God ripped from God and other nonsense

 As I referenced earlier in the Seeking What They Sought podcast of the Sanctuary Doctrine interview with Richard Davidson Part 2 there is a particularly strange part where Dr. Davidson says God made a covenant with God. I have snipped the section of the podcast below, which starts at around 38 minutes and runs for about 4 minutes. You can see that here

Transcripted edited for clarity starting at 37:50:

But the fact that Abraham is never mentioned here.

Yeah. He's put to sleep. And then there are two parties that walk between the a torch and a bowl of flame. Yes. And those two are mentioned, those same two words are mentioned later in Exodus 19, the Godhead who's on Mount Sinai. And so they act, and Ellen White is clear. The father and the son were both on the mountain there. And the we have throughout Genesis we have Yahweh, and then we have the angel of the Lord who comes, and when he comes as a messenger, he says I am Yahweh. So you have two Yahweh's throughout Genesis. And so and so the two Yahweh are walking the two light sources the two divine light sources are walking together through the pieces. And so the real covenant which we fail to look at too often it's not between God and us which we break so often. It's between God and God. Saying if we break I'm going to be faithful. May we be torn with God from God. If we break it. Wow. And so God is offering to have the self-destruction of the Godhead. . And that's exactly what happens because in Isaiah 53, it takes them it takes the same word here as the pieces and says that refers to Jesus. And then Psalm 22.

Wait, sorry. You're referencing the metaphor of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. Yeah.

Isaiah 53, the suffering servant. And it talks about in his death and it says he will be cut off and uses the language of the pieces of Genesis 15. that he is the one that is he is the one that is u experiencing this covenant being broken. Wow. What happens then? Yeah, I'm trying to figure out where that is. Is this verse 8? Let's see. Oh, that he was cut off out of the land of the living. That part. Um just a minute here.

Let's go. while you're looking for that, I think just to describe to people that if they haven't already caught it, the crazy part about this is when God makes that covenant with Abram, I'm going to make you a great nation. It's wild because he's saying this is not dependent on like, I am going to be faithful. This is not dependent on you. which is a wild thing to so then when you carry this into the other sacrificial systems even though humans have a part to play there is a covenant that God makes with them later which is keep my law keep my covenant keep the things that I'm asking you to it always ends up getting applied back to God is God is the one who is faithful consistently that's right which is really and the word is yes in verse eight it's the word gezer which is the same word in [clears throat] Genesis 15 verse 17 to describe the pieces Wow. And so then you go to the cross and you get the capstone on this when Jesus on the cross, the sins of the world have just separated him from God. And he cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It happens. God has cut from God. He's ripped from God. And they feel that he feels the eternal separation that the that those who aren't saved are going to keep are going to experience for eternity. So, so for me when I talk about covenants, I always go to this text first because it shows that the covenant is ultimately between the father and the son, not between him and him and his people. And so that will never fail.

I encourage you to look at the original podcast or my snipped portion because there are interjections that make the transcript somewhat difficult to follow. But as Davidson ends the covenant is ultimately between the Father and the Son. What covenant you ask? Well the real and most important covenant that we fail to see is between God and God! You likely then again ask, what is that covenant that is so important and is not stated at all?

Let us refresh our memories about Genesis chapter 15. It is summed up here.

“The covenant with Abram in Genesis 15 employs גֶּזֶר to establish an immutable promise grounded in divine initiative. God alone walks between the severed pieces, demonstrating unilateral commitment. The severing underscores the certainty that God will fulfill land, seed, and blessing promises (Genesis 15:18–21). Later prophetic literature echoes this ritual language when indicting covenant breakers (Jeremiah 34:18–20), showing that the meaning attached to גֶּזֶר became a juridical touchstone for covenant faithfulness. “ https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1506.htm

,

My previous blog showed that in EllenWhites version of Genesis 15 Abram was part of the covenant ceremony, though it was not mentioned in the actual Gen. 15 story from the Bible. Davidson probably realizes he is disagreeing with the Adventist prophet, so earlier at the beginning of minute 37 he says:

“...He cuts them in two, places them beside each other and then there's no mention of his walking in between. Interestingly, I mean, he may have done that, but that's not the point of the story.”

The only reason to say that Abram might have walked between the cut animal parts is that Ellen White says Abram did walk between and made a covenant with God. Of course, since the whole point of the story was for God to confirm to Abram his promise, Davidson is correct that the point of the story is not about Abram doing something that he did not do in the Bible story.

Now, the idea that God, who according to the Bible is ONE, made a covenant with another God is certainly problematic.

"Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is One."

