God With Us, Allegory and Matthew

Our Lesson Study Guide for this week begins with something very similar to that immortal line from Blazing Saddles: We don’t need not stinking Higher Criticism. You don’t believe…well ok here is what they said:

As Adventists, we work from the starting point that the Bible is the Word of God and that what it says about Jesus is the truth, period. We do not have the time to waste on all the nonsensical high-critical speculations about whether Jesus really said and did the things the Bible says that He said and did. As Adventists we believe those things because they are written in God's Word.

After all, if we cannot believe the Bible, what can we believe?

I sincerely hope that quote raises the hackles of most educated and most educators in the SDA church. Such circular reasoning is poor logic, The Bible does not claim to be the Word of God, it could not it was put together from various books written and various times compiled by human beings. Even if it did, say Hosea said somewhere in the book that it was the word of God that would not make the second half of Isaiah the word of God, or any other book. In fact the second half of Isaiah towards the end says we will go out from Sabbath To Sabbath, new Moon to new Moon and look at the corpses.

"And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Isa 66:24 NIV)

Maybe the lesson only means it is the Word of God where it records things about Jesus? In which case the book of Matthew gives an account that is contrary to the account of the book of Luke. Luke says Jesus’ family left for Nazareth after the ritual in Jerusalem (Luke 2:39) this does not allow much wiggle room to have them go to Egypt after the Magi’s visit. The NIV study Bible notes says that the Magi probably arrived months after the Birth, but as per Luke the family would no longer be in Bethlehem. Luke has nothing about Jesus’ family going to Egypt in fact it says they went to Nazareth from Jerusalem. Luke has nothing of threatened children, the book uses none of the out of context verses which the book of Matthew does.

“where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." …"A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." (Matt 2:15,18 NIV)

Here is where higher criticism comes in, what is the author trying to say and what are the techniques he uses to get his message across. We see that in the book of Matthew, at least in the first several chapters, an intentional literary device employed. The book tries to recapitulate the events of ancient Israel in the life of Jesus Christ. But there also seems to be a recurring theme if we look a little deeper at the verses that the author of Matthew uses. In the following verses the section used in Matthew are highlighted in bold.

The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 NIV)

The book of Matthew’s use of this verse is often only considered to be a prophecy of Christ. Even though there is no place other then Matthew that calls Jesus Immanuel. However it is not to the name Immanuel that Matthew wants to draw attention, it is to the idea of what the name means, “God with us”. In fact it was the idea of “God with us” that Isaiah had presented to the Israelites hundreds of years before. In our ardor to insist upon Immanuel as a Messianic Prophecy we often ignore the repetition Isaiah uses of the terms with the meaning of “God with us”. Besides the reference in Isaiah 7:14 he precedes to use it two more times:

And sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!" Isaiah 8:8

Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us. (Isaiah 8:10 NIV)

God is with us is Isaiah’s words of comfort to a people about to suffer a major defeat by their enemies. And even when the enemies appear to be winning God notes that even the purposes of the enemy will not stand because God is with his people. So like the sign to Ahaz, the child born is a reminder that “God is with us”, though bad may come, God will not abandon his people, He does not leave them alone. In the echoes of Immanuel we see that though the people may have failed in their covenant with God, God has not nor will He fail. For we see an inherent promise of hope in Isaiah.

In the book of Matthew the author has taken this hope, this certainty of God with us and applied it to the person of Jesus Christ. Not because Jesus was to literally be named Immanuel and not even because of a virgin birth but because Jesus Christ was now seen as truly “God with us”. Remember the author is writing after all the events in Christ’s life had happened. He is going back in time to state his case as to why this Jesus is the Messiah. In some ways the book of Matthew is very much like the book of John. When they both begin to tell about the person of Jesus they both tell us that it is God with us, Matthew by means of Immanuel and John by means of the Logos, the Word become flesh.

After the proclamation of the good news that God is with us Matthew moves on to the recapitulation of the Messiah with Israel or some say Moses.

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them. (Hosea 11:1-4 NIV)

Herod’s death decree against baby boys reminds us of the death decree Egypt inflicted upon the children of Israel in slavery "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." ((Exodus 1:16). NIV)

Like the miraculous deliverance of Moses, Jesus is delivered from Herod’s evil also. Matthew then quotes Jeremiah 31:15-17 to show the sorrow of the people under Herod’s decree.

“ Then maidens will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow. 14 I will satisfy the priests with abundance, and my people will be filled with my bounty," declares the LORD. 15 This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." 16 This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy. 17 So there is hope for your future," declares the LORD. "Your children will return to their own land. (NIV)

The verses in Jeremiah are referring to the exile of Israel and once again while the people must suffer the exile, God has promised relief, they are not abandoned, they can say, “God is with us”. While the verse in Jeremiah has nothing to do with Egypt or Herod’s decree Matthew has changed its setting to reflect the story he is telling. The story being told may has a much deeper meaning than a recitation of history. All the verses he has used reflect in their original context the healing and deliverance God offers. Matthew is a book that presents us with this Messiah, the anointed one who delivers his people from sin and its consequences.

The book of Matthew then moves a step farther then we today can comprehend. …and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene.”. (Matthew 2:23 NIV)

Since there is no Old Testament reference like this it may be that the author was using an expression of scorn used against the Messiah. Such as that expressed by Nathanael:

"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip. (John 1:46 NIV)

Conceptually there may be some places which could offer the author the incentive to make the statement. Certainly the ancient history of Israel is filled with Israel’s scorn of the things of God.

But Matthew’s failure to reference something in the Old Testament while stating it was something said through the prophets is perhaps the key to unfolding Matthew’s intent in the second chapter of Matthew. The history might not be accurate, but the concepts are what the author found most important. The Messiah has come, God with us, the deliverer miraculously inserting Himself into mankind’s world. The precious pure gold of God presented to a world that would kill its very savior. So in the book of Matthew the author tells us of the myrrh given to child, an aromatic resin used for the preparation of a corpse for burial. The gift of incense, the sweet fragrance that for centuries was used in the worship of God, even the gifts of the Magi have deeper meanings.

