Son that the Scripture does not suggest. The Bible says that the Word was with God, and the word was God. Blanco, though, has the Word merely standing by the side of God (suggesting a physical view and invoking the human idea that a close assistant would stand beside a CEO or king who would be seated), and concludes by saying, “and the Word was fully God.”

Adventists claim that Jesus is “fully God”, but they do not mean that Jesus IS God.

Adventists claim that Jesus is “fully God”, but they do not mean that Jesus IS God. They mean that he proceeded from God, or that He is granted the name of God or the power of God, but they never mean that He shares the full substance, or attributes, or essence of God.

When an Adventist says Jesus is “fully God”, they mean that his “category” is God, like a third of an apple pie is “fully pie”. The idea that Jesus is identified as the “whole pie”, that He and the Father and the Spirit share every detail of the attributes of God equally, is never part of the Adventist paradigm.

Blanco’s wording only underscores this diminution of Jesus’ identity.

Furthermore, TEECW and TCWfK allow for a bi-theistic position to be taken in regards to the Word always being “with” God.

Verse two is also interesting, invoking “time” instead of the eternity of God:

John 1:2

The Clear Word
There never was a time when the Word of God was not with God.

English Standard Version
He was in the beginning with God.

We could go off into a discussion of philosophy and physics to understand the idea of the creation of time and the difference between time and eternity. Suffice it to say, however, that “There never was a time …” indicates that the Word has been with God only as long as time has existed, but not before, whereas the ESV allows the Word to have already existed before the “beginning,” since he was “in the beginning with God.”

Some may say we are splitting hairs over a simple difference in wording. This might be so if the very deity of Christ was not an issue in Christianity, but it is an issue, and its opponents have been tenaciously attacking the doctrine of the deity of Christ from Apostolic times. Slight wording changes can have profound impacts upon the ultimate meaning of a verse when it comes to extracting meaning from the Greek text, or as Blanco has done, written devotionally how he believes Jesus would speak to him today, rather than 2000 years ago.

However, we need not rest our case just upon this one verse. As we proceed we can see how Blanco has compromised the deity of Christ in other passages. John 8:58 is an important verse for identifying Jesus as Yahweh God, as John uses the ancient name when Christ identifies who he is. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ corrupt translation of the Bible, the New World Translation, misinterprets this verse in much the same way Blanco has done.

The Pharisees were discussing with Jesus his relationship with the Father when Jesus stated,“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” The Jews said that he was not yet 50 years old, so how could Abraham have seen his day? Jesus replied with the following:

John 8:58

The Clear Word
Jesus answered, “Because I existed before Abraham was born.”

New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses)
Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

English Standard Version
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Jesus was not just claiming to have existed before Abraham, he was applying the holiest name of all in Scripture to himself. Exodus 3:14 reads: “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” As seen in all accepted translations today, Jesus was applying the name I AM to himself. The Jews understood exactly what he meant and picked stones to stone him, but Jesus escaped. Here we see the Jehovah’s Witnesses theology, which was largely taken from Adventism by Charles Taze Russell in the late 1800’s, being similar to that of the Adventists.

The name of Yahweh, I Am, is not a time comparison. It is a statement of self-existence. God IS, and He has always been I Am. He is the eternal present Source and Love and Power and Life. Jesus did not derive from Yahweh; He Is Yahweh.

Later in John 10 we come across another example of Jesus identifying who he is in such a way that the Jewish leaders accused Him of blasphemy:

John 10:30–33

The Easy English Clear Word and The Clear Word for Kids
My Father and I work together. Then the priests and leaders went to get stones to kill Jesus, as they had done once before. When they returned, Jesus looked at them and said, “I have done nothing but good for the people. I did what My Father told Me. For which of these good works will you stone me?” They said, “We’re going to stone You, not for the good You have done but because you claim to be equal with God. But we know that You’re just human, as we are.

The Clear Word
“You see, my Father and I are so close, we’re one.” Then the Jewish leaders left Solomon’s Porch and went looking for stones to kill Him, as they had done before. When they came back, Jesus faced them and said, “I have done nothing but good to people, and I did all this under the direction of my Father. For which of these good works are you going to stone me?” They said, “We’re not going to stone you because of the good you’ve done, but for blasphemy. You’re only a human being, yet you keep calling yourself the Son of God.”