Listening to Davidson is quite torturous as he tries to equate the use of the same Hebrew words as his connecting points. Yes, smoke and fire are seen moving through the severed animals of the covenant, and smoke and fire are present upon Mt. Sinai because they are very often used as symbols for the presence of God

There are roughly 7,000 to 8,400 unique words (or roots) in ancient Biblical Hebrew, so it is very common to see them used in all types of stories, situations, and contexts. It is not an impressive connection; it is a necessity of a limited language. The total English vocabulary is more than 1 million words, and a common daily English usage is 170,000 words

Davidson presents his key Hebrew word connections between Gen 15 and Isa 53

H1506 גֶּזֶר gezer (gheh'-zer) n-m.

1. something cut off.

2. a portion.

[from H1504]

KJV: part, piece.

Root(s): H1504

So the two halves of an animal cut apart do not mean that in Isa 53 it has the same meaning.

H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.

1. to cut down or off.

2. (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide.

[a primitive root]

KJV: cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;

and as for his generation, who considered

that he was cut off out of the land of the living,

stricken for the transgression of my people?

Here, Davidson thinks that being cut off from the land of the living is to be cut off from God, but Jesus is God, so how does God rip Himself apart? Well, that is because Davidson takes Psalm 22 out of its context of a Psalm that speaks of tribulation to triumph and assumes that the first line of the psalm My God My God why have you forsaken me, to not be how the psalm was identified to people before there ever were chapter and verses, but that it must mean God and the Godhead were broken apart. Why would God be separated from God? The only reason Davidson gives is that Jesus would know what it was like to be eternally separated from God for all eternity. Which was only a couple of days, and Jesus raised Himself from the grave as He said He would do. So Jesus still had the power of God to raise Himself from the dead, but He was ripped apart from God, who Jesus is, in fact God. Do people like Davidson even contemplate that the dead know nothing, they don't feel anything, no shame, no remorse, no worms eating their flesh? Being dead is the same as being eternally separated from God. The reason Christians don't fear death is that they know the author of Life (see Acts 3:15, Jesus as the author of life) can raise them from the dead, so death is not their end. But Jesus knew He would rise again, He told others He would rise again, and He even promised another being crucified with Him that they would be together in Paradise.

There was no reason for the Crucifixion to separate the Godhead. Jesus was guilty of no sin. He did not die the second death because He had not even died the first death, and the very definition of second death is no resurrection from that death (Revelation 20:14-15). Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God because Jesus is God and God had no wrath for Jesus. There is not even one New Testament verse that tells us Jesus paid a penalty. Jesus life, death, and resurrection were God's plan for reconciliation with mankind. That is what atonement is all about: the mercy of God that forgives and reconciles man back to God.

So Dr. Davidson has given us a view of God that is not sustainable. It denies who God is and, with his strange interpretation, claims that the Godhead was ripped apart even after God confirms a covenant between the Godhead that he never tells us what that covenant is, only that if they break it the Godhead will be ripped apart, and then Dr. Davidson tells us that the Godhead in fact was ripped apart. So, God did not even keep his covenant with Himself; it is too confusing and completely unnecessary unless one is trying to form a theology based upon some extra-biblical authority.

That Dr. Davidson is an SDA professor and the 2 people interviewing him are SDA pastors should serve as a warning to every Adventist member. Your  University schools are corrupt, and your theology is incredibly faulty.

When your theology professors are not very good

 Before I go on to recount how Richard Davidson thinks that the Gen. 15 account of God walking between the sacrificed animals is somehow actually a covenant between the Godhead, e.g. God the Father and Jesus Christ pre-incarnation. I thought it would be good to point out his technique of interpretation of the Bible.

  In The Sanctuary Doctrine | Richard Davidson (Part 3) podcast with an interview of Richard Davidson an Andrews University professor. We have these interesting quotes.

Quote: 40:09 Here's Lucifer and he's not allowed to enter into the councils of divinity. And so this jealousy arises. He considers that God is not fair. And so then comes the other Hebrew word in Ezekiel 28 where it says that he was filled with recula which means um (interviewers: is that the violence) no he it it means to let me look let's go to Ezekiel 28. I don't want to speak out of turn here. I get the wrong term. I'll look it up here. Okay. So yes, oh yeah, recula. It is right. If the other word was avala, that means injustice. And then he's filled with reculah, which is slander. And he begins to slander God. Going around from one angel to another saying God can't really be trusted. And so the whole great controversy starts over who can you trust? Can you trust God or not?

