Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on May 21st, 2011
The good folks at Good Word Online have produced an epic for this week’s lesson so we shall merely redirect you over to their site…
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on May 21st, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “Do we need a conscious feeling of cleansing in order to be in God’s presence?”
Biblical passages: Isa 1-6; Isa 51; Isa 52, Isa 61; Luke 4:16-20
Comment: A focus on the book of Isaiah for this week’s lesson provides an opportunity to contrast positive and negative motivation in Scripture. If we adopt the “garment” theme, then we can note several contrasting images: the brutal stripping of arrogant garments in Isaiah 3:16-24; the fragile, moth-eaten, worm-eaten garments of human righteousness in Isaiah 51:6-8; the beautiful garments of Isaiah 52:1; the garland instead of ashes, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit of Isaiah 61:3; the garment of salvation, the robe of righteousness, the garland on the bridegroom, the bride with her jewels of Isaiah 61:10. In short, we find dramatically different “motivational” images, sharp contrasts between the negative and the positive. That contrast is a theme worth exploring in this week’s lesson.
The bad news of Isaiah 1. Note the following “negative” elements from Isaiah 1:
The vivid contrasts of Isaiah 2 to 5. Note the sharp contrasts between peace and judgment:
The cleansing of the prophet in Isaiah 6. After all those contrasting images, comes the powerful narrative of Isaiah’s cleansing, preparing him for his ministry. Question: How can we apply all those contrasting images in ways that will give hope and courage to God’s people today, bringing reformation and revival rather than rejection of God’s message? Note this vivid ideal from the pen of Ellen White:
“Those who present the eternal principles of truth need the holy oil emptied from the two olive branches into the heart. This will flow forth in words that will reform but not exasperate. The truth is to be spoken in love. Then the Lord Jesus by His Spirit will provide the force and the power. That is his work.” Testimonies 6:123
The example of Jesus in Luke 4:16:20. It is worth exploring the effect of Jesus’ words in the synagogue at Nazareth when he quoted Isaiah 61. As reported in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus stopped short of the line “the day of vengeance of our God” in Isaiah 61:2. Two vivid phrases stand out from an otherwise buoyant Isaiah 61. In addition to the phrase, “the day of vengeance of our God” in 61:2, there is the strong statement against “robbery and wrongdoing” in 61:8. Question: How do we address the horrendous evils in our world without being tainted by the very evil which we are addressing?
Even though Jesus himself was unfailingly gentle – albeit firm – in the Gospel narratives, he could utter strong elements of judgment. Taking just the Gospel of Mark, for example, these three “negative” incidents stand out:
Jesus’ Sabbath healing of the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:5): “He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart….”
The millstone for those who lead astray God’s little ones (Mark 9:42): “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.”
The fate of the wicked vineyard tenants (Mark 12:9): “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
The other Gospels provide other examples. One of the more sobering ones is the parable of the judgment (Matthew 25:31-46) where condemnation falls, not for “active” evil and oppression, but for simple neglect.
Only once in her original published works – though it is repeated in six other contexts in various compilations – does Ellen White use the phrase “cruel kindness” to refer to pampered behavior. The quotation and application is worth noting:
“Mothers love their children with an idolatrous love and indulge their appetite when they know that it will injure their health and thereby bring upon them disease and unhappiness. This cruel kindness is manifested to a great extent in the present generation. The desires of children are gratified at the expense of health and happy tempers because it is easier for the mother, for the time being, to gratify them than to withhold that for which they clamor.” – 3T 141.1 (1872)
In another setting, Ellen White referred to the motivational dilemma illustrated by the contrasts in Isaiah and articulated bluntly by Paul in 1 Cor 4:21: “What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?” Speaking to a man who apparently needed to be more careful in his choice of words, Ellen White counseled:
“You need to educate yourself, that you may have wisdom to deal with minds. You should with some have compassion, making a difference, while others you may save with fear, pulling them out of the fire [Jude 22-23]. Our heavenly Father frequently leaves us in uncertainty in regard to our efforts.” Testimonies 3:420 (1875).
Knowing when and how to use the wide variety of examples in Scripture is one of the most important and urgent challenges facing the church.
