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.

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 than 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 takes 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 mans best interests at heart. The voice of questioning is presented in the guise of a talking serpent, man disregards Gods warnings after the serpent insinuates half truths about God since a half truth is far more effective then a clear untruth. Being newly created in the story they have nothing to base their knowledge of God on so the falling 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 mans best interest in mind.

2. God is vindictive and to disagree with Him will bring His wrath upon one’s self.

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 sinner's 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 and 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 is 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 which 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 mans 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)

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.

The Great Controversy View

Adventist Today recently started publishing various blogs for their subscribed readers. In one Clifford Goldstein writes:

Then, just as an aside, he said (and I'm paraphrasing him), "Oh, yes, there is one more theodicy. No one takes it seriously any more today but I thought I'd mention it." He called it the Cosmic Free Will Theodicy or something like that. The upshot is that for about three minutes he describes, basically, the great controversy scenario, pretty much how any traditional Adventist would. You know, an angel Lucifer with free will, falls into sin, leads a rebellion in heaven that takes hold on earth, a battle between good and evil, etc. I mean, it was our cosmic world view perfect expressed.

We as Adventists very often refer to the Great Controversy yet in the main we never define it. I once asked a discussion group how they would define the Great Controversy and about the best answer they could produce was to read the first 3 chapters of Ellen White’s book Patriarchs and Prophets.

Recently I came this description of the Great Controversy from the online Google book Historical Dictionary of Seventh-Day Adventists by Gary Land. The online book does not finish this section but what it says is helpful.

Great controversy. Phrase used by Seventh-day Adventists to refer to the cosmic conflict between God and Satan. In the second edition of his pamphlet The seveth-day Sabbath, a Perpetual sign (1846), Joseph Bates introduced the basic sabbatarian Adventist understanding of history when he argued that God’s faithful remnant, who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, are at war with the beast whose mark or sing is Sunday observance. Ellen G. White gradually developed this concept into a theological perspective that encompassed all existence, both physical and spiritual. Based on a vision she experienced on March 14, 1858, she began describing her understanding of history in Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels and Satan and His Angels (1858), Which covered events from the fall of Lucifer in heaven to the recreation of the new earth. In Spiritual Gifts, vol.3, Important Facts of Faith in Connection With the History of Holy Men of Old 91864) she discussed biblical history from the Creation to the giving of the Ten Commandments; volume 4, Important Facts of Faith: Laws of Health and Testimonies (1864), continued her account to the time of Solomon and briefly examined the first advent of Jesus. She later expanded these works in The Spirit of Prophecy, 4 vols. (1870-84), each volume of which carried the phrase “Great Controversy” in its subtitle. Her final reworking of this material appeared in the “Conflict of the Ages Series,” which included Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), The Story of Prophets and Kings (1917), The Desire of Ages (1898), The Acts of the Apostles (1911), and the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan (1888).

As her ideas ultimately developed, White explained history as a trial in which Satan charges that God is unfit to rule the universe. Fallen human beings, as well as unfallen angels and inhabitants of other worlds, comprise the jury that observes how the consequences of Satan’s rebellion work themselves out within earthly [end of page book preview]

The first thing I noticed about the above is that the Great Controversy is developed from two things; Joseph Bates belief that Sunday observance is the Mark of the Beast and then Ellen White’s vision on the fall of Satan who she identifies as Lucifer. The fall of Lucifer goes back to the third century A.D. based upon the interpretations of Tertullian and Origen. For more on the history of the Lucifer myth click here.

Amazing Facts is in the process of creating what they call the Cosmic Conflict Project.

A Christian Documentary

Amazing Facts will be producing a high definition documentary mini-series that will bring to life the great controversy between Christ and Satan. Beginning with the fall of Lucifer in the glorious courts of heaven, viewers will be taken on a journey through time to view highlights in this cosmic struggle. The war between Christ and Satan over the souls of men will be the focus of this ground breaking production.

Unfortunately just as Amazing Facts thinks they are producing a Documentary many Adventists think that the fanciful interpretation we call the Great Controversy is also fact. It is not. As a means of demonstrating the fanciful elements of what is put forward as the Great Controversy take a look at this short presentation For a Large-exciting 24mb view
Or the YouTube version

The Bible certainly presents a conflict between good and evil but much of what we take as the Great Controversy is not present in the Bible. The reference to Lucifer in the Bible is a reference to the prince of Babylon, there is nothing in the Bible about Satan being jealous because God created man but did not invite Satan to be in on it or that Satan (or Lucifer) was upset because the Son (pre-incarnate Jesus) was seemingly raised in authority because he and other angels did not understand that the Son was one in divinity with the Father. You can read the following examples of the Great Controversy view which is heavily influenced by Ellen White’s speculations found in the book Patriarchs and Prophets. Think about where you would find such things in the Bible.