Now to clarify he is using Ezk. 28 which says nothing of Lucifer, which is the mistranslation from Is. 14

Ezk. 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. 16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; So he is giving the Hebrew for Violence ESV

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
H7404 רְכֻלָּה rkullah (rek-ool-law') n-f. trade (as peddled). [feminine passive participle of H7402] KJV: merchandise, traffic.

Root(s): H7402 The word used according to lexicon is: H2555 חָמָס chamac (chaw-mawce') n-m. 1. violence. 2. (by implication) wrong. 3. (by meton.) unjust gain. [from H2554]

KJV: cruel(-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.

Root(s): H2554

So here he completely takes the verse out of the context of Ezek 28:12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. And asserts it to Satan aka Lucifer, and the"trade" becomes slander going to angel to angel with the slander.

Then he later ends with:

I can put this whole thing that I just told you without mentioning Ellen White once. It's not all in Ezekiel 28. You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. And it's all there in the text. And so one of my favorite things to do is to show from the biblical text. Here is the narrative. And then I say, have you ever heard that somewhere else?

If you're an Adventist, that's what Ellen White says. But I didn't get anything from Ellen White. I'm getting it all from here. And so I don't deny that Ellen White is a prophet. And I don't deny that she had visions and filled in gaps that we may not find explicit in scripture. But I haven't been let down yet that the major contours of what we say about the great controversy and other topics are there in scripture. We've been the lazy ones not to dig them out. And Ellen White herself said, "If you had only studied the scripture like you should have, you wouldn't have needed me." Right? 44:53

He can only make it fit by inserting extra biblical authority into the Bible, in this case a heavy dose of Tradition and John Milton popularization, and this is an Andrews University Theology professor! I get the impression that some do not think the Lucifer Myth is a big deal, but it is; it is the foundation of Ellen Whites Great Controversy theme. And here is an Andrews University professor who seems to think that inserting Satan into Is 14 and Ezk 28 is consistent, yet there is absolutely no hermeneutic method that allows for this. Maybe if somewhere else in Scripture it said those things, you could say they were a foreshadowing in those chapters in Isaiah and Ezekiel. But since the Bible does not give us that, it is just a ploy to support an extra-biblical presumed prophet. Which is one of the reasons that a vast amount of Biblical scholarship rejects what I call the Lucifer Myth.

But that is not all he said. Consider the usage of Proverbs 8 here:

 You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. 

That sounds pretty bold, but there are at least 6 views on Proverbs 8, and the idea that Christ is given a new office is not one of them; it is also very difficult to get that from Proverbs 8. It would be far easier to assert the Arian view than the new office view. Here is a summary of the main views:

While Proverbs 8 is most universally read as a poem celebrating and personifying wisdom, there are several distinct and rich interpretations regarding who or what Wisdom actually represents. Because biblical poetry is highly artistic, "Lady Wisdom" is not a technical definition but a multifaceted symbol that has been interpreted in different ways throughout history. [1, 2, 3]

The main interpretations of this chapter include:

1. The Theological Interpretation: God’s Wisdom in Creation

In this view, Wisdom is a literary personification of God’s own attribute of order, intelligence, and skill. The passage describes how God used divine wisdom to design the cosmos—making it the "master workman" (or architect) alongside God at the beginning of time. Under this interpretation, Proverbs 8 teaches that the universe is not random; it was created with a logical, moral, and functional design. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. The Christological Interpretation: Jesus Christ

This is a prominent view within Christian theology, particularly in the early church. Because the New Testament (such as in 1 Corinthians 1:24) directly identifies Jesus as the "wisdom of God," early church fathers and theologians interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative and prophetic depiction of God the Son. In this view, Christ existed in eternity past and was the active agent alongside the Father in the creation of the world. [1, 2]

3. The Controversial Arian View: Wisdom as a "Created" Being

This specific interpretation stems from Proverbs 8:22, which reads in some translations (like the Greek Septuagint): “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.” In the third century, a theologian named Arius used this verse to argue that if Jesus is the wisdom of God, and wisdom was created, then Jesus cannot be eternal and is not fully God. This view was later formally declared a heresy by the Council of Nicaea, which established that the verse refers to the "begetting" or "possessing" of an eternal attribute, not a literal creation event in time. [1, 2, 3]

4. The Pneumatological Interpretation: The Holy Spirit

Some Jewish and Christian scholars have interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative expression of the Holy Spirit. Similar to the Holy Spirit, Wisdom is described as being poured out on humanity. She breathes life, truth, and conviction into people, guiding them away from folly and into alignment with God's will. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

