"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." (Jn 3:16)
God the Father loved the world. Did the Son share this love? Did He ALSO love the world?
We need not entertain a single doubt upon this point. The Son may be honored equally when it comes to the motivation behind the great venture. (Jn 5:23).
But in real terms, who initiated it? What were some of the mechanics behind the Father actually giving and sending forth His Son? For those that accept the words of Ellen White there is some striking clarity on this matter.
The following scene is described. It takes place in heaven, after Adam's fall.
"Soon I saw Him [Jesus] approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a lovliness which words cannot describe. He then made know to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race..."
(Early Writings p.126)
It was only after Jesus asked -- it was only after Jesus had pleaded with His Father -- that He might be allowed to give His life, that the Father "GAVE" His Son. It is clear I think, that the Father would never have sent His Son, had Jesus not first asked to go. And Jesus would never have taken such a step without seeking the permission and approval of the Father.
"Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them." (ibid. p.127)
The Father did not "loan" Jesus to the human family as a temporary measure (i.e. it was not simply a matter of 33 years). It behooved Him [it was imperative to Jesus] to be made like His prospective brethren. And when He took humanity upon Himself, the Divine Son took it upon Himself for ever. He retains humanity [albeit glorified humanity,] to this day, and its limitations are upon Him for eternity. Did the Son give up His omnipresence? If He did, the limitations of humanity go far beyond the loss of omnipresence! The sacrifice undertaken by the Father, Son, and Spirit was enormous. Yet we have such a dim, flickering, view of what it cost each one of them, but our salvation cost them an everlasting cost, and it was the Son that carried the greatest burden.
You said : " to this day, and its limitations are upon Him for eternity."
Can you substantiate this statement?
Which is more painful, to watch your only son, whom you love suffer and die or the experience of the son going through the process ?
Hello Gene, I don’t believe this quote presents a view that is in contradiction with the Bible. This is long but I pray you read it all to the end and by God’s grace this should clear up any seeming contradictions.
Soon I saw Him [Jesus] approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a lovliness which words cannot describe. He then made know to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man;THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race..." (Early Writings p.126)
“The bible dose not present this view, but one that is quite the opposite. You also say this scene takes place in heaven after Adams fall. This too is another statement that is not validated from the words of the bible.
God’s plan of salvation was not a concoction; it was not formed in the heat of the moment.”
Now let’s look at this.
I believe we will agree that:
Jesus and The Father are equally God;
God is omniscient knows the past and the future;
and The Father did send Jesus to earth;
I hope we also agree that Jesus was not forced to come by the Father but He willingly offered himself.
Consider Philippians 2:5-8 “ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
Note: Jesus is God and He is sent by God, but He humbled Himself, He made Himself of no reputation. The Father did not do this to Him. So we are simply seeing the individuality in the Godhead.
John 10:17,18 “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
Note: Here again, Jesus is indeed sent by the Father to die, but clearly Jesus Himself chooses to lay down and take up His life. The Father will not force Him. But note the ending, Jesus says this commandment I received of My Father.
Question: Did Jesus need permission to lay down and take up His life? No! He is equally God. But note He says He has permission to do this. Consider part of the Ellen White quote again
“and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race...”
Both the Bible and Ellen White say Jesus got permission from the Father to lay down His life. Yet we know Jesus being fully God did not need permission.
Now the main issue of the quote:
“Soon I saw Him [Jesus] approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a lovliness which words cannot describe. He then made know to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man;THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race..." (Early Writings p.126)
Note: Three times Jesus meets with the Father and finally He gains permission to offer Himself.
After He gains permission His countenance is calm and free from trouble. And also this occurs after Adam and Eve has sinned.
Now consider Matthew 27:37-39,42,44 “And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
Note: Jesus is in agony. He prays three times for permission not to die. And Jesus is asking for permission in the closing moments of His earthly mission to not have to die. That was His mission. Jesus came to die yet He’s praying not to die.
