Fire baptism over the change of spelling

 

I came across this the other day when I was researching what someone had claimed. The claim was that thousands...or millions, I think, the claim was, had died over a differing interpretation of a Bible verse. In the main, it is not a true claim, but there is a remarkable historical instance where a small revision of a religious text was used as a reason for a lot of deaths. Certainly, other theological issues became pretexts for wars and deaths, but not really claims over the interpretation of a single text. Not even during the Arian crisis was the theology based upon one differing textual interpretation of a single Bible text.

It happened in 17th-century Russia, during the Great Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. The conflict was not a pretext for a war, but it was a tiny textual dispute that caused tens of thousands of people to voluntarily burn themselves to death.

The text in question was the Eastern Orthodox Liturgical Service Books. 

The Textual Discrepancy

In the 1650s, the head of the Russian Church, Patriarch Nikon, noticed that over centuries of handwritten copying, typographical and translation errors had crept into the Russian service books. He ordered a mandatory correction of the texts to match the original Greek.

The changes were incredibly minor text edits, such as:

1. The Spelling of Jesus: Changing the spelling from Isus (Исус) to Iisus (Иисус).
2. The Creed: Removing a single word from the Nicene Creed. The old text read that the Holy Spirit was "the true Lord and life-giver"; the new text removed the word "true" to match the Greek syntax perfectly. 
3. The Sign of the Cross: Changing the text instructions on how to cross oneself—using two fingers (representing Christ's dual nature) versus three fingers (representing the Trinity).

The entire conflict was how to interpret the sanctity of the text. Unlike so many religious wars, there was not a land to conquer, no money to be made, and no political ambition- the things that were behind much of the anti-Christian claims that so many people make, as Crosby, Stills, Nash sang:

Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call
Too many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all
   ---From the song Cathedral "Written by Graham Nash and originally appearing on CSN in 1977. This song is about a trip Nash took to Stonehenge and Winchester cathedral in a Rolls Royce while high on LSD."

 The Two Genuine Interpretations

• The Reformer Interpretation: Patriarch Nikon and the state argued that the text was just a vehicle for meaning. Correcting the grammar and spelling to match the original Greek was a logical, bureaucratic cleanup. 
• The "Old Believer" Interpretation: A massive portion of the population (the Old Believers) interpreted the literal, traditional Russian text as unalterable and divine. To them, changing even a single letter of the name of Jesus or removing a word from the Creed was an act of ultimate apostasy. They genuinely believed that using the new texts would damn their souls to hell and usher in the Antichrist

At a time when the church and state were intrinsically connected, so connected that Russian was actually in the name of the church, this was seen as an actual theological crisis. The state began to brutally persecute the Old Believers for refusing to use the new texts.

As The Encylopedia Britannica says: "The dissenters, sometimes called Raskolniki, were most numerous in the inaccessible regions of northern and eastern Russia (but later also in Moscow itself) and were important in the colonization of these remote areas. Opposed to all change, they strongly resisted the Western innovations introduced by Peter I, whom they regarded as Antichrist. Having no episcopal hierarchy, they split into two groups. One group, the Popovtsy (priestly sects), sought to attract ordained priests and were able to set up an episcopate in the 19th century. The other, the Bezpopovtsy (priestless sects), renounced priests and all sacraments except Baptism. Many other sects developed out of these groups, some with practices considered extravagant."

Some were executed, and in defiance, the Old Believers performed Mass Self-Immolation ("Fire Baptisms"): When government soldiers approached their villages to enforce the new textbooks, entire communities of Old Believers would lock themselves inside their wooden churches and set them on fire. Between 1675 and 1695, historians document that over 20,000 Old Believers burned themselves to death in these mass suicides. They died shouting the old spelling of Jesus's name, completely convinced that their literal interpretation of the old text was the only path to salvation.

This is perhaps the purest example in human history where a difference in text interpretation was not a cynical excuse for a war, but the absolute, direct cause of thousands of deaths.

This is not the end of the story. In Part 2, I will go over a bit more history and the influence of Alexander Dugin's efforts to restore the Russian Othordox church back to power.