Not content with his position, though honored above the heavenly host, he ventured to covet homage due alone to the Creator.

And coveting the glory with which the infinite Father had invested His Son, this prince of angels aspired to power that was the prerogative of Christ alone.

In heavenly council the angels pleaded with Lucifer.

To dispute the supremacy of the Son of God, thus impeaching the wisdom and love of the Creator, had become the purpose of this prince of angels

Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will.

While claiming for himself perfect loyalty to God, he urged that changes in the order and laws of heaven were necessary for the stability of the divine government.

And there are far more examples such as the idea that Satan claimed that no one can keep the law of God, which if you think about it there would have been many angels that would have proved Satan wrong long ago but because the claim is made by the Great Controversy view many Adventists have taken to believe in last generation perfection so that there will be some humans that prove that man can really keep the law of God. So when you hear the Great Controversy view, be sure and ask just what do they mean. Is it merely the struggle between good and evil or do they mean a host of fanciful speculations made by old traditions drawn together by the visions or supposed visions of a nineteenth century prophet. If those things were so important for the Christian church to believe why would they not be relayed in the Bible, why would they wait till 1800 years after the writing of the New Testament?

Adventist Forum Announcement and Hebrew Language

I was originally going to write on another topic but I read the following announcement about the next Adventist Forum meeting and the subject got me thinking.

The Pacific Northwest Adventist Forum will hold its next meeting at the Green Lake Seventh-day Adventist on June 7 at 3:00 PM. The speaker will be Brian Bull MD who currently chairs the Department of Pathology at the Loma Linda University School of Medicine. His presentation is entitled "What in Heaven (and Earth) Was the Writer of Genesis Talking About?" Dr. Bull has been active in the affairs of the church including the difficult and controversial topic of integrating faith and science. He is a member of a group in Loma Linda that is carefully studying the Hebrew words of Genesis in an attempt to figure out the intended meaning of the writer of the first chapters of Genesis. At times some translations of the Bible may reflect the beliefs of the translator more than the actual meaning of the manuscripts on which the translation is based. How Dr. Bull reads and examines the Genesis story will of interest to those who care about how God created the heavens and earth. He also is one of the authors of the recently published book, Understanding Genesis. Dr. Bull is a graduate of Walla Walla College and for many years served as Dean of the Loma Linda University School of Medicine. Following the meeting light refreshments will be served.

I thought I would check and see how many words made up the ancient Hebrew language. I did not figure it was nearly as robust as English and thus not nearly as descriptive. You hear people say that Eskimo’s have 7 different words for snow. Well English has hundreds of words for snow because we have adjectives which describe the snow. “light snow, heavy snow, wet snow, sandy snow, coarse snow etc. On top of that we have over 1 million English words. Fortunately we don’t have to use them all but still we use a lot. Now what about using the words of the ancient Hebrew in understanding what the writer of that book intended. First the writer was limited to what his language was, his words and his rather scientifically speaking limited knowledge of the world as well as his limited knowledge of God. So even if we ascertain the most likely meaning the writer had in mind we are left with only that, the meaning he had in his or their mind, depending on if what we have is original or redacted from some other original document. Even with the assumption of God given inspiration we have only the limited vocabulary of the language and the times for which God could work. Limitations which could cause limitations in understanding if one assumes that those limited words must be of ultimate importance.

Which leads us to an interesting new Hebrew translation in the works now. It is called the Mechanical Translation. Here is what the Ancient-Hebrew.org website introduction says:

About the Translation

I will be publishing this project one book at a time beginning with the book of Genesis. Once the first five books of the Bible are completed I will combine them into the Mechanical Translation of the Torah and will then continue with the book of Joshua.

Standard Text Translations

Most all English translations of Genesis 1:24 are translated as "And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind...' ". Now compare that with Genesis 2:7 which is usually translated as "...and the man became a living soul (some translations have 'living being')". I have often heard it debated that only man has a soul but not animals. This theological assumption can be supported by the two verses quoted above but not in the original Hebrew text. The phrase "living creature" from the first verse and "living soul" in the second verse are identical in Hebrew - nephesh hhayah. If this phrase was translated the same way in both verses the theological idea that only man has a soul (nephesh) would never [sic]

Standard Word Translations

This change in the way Hebrew words are translated does not end with only one or two different translations but the list goes on. The Hebrew word nephesh is translated as soul, life, person, mind, heart, creature, body, dead, desire, man, appetite, lust, thing, self, beast, pleasure, ghost, breath and will in the King James Version. The King James Version also translates the Hebrew word hhayah as live, life, beast, alive, creature, running, living, raw, springing, old, quick, lifetime, troop, appetite, lively, congregation, company and maintenance. The King James Version is not alone in this style of translation as all translations are similar. If one wishes to do a serious study of the Bible and does not know Hebrew how is one to sort through this conglomeration of word translations?

