Comment on Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference by Sean Pitman.

So, when Mrs. White says that “in all things” Eve was to be the equal of Adam, she doesn’t really mean it? – since you know that it wasn’t really “all things” – particularly when it came to “authority”? Even though Mrs. White specifically discusses the “authority” question noting that Eve “should possess neither inferiority nor superiority.” Where then is there any room for “superior authority” on the part of Adam? There simply is no such statement that says that Adam was inherently superior in authority relative to Eve before the Fall. Mrs. White makes it very clear that the position of authority, such as “headship” or “rulership”, within the marriage, wasn’t given to Adam until after the Fall.

But, you argue, that their relationship was like that of the Father and the Son – where you claim that Jesus and the Father were “never equal in authority”.

Well, that’s a rather Arian concept. Arianism is idea that promotes the inherent superiority of the Father over the Son (Link) – an idea that was at first popular with many of the founders of the SDA Church, but which was decidedly rejected by Mrs. White and, because of her influence, was also eventually rejected by the rest of the founders of Adventism as well. Mrs. White made it very clear that the Father gave nothing to Jesus which Jesus did not originally possess. The Father did not create Jesus nor give Jesus His equal position within the Godhead – a position of equality with God in the “highest sense” which was entirely natural to Jesus – and the only reason why Jesus could fulfill the Law in His life on death on the cross since only one entirely equal with the Father, in every sense of the term, could also be equal to the Law of God and pay the debt. As Mrs. White explains:

“The law cannot lower the standard or take less than its full demands, therefore it cannot cleanse us from one sin; but God’s Son, who is one with the Father, equal in authority with the Father, paid the debt for us.” [emphasis added] – EGW, R&H, July 29, 1890 (Link)

Notice that Mrs. White counters your claim here that Jesus was not in fact “equal in authority” with the Father. According to her, Jesus was in fact naturally equal in authority to the Father and in every other way.

Jesus was not only “with God” from eternity past, but Jesus “was God” (John 1:1) with life “original, unborrowed and underived” (Link) within whom “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead” (Colossians 2:9). Jesus is therefore entirely and in every way “equal with the Father” (Link) and always has been. He voluntarily took onto Himself the subordinate role from the foundation of the world – from eternity past. However, he was not inherently subordinate, but completely equal to the Father. Only in this way would His sacrifice be equivalent with the requirements of the Law – a Law which is equal with the Father Himself. Therefore, only someone truly equal with the Father in every way, not at all subordinate or inherently dependent in any way on the Father, could satisfy the requirements of the Divine Law of God – through Jesus’ life and death on the cross.

Again, all of the passages in Scripture, and in the writings of Mrs. White, that deal with Jesus as subservient to the Father, are because Jesus voluntarily took on this position. It’s all voluntary on the part of someone who is otherwise in every way completely equal to the Father.

“But while God’s Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding his pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with his Father. From everlasting he was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted him, were to be blessed. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.” — EGW, The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906 .

“God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to give them another trial. Christ was appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of God, set up from everlasting to be our substitute and surety.” — EGW, Selected Messages 1:250.

You see, Jesus held this title of “Son of God” only in the sense that He deliberately chose to take on this mission from eternity past. Mrs. White makes it very clear that Jesus was always the “Son of God” or “One of a Kind”, to be more precise, because of His promised mediatorial role for us – because of His promise to come as a human being to save us. This promise was part of the Divine “Plan of Salvation” from eternity past. It is only because of this that the Father assumed the “headship” position – because Jesus would be taking on an inferior position and could no longer be equal to the Father from the perspective of His promised human condition. However, Jesus did not consider His original “equality with God” something to be “grasped” or “held onto” given the prize set before him – i.e., us! (Philippians 2:6). In other words, Jesus was in the position of our Mediator from eternity past and will continue to be human as part of His sacrifice for us for eternity yet to come. However, this subordinate position as a “servant” was not inherent to His nature, but a deliberate choice that He took upon Himself for our sake.

The same was true for Eve. Originally, Eve as not created to be subordinate in any sense of the term. It was only because of sin that such a role was put in place for her… in order to maintain peace in a home that was otherwise fractured by sin.

“God had made [Eve] the equal of Adam, but sin brought friction, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression. By her urging Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband.” (Link).

Again, the relative positions of authority and submission within a marriage were simply not necessary until sin entered the world. This was never the original ideal plan or situation.

________

As an aside, your claim that, “Lucifer stated he was willing to be subject to the Father, but not Christ.” is nonsense. Lucifer rebelled against the entire Godhead – including the Father. He was not willing to submit to the Father at all, but wanted to make his own throne “like the most high” (Isaiah 14:13-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-17; 28:6). He acted contrary to the Father’s direct commands and wishes in his efforts to elevate himself.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print