Now let’s consider the facts: Jesus is God, He’s omniscient. He knew the answer before He prayed. He knew this moment would happen before He came to earth. Yet we see the agony and grief He is going through in this hour. Is this a contradiction? Is Jesus sinning in asking this request? Absolutely not! This just shows the personality of Jesus, of God. Jesus who is God is now taking on sin, becoming sin for us. There is nothing more detestable to God than sin and Jesus became it there. So Jesus in weakness asks for a way out but the fact is He already knew the answer. And after praying three times He was strengthened to go all the way to the cross.
Now consider the Ellen White quote. Yes the plan was already in place from the foundation that Jesus would die for us, if we sinned. But man had the option also to not sin. But once Adam sinned it went from the plan to their course of action. What Ellen White is revealing is simply the opposite of the Garden of Gethsemane. The Father of course is omniscient. He knew this moment would come. He knew Christ would have to become sin. But once again the most detestable thing to God is to become sin. So Jesus asked and the Father refused until the third time. Did the Father know He would approve on the final time? Of course! But just like Jesus had to ask in the garden, the Father had to resist. At the end the conversation the Godhead moved on in their implementation of the plan of Salvation.
If we even wanted to personalize things it would be like a soldier going off to war to fight for his country but his father not wanting him to go. The father knows it’s the right thing to do but he wouldn’t want to give up his son. So at first he refuses but even while he refuses, he knows he will give in and will be proud of his son’s service to country. Jesus and the Father are God but, they do have personality as well. And that passage just showed the personality of God in the plan of salvation.
There is no contradiction. Let us remember that what we understand now of sin and salvation is just the tip. We will study this for eternity and the more we study the more we will realize the great sacrifice of God for us. God is Love is something we can’t even begin to understand.
I read through this post and did not see any scriptural support for the idea that Christ petitioned God three times on behalf of humanity. It is understandable that Christ who was Man and God combined would waiver, on his sacrifice hoping that another solution could be found. Yet in the end he stated that he was willing to follow the will of God both his counterpart (as God,) and head (as Man.) If you believe Ellen White, God the father would be the one who would be hesitant to allow Christ to sacrifice himself.
Thanks for your input on this subject. I did read all of what you wrote and appreciate your thoughts.
We do agree that Jesus and the Father is equally God, but we must also put everything in their proper perspective. We must see things as God sees them, and the only way we can do this is through the word of God; the Bible. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reads--
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
The Son does not act apart from the Father, and neither the Word from God. There is no individuality in the Godhead, but there is an Oneness which we don’t comprehend at this present time.
In John 10:30 Jesus says he and the Father are One, but this is something we know. Not only are they One, Jesus also says the Father is greater than he (John 14:28).
If individually existed, the Word -- the Son would be destined to do his own will; like Satan, but the Oneness of the Godhead doesn’t allow this, it’s just impossible. Lucifer of course was never a part of the Godhead, he was just an angle.
In John 6:38 Jesus says,
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.
The Son’s will is always aligned with the Father’s will.
Then Jesus replied, "I assure you: The Son is not able to do anything on His own, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does these things in the same way. John 5:19
Immediately you can see that the below statement of EGW is implausible.
THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life…
The Son’s will is directly connected and aligned with the FATHER’S. The Son did not convenience the FATHER to do His will, the FATHER’S will is paramount.
The FATHER is the initiator of the PLAN OF SALVATION; it did not happen because The Word (Jesus) HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER. It was the FATHER’S own VISION; everything comes from the mind of God the FATHER. The FATHER is the visionary!
In the beginning God created…and God said let there be light.
The Word of God always act in accordance to the will of God—light came into existence by the Word of God, but it was God the FATHER’s Vision which prompted light be! God said let there be light, and light was. Isaiah 55:11 illustrates how it works…
…so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I SENT it.
So we see everything is of and from the FATHER. The Son did not plead for permission; this is the wrong picture, and one that the Bible does not share. The FATHER GAVE; it was the FATHER’S vision before the foundation of the world.