Matthew 2 is not the simplistic story I was indoctrinated to believe. It is a piece of in depth literature with more allegorical substance then history. But then isn’t that the way of so much of the Bible. Literature, poetry, Chiastic Structure, and analogy all and more find themselves used within the Bible. Human creativity and God given inspiration can create amazing things. Yet we can in our excitement of discovery often trample all over what was written in our haste to explain what our tradition has taught us; leaving us to ignore the deeper thoughts and explaining contradictions by saying; “well those things were not important to that author.”

Paul and the Post Moderns

Post modern people are characterized by asking questions, Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally felt they have the answers. Why then are not Post Modern Americans rushing to visit Seventh-day Adventist churches?

I somehow got on a mailing list for a company selling banners and signs to churches. One of the featured pre-made signs was something to the effect of “you have questions, we have answers”. I have yet to see any of the local churches here using that sign but I am certain that many churches think that they indeed have the answers. The Lesson study for this week is about how Paul dealt with the culture of his time and established Christian congregations. How similar is Post Modern America to the culture of Paul’s day? The lesson for Tuesday July 8 states:

“One of Paul's most well-known missionary endeavors occurred in Athens, home of some of the world's greatest philosophers of antiquity, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. And yet, how interesting: Even with all the philosophy and all its appeals to reason and logic, the city was still "wholly given to idolatry" (Acts 17:16). What a testimony to how, in the end, philosophy cannot answer basic human needs. “

Consider that Socrates was tried for “corrupting the youth and disbelieving in the ancestral gods.”[1] It is not too likely that such a charge would be made against the philosophers of this age whether in the form of Rap/Rock music, TV, books or straight out philosophers, though other then a few atheists it is unlikely we could even name a current philosopher. Instead our lesson study would have been more accurate in saying it is a testimony to the time when superstition was more believable than reason. Today reason is often subjected to popularity; popularity being dictated by the media at least for many of our nation.

While Paul is a good case study in getting things done he is of another time and place. The here and now and the tomorrow will call for different methods to reach a very different people. In America we are not unfamiliar with Christianity or Christian concepts. The majority believe in a heaven (76%) for the people who live good lives and a hell (71%)[2] for those who live bad lives. That is clearly a wonderful sociological tool to get people to live together hopefully trying to be good. At least until we determine what it is to live a good life versus a bad life, I would not want to try and do a poll on that question (only half of 1% think they are headed for hell).

The lesson for Wednesday says:

“Paul understood that before we can lead people to where we want them to be we must first meet them where they are. That means focusing on their needs, their interests-and shaping our message in a way that connects with them. This does not mean watering down the message. It is just an issue of communication-talking to people in terms and in language they can understand.”

Is our Adventist Christianity focusing on people’s needs and interests or have we determined that our so called “distinctives” cannot be “watered down”? My guess is that this is one of the biggest sticking points in the Adventist church leadership that prevents us from reaching people’s needs and interests. People need a connection with others and acceptance and respect as well as an opportunity to grow in understanding as they and we search for truth and relevance in our lives. If we assume that another Christian is nominal or Apostate because he or she worships God on a different day then we do, how are we going to relate to them on more important issues such as the character of God. Because that is really what it is all about, not our distictives whatever they may be whether health issues or apocalyptic interpretations. Our goal has to be to declare the beauty of God that is revealed through Jesus Christ. We are all probably poor imitators of the love and acceptance that Jesus Christ revealed which is why it is so important that we point to Him. Yet to reach the post modern world we have to reach out in friendship to them, not with the attitude that we have all the answers but that we have one answer, Jesus Christ. That one answer is reasonable because of what it can lead to in people’s lives.

Before the Post moderns come beating down our doors we will need to have churches that create friendships, within the church first spreading outward. Well maybe that is not so different from Paul’s day as they really did work to create a community that looked after each other. As much as some things change some things still remain the same.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

[2] http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=150

Ellen White and Henry Melvill

From  The Inspired and Inspiring Ellen White, Part 1: 1982 in Historical Perspective by Arthur Patrick:

One of the most important areas of study focused on Ellen G. White's extensive recourse to the writings of other authors. The White Estate has reconstructed carefully the titles of some of the books she used in "A Bibliography of Ellen G. White's Private and Office Libraries," a 50-page document. A 46-page pamphlet "E. G. White's Literary Work: An Update" gives a popular introduction to this subject as it is now understood. A comprehensive example of Ellen White's approach was examined in an 85-page document. "Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationships." Articles from Adventist Review of 17 September 1981http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/whitelie.html#study were distributed in a reprint under the title, "Was Ellen G. White a Plagiarist?" An appeal was made for assistance by competent and dedicated researchers in the large work yet remaining to be done before we can fully understand and interpret the details of this subject, even though the major outlines are evident.

In the online document The Truth About The White Lie prepared by the staff of the Ellen G. White Estate in cooperation with the Biblical Research Institute and the Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists first published in 1982 and revised in January 1999. The end section called "For Further Study" contains the following indication of publications to come:

[Note: Documents below marked with a double asterisk (**) were available at the time of this paper's publication in 1981 but are no longer in print. However, they are being prepared for on-line viewing at this site.]

One of the articles mentioned is the following:

**"Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationships." An interim report on a cooperative study project undertaken by Ron Graybill, Warren H. Johns, and Tim Poirier, in which Ellen White's selective use of Anglican clergyman Henry Melvill's book of sermons is examined. 107 pp.

Why has it taken nearly 10 years to provide this document online? I can’t answer for the White Estate but I think it is because the document is pretty powerful in showing that Ellen White was heavily indebted to Henry Melvill for both language and very likely some of her theological ideas. True she did not use all of Melvill’s ideas but then the reality is that few of us use all the theological ideas of another person no matter how much we agree or admire their work.