Progressive Christian and Christian Nationalist same tactics

 A friend posted a video clip on Facebook that seemed to be entitled The Great Commission in Matthew is political and offensive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWJoxg0wxFM

He says the commission does not say what you think it does; it is shockingly political and deeply offensive to church leaders. He then introduces himself as Jeremy, a deep skeptic and also a pastor. A quick search of the internet will show his name is Jeremy Steele, a former youth pastor, an activist for progressive causes, and a queer pastor of the United Methodist church. He founded a radically inclusive online Discord community for agnostics, mystics, and spiritual seekers who do not fit into traditional churches called: Not Church. He wrote a book on “How to not suckas a Christian”. He even has a video on how his book was banned on TikTok, though of course he does not give the reason why it was banned from promotion. Just ask an AI why it was supposedly banned, not so terrible as he makes it sound.

He begins his deep skeptical teaching by joining the story of Christ after His resurrection:

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

“Right out of the gate he gets shockingly political when he says, All authority on heaven and earth gas been given to me. This is a political statement, Roman emperors were often spoken of with this idea of universal authority. And a bunch of scholars make the argument that this is modeled on, and really a parody of the Roman imperial proclamation. So if you’ve ever heard somebody say that they wish that their pastor wouldn’t be so political and that they would just support the administration that is in power and because god put them there, you don’t have a problem with that pastor you have a problem with Jesus…”

The first thing you notice should be that this verse is after the resurrection; it is in the 40-day period following the resurrection up to the ascension. It is, in fact, at a time when Jesus had no interactions with Romans or the Jewish leadership. It is a statement that most Christians take to mean that the Messiah has come and, by His life, death, and resurrection, proved that He is God. That all authority is held by God; it is not a political statement at all; it is theological; none of the disciples applied it as a political statement. It may be that a bunch of unnamed progressive scholars hold it that way, but that is not the historically accurate way of looking at the Great Commission. Unless someone assigns it as political, because in the Roman world, religion and government are both controlled by the government, which would make it much different from your pastor getting political.

The next thing you notice is that this progressive skeptic pastor seems to be in agreement now with the Christian Reconstructionism and the Dominion theology movement, which are the real Christian Nationalists, as opposed to Christians who are also nationalists. Though the progressives conflate them, and if you are a conservative or evangelical or fundamentalist, you are a Christian Nationalist in the mind of most progressives today. That is very curious when you think about what the progressives say about Christian nationalists. Get your hands off of politics is their usual message. They despise the evangelicals and fundamentalists because of how they vote for more politically conservative things. But hypocrisy, thy name is Progressives.

Steele actively utilizes his social media platform to oppose Christian nationalism, vocalizing sharp critiques against the weaponization of Christianity to strip away women's rights, voting access, and immigrant safety. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt3ZAPONR1w

But this led me down the path of why both the Reconstructionist type of Christian Nationalist and the Progressive Christian types now both look for a political solution. Which is much different than the historical Christian thinking in the United States of America.

Jesus’ primary conflict was an internal, religious debate with Jewish authorities, not a political rebellion against Rome. The average Christian views Jesus not as a political reformer, but as a spiritual savior. This perspective relies on several distinct historical and biblical points that directly challenge the progressive narrative. Mainstream Christians point out that whenever people tried to turn Jesus into a political or military leader, he actively ran away from it.

• The Temptation in the Desert: When Satan offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" (political dominance), Jesus refused. Matthew 4:1-11

• Fleeing the Crowds: In John 6:15, after feeding the 5,000, the crowd tried to take Jesus by force to make him a king. Jesus responded by escaping alone to a mountain.

• "My Kingdom is Not of This World": During his trial before Pontius Pilate (the Roman governor), Jesus explicitly stated, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight... But now my kingdom is from another place" (John 18:36). Mainstream Christians argue this is the ultimate proof that Jesus was not trying to reform human governments

Jesus' conflicts were with the Jewish Religious leaders. As seen in his “Woe To” speeches in Matthew 23. Jesus was correcting theology and heart attitudes, not municipal codes and Roman tax abuse. Such as when Jesus said Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's Mark 12:17.

The Romans did not think of Jesus as a political problem as Pilate said “I find no basis for a charge against this man Luke 23:4. As it turned out, Rome only executed Jesus because the Jewish religious leader demanded the execution and even then they offered a real choice of a political agitator or Jesus Christ to be set free and the crowd demanded the zealot to be freed. Zealots advocated for violent military overthrow of the empire.