2 Timothy 1:10 Reads:
He has saved us and called us to a holy life—(it is the Father who saves, and it is the Father who calls. Jesus says in John 6:44; No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him to life on the last day.)
---not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose (the Father’s purpose) and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus…
The Bible doesn’t say that the Father gave the Son permission, only EGW says that. The Bible says God GAVE…
The word GAVE in this case means; to GIVE one (the Son) to someone (Humanity) to care for his (the Father’s) interests: the world.
You shared the text which says, this commandment have I received of my Father. This is not the same thing as giving permission.
The Father was always the initiator, and the GIVER of the plan of salvation. He GAVE the Son, and He also SENT the Son.
Jesus, the Word of God was the only one in the UNIVERSE that could care for the FATHER’S interest, so the Father SENT him. Jesus said in John 17:18
...As you SENT me into the world, I have SENT them into the world.
The word sent means: 649 apostéllō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 4724 /stéllō, "send") – properly, send away, i.e. commission; (passive) "sent on a defined mission by a superior.
Jesus did not give the disciples permission to go into the world, he SENT them into the just as the Father SENT him.
You used the analogy of a soldier going off to war to fight for his country but his father not wanting him to go. The father knows it’s the right thing to do but he wouldn’t want to give up his son.
This is not the correct implication. The word SENT doesn’t imply PERMISSION, but COMMISSION. The FATHER gave Jesus a commission. This is exactly what Jesus said. ...this commandment have I received of my Father.
In the military there are Commissioned Officers. This means they receive a directive, a charge or commandment as Jesus said from one in authority. The Father commissioned Jesus, the Father gave the Son a directive, a command of duty; a charge to keep. Just as Jesus has commissioned the disciples.
Go [therefore] and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;
This wasn’t our permission, it is our commission. Jesus commission was the bare the cross. This is why he said…
John 10:17 The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. 18No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.”
So my conclusion is twofold:
The Father GAVE the Son; He was the only one in the UNIVERSE that could care for the FATHER’S interest.
Secondly the Father SENT the Son and commissioned the Son with a directive, a command to lay down his life for the human race.
I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down…
That authority came from the FATHER.
I think when you really study this you will see that EGW quoted view on this is really not Biblical.
You said “There is no individuality in the Godhead.” “the Oneness of the Godhead doesn’t allow this, it’s just impossible.”
1: If there’s no individuality in the Godhead why did Christ ask three times for the cup to pass from him?
Remember, “God is not the author of confusion,” so if it was impossible for Jesus to do anything outside of what the Father said, then why ask the Father a question? A question shows two options: drink the cup or don’t drink the cup. But the Father’s order was 100% drink the cup. So if Jesus cannot act individually, then it would only be correct to say Jesus could not ask. And note he asked three times and he sweat blood. Why ask, why sweat blood at a command you have no choice but to follow?
2. If Jesus could not follow His own will. Then how do we explain Hebrews 4:15,16? “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”
It said Jesus was touched with our feelings and infirmities, and he did not sin. Therefore through Him we can gain grace and help to gain the victory as He did.
But if Jesus had no individuality then He could not sin. Then he’s not touched with our infirmities because our struggle is with self and sin. No individuality no struggle with self or sin.
Then then leads to my biggest question?
3. If Jesus had no individuality and he came to earth wouldn’t Satan who was the covering cherub know this and therefore know that to tempt Jesus was a waste of time? And then wouldn’t that mean that Jesus becoming human to gain the victory over sin was rigged because Jesus couldn’t sin. Then wouldn’t that be Satan’s immediate accusation that God is being a deceiver by sending Christ knowing that he can’t act individually?
Clear these questions up for me because if Jesus has no individuality then our Adventist Understanding of the Great Controversy completely gets thrown out the window.
Good questions Noel. I would be interested to read any answers.