In hope of spurring the White Estate to release their proposed online documents I am going to post a link to a searchable PDF of “Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationships”. (new host free account unsure how long it will be up. Linked 4-17-25 make a comment and I will renew the link)

It is interesting to read the first section of the book which contains information about Melvill and opinions by the authors of their faith in Ellen White as a prophet. They however do acknowledge her use of Melvill, something that still seems to be hard for many SDA's to accept.

Only faith can say it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than mere common sense which enabled Ellen White to choose the best and leave the rest of Melvill, but choose she did, using some ser­mons, ignoring others, picking some thoughts and passing others by. She moved back and forth within sermons, weaving Melvill's thoughts and words together with the thoughts and words of other authors as well as her own into a fabric distinctly different from his.

...

We will continue this study so as to analyze Melvill's theology more thoroughly to compare and con­trast It more helpfully with Ellen White's, and to place Melvlll more firmly within the context of his own church's development. Finally, Melvlll will take his place along with other authors Ellen White used as we attempt to define the genre of Christian literature on which she most commonly drew.

The Dark Side of the Second Coming?

My title is taken from this weeks Lesson study guide ( Tuesday June 24), the subject title for the week however is “His Return as King and Friend”. The dark side it appears, being similar to what happens when a group of home invaders in the midst of their pillaging are surprised by a SWAT team’s arrival with tear gas and guns. The criminals fun brought to a sudden end while the victims are filled with joy at the sight of their saviors.

I have never been good at predicting the future, I am part of a church who has one of the worst records of predicting the future yet that has not stopped them. Maybe it should but we all love to predict the future, after all the Bible gives us indications. The lesson study guide mentioned the Left Behind series, which aside from the pre-tribulation rapture is probably the most literal of interpretations of the book of Revelation you can get. I am quite sure that their vision of the future is just as mistaken as ours however. What if we played with the idea that the second coming does not have a dark side?

There are two ways that I can see this happening. One is universalism. That is the idea that God will save everyone from Hitler to Mother Teresa. After all we are all born into a defective world with defective characters, as much as some of us may want to deny it we love to sin it feeds something insatiable inside us. Not really our fault we were born into this world and it is no hardship for God to change us into people that want to be with Him. I have to admit I like that idea, but then it has some Bible verses that go against it. (Dan 12:2, 2 Thess 1:9, Rev 20:15)

The second way is found in the concept revealed in such verses as Matthew 24, where people’s love has turned cold and if not for God cutting short time with His second coming no flesh would survive (Matt 24:22). What would it be like to be in a world so filled with violence where there was no love and people were fainting for fear. The Second Coming would then be a relief even if you hated God. Rather like the welcome release of death after a painful sickness. But then we have verses such as where people cry for the rocks to fall on them. (Rev 6:16) We also have verses where life seems to be going on completely normally (Mat 24:37-47).

The Left Behind theory references troublesome verses to refer to different events. Such as Matt 24:37-47 being about the pre-tribulation rapture and verses about troubled times being right before the second coming. We as Adventist have some similar traditions. For instance Ellen White speaks Matt 24:42-44 as not being about the Second Coming but about the leaving of the second apartment in heaven.

“Jesus has left us word: “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: lest coming suddenly He find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” We are waiting and watching for the return of the Master, who is to bring the morning, lest coming suddenly He find us sleeping. What time is here referred to? Not to the revelation of Christ in the clouds of heaven to find a people asleep. No; but to His return from His ministration in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, when He lays off His priestly attire and clothes Himself with garments of vengeance, and when the mandate goes forth: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, 1885 page 190

Ellen White quotes Mark 13:35 The verse certainly contextually seems to be talking about the Second Coming Mark 13:26-37:

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’” (NIV)

It is a parallel to verse Matt 24:42 (NIV) “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

It seems that we Christians can be very elastic in what we believe regarding future events. Could it also be possible that the Second Coming may not have a dark side even for non believers? Could it be that God is King and Friend to even those who despise Him, like Jesus on the cross forgiving those who tortured and killed Him? If the Gospel is really the Good News about God can the Second Coming really have a dark side? As I said I don’t predict the future too well, but maybe if I was to play that game…

“Don’t ask me for the answers, I’ve only got one that a man leaves his darkness when he follows the Son.” - Larry Norman, The Great American Novel 1973

To reach youth, do we know what we think we know

Sometimes I wonder about the understanding of those who write for the Adventist Review. Here is an excerpt from a recent column by Kimberly Luste Maran entitled With the Times Knowing our youth is vital to ministry She begins by relating the following:

Adventists are not the only ones that are sometimes behind the times.¹ Earlier this month I heard a radio commercial for a major chain store informing listeners that the retailer had lots of dresses this season for young women (for prom, graduation, etc.). The gimmick was a reporter interviewing a girl in the juniors’ department trying to decide between two dresses. The teen mentions to the male reporter that she’s surprised to find so many dresses all in one place and then basically says, “When I get home tonight, I’m totally going to IM all my friends.”

Ouch! In trying to be down (or up, if you prefer) with the lingo, those responsible for this dialogue blundered—especially if they are really trying to get teens into the store.

Many of you, I’m afraid, won’t understand the gaff in the commercial. And that’s part of the problem.

What is the gaff? According to Maran it is this:

But I do know enough to know that in our living-in-the-moment, 
I-want-it-now popular culture no person under 20 would wait to tell friends about something they think is cool and important, and they likely wouldn’t use a computer-generated instant message.

Apparently everyone uses phone texting in Maran’s world. This may actually reflect more about her being influenced by commercials then actual statistics. According to the AP-AOL Instant Messaging Trends Survey even with the increase in cell phone text messaging computer generated IM are still more common. The key to debunking the columnist supposed gaff is found in the following from the AP-AOL survey.

Multi-tasking remains very popular, as IM users tend to engage in multiple online activities while sending instant messages. Checking email is the most popular activity among eight in ten adult and teen IM users. After email, adult IM users most often conduct online searches (49 percent), while teens say they like to research homework assignments online (57 percent).