In the USA, for most of its history, Christians saw Jesus as someone who came to solve the problem of human sin and the redemption from sin through salvation. The idea was that society changes from the inside out by changing individual people's attitudes, which would lead to good things in the world. Thus, the Christians thought of the church as a city on the hill. An example that would draw people to a new method of creating a society.

Let us now assume that Steele is right and that Jesus was shockingly political in the Great Commission. Is there any way the political relationship at the time of Christ is similar to that in today's America?

First-century Judea was an occupied territory governed by an absolute, authoritarian empire. Conversely, the United States is a constitutional republic driven by a representative democracy. These core distinctions manifest across several fundamental categories

• Roman Empire. Ultimate authority rested with Caesar, an unelected emperor whose word was absolute law. You see this in the titles of the emperor, which ran from Imperator, meaning commander or general, Augustus, meaning majestic or venerable, Princeps, meaning First Citizen, and Dominus, meaning Lord or Master.

• Religious and civic titles: Pontifex Maximus, meaning Chief Priest, as the emperor was the head of the Roman state religion and supervisor of all public rituals. Pater Patriae, meaning Father of the country, and Tribunicia Potestas, meaning Tribunican Power, the traditional powers of a plebeian tribune making his person legally sacred and giving him the power to veto any law or magistrate.

• Honorific and Military victory titles such as Pius and Felix , meaning blessed by the gods..

• Divine titles used while living: Divi Filius, meaning Son of God, first used heavily by Augustus because the Roman Senate deified his adopted father, Julius Caesar. Augustus styled himself as “Son of the Divine” to claim sacred legitimacy without claiming to be a god himself. Dominus et Deus, meaning Master and God, was introduced by Emperor Domitian in the late 1st century, as the title was dropped after his assassination.

This all takes us back to Steele's suggestion that the Great Commission was Jesus' parody of the Roman rulers. Which, if anything, was a parody, it would be the Roman rulers and Jesus asserting that Christ is the one who forgave sin and conquered death. But very clearly, a political activity in the 1st century is nothing like a political activity in the United States, which is a constitutional republic driven by a representative democracy. In America, citizens hold constitutional rights to freely vote, protest, voice grievances, run for political office, and legally replace their leadership through elections. In the days of Christ, those living in Judea were subjects of an empire, not citizens with rights, zero legislative representation, no power to vote on laws, and no ability to elect or replace their leaders.

In the Days of Christ: Complete integration of civic duty and religious devotion. Roman emperors claimed divine titles like "Son of God" and required subjects to declare loyalty to Caesar as Lord. Locally, Jewish life was governed simultaneously by Roman law and the Sanhedrin (a religious council of Pharisees and Sadducees). In the United States, with constitutionally protected Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The United States explicitly forbids a state-mandated religion, separating religious governance from civic and secular administration.

So it is pretty clear that if one takes Jesus as being shockingly political, it is entirely from a religious and theological perspective. Jesus was definitely bringing a new view of God and religion into the world, which is one of the main reasons that Christians talk of the New Testament, or New Covenant. It is in no way the same as the politics of the United States. It was political in its claim of ultimate sovereignty. By placing supreme authority over all earthly nations in Jesus rather than the imperial throne, it stripped Caesar of his divinity and absolute power, establishing an allegiance that superseded any earthly government.

Steele and his progressive fellows and the Reconstructionists insert their desire for changes as the political basis for their activities. This puts the progressives and the Reconstructionists, Christian Nationalists, on the same side. Thinking that their Christianity calls them to shape the nation based on their particular Christian beliefs. This is not, however, what the majority of Christians desired in the United States. Almost everyone across the theological and political spectrum wants the church to engage with real-world, structural issues. Very few active groups believe Christianity should only be about private, internal spirituality.

Though these two groups seem to think that their religion calls them to take over the nation, their views and goals seem to be very different. The fundamental, irreconcilable difference is not that they want to change society, but how they diagnose the problem and what kind of structural change they are aiming for, two completely opposite visions for the world.

1. The Christian Nationalist Vision of Structural Change

• Christian Nationalists view the primary "structural issue" as a moral and spiritual decay caused by a nation turning its back on God.

• The Goal: To align the laws, culture, and institutions of the nation with historic, conservative Christian principles.

