Even if solely for pondering/rhetorical purposes here as I personally don’t have the time to invest in this study (i.e., factually-speaking, [and actually nothing personal], I personally am self-impelled to expend most of my efforts of preventing the brains of unborn infant from being vacuum for an abortion process rather than ‘blow my mind’ on certain Theological issues):

How about a divine nature that is suddenly imbued with the sins of the world in order to “fully” pay the ransom that is required to fully and relatively seamlessly redeem fallen man? Seems to me that then, in such a circumstance, Deity could be put to death (i.e., by God the Father). According to my understanding that sudden Divinity Sacrificing led to Christ’s refusals of worship until he had met with the Father and ascertained that He was still worthy of worship. In other words this was Jesus trying to fully understand just what exactly had occurred at the Cross and how did that affect Him from then on. (Cf. in this post #134871 on the issue of: is the death of a Man (i.e., only Christ’s Human Nature) sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man. To me if that was the case, then contrary to what had been said in Heaven (EW 150.1) an sinlessly living angel would have been enough to pay that ransom price).

My personal working thesis view (which, for several Biblical evidence reasons (see in this post #134790) Theologically differs from what EGW says on this matter), is that Jesus was purposefully “surprised” with that added redemption element while on the Cross and that cause Him to questioningly cry out “Why has thou forsaken me”.

Thus to me, Divinity could be put subject to death if any trace of sin is found in it and, in response to this topic’s question Jesus could have sinned and if he did, he surely would not be able to live eternally after that, thus His Deity/Divine Nature would indeed have been subject to death.

There is a fundamental difference. Our offenses made Christ sinful by imputation, a sin on His part would have made Him intrinsically sinful.
Death is separation from God. The "death of a Man (i.e., only Christ’s Human Nature)" wouldn't be sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man, but the separation of Christ, a member of the Godhead, from the other members of the Godhead, was an infinite sacrifice, sufficient to redeem man.

From what I see about the concept of “types” in the Bible, the original or antitype always involves a more, or entirely, full reality than the type. So to me, what God did to Christ on the Cross in indeed ‘making him to be sin on our behalf’ (2 Cor 5:21), involved a most concrete and (to Jesus) “surprising” reality. What was being done in the typological sanctuary service with the priests and other elders laying their hands on the animals about to be sacrificed as various sin bearing offerings, was an “imputation”. However I Theologically understand that it was tangibly effectuated in the antitype process.

Another thing to seriously consider on this topic is, is the concept of imputation in regards to what was done to Jesus Theologically accurate (i.e., by what the many texts in the Bible which describe what was done here actually say).



My view on the ‘two aspects of death’ i.e., the First and Second Death, with all men, whether believers or not, being subject to the First Death (except for the generation that will be translated alive), but not the Second one (Rev 2:11; 20:6), The First Death pays for the physical punishment for sin while the Second one (Rev 20:14; 21:8) pays for the mental aspect of sin

In regards to the “separation from God issue”, I understand this to be in the Second Death as there will be a conscious varying period of time when the “dying” sinner will experience, not merely “separation” but the undiluted wrath and rejection of God, being actually pour out in their sins, and since they have “clung” to those sins, them also. Jesus experienced this rejection on the Cross and this could really only be because God had something “tangible” against Him personally. And that was because He had been made to fully be imbued with the sins of the world, and that, as I understand it, on also His Divine Nature, for that Second Death implication.

There is also the issue that, actually contrary to Christ’s expressed expectation (cf. also Matt 10:23 - which to me all shows how He was indeed equally dependent on the same things available to us for our Spiritual Journey), it was the Spirit of God and not Christ Himself who raised Him from the dead. [Bible and SOP (i.e., DA resurrection account) texts showing all this are omitted]. As I understand it, that was also all because He, surprisingly, had sacrificed His deliberately sin-stained Divine nature at the Cross that would have made this possible.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." He is sinful in the same way we are righteous. Since we aren't intrinsically righteous, He couldn't be intrinsically sinful.


Right. The second death is different from the first because of the wrath of God and the separation from Him that are experienced by the sinner. And what I said is still valid: the death of Christ as a man wouldn't be sufficient to fully pay the ransom price for man, but the separation of Christ, a member of the Godhead, from the other members of the Godhead, was an infinite sacrifice, sufficient to redeem man.


I disagree, and I will quote the Bible and the SOP to show why:

John 10:18 "No one takes 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 command I have received from My Father."