As the Daily Herald article states:

But when they're at home, Neilson, Manno and friends explained, the school-night routine is to open up one computer window for homework and a second for instant messaging.

So why is this important? Because it reflects the incorrect assumptions that permeate church leadership. Her point is entirely accurate as she says:

“If this kind of thing can happen out there, it surely can happen in here. And it does. Some well-intentioned church leaders have devised youth programs and outreach, thinking they’re on the cutting edge. They might have run it by a kid or two (usually a relative who may or may not be paying complete attention). Then they launched 
it. And wondered why it wasn’t more successful.
…

Just as the retailer would have benefited from better research and vetting, those who lead our youth need to really know what is going on in their kids’ lives and figure out how to make the best, positive impact in the short time they have with them. An eternity depends on it.”

Often because church leaders just as the columnist think they know more than they really do. Which leads to the kind of assurance that what they say is true even when it is not or what they try can or can’t work in their church. This has led to an amazing lack of innovation and experimentation in dealing with youth and Adults in the Adventist church, often their first reaction is that can’t work which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

A good example of this false information syndrome is found in the recent book published by Pacific Press authored by a theology student Seth J. Pierce (this book is one of the Pacific Presses top ten best sellers according to Adventist Today May-June 2008 page 7). The book is on the 28 Fundamental SDA beliefs for teens. It is entitled What We Believe. Pierce writes this “Fun Fact” on page 149 in a special little box:

“As a precaution, the high priest had bells around the bottom of his tunic and a rope was tied to his ankle. If the priest was not clean and he had a less-than-happy encounter with the most holy God, his bells would stop jingling alerting those outside that something was wrong. Then they could drag the body out by the rope tied around the ankle.”

That bit of fiction made it past the proof readers and editors because they thought they knew more than they really did. For more see Theology Student Book to Confuse Your Teen .

It is important to know your audience but just as important to know your subject. In the main leadership in our churches do not know either and that is a big problem.

Atoday Blogs and a conversation with Goldsten

Adventist Today has completed their new Website and they have included a new blog feature. As Reinventing the Adventist Wheel says:

The new Adventist Today website has been officially launched after being down for nearly a week. It was worth the wait. Six bloggers, including Alex Bryan, Cliff Goldstein, David Person, Heather Quintana, Shayna Bailey and Erv Taylor will blog regularly from the left, right and center tackling anything from emerging church, creation/evolution divide, relationships and dating, trends in pop culture, Adventist doctrines, social and racial issues, and more.

There's also a news, interviews and reviews section. The kickoff feature article is an interview I conducted with Adventist-turned-Catholic and Hawaiian judge David Pendleton.

Only subscribers to the print magazine will have full access to the new site. For $19.50/year, it's a steal. Check it out.

Why in the world of blogging would they choose to prevent wider readership I don’t understand. As some of the comments in the above mention blog state, it does not seem like a good idea. Still they have also reduced the price to the magazine and blogs to an electronic version of the magazine with its access for only 8 dollars per year so in that respect they are making it pretty affordable. But as a blogger I know that most of those who access the blog do so through the process of keyword searches. So if you don’t have your blog open and available to be indexed by the search engines you have a very limited readership. Also as a blogger it is now difficult for us to link to the material that is membership protected. For example I had a bit of a discussion on Clifford Goldstein’s blog, I could create a link to it but you won’t get in unless you have a membership. Since I don’t know what restrictions there are when dealing with members only blogs I will only quote a few sections and then give you my comments. In this case I can sum up his responses fairly easily.

Goldstein’s topic was “no other options” which is that Adventists who hold to a few particular beliefs really have no where else to go. He then goes on in a comment section to tell someone who believes in theistic evolution to get out of the church as he says: “They exist but if they had a modium of rational thought they would know that they don't belong in this church”

My first reply was as follows:

That is funny, Cliff starts out saying there is no place for Adventists to go if they hold to some key doctrines, if my math is right our choice is stay in the Adventist church or find that elusive .01% to go to. Then in the comments section he wants Adventists to leave if they accept theistic evolution. It may just be me but the message seems contradictory. Maybe an article by Cliff telling us what we can disagree with in the Adventist church would be more helpful than proclaiming that we have no place to go. Then again what good would it do for Cliff to tell us what we must agree with and where we must go if we disagree with Cliff...Cliff is not the Adventist church for which I think all the universe both in earth and in heaven may rejoice.

His response was that I was distorting what he said and that we should leave.

My response:

Cliff wrote:

"I'm not saying, Ron, that they have to agree with me. That's a typical distortion."

I never said that you were saying that we had to agree with you, in fact I expressed my joy that you are not the Adventist church so that we don't have to agree with you. So what you call a typical distortion was not even present in my comment. Now lets assume for the moment that a person believes in evolution of the non theistic kind. Do you not think that there could be some benefit to a sabbath day's rest in their lives?

It always seems funny to me to hear people like Cliff express their contempt for evolution yet they don't believe that animals were created with those ripping and tearing teeth, that predator and prey web of life. It is OK for God to make those evolutionary changes but the idea that evolution beginning from simple forms to more complex forms under the guidance of God is just too much to believe. Both would be God's creation, both would be systems established by God. The question is what makes the most sense with the evidence around us. The idea that there was once a perfect world of which we can't even imagine, of which God expelled humans from for one violation prompted by a talking snake and then cursed the entire earth, humans and animals and plants seems less likely then a world where God established life through a process of growth and development until humans developed the capability to communicate with God just seems more reasonable.

The other day I was playing tennis and watched a hawk capture a small animal and fly away. Anyway you look at it if you are a deist that is something that God had a hand in. If there was indeed once a perfect world why not keep the perfection in the world, let man have his consequences from sin, why inflict it upon the small animals, why should they have to deal with the terror of being picked up and carried away from everything they have known only to be torn apart by the hawk. How much more we would have learned seeing the way animals responded without fear from other animals. What a marvelous opportunity to see what God had really intended for us all. No that is not the world we see, in fact in our Bible stories we see God so upset at wickedness that he wipes out all living creatures not in Noah's ark.