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on May 21st, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “What does it mean to be ‘in the shadow of God’s wings”?
Biblical Passages: Psa 63:7; 2 Sam 11-12; Psa 32:1-5; Psa 51:2; Psa 51:10; Psa 61:4
This week’s lesson takes us to the heights and the depths of human existence. The Psalmist revels in the knowledge that he can find shelter “in the shadow” of God’s “wings” (Ps. 63:7). But such shelter is only possible when one is right with God. What happens to the shelter when one is living a life contrary to God’s will?
Under his wings: a protected life (Psalm 63:7; cf. Psalm 61:1-5). The imagery of finding shelter “under his wings” is intended to bring comfort to the believer. But what happens to that image when one falls away from God? Can it only be a source of comfort to the obedient?
Out of the shadow into great sin (2 Sam 11-12). One of the most tragic narratives in David’s life involves his betrayal of his people, his family, and one of his most faithful warriors, Uriah the Hittite.
Question: Did the fact that David had multiple wives perhaps make it easier for him to commit adultery? In modern culture, the tendency is not to have several wives at the same time, but one after another. Why is such a sin viewed in Scripture with such horror?
Note: In the Old Testament it has often been said that a woman’s marriage vow is more sacred than a man’s. Indeed, someone has said that in the Old Testament, a woman could only sin against her own marriage, a man could only sin against someone else’s. Would the teachings of Jesus change that to a more egalitarian perspective?
Question: In terms of ruined lives and broken promises, who was most damaged by David’s sin: Bathsheba? Uriah? David? David’s family? The nation?
Question: When Nathan confronted David with his sin, what was symbolized by David’s behavior after the child conceived in adultery died, as the prophet said it would? David pled in abject remorse as long as the child was alive. But as soon as the child died, he washed, changed his clothes and went into the house of the Lord to worship (2 Sam 12:20). The change was so dramatic that his staff asked him about it. This was his response: “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me, and child may live.’ But now he is dead; why should I fast?” (2 Sam 12:22-23). Could such behavior be interpreted as reflecting only superficial remorse? How should one handle the “normal” life after one has sinned, confessed, and experienced forgiveness. Should everything return to normal as it did (apparently) for David?
Psalm 51: The great penitential psalm. Aside from the title that was added later, is there any indication in Psalm 51 that it was connected with David’s sin with Bathsheba? Does the general nature of the Psalm increase its versatility for believers today? When sin overshadows a community, can a generic Psalm (like Psalm 51) be more healing for the community than explicit confession? To what extent should mourning continue after forgiveness? Is there a danger that one can treat serious sin simply with a shrug?
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on May 21st, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “Which prophet’s experience do you find more attractive, that of Elijah or that of Elisha?
Biblical Passage: 1 Kings 17 – 2 Kings 13.
Themes: Four moments when “Garments” play a key role in the stories of Elijah and Elisha.
Before taking up the four moments where garments play a key role, another question is nearly irresistible: “The experience of which prophet, Elijah or Elisha, do you find more attractive?”
Note: Elijah’s experience is marked by two violent acts: Killing the 450 prophets of Baal from Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:19, 40), and ordering the death of the two groups of fifty warriors sent by King Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:9-18). Elisha’s ministry was also marked by two “negative” miracles, but of much milder character: the mauling of the 42 disrespectful boys by the two she-bears (2 Kings 2:23-25), and the pronouncement of Naaman’s leprosy upon Gehazi (2 Kings 5:20-27). Otherwise, Elisha’s miracles were all positive, life giving. Which prophet do you find more attractive? More powerful?
Elijah wraps himself in his mantle at Mt. Horeb (Sinai) (1 Kings 19:23). Is there any clue in the biblical narrative as to why Elijah fled from Mt. Carmel to Mt. Horeb/Sinai? Why to Horeb/Sinai and not some place else?
Note: After his great victory on Carmel, Elijah was terrified by Queen Jezebel’s threat on his life. He headed for the one place where he know that God had given an overwhelming display of divine power. But the results were not what Elijah had hoped for. According to 1 Kings 19:11-12, the mountain was rocked by wind, earthquake, and fire, but the Lord was not in any of those. Only when Elijah heard “a sound of sheer silence” (1 Kings 19:12, NRSV), did he sense the presence of God and he went out and stood in the entrance of the cave.