• The Structural Target: They focus on structures of law, governance, and education. For them, structural engagement means passing laws that restrict abortion, protecting traditional definitions of marriage, keeping Christian values in public schools, and ensuring Christians hold positions of high cultural and political power.

• The Justification: They believe that a nation is only blessed and successful when its official legal structures honor God.

2. The Progressive Christian Vision of Structural Change

• Progressive Christians view the primary "structural issue" as systemic oppression, inequality, and suffering inflicted on marginalized people.

• The Goal: To dismantle hierarchies and redistribute power and resources to ensure human flourishing for everyone, regardless of belief, except conservative Christians, who are very frequently disparaged. Steele holds to the deconstruction of most traditional Christianity.

• The Structural Target: They focus on economic, racial, and social structures. For them, structural engagement means reforming the prison system, fighting wealth inequality, expanding healthcare access with universal Medicare, creating illegal immigrant rights, and ensuring full equality for the LGBTQ+ community. These are synonymous with the Democratic Socialists of America positions.

• The Justification: They believe that God's kingdom is realized when the poorest and most vulnerable members of society are liberated from systemic harm, mimicking Jesus' critiques of the Roman and Temple elites.

Progressives look at Christian Nationalists and say: "You are just using political power to coerce people, control their personal lives, and maintain dominance.

Christian Nationalists look at Progressive Christians and say: “You have abandoned the true Gospel and just turned the church into a secular social justice club for left-wing politics."

Both sides believe they are doing exactly what Jesus would do with structural, real-world issues. One side is trying to build a society structured around moral purity and divine alignment, while the other is trying to build a society structured around systemic equity and pseudo-inclusion.

Yet as we see with Steele's book How Not to suck as a Christian. Inclusion of the conservative or traditional Christian is something that they do not seek. The progressives seek to change society using the leftist Critical Theory, which is an intellectual tradition that originated as a direct outgrowth of Marxism, but it evolved to critique, modify, and expand traditional Marxist ideas to fit the 20th and 21st centuries.

While orthodox Marxism focuses heavily on economics, Critical Theory shifts the focus to culture, psychology, and social institutions. Oftentimes shortened into the oppressor vs oppressed view of society.

Why Did Jesus Die, Atonement without Penalty

Remember when you were a child, how the good news of the Bible was so simple. You can probably still remember the first real complete Bible verse you learned. It went like this For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 (NIV). We grew up knowing that the gospel was simple; even a child could understand it. But as a child, did we really understand it, and now as adults, can we really say we understand it. That is, how could Jesus come and give His life and, through that process, somehow save us?

How many explanations of this process have you heard, doubtless at least two or three? Some think Christ was a sacrifice to appease God, who says that somebody has to die since the law was broken. That God mystically placed all the sins of the entire world on Christ, who then paid the death penalty for sin. The idea being that someone has to be punished and die because sin was committed. If these reasons were correct, then God’s justice should certainly be questioned. Is this how justice works? Is this what a God of justice would do? Is this what is required for sin to be forgiven?

Remember those who told us that the gospel was so simple; well, they were completely right. Somehow we have strayed from the truth's simplicity. It only takes one sentence to explain why Jesus Christ came to earth to live and die and live again. He came to show us what God is like, to demonstrate the lengths to which rebelling against God goes, and to prove that He has the power of life even over death. Okay, so there are several different items in the one sentence, and yes, more could be added, but that is the gist of it.

Let’s take a more in-depth look at why Jesus came to earth. Hebrews 2:17 explains: Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (KJV) Jesus came to reconcile us to God. "That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19 (NIV) Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines reconcile as: to restore to friendship or harmony. Now that’s an important mission for we were once God’s enemies. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- Colossians 1:22(NIV)

Now that we understand that Christ came to reconcile us to God, we must determine how this is done. The story of the Garden of Eden is used to demonstrate that we have doubts and questions about God. In the story, man is freshly created and placed in a beautiful garden,  yet the man and woman questioned whether God really had man's best interests at heart. The voice of questioning is presented in the guise of a talking serpent; man disregards God's warnings after the serpent insinuates half-truths about God since a half-truth is far more effective than a clear untruth. Being newly created in the story, they have nothing to base their knowledge of God on, so the following ideas appear to have merit to the couple in the story and to all subsequent people.