English Standard Version
“I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

In verse 30 Jesus is stating that he and the Father are one, not “so close, we’re one.” This phrasing separates the Persons of the Trinity and makes room for Arianism or even bi-theism. By the time we get to verse 33 we find that The Clear Word has the Jewish leaders wanting to stone Jesus for calling himself “the Son of God” whereas the Bible specifically states that He, “being a man”, is making himself “God.” Jesus was not just claiming to be the Son of God, but God himself, a point which the Jews clearly understood.

Blanco’s wording, however, perfectly reflects Adventism’s understanding that Jesus does not share substance with the Father but is pretty much like him, as a physical son has many characteristics of his father. Jesus, however, was not claiming to be related to God; He was saying He IS God.

In John 10:37-38 the same conversation is continuing. Here we read:

John 10:37–38

John 10:37-38 The Easy English Clear Word and The Clear Word for Kids
If I’m not doing the Father’s work, then you don’t have to believe in Me. But at least admit that what I do comes from God. If you did that much, you would soon see that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father, which makes us one.

The Clear Word
If you don’t think I’m doing the Father’s works, then you don’t have to believe what I say. But if I am doing the Father’s works, even though you don’t want to believe in me, at least admit that the works I do are from God. If you admitted that much, you would soon see that He’s working in me and that I am in Him. We work together as one.

English Standard Version
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

Jesus is clearly stating that he is in the Father, and the Father is literally in him. Blanco’s wording, particularly “We work together as one” can be misleading. They don’t merely work together “as one,” they truly are one in essence. TEECW and TCWfK are more correct than TCW indicating that the Father is in the Son and Son is in the Father, but the phrase “which makes us one” is not the scriptural explanation.

People who believe in Jesus are in Christ, and Christ is in them, but that fact does not make the believer “God”. Yet Jesus IS God.

People who believe in Jesus are in Christ, and Christ is in them, but that fact does not make the believer “God”. Yet Jesus IS God. He and the Father are in each other in a unique way (along with the Holy Spirit) because they share substance. Jesus Is God. Blanco’s deconstructionist wording diminishes the eternal God the Son.

In John 20 we come to a passage that is a favorite of many. Thomas had doubted the reports of the other disciples and wanted to see the resurrected Jesus for himself. His wish became reality when Jesus appeared²¹in the room where they were gathered and presented himself to Thomas for a closer inspection. As a result we read of Thomas’ great affirmation in verse 28. In the ESV we read:

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jack Blanco, however, changes Thomas’s declaration. In Blanco’s New Testament paraphrase, through all four editions of 1994, through the 2000 edition of The Clear Word, we find Thomas’ statement altered. Here are three of the versions:

John 20:28

The New Testament: A Devotional Paraphrase to Stimulate Faith and Growth
Thomas stood there speechless. Then he fell to his knees and said, “Lord, you’re alive! They were right! Now I have no more doubts. You are the Son of God.”

The Clear Word Bible, 1^st edition
Thomas stood there speechless. Then fell to his knees and said, “Lord, you’re alive! They were right! I believe! You are the Son of God.”

The Clear Word
Thomas stood there speechless. Then he fell to his knees and said, “Lord, you’re alive! They were right! I believe! You are my Lord and my God!”

From the simplicity found in most translations, Blanco created a verse that did not match the original in any way. He has added words to Scripture and created the impression that Thomas was unable to speak clearly, babbling in his amazement. The simplicity of “Thomas answered” is replaced with verbiage that puts more of a focus on Thomas than on Thomas’s God. The clarity of “My Lord and my God” becomes a secondary point of focus instead of the apex of Thomas’ affirmation. The Bible, however, focuses on who Jesus is as Thomas exclaims one of the most profound yet simple statements in Scripture regarding the deity of Jesus Christ.

In John 14 another disciple elicits Jesus’ declaration of His identity. Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The resulting information from Jesus is eye-opening; it is profound and complex, yet stated simply. Here is The Clear Word compared with the English Standard Version:

John 14:8–11

The Clear Word
Philip spoke up, “Lord, give us just one glimpse of the Father before you go and we’ll be satisfied.” Jesus, being somewhat disappointed with Philip’s lack of faith, said, “You mean I’ve been with you all this time, Philip, and you still don’t know me? When you’re looking at me you’re looking at the Father. How then can you ask me to give you a glimpse of the Father? You must believe me when I tell you that I am the Father in action and that the Father is living out His life in me. All the things I’ve taught you were not just my own, but the Father’s. It’s the Father living in me who’s doing all this. Believe me when I tell you that the Father would do everything I have done if He were here. If it’s hard for you to believe that, then don’t base your faith on what I’m saying, but on the miracles that you have seen me do.”