But en route to that confrontation with God, Elijah experienced the Lord’s tender mercies. These quotes from Ellen White on Elijah’s frenzied journey to Horeb, capture the beauty and tenderness of those moments. They are taken from Prophets and Kings:
Into the experience of all there come times of keen disappointment and utter discouragement – days when sorrow is the portion, and it is hard to believe that God is still the kind benefactor of His earthborn children; days when troubles harass the soul, till death seems preferable to life. It is then that many lose their hold on God and are brought into the slavery of doubt, the bondage of unbelief. Could we at such times discern with spiritual insight the meaning of God’s providences we should see angels seeking to save us from ourselves, striving to plant our feet upon a foundation more firm than the everlasting hills, and new faith, new life, would spring into being. PK 162.1
For the disheartened there is a sure remedy – faith, prayer, work. Faith and activity will impart assurance and satisfaction that will increase day by day. Are you tempted to give way to feelings of anxious foreboding or utter despondency? In the darkest days, when appearances seem most forbidding, fear not. Have faith in God. He knows your need. He has all power. His infinite love and compassion never weary. Fear not that He will fail of fulfilling His promise. He is eternal truth. Never will He change the covenant He has made with those who love Him. And He will bestow upon His faithful servants the measure of efficiency that their need demands. PK 164-65
Did God forsake Elijah in his hour of trial? Oh, no! He loved His servant no less when Elijah felt himself forsaken of God and man than when, in answer to his prayer, fire flashed from heaven and illuminated the mountaintop. And now, as Elijah slept, a soft touch and a pleasant voice awoke him. He started up in terror, as if to flee, fearing that the enemy had discovered him. But the pitying face bending over him was not the face of an enemy, but of a friend. God had sent an angel from heaven with food for His servant. “Arise and eat,” the angel said. “And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head.” PK 166 After Elijah had partaken of the refreshment prepared for him, he slept again. A second time the angel came. Touching the exhausted man, he said with pitying tenderness, “Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee.” “And he arose, and did eat and drink”; and in the strength of that food he was able to journey “forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God,” where he found refuge in a cave. PK 166
If, under trying circumstances, men of spiritual power, pressed beyond measure, become discouraged and desponding; if at times they see nothing desirable in life, that they should choose it, this is nothing strange or new. Let all such remember that one of the mightiest of the prophets fled for his life before the rage of an infuriated woman. A fugitive, weary and travel-worn, bitter disappointment crushing his spirits, he asked that he might die. But it was when hope was gone, and his life-work seemed threatened with defeat, that he learned one of the most precious lessons of his life. In the hour of his greatest weakness he learned the need and the possibility of trusting God under circumstances the most forbidding. PK 173
Those who, standing in the forefront of the conflict, are impelled by the Holy Spirit to do a special work, will frequently feel a reaction when the pressure is removed. Despondency may shake the most heroic faith and weaken the most steadfast will. But God understands, and He still pities and loves. He reads the motives and the purposes of the heart. To wait patiently, to trust when everything looks dark, is the lesson that the leaders in God’s work need to learn. Heaven will not fail them in their day of adversity. [174/75] Nothing is apparently more helpless, yet really more invincible, than the soul that feels its nothingness and relies wholly on God. PK 174-75
Question: What is symbolized by the fact that Elijah did not find God in the tumult, but only in “a sound of sheer silence”? He wrapped his face in his mantle and went out to stand in the mouth of the cave On the continuum between arrogance and humility, where was Elijah at this time?
Elijah throws his mantle on Elisha (1 Kings 19:19). The biblical account is very cryptic here. Elijah simple throws his mantle on Elisha and keeps on going. What kind of intellectual, spiritual, and emotional impact would such an experience make on an apprentice prophet?
Ahab repents in sackcloth (1 Kings 21:20-29). After all that Elijah had suffered at the hands of Ahab and Jezebel, the story of Ahab’s repentance is startling. Jezebel had arranged to kill Naboth, the man who refused to give the king his ancestral land. When Ahab went down to look over his newly-acquired vineyard, Elijah was there to meet him. “Have you found me, O my enemy?” exclaimed Ahab (1 Kings 21:20). Elijah proceeds to pronounce a stinging judgment on Ahab and his family. The biblical account adds this assessment of Ahab: “Indeed, there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD, urged on by his wife Jezebel” (1 Kings 21:25).