John 2:19-21 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ... But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

When the voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ's tomb, saying, Thy Father calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself. Now was proved the truth of His words, "I lay down My life, that I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Now was fulfilled the prophecy He had spoken to the priests and rulers, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 10:17, 18; 2:19. Over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, Christ had proclaimed in triumph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." These words could be spoken only by the Deity. All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are dependent recipients of the life of God. From the highest seraph to the humblest animate being, all are replenished from the Source of life. Only He who is one with God could say, I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. {DA 785.2, 3}

I think you are not properly taking into consideration the “in Him” portion whereby the redeemed ‘become the righteousness of Christ’. That indeed is explicitly non-intrinsic. Indeed our righteousness, until we are transformed prior to being taken to Heaven is a mere ‘coat/robe covering’. However I don’t see in that verse the same thing being stated for what Jesus underwent for us. Indeed His antitypical experience was more concrete and tangible than our reception of the gift. Like any “gift”, it will cost more, if not (always) only cost, the person who procures it than the one who receives it and makes use of it.



My view is that the Second Death is, in full, ‘a dying process that involves God’s wrathful outpouring (a.k.a. “Separation). Yet it still, after the physical and psychological torment/mental anguish suffering still involves Death, the Second one. So Jesus also had to die that death, and that after the suffering aspect of it. And this is where I see that it was nowHis Divine nature that suffered that distinct (Second) Death, which for Him actually transpired a little before His Human Nature (First) Death, i.e., when He cried out “My God....” He felt that Second Death then.



I don’t fully agree with EGW’s commentary here, which I see is interweaved with her own Theological understanding of this. Indeed in regards to my claimed the SOP quote(s), I predominantly had in mind what I see as a more direct revelation on this account in DA 779.3 where the ‘(Mighty) Angel Clothed in the Panoply [“complete armor or defense” -Webster 1828] of God (DA 779.2) relayingly cries out “Son of God, come forth; Thy Father calls Thee.” As I see it is that relayed Divine Word is what ‘made Jesus come (back) to life” (1 Pet 3:18)

The Full Biblical Testimony:
(The Resurrection Angel) Matt 28:6 (“raised” in Greek passive voice = Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 15:16, 17).
(Peter) Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:(8) 10; 5:30; 10:40; 1 Peter 1:21; 3:18.
(Paul) Acts 13:30, 33 (“= Ps 2:7), 34, 37; 17:31; Rom 4:24; 6:4 (passive voice); 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15 (cf. 16, 17); 2 Cor 4;14; Eph 2:6.

One does not pervasively and copious make this singular notion, (and that while, at least in one instance, ‘being full of Holy Spirit’ (Acts 4:8, 10); in stating this fundamental faith tenet unless they know for a fact what they are talking about. And I am seeing here that this post death/resurrection event most accurate fact came from God (Angel) and Jesus (Peter and Paul) either directly, or indirectly through the Holy Spirit.

I exegetically fully reconcile what is actually valid (i.e., from EGW’s comments) with the Jesus and the rest of those inspired statements in the Bible, by more widely seeing, as already stated that the death of Christ Deity on the Cross was an unforwarned act by God on Christ, hence the resulting questioning on the Cross and post resurrection ascertaining. I can give an illustrating detailed analogy of a Police officer who would have had to go so deep undercover that he actually, in the final busting of the Criminal enterprise, had to , in the heat of the Battle break the Law, even shooting and killing other police officers as not doing so would have unmasked the whole undercover operation and make the whole thing fail. But time fails me. I think you can get my point here. Unbeknownst to the incarnate Christ, even if this was told to him in Heaven prior to his incarnation, i.e., when He was deliberating about this Plan with the Father (EW 149-153), and it was not retold to Him after he had “emptied” (Phil 2:7) Himself in His incarnation, but left as a God-testing surprise for the Cross. And so Christ self-resurrection expectation were rendered null by that sovereign action of God. So the post resurrection statement are the most “Historically” accurate/full here. As I said before with Matt 10:23, I see that this would have not been an impossibility for Jesus.

And then to me, according to this full exegetically view, EGW herself did not fully understand this Historical development. So I see her inserted/included ‘self-resurrection’ statements as not being by command, but according her limited knowledge on what fully transpired here. Those comments of hers were neither directly inspired nor exegetical.

As normative and incontrovertible a proper exegetical understanding is not based on only some texts, but a harmonization of all (valid) applicable ones and in regards to EGW’s own comments, they always depend on how they reconcile with the full/exegetical Biblical testimony.