I think John 16:13-14 presents another question. Jesus explained that when the Spirit would come, He would "not speak of Himself". The question comes to mind -- Could the Spirit have spoken of Himself? Could He have spoken as a distinct Personage, instead of working to draw our attention to Jesus?
I would say, "Yes indeed, the Spirit could have spoken "of Himself", if He were not engaged in the plan of salvation."
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
What else do you think the Spirit of Truth would have spoken; if not the truth?
…but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.
It is bound to this by the very nature of its being; Spirit of Truth. That truth of course comes directly from the Father. The FATHER is the VISIONARY He is always the GIVER.
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. Romans 8:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14:26
15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.… John 14: 14-17
NB: the 'the Spirit Himself' not the Father. In John 14: 16 Jesus said that the Father will send ANOTHER COMFORTER, not Himself the Father, or Jesus but ANOTHER holy one ...
This Ellen Whites quote seems to suggest there was division as well as confusion in the Godhead:
… Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father… He then made know to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race..."
…we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a lovliness which words cannot describe.
Surely we know what perplexity means:
1. the state of being perplexed; confusion; uncertainty.
2. something that perplexes : a case plagued with perplexities.
3. a tangled, involved, or confused condition or situation.
The human man Jesus was connected to God, his will was aligned with God’s will by the power of the Holy Spirit which he received in full measure; but God GAVE him to humanity.
I never said that Jesus did not have the freedom to sin. I said, there is no individuality in the Godhead, but there is an Oneness which we don’t comprehend at this present time.
Don’t get the two mixed-up. There was no perplexity or pleading in the Godhead as Ellen White states.
The human man Jesus while in the flesh was not yet part of the Godhead or should I say no longer part of it.
Philippians 2:7…who, existing in the form of God (when in the Godhead), did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. 7Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men.
When the Father GAVE the Word to humanity there was great ramifications. The Word who became flesh had to qualify to become God again.
8He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death —even to death on a cross.
In revelation chapter 3, Jesus revealed this by saying…
To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
The humanity of Jesus had to overcome or qualify to sit with the Father on the Father’s throne.
9For this reason God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name…
Romans 1:3concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was a descendant of David, according to the flesh 4and who has been declared to be the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness.
Jesus the human man qualified to become the Son of God, and has been declared to be the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead which he became obedient to.
I think that you were misunderstanding what I did say, but if you consider the Oneness of the Godhead, you will agree there is no division or individuality in it.
Originally I thought to respond to your first comment because it seemed that this was just a thought about an Ellen White quote that could be taken in a negative light. However after our continued discussion I’m realizing that the issue is not Ellen White, but that you have some foundational views that are different from most Adventists, such as the Godhead.
For instance in your last reply you said “The human man Jesus while in the flesh was not yet part of the Godhead or should I say no longer part of it.”
I don’t think most here would share that view.
John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
Jesus as a man referred to himself then as the Great I AM.
John 14:8,9 “Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?”
Jesus said that His disciples who knew Him in the flesh would have a picture of the Father from beholding Him.
And repeatedly Jesus received worship which would be a sin if He was not currently a member of the Godhead
Matthew 9:18 “While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him,”
Matthew 14:33 “Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.”
John 9:38 “And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.”
Now while I don’t see your views as the standard, that does not automatically mean it’s wrong. The majority is often wrong. But I would caution with 2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” If you find that you have views that only you hold to, then it would be something to spend more time in Bible study. But personally I don’t find that forums are the ideal place for precept upon precept, foundational Bible studies as there’s just limited space for writing.
So I’ll end my contribution on this thread by saying let’s keep each other in prayer that God will lead us in our Bible Studies to His one truth.
The Word was made flesh in the form of a human man (Philippians 2:7). If the man Jesus would have failed, after all he did have the individual freedom to sin. He would have been as the two men bedside him. This is how serious God becoming a man was.
…who for the joy that lay before Him endured a cross and despised the shame and has sat down at the right hand of God's throne.
When the FATHER GAVE the Son, He gave EVERYTHING, even the possibility of losing ALL.