5. The Anthropological / Practical Interpretation: The "Art of Living"

Many secular and modern theological commentators treat the personification of Wisdom purely as a highly effective pedagogical tool. In this view, Solomon is writing to "his son" to instill practical, ethical, and social "know-how". Personifying Wisdom as an attractive, noble woman calling out in the city gates contrasts with the seductive "Adulterous Woman" of Proverbs 7. Here, the chapter is a practical call to choose the path of life, justice, and prudence over the destructive path of foolishness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

6. The Comparative Near Eastern Interpretation: Ma'at

From a historical and academic perspective, some biblical historians note that Proverbs 8 shares striking parallels with ancient Egyptian literature. In Egypt, there was a goddess named Ma'at, who represented the cosmic order, truth, and right judgment. These scholars suggest the authors of Proverbs may have used the well-known ancient literary motif of a divine, feminine figure of order to explain God's wisdom to an audience familiar with surrounding Near Eastern cultures. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

To the law and the testimony Adventist pretension

 One thing I have to say is that the podcast Seeking What They Sought reveals far more about Adventism than most anyone would have expected. It is not good for Adventism but good for our understanding of the culture and absurdities that fill the area of Adventist Theology. In their latest series, they have had numerous multipart podcasts of people trying to explain the Adventist "Sanctuary Doctrine." This has pretty much proved that the doctrine is an entirely eisegetical fantasy. In the Sanctuary Doctrine Interview with Richard Davidson, we see a most peculiar interpretation. In the Genesis 15 account, God makes a covenant with Abram. Reading the comments there, I saw someone who pointed out that the account that Davidson was referring to in Genesis 15 was not at all what the account said, and in fact it was not what the account given by Ellen White, the supposed Adventist prophetic messenger, gave either. Davidson asserted that the covenant there was between the Godhead, specifically between Jesus Christ and God the Father. That I will deal with in the next post.

My comment under the YouTube podcast was as follows: 

" That Davidson compares the lamp and smoke to somehow be a covenant between Christ and God is equally wrong. Because there was "And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly Ex 19:18 certainly does not indicate anything other than the presence of God, not a division of God. But back to what EGW said that is not what the Bible says, she writes: Still the patriarch begged for some visible token as a confirmation of his faith and as an evidence to after-generations that God’s gracious purposes toward them would be accomplished. The Lord condescended to enter into a covenant with His servant, employing such forms as were customary among men for the ratification of a solemn engagement. By divine direction, Abraham sacrificed a heifer, a she-goat, and a ram, each three years old, dividing the bodies and laying the pieces a little distance apart. To these he added a turtledove and a young pigeon, which, however, were not divided. >>>>This being done, he reverently passed between the parts of the sacrifice, making a solemn vow to God of perpetual obedience.<<<< Watchful and steadfast, he remained beside the carcasses till the going down of the sun, to guard them from being defiled or devoured by birds of prey. About sunset he sank into a deep sleep; and, “lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him.” And the voice of God was heard, bidding him not to expect immediate possession of the Promised Land, and pointing forward to the sufferings of his posterity before their establishment in Canaan. The plan of redemption was here opened to him, in the death of Christ, the great sacrifice, and His coming in glory. Abraham saw also the earth restored to its Eden beauty, to be given him for an everlasting possession, as the final and complete fulfillment of the promise. PP 137.1 [That last sentence is also certainly not Biblical either]

So what do Adventists do when the supposed "pen of inspiration" writes something that is not at all in agreement with the Biblical story? I did a little checking, and it seems that they do not count Ellen White's account as a contradiction of the Bible story but as an expansion of the story. Apparently, expanding the story does not count as adding to the Bible; it is just explaining it better. Ignore the idea that expanding is a synonym for adding; what kind of English teacher am I supposed to be to write about synonyms anyway? 

But this raises an equally serious question. Let us quote from the Ellen G. White Estate, an official Adventist body.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20.

Our watchword is to be “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” We have a Bible full of the most precious truth. It contains the alpha and the omega of knowledge. The Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). Take the Bible as your study book. All can understand its instruction.

Remember the Law refers to the Torah and the Testimony to the prophetic Old Testament writings.

So our next question is: how do you test the truth of something by the Law and the Testimony if you expand the story in one of the first books of the Torah? You cannot test it if you have redefined it by adding material to the story. You can speculate about a story or say this might have happened, but you can't test it with something a later person says should have been there but wasn't. If you do that, as Isaiah says, there is no light in them.

I think, as the podcast Seeking What They Sought has been proving, there is, in fact, no light in what Adventism teaches on several subjects. Of course, that does not mean everything they teach is wrong. Just the special parts that don't fit at all with the Bible. Because it is, in fact, extremely difficult to be wrong all the time. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day!