English Standard Version
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

In this passage Blanco’s paraphrase really runs into some trouble, contradicting itself within just a few verses. In verse 10 Blanco confuses the Father and Son by stating, “I am the Father in action and the Father is living out His life in me.” With this statement we no longer know who is doing what; is it the Son and the Father together, or is the Father the one doing all the works? Then in verse 11 we read, “Believe me when I tell you that the Father would do everything I have done if He were here.” Jesus had just stated that if you’ve looked at me, you’ve looked at the Father, and now denies that the Father is here. Blanco’s phrasing is not only incorrect, it is confusing. In the English Standard Version, however, it is clear through this passage that the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son.

Altered Epistles

In Philippians chapter two we read about Christ descending into human form to eventually die on a cross for the sins of mankind. In verse 9 we read, “Therefore God has highly exalted him.” He was exalted because of his death on the cross. In The Clear Word, however, the reason for Christ’s exaltation is His selflessness. Here we compare two versions of the text with the ESV:

Philippians 2:8–9

The Easy English Clear Word and The Clear Word for Kids
And as a man, He obeyed God and honored Him, even when God asked Him to go to the cross and die for us. That’s why God can exalt Him—because Jesus is so obedient and unselfish. Also, that’s why God can rightfully give Him a name that is above every other name.

The Clear Word
As a human being, He obeyed God in everything, even when God led Him to Calvary to die on a cross for us. This is why God can exalt Him, because He’s so selfless. God has rightfully given Him a name above every other name in heaven and on earth.

English Standard Version
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name…

In Adventism, Jesus is the ultimate example. He suffering selflessly to the point of death is weaponized to create guilt so that people will decide to be good and obey God, thus “paying back” Jesus’ suffering for them with obedience. Blanco has captured the essence of Adventism’s view of Jesus to the point that he changed Paul’s words to make Jesus’ exaltation about his selflessness instead of about His becoming sin and taking God’s wrath for us, thus breaking the curse of death.

Blanco has captured the essence of Adventism’s view of Jesus to the point that he changed Paul’s words to make Jesus’ exaltation about his selflessness…

In Colossians we come to a passage that shows the supremacy of Christ in all things and see that He was “the image of the invisible God.” Verse 19, however, proved problematic for Blanco. As we look at three different versions of The Clear Word Bible we’ll see a progression in the author’s thought.

Colossians 1:19

The New Testament: A Devotional Paraphrase to Stimulate Faith and Growth
And it pleased the Father to acknowledge Him as fully God in spite of His human nature.

The Clear Word Bible, 1^st – 4^th editions.
With pleasure the Father acknowledged Him as fully God, in spite of His human nature.

The Clear Word and The Clear Word 2004 pocket edition.
The Father was pleased to acknowledge the fullness of God in Him.

English Standard Version
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell

In Adventism it is taught that Jesus was incarnated into a body that had a sinful, fallen nature,²² polluted by thousands of years of sin. To be sure, Adventists never teach that Christ sinned, but only that His nature was sinful. However, this belief causes problems, as we see in these versions of The Clear Word. Blanco says that the Father acknowledged Christ in spite of His human nature. The Bible, however, doesn’t even bring up the issue of Christ’s human nature, but simply states that “the fullness of God” was “pleased to dwell” in him.

The Bible reveals that God was not pleased with Him “in spite” of his human nature; rather, it is his human nature in which the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.

The Bible reveals that God was not pleased with Him “in spite” of his human nature; rather, it is his human nature in which the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.

Also, Blanco never deviates from asserting that the Father was pleased to “acknowledge” the fullness of God in Him. This is not what the Scripture says. The Father was not externally judging and finding Christ worthy of having the fullness of God. Rather, the fullness of God—the entire Trinity, the One God, our Triune God, was pleased to dwell in His human nature which He took at the incarnation.