After all that build-up, suddenly repentance and the voice of grace shines through: “When Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth over his bare flesh; he fasted, lay in the sackcloth, and went about dejectedly” (1 Kings 21:27). Was it all a fake? Not according to Scripture: “Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite: “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster on his house.” (1 Kings 21:29.
Just as Josiah’s repentance let to postponement of punishment (2 Kings 22:19-20), and just as the repentance of the king of Ninevah let to a reprieve – in the vivid words of the KJV: “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” Jonah 3:10) – so in the days of Ahab, the most wicked of Israel’s kings earnestly repented and the Lord recognized the repentance as genuine.
Ellen White’s most famous comment in this respect is worth noting, a comment in the context of the disappointment and continued delay for the Advent believers:
The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the Word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional. – MS 4, 1883, 1SM 73 [Evangelism, 695]
Elisha takes Elijah’s mantle and performs a miracle (2 Kings 2:13-14). The same mantle that marked the beginning of Elisha’s ministry with Elijah now marks the transition to his continuing ministry, a ministry without his master. Elijah picked up the mantle of his departed master. That mantle opened up the Jordan for Elisha, just as it had for Elijah. Elijah’s mantle: Could such an earthy symbol have a similar impact today when a leader passes on the torch to the next generation?
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on March 26th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “How could a sinner like Aaron become high priest?”
Themes: At least three strands of interest can be traced from the story of Aaron’s participation in the Sinai rebellion, followed by his exaltation to the position of high priest:
Exo 32:1-6: Lev 9, 21; Number 6:22-27; 17. Exodus 32 is very critical of Aaron’s part in the Sinai rebellion; yet Aaron survived that disaster and became high priest. What does this story tell us about God’s grace and God’s justice?
Heb 4:14-15. The book of Hebrews celebrates the role of Jesus as our mediator in heaven. Hebrews 8:6 declares that Jesus “has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises” (NRSV). In Numbers 6:22-27, the people are separated from God by several layers: God spoke to Moses, who then spoke to Aaron and his sons, who then spoke to the people. Why did there have to be so many levels between God and humanity? How did the ministry of Jesus change all that so that there is only one mediator?
John 16:25-27. For those whose experience is tuned primarily to the objective (substitutionary) atonement, John 16:25-27 is a startling passage. It declares that the time will come when Jesus will not pray to the Father on our behalf, because we will know that the Father himself loves us. When that picture snaps clear in our minds and hearts, then that sobering statement from the pen of Ellen White that we are to “stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator (GC 425) can be transformed from a threat into a promise. As long as we need a mediator we have one. But in John 16, Jesus promises us a time when we won’t have a mediator because we won’t need one. And that is a promise, not a threat. See chapter 22 from the author’s Beyond Common Ground for a discussion on how Adventists can benefit from both perspectives on the atonement: the objective, where Jesus presents us to the Father; and the subjective, where Jesus presents the Father to us. That chapter is appended at the end of this lesson.
1 Peter 2:9. Both in the epistles and in the Gospels God’s kingdom is presented in egalitarian terms. We have no priesthood that stands between us and God. We are all on level ground at the cross. “A royal priesthood” is the phrase used in 1 Peter 2:9 (NRSV); and in the Gospels, Jesus’ response to the request of James and John to be top people in Jesus’ kingdom received a pointed reply: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their great ones exercise authority over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for may” (Matthew 20:25-28, author’s personal translation). How should this concept shape life in the church today? What would change if we really followed the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament?
Alden Thompson, “A Work in Progress: Cross and Atonement,” Chapter 22 from Beyond Common Ground: Why Liberals and Conservatives Need Each Other (Pacific Press, 2009), 240-245
The Bible says: “When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” 1 Cor 2:1-2.
The Bible says: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 Cor 5:21.
The Bible says: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Rom. 8:1.
The Bible says: “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9.