So the question we have to ask is are these stories reasonable or our they methods ancient people used to inspire a conception of God, primitive true but introducing the idea that God could be more then a local deity who we have to pay homage to. The beginnings of a great new understanding of man and God...unless we become stuck in the primitive mindset by making the stories into literal history to which God must be tied and restricted to, what today would be viewed by most intelligent people as unreasonable and backward. Do we grow in our understanding as we grow in our other human areas of knowledge or is our faith placed not in God but in the ancient assumptions and stories as if they were God. This is not merely a struggle about Adventist doctrines but about how we understand ourselves and our God. If the answer is to force those people out of the church then it is likely on the wrong path, a path similar to the Roman Catholic church took during the reformation. The path of least resistance usually goes downhill.

Cliff’s response:

If you don’t agree then “I find the lack of moral integrity astounding, and depressing, to be honest.”

So I explained further:

Cliff wrote:

If you are so sure our basic view of the Bible is wrong, and that the "primitive mindset" of the Bible is "unreasonable and backward," then why are you a member of a church which accepts the "primitive mindset" of the Bible as gospel truth?

You have placed two things together there that are not the same. Your basic view of the Bible is wrong, that is pretty clear. That does not however mean that all the Bible is unreasonable and backwards, only sections are. The Bible as a progressive work also goes on to correct some of the earlier primitive mindsets. That is why Job deals with why bad things happen even to good people, why Jesus did the same thing correcting the view that if you were righteous then you would be healthy and wealthy. In an article you wrote about the test of adultery preformed in Numbers 5, I think you are in the minority who don't think that was a primitive and backward mindset.

The interesting thing also is that the Adventist church is not really made up of those who accept the primitive mindset, true there are many that do, the people who collect their pay from the denomination and who never talk about their beliefs or those who are paid by the denomination to defend it's beliefs (I guess if you can hire a lawyer to defend you the church can hire apologists to defend it, both probably on the same level of respect). Does that make the church right because they hire people to defend and support them, or is that simply how bureaucracy's work? Is supporting a bureaucracy the high calling of a Christian, again shades of middle ages Roman Catholicism there. Yet there are others in the Adventist church who don't tow the line but seek to raise the standards, the standards of reasoning and textual criticism in ways that make God respectable. Now I know there are people who trust God no matter how they view Him. There are those who rejoice at the God who hates sin so much that He will torture people for eternity. It is right for God to do that because that is what God does and God does only what is right. Adventism rejected that because what they said was right is unreasonable, it is a poor representation of love and of God. They have wonderful verses they can use to demonstrate that that is what God will do. They have a method of interpretation that makes it easy to hold to the literal view of the texts they use. Just as you do with what appears to be an equally symbolic story (garden of Eden), but you would say it is not symbolic, and they will say their texts are not symbolic. We end up with only having our reasoning abilities to tell us which method to use.

So the Adventist church helped teach us to think and now when lay Adventists and Adventists College Professors do apply their reasoning abilities the traditional Adventists say "stop that, this is what we believe accept it or leave". So it is understandable that for many of us integrity means applying reasoning and knowledge even above the support of a bureaucratic church organization. Because really in the search for truth just because you have a denomination does not mean you have the truth. And just because we offer other methods of interpretation does not mean we are tearing down the denomination. It could tear down, it could build up or it could do nothing. We have yet to see the result, fundamentalism and it's fear of change is probably not the best course of action however.

His closing response today was:

Well, we have a whole lot of examples of other denomination in which the so called "progressives" got control, and look where those churches are today. Many of them are debating over whether the resurrection of Jesus was literal, or just a symbol of something else. Kind of like what the wacko left does to Genesis. We're holding the the line against that kind of compromise and apostasy, and if in so doing we are called anti reasonable and the like--who cares? I certainly don't.

Actually the conversation is not nearly as frustrating when I abbreviated Cliff’s responses. I kept the last one in its entirety because it is instructive. First he claims that there are many denominations that are debating whether the resurrection of Jesus was literal or not. As last week that was the subject of the lesson I taught I actually looked to see and found that even among liberal Christians most believe in the literal resurrection, it is a very small minority such as the Jesus Seminar people and Bishop Spong who think the resurrection is symbolic (that even death should not stop our quest for life and love). That other churches hold these debates just as we in the Adventist church hold these debates does not mean that the no resurrection view has a foothold. It is too central to Christianity and the extremists who hold to no resurrection have so little to base their view upon. A good example is found in the 1999 report of an Anglican debate Jesus scholars debate at National Cathedral

In any event the debate of ideas is not the problem, it is the fear of examining ideas that is the problem. If one fails to even try to be reasonable, if they fail to even try to look at possibilities then how can they ever expect to spread their views to others, asking others to look at different reasons and possibilities? If we all just went around assuming what we believe is the only truth then we would be the most foolish and unproductive people in the world.

SDA Spammers

It does not take too long in any religious community until you find that there are people who become so invested in an idea that they freely lie and try to make others believe their lies. Somehow I got on a mailing list from philton.moore@btopenworld.com That appears to be a spam address as I can't find an internet service provider by that name. In this latest piece of drivel from the Jesuit conspiracy theorist philton.moore who proudly hides his/her identity. He/she steals an article posted on a Church of God website entitled From Sabbath to Sunday: The Bacchiocchi Agenda Which "Sabbath" Does He Truly Support? The Spammer changes the title to From Sabbath to Sunday: Is Dr. Bacchiocchi A Jesuit or otherwise an Agent of Rome? Which "Sabbath" Does Dr. Bacchiocchi Really Support? The Spammer requests at the top of the Spam E-mail FOR THE WIDEST POSSIBLE CIRCULATION AMONG SDAs.

Aside from stealing the main parts of the article the spammer adds his/her own lies to the article in an attempt to Make Dr. Bacchiocchi out to still be a Roman Catholic. Here is what he/she says in part (colors supplied in the E-mail):

Here are Dr. B’s own words from his website:

"I grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist in Rome, Italy, a stone-throw from the Vatican wall in the days when considerable hostility existed against religious minorities.

