With this quote, where is the worthy sacrifice? This clearly suggests that God's Son didn't die, only the Son of man...? Is that a worthy sacrifice unless the Son of God lay down his divine life?

Assuming the statement is correct, then we have to consider a couple of options.

1) Christ's humanity was worth more than Adam's unfallen humanity.

2) The "sacrifice" involved should not be limited to physical death.

3) A combination of the two.

4) Other options?

Here's something along the lines of this option:

Did you find anything in relation to the other options?

Yes, all the above. Jesus' merit is his human character, his worth his deity, thus spiritual. We used to teach that Jesus died as God's Son, and avoided the trinity doctrine since it tied Father and Son by an indivisible substance/essence so death could not separate them once the Son became mortal (ie. sinful) flesh: we taught one Godhead possessed by the Father and begotten in his literal Son, one substance in & of each rather than each and everyone in the one substance as per the trinity. Now we subscribe to the trinity, this worthy death of God's Son is prevented by the trinity's "indivisible" substance, and we say Jesus didn't die as God.

This is the trinity's meaning & operation, is it not.

"Divinity" in this quote may well refer to the Godhead itself which God and Christ have each possessed, as has the Spirit, and EGW isn't referring just to Jesus' personal deity. Afterall, Adventism at that time taught Jesus' death involved his deity dying with his humanity: yes, his Father raised him the 3rd day, and Jesus' power to take up his life again meant he'd earned his resurrection but God his Father had to exercise that authority since Jesus had laid off his divine authority to become a man.

I haven't gotten to it yet, but there's some stuff in DA about #2.

I disagree. He obviously didn't lay off His divine authority, for He forgave sins. He laid down His power until His work for the redemption of man was completed. But at this point it had already been completed. The Desire of Ages is very clear about what happened:

"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}

It was Christ who raised His own body.

Also:

"All that comprised the life and intelligence of Jesus remained with his body in the sepulcher; and when he came forth it was as a whole being; he did not have to summon his spirit from Heaven. He had power to lay down his life and to take it up again." {3SP 203.2}

Notice that the text doesn't say that the Father did not have to summon Christ's spirit, but that Christ did not have to summon His spirit from heaven.

About the point that the sacrifice involved should not be limited to physical death. Speaking about Gethsemane, Ellen White says:

"He came forth calm and serene. A heavenly peace rested upon His bloodstained face. He had borne that which no human being could ever bear; for He had tasted the sufferings of death for every man" (DA 694).

This sounds like Jesus' saying He would raise His body Himself after three days.

Got to differ with your interpretation of EGW there.:-) All she is saying, again & again, is that Jesus is divine and that he rose to life in full possession of the Godhead which he had the power to lay down. Furthermore, only deity could claim that. "Life...in himself" is her phrase for self possessed immortality, which he has the power to lay down. That God has power over death is a given; that JESUS rose from the dead was proof more of man's salvation, justification, accomplished in Jesus' humanity, now glorified as a result of meritorious righteousness carved out of our fall sinful nature whose death penalty he'd suffered. He was triumphant over death AS A MAN, PTL!!

"Thy Father calls thee," is God resurrecting, calling back to life, his Son: nowhere does she say that Jesus called himself, raised himself, back to life; she just says he is still God, too: forever Immanuel.


This quote gets us back on the issue, for the mechanism (discussed above) of Christ rising to life again isn't vital to salvation, but God dying for us is.

This quote deals with the state of the dead, that "the whole being" of Christ was dead and buried, "life and intelligence": "spirit" in this context is the so-called 'immortal soul', in the same sentence as "whole being" as it is for contrast. We may well not agree on this interpretation, but that's what it looks like on the face of it.

As for spiritual aspects to Jesus' death, I agreed with that before...I would reiterate that the atonement for us included God giving his life in the person of his Son for us receive eternal life by that sacrifice. That's my point with this question of who & what (ie. deity) died for us and our sin. I'll turn now, as that first question is not easily agreed (shan't abandon the discussion!), to the moral type of humanity Jesus is credited with by the quarterly.

Ok...I haven't read the whole of this thread so I am sorry if I am repeating something that has already been agreed on here - but wasn't Jesus both fully God and fully man when He came to this Earth? And didn't He die the Second death on our behalf? If both of these are true (and I doubt there be much disagreement on these issues) then how can one then divide up and say that He didn't die as God? Since to die the second death is to pay the ultimate penalty:



Therefore wouldn't both scripture and logic dictate that for Jesus to be fully dead He MUST die as both a human and as God? Otherwise those sceptics who say that He wasn't dead in the tomb, only unconcious, would have their point proved and be entirely correct! And thereby Christ is not raised (Because He did not fully Die) This also does not negate the Ellen White quotes that have been quoted, nor does it negate the scripture of "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." Rather it makes this Fact about Jesus even more wonderful that He could fully die and yet "Take it again."