In the King James Bible and earlier versions, a verse was added in the New Testament that supported belief in the Trinity. Honest Bible scholars have admitted this addition as more ancient manuscripts have come to light. Thus in accurate modern translations, 1 John 5:7–8 more accurately reflects what the older Greek manuscripts actually state. Blanco, however, is apparently using the King James Version to provide his text for paraphrasing. To see what he did with 1 John 5:7–8, we need to look at his New Testament paraphrase as well as his other versions. Here is the text compared to the KJV and finally to the ESV:

1 John 5:7–8

The New Testament: A Devotional Paraphrase to Stimulate Faith and Growth
In fact, there are Three heavenly Witnesses who testify to what happened. In heaven it is the Father, on earth it was Jesus Christ, and since then it has been the fullness of the Holy Spirit. All three speak with one voice. Also there are three earthly events which testify to this. It is Christ’s baptism, Christ’s death, and the preaching of Christ through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. These three events are saying one and the same thing about Christ.

The Clear Word
In heaven there are three who testify to this: the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And these three are One. There are also three earthly events which give their testimony: Christ’s baptism in the waters of Jordan; Christ shedding His blood on Calvary; and Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

King James Version
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

English Standard Version
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

Here we see what the publishers mean by “expanded paraphrase” in the subtitle of The Clear Word. Blanco has speculated about the meaning of the three that testify in heaven and in so doing, greatly expanded this small portion of the Biblical text. In the New Testament paraphrase, Blanco makes two unusual statements. First, in verse seven we are presented with the Father in heaven, Jesus on earth, and since then, the Holy Spirit speaking. This kind of phrasing can lead to a modalistic understanding of the Godhead: God first being Father, secondly Son, then thirdly, the Spirit, one person following another in God’s self-revelation.

Moreover, Blanco’s “Three heavenly Witnesses” in his Devotional Paraphrase reflects Ellen White’s tritheistic “three Worthies of Heaven”. The three persons are not separate beings, nor are they successive manifestations of God. Our God is a Trinity, one Being expressed in three Persons.

Secondly, in verse eight, the three events are not saying the same thing about Christ. To say that the Baptism of Christ and his death on the cross are “saying one and the same thing about Christ” is to misunderstand the centrality of the cross of Christ.

As we have seen through these examples The Clear Word wreaks havoc with the issue of the deity of Jesus Christ. There are also a number of verses in which TCW is clear about the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit; the problem is that Blanco is inconsistent in applying a standard to his method of paraphrasing.

What Is the Trinity?

A simple illustration that explains the Trinity and the relations between the three persons is shown below. Nothing perfectly explains the Trinity, and to claim to do so is a dangerous path to follow. This illustration has been used by many to explain that the persons of the Trinity exist as separate persons within the one being of God, and that they are not confused with each other.

Another teaching of Adventism is that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Jude v. 9 in TCW brings this point into focus.

Jude 9

The Easy English Clear Word and The Clear Word for Kids
In contrast to these arrogant men is Jesus, also called Michael, because He’s in charge of all the angels. When Satan challenged Him about raising Moses from the dead, He didn’t attack him with words, but simply said, “May God rebuke you.”

The Clear Word
In contrast to these ungodly men is the Lord Jesus, also called Michael the Archangel, for He is over the entire angelic host. When He was challenged by Satan about His intentions to resurrect Moses, He didn’t come at Satan with a blistering attack, nor did He condemn him with mockery. He simply said, “God rebuke you for claiming Moses’ body.”

English Standard Version
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

This egregious altering of Scripture is based entirely upon Ellen White. We find the resurrection of Moses’ body in her writings, yet there is no hint in Scripture that Moses was resurrected.

Christ resurrected Moses, and took him to heaven. This enraged Satan, and he accused the Son of God of invading his dominion by robbing the grave of his lawful prey. Jude says of the resurrection of Moses, “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”²³

She also wrote:

As it was, Moses passed through death, but the Son of God came down from Heaven and resurrected him before his body had seen corruption. Though Satan contended with Michael for the body of Moses, and claimed it as his rightful prey, he could not prevail against the Son of God, and Moses, with a resurrected and glorified body, was borne to the courts of Heaven, and was now one of the honored two [the other being Elijah], commissioned by the Father to wait upon his Son [at the Transfiguration].²⁴

As taught within Adventism, Moses had to be resurrected to have been seen at the Transfiguration. Adventism teaches that we do not have immaterial spirits that survive the death of the body; their definition of “spirit” means the breath that is in our lungs. In contrast, Christian teaching is that we are spirits who inhabit a body, based on statements by Paul and others. For example 2 Corinthians 12:2-3 states:

2 Corinthians 12:2–3

The Easy English Clear Word and The Clear Word for Kids
About fourteen years ago Barnabas came to Tarsus looking for me and took me to Antioch. By then I had already been preaching for about seven years. One day I was taken to heaven in vision. There I saw Jesus. Whether I was there physically or just in vision I couldn’t tell. It was all so real. To this day only God knows. Let me say it again. How it happened I don’t know; only God knows.