[Note: This appears to be the first blatant inconsistency in Dr. B's personal testimony regarding his family and religious history! For as you will recall at the very start of this email I quoted Dr. as saying "I was born in a godly Catholic family" and that "For the first 18 years of my life I lived [as a Roman Catholic] under the shadow of the Vatican. My parents attended Sunday Mass regularly and recited the rosary faithfully every night." Question: How could Dr. B. claim that he "GREW UP AS A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST" when on his own admission, "for the 18 years" of his life he was a Roman Catholic, and his parents attended Mass faithfully every night??

Here our intrepid spammer inserts in brackets one of his lies by making it appear that Dr. B said he grew up as a Roman Catholic, by his own admission. Of course the admission was not to growing up a Roman Catholic but to living under the shadow of the Vatican. It is nearly impossible to read Dr. B's piece and misunderstand this, the only exception is if you don't care anything about the truth and are so obsessed you can't read straight and have no problem with telling lies. Here is what Dr. B says in the context of the quote our spammer used (notice the line in bold):

My Parent’s Discovery of the Sabbath

I was born in a godly Catholic family that lived close to the Vatican wall. For the first 18 years of my life I lived under the shadow of the Vatican. My parents attended Sunday Mass regularly and recited the rosary faithfully every night. This continued until my father was introduced for the first time to the study of the Bible by a fellow carpenter who belonged to the Waldensian Church. In their earnest desire to become better acquainted with the teachings of the Scriptures, my parents joined the Waldensian Church when I was a year old baby. They attended with keen interest also the mid-week Bible study conducted by students of the Waldensian School of Theology in Rome.

One Wednesday evening, a theology student presented a Bible study on the origin and significance of the Sabbath. Basing his meditation on Genesis 2:2-23, the young man explained how the Sabbath is a creation ordinance for mankind. The presentation sparked a lively debate between those students who defended the Biblical origin and validity of Sunday observance and the few who refuted such a view by arguing for the continuity of the Sabbath. That animated discussion left my father astonished and perplexed, because he firmly believed that Sundaykeeping was a biblical institution, established by Christ and the apostles. That experience ignited my father’s interest for the study of the Biblical basis and historical origin of Sundaykeeping.

Months of intense study led father to the conclusion that the seventh-day Sabbath had not been nullified but rather clarified and magnified by Christ’s teaching and example. In fact, he became convinced that the Sabbath is a divine institution that enables the believer to express and experience commitment to the Savior.

Unable to find in Rome a Christian Church that observed the seventh-day Sabbath, for several months my parents chose to worship privately in their home on the Sabbath, thus disconnecting their affiliation with the Waldensian Church. An invitation to attend a Bible study held in the home of a friend, introduced father and mother to a pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which they soon joined. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 159

The problem here aside from lies and spam is the stupidity of the Jesuit hunter mindset that inhabit many of the Traditional Adventists in the SDA church. Truth is of no importance to these people as it is of no importance to the spammer. They are an embarrassment to all SDA's and a disgrace to anyone who knows how to read.

How Traditionalists explain why Christ died

The Adult Teacher’s Guide for the Sabbath School Lesson asked the following question:

Jesus died on the cross to save us. How can someone dying save anyone?How would you explain Jesus’ death and the purpose of His death to a tenyear-old? How would you explain it to someone who has never heard of Jesus Christ before? See 1 Peter 1:3–9. http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ208_10.pdf

I was curious to see how this question would be answered on various internet sites. Here are some quotes from the various sites, the question we need to ask is do these answers make sense, do they answer the question above in a way that is satisfactory to a questioning child. As you read these think of what they are saying. Justice of Jesus paying the penalty is a common thread. Yet know where does God say justice is ever arrived at by punishing the innocent or substituting one person to be punished for the actions of another, or for that matter that punishment is needed in order to forgive. This first one is most interesting because it wants to teach Substitutionary punishment. Though I can’t imagine any child wanting to sign the purposed agreement or thinking it was fair or just.

--
One of the consequences of our sins is that Jesus died for our sins so we could have an eternal life with God.

However, before a person can have eternal life with God, that person must trust in Jesus as Savior and repent from a sinful life.

Punishment Sharing Agreement. Use this activity to help the students understand that Jesus, having never sinned, took on himself all of our sins and all the punishment for our sins when He died on the cross.

Circulate the Punishment Sharing Agreement

Explain that a person who signs the agreement is agreeing to take the punishment for any wrong acts done during the week that person signs up for by anyone who signs this agreement.

For example, Billy agrees to take the punishment for Week 1. Billy does no wrong during Week 1. But Sue lies to her mother. Her punishment is no TV for a week. Since Billy agreed to take the punishment for Week 1, Billy cannot watch TV for that week, but Sue can.

After everyone has an opportunity to sign the agreement, explain that this is similar to Jesus dying on the cross for all of our sins.

He died on the cross in our place for our sin, then rose from the dead.

Why Did Jesus Die On The Cross For Me?

Purpose: Help the children understand why Jesus died on the cross.
Objective: Teach the children that God sent Jesus to earth as man to die on the cross for the sins of the world. His death provides a way to have forgiveness of sin and a personal relationship with God.
http://www.kidzplace.org/atf/cf/%7B899BDF78-4CC9-48F8-8AD7-2A88AC21D94E%7D/day3_lesson.pdf

He came as a substitute. The Old Testament said, Ezekiel quoting, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Paul said, "The wages of sin is death Now sin by virtue of the justice of God is punished by death. If I then sin I will die. If I bear by own punishment and I die I die physically, spiritually and eternally and am sentenced into eternal hell without God. And God looked into this world and He saw men.

He saw men who were going to die because of sin. And He said because of His love, I will not ‑ I will not allow all men to die in their sin, I will send someone else to bear their punishment to die their death. And thus did Jesus come. He came to be my substitute and when He was nailed on the cross He died for me and He died for you.