1. God is not a God of love, and he does not have man's best interest in mind.

2. God is vindictive, and to disagree with Him will bring His wrath upon oneself.

3. God is not the only source of life. Every being has the potential to become a god and to be as God is. God is selfishly withholding knowledge from us.

Using the above assumptions about God, man can hardly trust, and it is impossible to have a close relationship with anyone you don’t trust; it becomes a barrier that separates.

The best way for God to reconcile us to Himself was for Him to answer our questions and misunderstandings about Him without overwhelming us. This is the work of reconciliation that Jesus came to earth to perform.

1. God proved His love by sending His son John 3:16. Jesus is not simply a son but He is God Himself. John 1, Col 1:19, Col 2:9. Even knowing how He would be treated, His love was shown by revealing the character of God. (John 14:9 NIV) Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 15:13 NIV) Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

2. God proved he is not vindictive by providing a way of escape from our sinful condition Romans 6:23 . (Rom 3:25) (Romans 5:10) For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (NIV)

3. God proves that He freely forgives sin. (Luke 23:34 NIV) Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. Matt. 9:6

4. God shows that he is the source of life by the resurrection of Christ. Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV) (1 Cor 15:20 NIV) But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

You may be saying to yourself, did not Jesus die a Substitutionary death for us? Did not he have to die because God’s law says the wage of sin is death. Think about what this is saying...it says that one innocent man’s death can substitute for billions of sinners' deaths. This could in no way be considered justice. Justice would have the one innocent man freed from any penalties while the guilty pay for their crimes. Perhaps we are missing something; maybe there is an exception in this law on the wages of sin. Let us take another look at Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV) All who sin should die, but this is a very large exception; God is willing to give us a gift, the gift of eternal life. So we see that God is willing to save us for no other reason than that he loves us (love is another word for grace). Remember John 3:16, that favorite from long ago. There is a gift that can be given to those who desire to receive it. The result of remaining in sin is that you will die, but if you want the gift of God, he will freely give it to you. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are the method God used to bring us to the point where we would desire to receive God’s free gift of grace. Romans 3:23-25: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- (NIV) Remember it is not forgiveness if someone is punished.

Did not Jesus taste death for everyone, therefore isn’t he our substitute according to Hebrews 2:9? But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (NIV) Here we see that Christ did die for everyone; however, it is not a Substitutionary death. Christ’s death was a means of drawing us back to God. Remember what Ephesians 2:16 says: and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (NIV) It is not God’s hostility that is the problem, for it is “God with us,” Immanuel, the Logos that became flesh and dwelt among us, God was reaching out to man.

Finally, does not Hebrews 9:28 tell us that Christ bore our sins on the cross? So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:28 (NIV). To understand this text, we must understand what sin is. How could all the murders, violence, and pain of sins be placed on Christ? In fact, they cannot, but the attitude that is where all sin begins could be placed on Christ at the cross. Our desire to do our own thing is the entire reason why Christ had to come and die. To show us that our desires bring us only disaster, but submitting to God brings us life. Sin is often correctly defined as being separation from God; it is the attitude that cannot trust God because the person is too selfish to look outside of their own limited view and desires. Christ demonstrated just how tragic selfish actions are by submitting to people in rebellion against God. Separation from God leads to the cruelty that was poured out upon the one who never sinned. So much hate and cruelty that people were willing to kill their own creator. Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (NIV) This is the result of sin, and this is the sin that Christ bore on the cross. This is Christ’s sacrifice; he gave up the comforts of heaven to come to earth and share in man's suffering, and then upon the cross he died, yet even as he died he offered the forgiveness that love offers all. Reminiscent of the way sin is removed by being forgiven as love keeps no record of wrongs 1 Cor. 13. Then on the third day he arose, proving what he had told us was true and commissioning us to help Him in spreading the message of reconciliation.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 (NIV)

From Enemies to Friends Gallagher sermons

Jonathan Gallagher has posted a series of sermons he gave at Quesnel, British Columbia, on August 8, 2009. There are a couple of noteworthy things about these sermons. First, it shows how nice it is to have a copy of a sermon which was the subject of last month's post entitled Why not publish sermons, and second, it covers much of the ground on the problem of substitutionary atonement theory and the better view of the moral influence view of the atonement, also a recent blog post here. Gallagher does not use the term moral influence, but it is substantially what he is talking about. You can read the sermons, and I recommend you do, in the following 3 parts:
From Enemies to Friends 1
From Enemies to Friends 2
From Enemies to Friends 3

The largest difference I have with Gallagher and Graham Maxwell is developed by their use of Ellen White. We can sum it up by a couple of quotes from Gallagher's sermon 2.