Romans 8:29 says, For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.
Many other are sons of God or at least have that potential to be, and this is why Jesus became obedient unto death. This is also why he said…
To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
EGW quoted comments which I addressed are UNBIBLICAL, I have proven that from the Bible, and this is why you wish to discontinue the conversation because you are unable to prove that which she have stated.
I understand this. At this point we generally say: let agree to disagree or something like that. It has been a pleasure speaking to you, I’m sure we’ll get a chance to chat again.
Interesting discussion, probably should stay quite, but when I read EGW quote I pondered it's meaning as well, like Gene points out GOD and Jesus are One so there's no need for pleading, their both on the same page, Jesus don't have to plead with GOD to give His life when GOD already knew what it would take to save man. Then brother Noel brought up some good points as well, I had some of the same thoughts in trying to understand what EGW/SOP is talking about.
I think trying to understand some of this is to try to fully understand how the GODHEAD works (which is impossible) , and understand that GOD has feelings too!!!
Because HE is the Almighty GOD, The True and the Living GOD, that doesn't mean HE doesn't have feelings and caring what His Son was willing to do, something that GOD Himself put into place from the foundation of the world. It's a plan that didn't have to be used if Adam didn't eat of the fruit. But he did, and GOD had to put HIS plan into motion.
Gene I ask you, do you believe GOD didn't have feelings in regards to HIS plan and letting HIS Son died for underserving humans?
How underserving are we? In Gen.6 it says
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Can we say some of what grieved HIM other than seeing man go out of control was HIS Son having to die for us? I think we can, not that HE grieved about the plan itself but the fact HIS Son has to die. It would make any Father have feelings, and even though HE is GOD, HE'S got feelings too!!
Yes, HE is the Almighty True and Living GOD, HE'S over All, but HE has feelings as well.. He came in flesh to shows us these feelings and HIS Love for us. A Father putting a plan in motion that will lead to the death of HIS Son is something that would cause the Father (though HE knows it's the only way to save the human race) to have emotion sthat only the Son and HIM could understand. Something we can understand alittle from the example Abraham and Isaac.
EGW: "Yet none but God could understand how great was the father’s sacrifice in yielding up his son to death;...." --- "At the appointed place they built the altar and laid the wood upon it. Then, with trembling voice, Abraham unfolded to his son the divine message. It was with terror and amazement that Isaac learned his fate, but he offered no resistance. He could have escaped his doom, had he chosen to do so; the grief-stricken old man, exhausted with the struggle of those three terrible days, could not have opposed the will of the vigorous youth. But Isaac had been trained from childhood to ready, trusting obedience, and as the purpose of God was opened before him, he yielded a willing submission. He was a sharer in Abraham’s faith, and he felt that he was honored in being called to give his life as an offering to God. He tenderly seeks to lighten the father’s grief, and encourages his nerveless hands to bind the cords that confine him to the altar.
And now the last words of love are spoken, the last tears are shed, the last embrace is given. The father lifts the knife to slay his son, when suddenly his arm is stayed. An angel of God calls to the patriarch out of heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” He quickly answers, “Here am I,” And again the voice is heard, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me.” PP p.152
We all know this is an example of what GOD did by giving HIS Son to die for us humans, SOP says that Isaac "... yielded a willing submission." We know Jesus did the same. Abraham's heart in letting it happen and getting ready to do it would have any Farther have emotions. Is GOD excluded from these feelings because HE is GOD?
EGW: "It was to impress Abraham’s mind with the reality of the gospel, as well as to test his faith, that God commanded him to slay his son. The agony which he endured during the dark days of that fearful trial was permitted that he might understand from his own experience something of the greatness of the sacrifice made by the infinite God for man’s redemption. No other test could have caused Abraham such torture of soul as did the offering of his son. God gave His Son to a death of agony and shame."
Again, yes it's GOD'S plan, but to think HE didn't feel emotions about putting a plan in motion that would lead to the torture and death of HIS Son, that's saying GOD is a robot. But we know HE'S not.