He died my death, paid my penalty. See, that's the only alternative God had. Either He punishes you for sin and me for my sin and that's eternal punishment in hell or else He substitutes someone else in our place and they pay our penalty. And that's exactly what Jesus came to do, be our substitute. The exalted second person of the Trinity, the divine Son ot God, God in flesh, humbled Himself, came to earth to die my death to provide for me an escape from eternal hell. The sinless one became sin, the living one died, the perfect one became the punished one. And not because He deserved it but because I deserved it and He was my substitute.
--
God is a perfect God and yet has chosen to allow sin. He is also a holy God who must show His wrath against all sin. At the same time God has accepted the payment that Christ made for the sins of every person when Christ died on the cross. This means that Christ took the wrath of God against sin for every person. As a result, God must show His wrath by bringing judgment on every person that does not repent and turn to Christ. That way God is not unfair. He accepts the payment for sin by Christ for all those who turn to Christ. To be fair He also judges all those who reject the payment of Christ and choose to pay for their own sin.

--
Jesus Christ’s life could pay the penalty for all sin for all time because His divine life is worth more than the lives of all humanity before or since. Only by the sacrifice of a life of enormous worth could the enormous penalty for all sin be paid.

--
Why the Son of God had to die

Why did Jesus have to die? He had to die because of the sins of humanity and the death they demand—to make possible a relationship between the Father and all men and women, who are invited to become children of God; to make possible the resurrection to eternal life; to defeat the awful penalty of eternal death.

Why did Jesus have to die? Jesus had to die because He chose to die for each of us in a decision of pure love made with His Father. If They are willing to pay such a price to gain a relationship with us, what are we willing to do to have a relationship with Them?
--

Sin is the transgression of the law of God (1John 3:4) - which amounts to living contrary to God's way of life, a way of outflowing love and concern for others. God's law is so important that He has decreed the penalty of eternal death for its violation.

God's perfect justice demands that the penalty for sin be paid. It is vital that the seriousness of the matter be made that clear. And yet God is supremely merciful - so it was determined that God the Father would give up His only Son (who would Himself lay down His own life) in sacrifice to atone for the sins of all mankind - those who would rightly accept it. The Father, it should be understood, had actually created mankind through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9; John 1:1-3). Thus, as our Creator and God, His life was worth more than that of all humanity. When He died for us, the penalty for all human sin was more than paid.
--
Jesus died to take the punishment for your sins.
--
In other words, the punishment for our sin which is ours by right was transferred to Jesus Christ. He died our death, in our place, so that our sins might be forgiven and we night know fellowship with God. The chastisement which we deserved was laid upon him. And he had to do it, because our salvation could be achieved in no other way.

The Meaning of Christ’s Death

That is the subject of this week’s Sabbath School Lesson. It is probably the most important part of Christianity and in the last couple hundred years it has become the strangest doctrine of Christianity. The lesson introduction says:

So, this week we will seek to try to answer the important question of why Jesus died, what purpose was accomplished by His death, and what it means for us many centuries after the fact. Did Christ, as some assert, die merely to show us God’s love and thus to change our feelings about God; or did Christ’s death, in fact, do something that changed how God relates to us? These are all topics worthy of our deepest interest.

[All lesson study quotes are taken from the Teacher’s Guide PDF found here]

I like that beginning. Did Christ’s show us God’s love and change us as Paul asks in his rhetorical question:

(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

Or Does Christ who is God, do something that changed how God relates to us?

(Phil 2:6-8 NIV) Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

Does God need to change or do we need to change? Honestly how long will we have to wrestle with that question? But I bet we will have to wrestle with it because tradition has placed such a hold on Christianity and the SDA church that what is obvious will appear hazy.

The Lesson for Sunday continues:

What do the following passages tell us about the death of Jesus? Was it something that had to happen? Matt. 16:21, 26:52–54, Mark 10:45, Luke 18:31–33, John 3:14, Heb. 9:25–28.

The consistent note here is that Jesus was born to die; His death was not an accident. It had to happen. Why did it have to? Well, that is not a matter that can be explained fully by rational processes, not because

it is irrational but because it is suprarational, above human reason. It falls in the realm of Divine revelation, part of that “mystery . . . kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints”

(Col. 1:26, NIV). The Bible does not go into any long attempt to justify it or to explain it, maybe because it is not something subject to human logic. We do not have other instances elsewhere by which to judge or compare it. Biblical atonement represents a solo occurrence in the history of the universe. And our task is to seek to understand what the Bible says about it and to apply what it means to our own lives.

Is that the consistent note that Jesus was born to die. He could have accomplished that moments after his birth. No those verses tell us that Jesus knew that He would die, it is the nature of sin…it kills it results in death.

Now how far do you get when you tell your children I can’t explain that, it simply can’t be explained by rational processes just believe me. Well you would not get very far other then that your child will think you don’t know and can’t admit it. How much worse if you tried to explain something like the lesson author by saying it is beyond human reason but we must seek to understand what the Bible says about what is beyond human reason and apply the meaning to our lives. That is nonsensical but it is the standard that people who believe in the Penal/Substitution Atonement theory will use. That is why I am using this point counter point style for this article. It is easy to express the love and forgiveness and acceptance that Jesus showed on the cross people eagerly and willingly accept it. But tradition has incorporated other things into the atonement things which are very big problems and because they are big problems they hide from them by saying we can’t logically understand the problems we created. So just accept what we have said and our tradition and ignore the problems.

As we move into Monday’s lesson we see where tradition over the Bible takes precedence:

Read Matthew 26:38. What was it that hung so heavy on the Savior during this crushing agony? How did He manage to survive the ordeal? (See Luke 22:43.) “Having made the [final] decision,” wrote Ellen G. White, “He fell dying to the ground [there in the garden].”—The Desire of Ages, p. 693. This means that although He later was killed by Roman hands, the fatal blow had come much earlier, delivered by one giant, collective hand, ours. How does it make you feel, knowing that your own guilt caused the death of Jesus? More important, how should you respond to those feelings?