The need for a Mechanical Translation

The Mechanical Translation will provide a consistent translation where each Hebrew word, prefix and suffix are translated exactly the same way every time. This will provide the student of the Bible with a very Hebraic look at the Bible without knowing Hebrew. When the same word is found in two different verses it will be known that they are the same word in the Hebrew text as well and problems such as identified above will disappear. This translation will also translate the Hebrew words into English in the same order as they are in Hebrew. The only problem with this is that if one does not know Hebrew sentence structure the translation will not make sense but instead appear as gibberish. For this reason a second translation (called the 'Revised Mechanical Translation' or RMT) is provided which uses the same English words to translate the Hebrew but will re-arrange the words so that they can be understood by English readers.

The Dictionary

Even though each Hebrew word is translated exactly the same way every time with an English word or phrase the English words will not be sufficient for understanding the meaning of the Hebrew words. For this reason the Mechanical Translation will be accompanied by a dictionary that will allow the student to look up each English word or phrase to learn the meaning of the word from an Hebraic perspective. The dictionary will also provide the identification number for that word in the "Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible".

Genesis 1:1-5

in the summit “Elohiym [Powers]” fattened the sky and the land, and the land had existed in confusion and was unfilled and darkness was upon the face of the deep sea and the wind of “Elohiym [Powers]” was much fluttering upon the face of the water, and “Elohiym [Powers]” said, light exist and light existed, and “Elohiym [Powers]” saw the light given that it was functional and “Elohiym [Powers]” made a separation between the light and the darkness, and “Elohiym [Powers]” called out to the light day and to the darkness he called out night and evening existed and morning existed one day.

Mech. Trans. of Genesis - Sample
The following from Einhorn Press states some additional problems.

Modern English is often thought to be a difficult language to translate, with its irregular spellings, numerous shades of meanings, variations in pronunciations, incorporation of countless foreign words, difficult idioms, and other peculiarities and inconsistencies. However, none of these could begin to compare with one major translating difficulty found in the biblical language of Israel, especially since Hebrew ceased to be a commonly spoken language hun­dreds of years before Jesus Christ arrived. “In regard to the Old Testament, the Hebrew language, as anciently written, was the most difficult of all languages to translate,” wrote Bible-scholar John E. Remsburg in his work entitled The Bible. In one of thirty weekly installments from his book which began to appear in The Truth Seeker at the beginning of January in 1901 he went on to explain that

Here is the best known passage in the Bible printed in English as the Jews would have written it in Hebrew:"It was written from right to left; the words contained no [written] vowels; there were no intervening spaces between words, and no punctuation marks. Even with the introduction of vowel points [dots or marks below the words that indicate vowel sounds] many words in Hebrew, as in English, have more than one meaning. Without these points, as originally written, the number is increased a hundred fold. The five English words, bag, beg, big, bog, and buy, are quite unlike and easily distinguished. Omit the vowels, as the ancient Jews did, and we have five words exactly alike, or rather, one word with five different meanings. The Hebrew language was thus largely composed of words with several mean­ings. As there were no spaces between words, it was sometimes hard to tell where a word began or where it ended; and as there were no punctuation marks, and no spaces between sentences, paragraphs, or even sections, it was often difficult to determine the meaning of a writer after the words had been deciphered."

bllwhtmcmdgnkhtmnhtbdllhnvhntrhchwrhtfR
vgrfwsstbdrsvgrfdndrbldrdshtsvgnvhnstshtrnnd nkhtsnhtrflvmrfsrvldtbnttpmttntnsdldnsrtbdrn
nmrvrfrlghtdnrphtdnmdg

If you can't figure it out it is the Lord's prayer King James version

From the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible

In our Modern Western language verbs express action (dynamic) while nouns express inanimate (static) objects. In Hebrew all things are in motion (dynamic) including verbs and nouns. In Hebrew sentences the verbs identify the action of an object while nouns identify an object of action. The verb Malak is “the reign of the king” while the noun melek is the “the king who reigns”. A mountain top is not a static object but the “head lifting up out of the hill”. A good example of action in what appears to be a static passage is the command to “have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). In Hebrew thought this passage is saying “not to bring another one of power in front of my face”.

So what have we learned? Literal isn't really all that literal, so we had better apply all the information we can to the Bible and that means using our God given ability to reason from all the data available.