This is from another discussion:


Could you please provide examples of this?


The passage says:

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {EW 149.2}

I don’t think this shows that the plan of salvation was established after the fall of man. What I see here is that (1) it was communicated to the angels after the fall of men, and (2) the moment of its implementation was a very difficult one, particularly for the Father.

I agree with Rosangela.

Here is a short and succinct answer only in regards to the Plan of Salvation (EW 149.2). (I’ll post some of the others later). Key, indicative words highlighted:


All of this are not expression of an eternally thought of and established/settled plan. But current, conception, debative plannings and implementation.

I discuss this also on my blog. See e.g., this comment.

And why the great Divine reluctance, if it was known as a fact, and that from eternity, that this plan would ‘surely most triumphantly succeed’??

NJK,

Making a decision and carrying it out are two different things - even for God. When man sinned God had to reiterate the decision He had made in eternity. The same is true about the cross.

The awful moment had come--that moment which was to decide the destiny of the world. The fate of humanity trembled in the balance. Christ might even now refuse to drink the cup apportioned to guilty man. It was not yet too late. He might wipe the bloody sweat from His brow, and leave man to perish in his iniquity. He might say, Let the transgressor receive the penalty of his sin, and I will go back to My Father. Will the Son of God drink the bitter cup of humiliation and agony? Will the innocent suffer the consequences of the curse of sin, to save the guilty? The words fall tremblingly from the pale lips of Jesus, "O My Father, if this cup may not pass away from Me, except I drink it, Thy will be done." Three times has He uttered that prayer. Three times has humanity shrunk from the last, crowning sacrifice. But now the history of the human race comes up before the world's Redeemer. He sees that the transgressors of the law, if left to themselves, must perish. He sees the helplessness of man. He sees the power of sin. The woes and lamentations of a doomed world rise before Him. He beholds its impending fate, and His decision is made. He will save man at any cost to Himself. He accepts His baptism of blood, that through Him perishing millions may gain everlasting life. He has left the courts of heaven, where all is purity, happiness, and glory, to save the one lost sheep, the one world that has fallen by transgression. And He will not turn from His mission. He will become the propitiation of a race that has willed to sin (DA 692, 693).

NJK, do we know why Jesus pleaded with the Father three times? What were they discussing? I am convinced beyond doubt the Father and Son were both equally determined to save and redeem the human race. The Son wasn't more determined than the Father. And neither were they considering allowing A&E to die.

Roseangela and Mountain Man, perhaps we should first deal with this episode before moving on to others. However do see Alden Thompson, Inspiration, pp. 290-295ff (Review and Herald Publishing).

Roseangela, I think we need to deal with the immediate text itself here. What happened ca. 4000 years later with the incarnate Christ is not actually definitive, if even indicative of what had transpire in Heaven. From the plain read of EW 149, God and Christ ‘made the decision’ to save man at that point: “a way of escape had been made” and that decision was “carry out” 4000 years later at the Cross, as you cited from DA. Notwithstanding, I validl do see however that in both cases of, to decide and then to carry out this Plan of Redemption, there were a similar amount of ‘agitation’, “perplexity” ‘troubling doubt’, hesitancy reluctancy, etc, three times to decide, etc. So if indicative of any thing, that may be similar to what had reversedly occurred in Heaven where both sides greatly pondered this decision, with the Father then acting as Christ did in Gethsemane. (See in my response to Mountain Man below for more on this.)

Of course Mountain Man, we don’t know exactly why Jesus was pleaded with the Father and why He made three appearance to do this pleading but it can be logically inferred.

First of all. I have the foundational exegetical approach that God does not “play act”. So I believe that all that was being done here was candid and genuine. That personally utilized approach has been repeatedly attested as valid in my scholarly studies over now 13 years as it has served to unlock and obtain many Biblical specificity and truths that even much more “experienced” even formally educated, Bible scholars, had just settled for ambivalent conclusions. (This approach also applies to most statements made in the Bible when the context does not suggest that some form of scheming or “hypocrisy” is being used. (The historico-political full meaning of what was being warned about in Ezra 4:16 comes to mind where that foundational approach revealed that if Judah did indeed rebel, that warning, as resultingly properly translated, would indeed fully come true as stated by these Samaritans.) All this to say that I do not see God or Christ acting “hypocritically here.