The Clear Word
Fourteen years ago, Barnabas came to Tarsus to take me to Antioch. By then I had already been preaching the gospel for almost seven years. One day I was taken up to the third heaven to where Christ is. Whether I was taken there bodily or just saw it all in vision, I can’t tell you. To this day I still don’t know, only God knows. Let me say that again: Whether I was taken to heaven bodily or just saw it all in vision, I don’t know, only God knows.

English Standard Version
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—

Here we see that Blanco has altered the text so that Paul could not have visited the third heaven in spirit, as man’s spirit is only the breath that he breathes. He therefore introduces to the text the possibility of Paul having seen the third heaven in vision, which the ESV never suggests, thus removing the possibility of Paul’s being out of the body in the third heaven.

Also in 2 Corinthians we find the following in chapter 5:6-9:

2 Corinthians 5:6–9

The Easy English Clear Word and The Clear Word for Kids
That’s why we can speak with such confidence, even though we are not yet in heaven. We live by what we believe and not just by what we see. This gives us courage to look ahead. We know that Jesus will come and that we will go home to live with Him forever. Our aim is to please God, whether we’re here or in heaven.

The Clear Word
That’s why we can speak with such confidence, even though we’re still living in our mortal bodies and away from the Lord. ⁷ Actually, we are not away from the Lord. He’s here with us, not by sight, but by faith. ⁸ That’s what faith is all about. We long to lay aside our bodies, to leave this present world, and to be at home with the Lord. ⁹ But whether we are here or there isn’t the point. Our only goal is to please God and show Him how much we love Him by obeying Him.

English Standard Version
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, ⁷ for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.

In verse eight of TCW Blanco implies that we are either “here or there” in our mortal or our immortal resurrection bodies. He can’t have a disembodied spirit to be at home with the Lord, as that would contradict all Adventist teaching on the nature of man.

Also, we do not find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus and Michael the Archangel are equated. It is speculative to teach such a doctrine, yet we find this taught in Adventism.²⁵

The Trinity in Recent Adventist Sources

There are two statements made in the last few years that need to be examined at this point. The first comes from an Adventist televangelist, Doug Batchelor. In 2003 his ministry, Amazing Facts, published a small booklet titled The Trinity. At one point he makes an astounding statement that should have all Trinitarians stand up and notice—and denounce. The statement is found on page 32 where he writes:

The real risk in the redemption plan, besides the loss of man, was the breakup of the Godhead. Had Jesus sinned, He would have been working at cross-purposes with the Spirit and His Father. Omnipotent good would have been pitted against omnipotent evil. What would have happened to the rest of creation? Whom would the unfallen universe see as right? One sin could have sent the Godhead and the universe spinning into cosmic chaos; the proportions of this disaster are staggering. Yet the Godhead was still willing to take this fragmenting risk for the salvation of man.²⁶

This man has an outreach that extends around the world via video and internet. (This booklet is available online as a free download.) Making statements as he has here shows just how much the nature of the Godhead is misunderstood within Adventism. God cannot be divided into “parts.” The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, one being, not three separate but equal beings. For being such a prolific and popular speaker as Batchelor is, he is bound to make some strange statements at times. However, when we turn to the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church we would expect more care in handling the doctrine of the Godhead.

God cannot be divided into “parts.” The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, one being, not three separate but equal beings.

Such is not the case. Angel Manuel Rodriguez, former director of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute (BRI), has made a statement about the nature of the Godhead that is just as unbelievable as Batchelor’s statement. In an article from Adventist World magazine, September, 2010, Rodriguez said:

Could Jesus have sinned? My unambiguous answer: Yes! … Let me put it as bluntly as I can: Had Jesus failed, the God we now know would not be our God. In other words, with respect to us, He would have ceased to exist. The failure of Jesus would have meant that God was unable to overcome the forces of evil and that Satan was powerful enough to overcome Him by derailing His plan of salvation, thus forcing God to abandon us.²⁷

This statement indicates just how much misunderstanding of the Godhead exists within Adventism. If the leadership can make statements such as these, it is no wonder that anti-Trinitarianism is on the rise in Adventist churches, as members try to hold onto “authentic” Adventism. These statements show that, at least in two instances among leaders, the idea of God as something that can be divided up into parts is a real possibility for Adventists. Trinitarians of various Protestant bodies know that God is one and cannot be divided into parts, not even three parts. Christians are trinitarian monotheists. Adventists, however, are tritheists although they are taught that their three-being-God is the correct definition of “Trinity”.