"Soon I saw Him [Jesus] approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a lovliness which words cannot describe. He then made know to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race..." (Early Writings p.126)
I think we can agree Jesus had to be willing to give His life, just like Isaac was... and GOD officially giving the go ahead wasn't easy for a Loving Father, and this "pleading" is probably not a back and forth of Jesus saying please, please let me do it and GOD saying no,no until the 3rd time.
I don't think we should assume it wasn't a problem for GOD to put HIS plan itself in motion... the LOVE on a level we couldn't imagine between GOD the Father and GOD the Son in that bright light which enshrouded the Father was taking place. EGW doesn't say GOD was trying to talk Jesus out of doing it, and maybe that's why Gene is taking the word "pleading" and trying to make it imply something it's not.
Gene: "If individually existed, the Word -- the Son would be destined to do his own will; like Satan, but the Oneness of the Godhead doesn’t allow this, it’s just impossible. Lucifer of course was never a part of the Godhead, he was just an angle."
Remember we can't fully understand this mystery, but we do know it was an individually, but at the same time Oneness. Yes, both, though they are One knew the plan, Jesus knew He must die. But like brother Noel points out, Jesus prayed 3 times for the cup to be pass from Him.. Here we see Jesus asking that the Father take the cup away, when He knows it's the only way. Why?
Here we find this LOVE connection and the emotions in moving forward with this plan that has been in place from the foundations of the world. GOD knowing HE can't remove the cup, I mean HE could but HE knew in order to save man, prove Satan wrong, HE must show who HE is, and that's a Loving Father, not wanting any of us to perish. Jesus knew that but He still made the prayer, even though their still One.
I like the example of son going to war.. The general of an army knows the only way to win this war is to give and send his son to the front lines, and knowing that he will die in doing so. A general is usually look at as firm and strong, don't see him emotional to much. But he summons his son in his barracks, though he is the general, he is first a farther and the Love he shows his son during that time is that of a loving caring Farther. Both knowing what takes place during that time doesn't do away with the reality that the son must go.
Gene, instead of see the word "pleading", and maybe thinking GOD was trying to persuade Jesus not to do it.. you should look at it as a Farther having emotional connection with HIS Son, maybe saying if there was any other way HE would do it, and Jesus for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time was still willing.
You may say why this discussion if They know it must happen? I say it's a LOVE discussion within the mystery of the GODHEAD that we can't really fully understand, but examples from the Bible gives us a better understanding. EGW said he angles didn't fully understand.
EGW: " It had been difficult even for the angels to grasp the mystery of redemption—to comprehend that the Commander of heaven, the Son of God, must die for guilty man. When the command was given to Abraham to offer up his son, the interest of all heavenly beings was enlisted. With intense earnestness they watched each step in the fulfillment of this command. When to Isaac’s question, “Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham made answer, “God will provide Himself a lamb;” and when the father’s hand was stayed as he was about to slay his son, and the ram which God had provided was offered in the place of Isaac—then light was shed upon the mystery of redemption, and even the angels understood more clearly the wonderful provision that God had made for man’s salvation"
To go forward with this plan I think GOD did have emotions for a plan that will lead to the death of HIS Son, vice versa, Jesus having emotions about dying a terrible death. It's a connection only Them two (which are really One) could have. If sin didn't come into the world it would have just been a plan ready to be implemented if sin did come to world.
Again Gene, to take the word "pleading" and try to make it look like EGW was saying GOD was pleading for Jesus not to do it would be wrong. That's what you seem to think.
Gene: " I have proven that from the Bible, and this is why you wish to discontinue the conversation because you are unable to prove that which she have stated."
We can't say that Gene, you have your right to your belief, but most of the time you disagree with EGW and SDA doctrine. So for Noel to understand that and choose not to go further is his right. Some people rather not the back and forth. Lol.... knuckleheads like myself does that. But Gene you bring up good points, something worth discussing.