I quote your elsewhere quoted SOP statements in confirmation of this foundational approach:





I also this being fully applicable to especially such direct, “I was shown” types of SOP accounts/statements.

Secondly, in EW 151.3 EGW relates that the angel said:



Continuing to keep thing real here, that insight combined with the first part of EW 149.2:



shows that it was Jesus who, out of now “sympathy and sorrow ” initiated this meeting and “ offered to give His life a ransom” for Man (EW 149.2). The logical and “sequitur” sequence in the full phrase: “He told them that (1) He had been pleading with His Father, and (2) had offered to give His life a ransom,” straightforwardly indicates that the pleading was directly related with this offering up of His life. It also even suggests that the pleading first occurred and then the offer. So it apparently was that Jesus first went to the Father and “pleaded” that man be forgiven and when/as that was shown to be impossible “he offered” up His life to meet the element that was making this impossible or even as an outrightly, just conjured up substitute solution/alternative. It could instead have said ‘Jesus had offered His life and then pleaded for the Father to accept. SO the Father may, at that initial solution outrightly and categorically said no, even dismissing Jesus or Jesus leaving having been convinced that the risk was too great. Then Jesus either thought of a better way to do this and/or meet all of the Will of God for this, or simply even take up the pleading again, and return a second time, and then a third time to plead this. By that third time, it is clear that all the “kinks/hitches” in this plan had been ironed/worked out and satisfactorily resolved both for the priorly, opposite of: “calm” (without losing self-possession; make steady; steadiness of mind under stress) ‘agitated’ (= exert oneself continuously, vigorously, or obtrusively to gain an end or engage in a crusade for a certain cause or person; be an advocate for; move or cause to move back and forth; move very slightly); “perplexed” (full of difficulty or confusion or bewilderment; be a mystery; made more complicated) “troubled”(1SP 45.1) (move deeply; to cause inconvenience or discomfort to; disturb in mind or make uneasy or cause to be worried or alarmed; characterized by or indicative of distress or affliction or danger or need; characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination)/‘doubt-ful’ (the state of being unsure of something; consider unlikely; lack confidence in). Christ, no doubt candidly correspondingly/mirroringly expressive of the Father’s emotions then. “He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made (vs. the “no way” a short time before) for lost man.”

(Also, are the expressed emotions of ‘agitation’, “perplexity”, ‘troubling doubt’, distinctly indicative, at the very least of, the outcome and emotions involved in each of the three conversing with the Father??! Perhaps, in such a “distinct sense.)

Again, like the episodes with Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17), the direct revelation from God, and when understood, trump any personal, even Theological assumptions that a prophet can make. And it is self-manifest that EGW did not fully grasp the meaning here, indeed just like she continued to eat meats, and even unclean meats, long after her 1863 health reform vision yet the direct revelation of God, also capable of being found in the written revelation of the Bible had always said otherwise.

Exactly. If God and/or Jesus knew the future as "already played out", then it can only be concluded these three times was an act, a pretending, a farce.

However, I don't agree completely with your pleading part.

Joh 16:26 "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you;
27 "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God.

Pleading could mean something more than God is wanting to kill us, but Jesus steps in and convinces Him of something different. Pleading could mean pleading together as a cohesive unit for a solution to pardon man.

I also agree the Godhead does not play act for the benefit of uninformed FMAs. However, they do sometimes role play. For example, Jesus isn't literally the Son of the Father. But they use such terms for our benefit.

I also agree the Son didn't plead 3 times with the Father to persuade Him not to "let guilty man perish" as if the Father was less inclined, determined to save and redeem mankind. I believe the Father was torn between His love for Jesus and His love for mankind. He loved them equally and could not bear the thought of losing either one. This does not, however, imply neither the Father nor the Son knew with certainty the outcome. That is, they both knew with absolute certainty Jesus would most surely succeed on the cross.