Matthew 26:38 says that Jesus soul was filled with sorrow. Not guilt, not sins but sorrow. Sorrow for Himself or sorrow for humanity? We don’t know as it does not say. But my conception is that it is both. Sorrow for the people and for Himself because He was going to be rejected by the very people He came to save the people of His creation. To think about that in human terms it would be the sorrow of coming to your children who are living in the streets and offering the opportunity to return and live with you and having them spit on you beat, torture and kill you.

Did Jesus fall dying in the garden of Gethsemane? Not according to the Bible which asserts that even with His sorrow and regret for what He had to go through He was not abandoned as an messenger of God strengthened Him. (Luke 22:43 NIV) An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. Certainly as Peter tells the story it is not a fatal blow that fell before the cross.

(Acts 3:13-15 NIV) The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Peter goes on to comfort them that their actions were out of ignorance but what can the excuse be for those who rewrite the story so incorrectly.

The lesson begins in earnest to teach Substitutionary atonement on the Tuesday lesson:

1. The Concept of Sacrifice, Offering, Substitute—Ephesians 5:2: Christ “gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering [prosphoran] and sacrifice [thusian] to God” (NIV). Hebrews 9:26: He came “to do

away with sin by the sacrifice [thusias] of himself ” (NIV). Hebrews 10:14: By means of “one sacrifice [prosphora] he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (NIV). The idea in all these passages is that of vicarious death, death in our place, death as our Substitute. Vicarious suffering is suffering endured by one person in the stead of another. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul says that “Christ died for our sins” (NIV); Romans 5:8 says that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (NIV); and 1 Peter 2:24 says that Christ “bore our sins in his body on the tree” (NIV).

Although the Christian Church had the New Testament since it’s inception the Substitutionary theory of atonement was quite late in development. See the history of the atonement. Sacrifice and offering are clearly in the verses presented but the sacrifice is of God and by God not to God.

(Rom 3:25 NIV) 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—

The sacrifice was a fragrant offering because it the work of God, when you read the context you see that: (Eph 5:1-2 NIV) Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

He “gave Himself for us” the demonstration of God in love. The Greek has no inclusion of “sacrifice to God” it could just as easily be “sacrifice of God” the sweet-smelling savor of God. There is no doubt that Jesus suffered because of sin, He bore the results of sin, the hatred and cruelty the injustice that marks and mares our sin filled lives. But that is not substitution. Even the oft quoted verse (2 Cor 5:21 NIV) God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Is used as a paradoxical statement to sum up how the love of God compels us. (2 Cor 5:14-15 NIV) For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

The idea being that we die to our old ways and live again for the one who died for us all as His love compels us to do, raised to a new way of life just as Christ was raised to life. We do a great disservice to God by taking difficult statements away from their context. None of the lesson verses presents, “death in our place, death as our Substitute”.

The lesson goes on about ransom, thinking that paying a price is the same as substitution. It is of course not. If it was who was the ransom paid to. Certainly not God as Jesus is God. The ransom is the idea that God had to pay a price to reconcile us, just as to ransom a captive relative required giving up something, usually money. As it says: (1 Cor 6:19-20 NIV) Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

(1 Cor 7:22-23 NIV) For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

The cost of God becoming like one of His creation would be huge in itself similar perhaps to a man becoming an ant. But on top of that God allowed Himself to be abused tortured and killed and there is clearly a large price God paid to reconcile us back to Him. The price paid is the sacrifice God made, the giving up of something important, this is the type of ransom that God paid, not to Himself or to Satan or even to man but the cost of His actions. But then that is what love does, it is not self interested, it is other centered and the cost becomes minor compared with the joy of reconciliation.

(Heb 12:2-4 NIV) Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.

Wednesday’s lesson tries to begin well then becomes as bad as what it denies:

The Concept of Propitiation (or Expiation) (hilasterion): In regard to the mission of Christ, the word is found in Hebrews 2:17, where it speaks of Christ making “propitiation for the sins of the people” (NKJV). “Propitiation” has the sense of pacifying someone. The belief was that when a god was angry, the people should make a gesture of appeasement (hilasterion) in order to render the god hilaros (happy, joyous) once more. What students of the New Testament repeatedly have noted, however, is that its authors, though borrowing vocabulary from classical Greek and elsewhere, nevertheless fill that vocabulary with brand-new content and meaning.

Accordingly, many Bible scholars agree that a better English translation of the word is “expiation.” So understood, the idea is that by means of Jesus’ death, God “expiates,” “covers,” “erases” our sin. Any idea of human appeasement of God would be utterly foreign to the New Testament writers. Instead, they wanted to emphasize that the entire human race, threatened by the righteous wrath of God on account of sin, was rescued by Jesus’ death. Jesus became our hilasterion, covering us from the wrath of God (see Heb. 9:5).

Notice how they have moved from the results of sin which has long resulted in death (sin pays a wage...death Rom 6:23) to salvation from the “righteous wrath of God on account of sin” we are now saved from the wrath of God that is just some much better then the idea of appeasing an angry God!

What is funny about the above is they reference Hebrews 2:17 which probably is peculiar among English Bibles that it even uses the word propitiation. As the King James Version does not even use it: (Heb 2:17 KJV) 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.

Most who do use propitiation use if from the King James verses Rom 3:25, 1 John 2:2,1 John 4:10 all of which are translated in modern English as “atoning sacrifice” or “Sacrifice of Atonement”

That really sums it up however, atonement is all about reconciliation the sacrifice is directed at swaying us back to God not changing God to accept us. He is the one making all the moves at reconciliation while we are far off, while we are enemies of God He comes to us. This is not a God of wrath, not a God that is in need of a change, not a God that has to figure out how He can forgive and reconcile by punishing the innocent. Not even a God that we have to say it is beyond human reasoning, because we have seen love and we know the power of love maybe not in full but even in our own ways we know what love is and how love forgives and embraces. It is time we give God the credit for being love and leave behind our foolish traditions.