From the context, they weren't completely secure until the cross. This doesn't mean they were completely insecure before the cross. The EGW quote points out that the universe was made secure by the cross, referencing angels specifically in this context. So we can conclude that before the cross, there was some level of uncertainty, which was rectified by the cross.



I did explain. It's right above your question.



Not my word, but your brain.



This reminds me of when Jesus said, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" and the disciples said, "this is because we didn't bring bread."

Anyway, her explanation is in line with what I explained. I'm sure Ellen White understood that life didn't come from the tree, but came from God.



You didn't answer my question. I'm suggesting that Jesus Christ clearly explained things to Nicodemus. Please answer my question. Do you think it makes sense that Jesus Christ would explain His death to Nicodemus in an unclear fashion?



Again, if you don't think Jesus Christ explained this clearly, you surely won't think Moses did. We already have another thread discussing whether Scripture explains the meaning of Christ's death clearly.

You've asserted several times that you think only Ellen White explained this clearly; neither Paul, nor John, nor Jesus Christ, nor anywhere in Scripture. Given this is what you think, what's the purpose of singling out Moses? It's certainly easier to see that the meaning of Christ's death was clearly explained by Him (and the same thing could be said about John or Paul -- or Peter and other NT writers -- than Moses) than Moses, so I don't see the point in discussing this.

As God said to Jeremiah, "If you have run with the footmen, and they have wearied you, then how can you contend with horses?"

1. It is amazing to me you actually believe the angels were not secure before the cross.
2. Relying on the SOP is fine.
3. God established things in such a way that the life He gave is perpetuated through eating the fruit He supplies.
4. There is no biblical record of Jesus clearly explaining to Nicodemus why He had to die. That's the point.

PS - These insights speak to the question that serves as title for this thread. God required the Jews to sacrifice animals but there is no biblical record which clearly explains why. The assumption is they obeyed for reasons that could be construed as slavish.

1.Your phrasing is vague. Here's what she said:



So the universe was not made eternally secure until the cross. If you read the whole chapter, she discusses this concept at length. There were still doubts until the cross because certain issues were not clear in the minds of the angels.



As well as breathing, and other things.

4.Of course there's a Biblical record. It's in John 3. Nicodemus thought the explanation was clear, as the SOP points out.



These "insights" are simply untrue. The Bible is clear in regards to Christ's died. We've got another thread discussing this.

True, but where we seem to differ is I do not apply this to their thoughts and feelings about the character and kingdom of God. I believe they were totally secure in their thoughts and feelings about the character and kingdom of God from the moment war broke out in heaven (which is why they sided with God and not Satan). You seem to think otherwise.

From my reading of the account, things weren't completely clear until the cross. You seem to see this in regarding to Satan (i.e., that they didn't understand Satan's character completely until the cross) but seem not to see this in relation to God. However, it can be seen in at least two ways that God's character was involved in this as well, and not just Satan's.

The first way is that to the extent that they (or we) were confused regarding Satan's character, they (or we) are confused about God's character. This is inevitable. Misunderstanding Satan is misunderstanding sin, and misunderstanding God.

The second way is that the angels were expecting God to wipe humans out instead of giving them His Son.

Tom, I see no relationship between not understanding Satan's accusations about God and not understanding God. They couldn't understand how such an intelligent angel could find fault with such an intelligent God.

Secondly, the angels expected God to wipe out sinners just prior to Jesus' incarnation for the simple reason many of them had long ago filled their cup of woe to overflowing. But as in the case of Pharaoh God would use the unpardonable sinners to demonstrate His power and praise - which He did mightily and wonderfully.

Is it possible to obey God satisfactorily without having satisfactory reasons why? Yes, of course. People have had to do it since the beginning of time. A&E were not given all the reasons why not to eat of the forbidden tree. Such obedience is in no way considered slavish.

Why do you think God would be happy with a robotic obedience?



Jesus said he no longer called "us" slaves but friends because a slave does not know what his master is doing, but He has told us all things He heard from the Father.



So Jesus seems to have tied together the idea of being a friend to understanding. The obedience of a slave is thus seen to be based on ignorance, whereas the obedience of a friend is based on understanding.

There are a number of parables which also deal with this theme. For example, the parable of the talents, where three servants are given a differing amount of talents comes to mind. The wicked servant acted in ignorance and simply buried his talent, but was reprimanded for it.

Slavish obedience forms the backdrop of the Old Covenant.

Tom, you seem to be implying that you know enough of the reasons why God requires obedience so that you are obeying Him as a friend and not as a servant. You seem to be contrasting friend and servant as though being a servant is bad or less than desirable. But the following passages place the concept of friend and servant in a different light:

But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.

And when his friends heard [of it], they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and [some] of you shall they cause to be put to death.

It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more [shall they call] them of his household?

Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.

No, I'm not implying anything about me, but Jesus Christ was implying something about God, when He said



It sounds to me like He is speaking of this as good thing, to be called friend rather than servant. You don't think He had this in mind?