Conclusion

The doctrine of the Trinity in Adventism has had a checkered past. The early Adventist pioneers were clearly anti-trinitarian and Arian in their beliefs. Ellen White, with her intimate connection to God, should have been able to clarify the issue so that there would not be so much misunderstanding and confusion over the years. Unfortunately, we see an organization that has only slowly moved in the direction of Trinitarianism. To say that Adventism is fully Trinitarian today would be an overstatement. In fact, the word “Trinity” which was once in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Adventist Church, was removed in the 1980 General Conference session.

Today this organization has a serious problem with its members, some of whom are seeking out the original teachings of the Pioneers to determine what their beliefs should be today. Since the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never corporately repented or apologized for teaching error in relation to the Godhead, its guilt remains and the stigma of anti-trinitarianism is seeing an upsurge within the ranks of Adventist believers. As we have seen, even authoritative writers within Adventism today have a problem stating the doctrine of the Trinity clearly.

It would be to our advantage to avoid using any of the editions of The Clear Word as even it contains errors and strange wording with respect to the Godhead, and even specifically to Jesus Christ.

Endnotes

Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 2^nd Ed., Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, p. 23.
Whidden, Woodrow; Moon, Jerry; Reeve John W., The Trinity, Review and Herald^® Publishing Association, 2002, p. 192.
Ibid., p. 68.
Ibid., p. 69.
Ibid., p. 74.
Ibid, p. 202.
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
Ibid., pp. 191-200.
The Church Hymnal, Official Hymnal of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1941.
Knight, George R., Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition, Andrews University Press, 2003, p. 39.
Whidden, Woodrow; Moon, Jerry; Reeve John W., The Trinity, Review and Herald^® Publishing Association, 2002, p. 196.
Ibid., p. 194.
Ibid., p. 207.
White, James, Personality of God, Seventh-day Publishing Association, Battle Creek, Mich., 1861?, p. 7.
Whidden, Woodrow; Moon, Jerry; Reeve John W., The Trinity, Review and Herald^® Publishing Association, p. 208, 2002.
White, Ellen G. Evangelism, 1946, pp. 614-617.
Ibid., p. 614.
Whidden, Woodrow; Moon, Jerry; Reeve John W., The Trinity, Review and Herald^® Publishing Association, 2002, pp. 219-220.
White, Ellen G., Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, 1870, pp. 24-25.
Smith, Uriah, Looking Unto Jesus, Review and Herald, Chicago, 1898, p. 10.
Notice that Jesus did not walk through a wall or closed door. He simply appeared before them. Sure, he could walk through walls and doors, but the point I’d like to make is that many state Jesus walked through a closed door when in reality he appeared in their midst. He went from one dimension to another (into our three dimensional world.)
From the SDA Bible Commentary, (1955) volume 4, we read the following on page 1147: “Think of Christ’s humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.”
White, Ellen G., Confrontation, p. 26, 1971.
White, Ellen G., Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 2, p. 330, 1877.
See Batchelor, Doug, Who is Michael the Archangel, Amazing Facts, Inc., p. 32, 2002.
Batchelor, Doug, The Trinity, Amazing Facts, Inc., p. 32, 2003.
Rodriguez, Angel Manuel, Adventist World, What If Question: If Jesus had sinned, what would have happened to him?, Sept. 2010, p. 26.

Author
Recent Posts

Stephen Pitcher

Stephen Pitcher was raised a non-Christian but met Jesus at the age of 17. Subsequently he studied with Mormon teachers, but Walter Martin's teaching kept him from converting. Later, it was Walter Martin's endorsement of Seventh-day Adventists as evangelical brothers that gave him "permission" to become an Adventist before marrying his Adventist fiancÈe. Fifteen years later Steve began to learn the truth about the origins of Adventism and the doctrinal issues that remain today. Seventeen years ago Steve left Adventism and now stands on Jesus alone. He attends Redeemer Fellowship in Loma Linda, California.

Latest posts by Stephen Pitcher (see all)

I Followed the Voice of Another Shepherd - November 9, 2023
12. In Conclusion - October 26, 2023
11. More Bible Texts Compared - October 19, 2023