Universe-wide reconciliation

Here we see the bigger picture. For up to now we have been primarily concerned about ourselves, and our salvation—God changing us from enemies to friends. But there is much more than just our salvation at stake. The conflict between God and Satan has a cosmic aspect to it—for the war began in heaven (Rev. 12:7). Even those angels that remained loyal to God surely had many questions, and in God’s wisdom he chooses to work not from claims but through demonstration. So the Cross answers far more than just issues about our situation—it impacts the whole universe-wide controversy over God and his actions raised by Satan the Accuser. So God chooses to make his nature clear, and explain himself and his character through the gift of himself. In this way he reconciles the whole universe:

Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son’s blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven. Colossians 1:20 TEV.

In fact, this might read better “both those on earth and those in heaven.” At which point some may object that those in heaven do not need the atonement—understood as paying some penalty or making amends. But that is not the original meaning—for the word was first used to describe true at-one-ment, and you cannot be truly at one until the controversy is settled and the questions answered. (The NIV uses the term “reconcile”—and in fact the word is actually “completely reconcile,” showing the total extent of the reconciliation needed).

This is why they often call their view the "Larger View" or the "Great Controversy view". It is based upon the assumption that loyal angels have questions about God. He phrases it as surely they had questions, but of course we have no indication that they had or have questions; they may well have answers. The Bible, of course, is not written from the perspective of angels of which we know hardly anything. It is written about man and God; angels are the messengers of God. So when the verse talks about reconciling the things of earth with the things of heaven, that is what it means: the things of man's domain with the things of God's domain. That is the common interpretation, assuming that it is meant to answer angels' questions about God, is to use eisegesis, placing that idea into the text rather than reading what the text is really trying to say. Clearly the holy angels...the messengers of God are not in need of reconciliation with God. From what the Bible says, they live with God, they serve God, and they are not in rebellion against God; those who did rebel got kicked out. You don't need to be reconciled if you are never separated.

I do have a theory as to why they feel the need to include these extra-biblical ideas into their atonement theory. My theory is that they feel they have to include Ellen White into the mix to make it appear that they are good little Adventists. Good Adventists quote Ellen White, so they seek areas that they can quote her because they know that they are also going against what Ellen White says in favor of the Penal Atonement and substitutionary atonement. So they reference the angels' questions, or as Graham Maxwell does, he references the bloodthirsty characteristics of the angels in his article addressed here: Response to Graham Maxwell's Great Controversy View. The quote from Maxwell's interview article is:

Soon you come to the Flood, where God drowned all but eight. That would seem to be a pretty clear demonstration, and to loyal angels that was the thing to do. Amens (though surely, solemn ones) rang through heaven when he drowned that bunch. "That's the way to do it!" Except afterwards they found it hadn't won a soul. Instead, necessary as it was, it turned the human race against God more than ever, and they built a tower to escape him. "Not by might, nor by power" the angels learned as one thing from the Flood. Though they were at the moment rather satisfied, it appears, and waited for God to do it again.


At least I assume he arrives at this from Ellen White; I will not take the time to find her quote on the subject. But it demonstrates the difference between the moral influence view and the extra-biblical view that is attached to the moral influence view to create the "larger view". It may be that many or most Adventists are not capable of advancing past their dependence upon Ellen White. Graham Maxwell and Gallagher are attempting to wean Adventists away from the more harmful elements of their traditional religious views. So I don't want to be too strenuous in my complaints. Because really, what does it matter what they think that angels are saying in heaven through history or if they think that the atonement is directed at angels also? It does not really change anything in regard to the atonement for human beings. Maybe it will have the benefit of helping people to see that you can't take everything Ellen White says as true also. My personal preference is to simply leave her out of the whole atonement theory argument. Because, frankly, it makes no sense that God wanted us to wait 1800 years for someone to really explain the atonement to us.