She says: “God’s people are tempted and tried because they cannot see the spirit of consecration and self-sacrifice to God in all who manage important interests, and many act as though Jesus were buried in Joseph’s new tomb, and a great stone rolled before the door. I wish to proclaim with voice and pen, Jesus has risen! he has risen!” Ellen White, Special Testimonies A, p. 29, August 10, 1890.
They say: “The earliest converts were converted by a single historical fact (the Resurrection) and a single theological doctrine (the Redemption) operating on a sense of sin which they already had – and sin, not against some new fancy-dress law produced as a novelty by a ‘great man,’ but against the old, platitudinous, universal moral law which they had been taught by their nurses and mothers. The ‘Gospels’ come later, and were written, not to make Christians, but to edify Christians already made.” C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (1961), 23.3.
This will be another brief chapter. But it might be the most important one in the book. Because the discussion is “a work in progress,” however, I am intentionally brief.
The chapter is crucial because Adventists differ in their understanding of what the cross means. But we can’t just dump the cross or even avoid it. Without the cross there would be no resurrection; without the cross there could be no crown. If we live in hope, it is only because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
So why did Jesus have to die? The question is crucial but yields two dramatically different, but complementary answers. And those who are gripped by one answer are easily alarmed by those who are gripped by the other. And it works both ways. Most Christians find both answers meaningful and will no doubt be puzzled by the intensity of the debate engendered by those who are intense. But this is another case where we do not choose our battles. So we have to take all sides seriously.
What are the answers? Both declare that Jesus died to save us, but then the difference emerges. One answer points the cross heavenward and sees the death of Jesus as a sacrifice that satisfies the demands of divine justice: sin requires death. This view can be called the “objective” atonement, indicating that Jesus’ death satisfies some kind of “objective” demand apart from the experience of the believer. It can be the demands of the law; it can also be seen as satisfying divine wrath. Thus the words “substitution” and/or “satisfaction” are also linked with this view. Those who hold this view are strongly attracted by Paul’s writings, especially Romans and Galatians.
The other answer points the cross earthward and sees the death of Jesus as a powerful revelation of God and his love for fallen creatures. This view is called the “subjective” atonement because it focuses on human experience. Thus it is part of Jesus’ answer to Philip: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Those who hold this view are strongly attracted by John’s Gospel, especially John 14-17.
But then the battle begins. Those who are gripped by the “objective” atonement are inclined to argue that the other view is weak on the doctrines of sin and salvation. Without a real “sacrifice” pointed heavenward, they argue, the sin problem hasn’t really been solved.
On the other side, those who are gripped by the “subjective” atonement argue that the other view gives the impression that God demands a pound of flesh before he will save humankind. The more extreme rhetoric is likely to call the substitutionary atonement an immature view which should be outgrown.
Outside of Adventism and from Christian history both views bring along unwanted baggage. The subjective view has been called the “moral influence” theory because the cross is sometimes seen as “only” influencing the moral nature of humankind. As sometimes held by the more liberal Protestant churches, the subjective atonement can indeed undervalue the power of sin and the need for salvation.
The objective view also carries baggage. As held by Christians outside of Adventism, the objective atonement can be linked with a narrow view of salvation that excludes those who do not explicitly accept the sacrifice of Jesus. Thus the good heathen, the good Buddhist, the good Muslim cannot be part of God’s kingdom. The strong language, especially among Calvinists, can also be problematic. The phrase “penal substitution,” for example, tends to trigger the “pound-of-flesh” objection noted above. The rhetoric of “satisfying” divine wrath has a similar effect.
In Adventism, two developments that can be documented in the experience and writings of Ellen White are worth noting. First, in her later writings, she stepped back from her earlier emphasis on satisfying the “wrath of an offended deity,” speaking rather of satisfying the “demands of the law.” Second, chapter 70 in The Desire of Ages has bequeathed to Adventism the conviction that the ignorant but honest heathen can be saved. A commentary on the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25, that Desire of Ages chapter speaks persuasively of “heathen…who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish” DA 638 (1898).
Drawing on the previous two chapters in this book, I would like to note a couple of crucial points, affirming, first of all, that the subjective or revelatory view of the cross, the one presented in John 14-17, is thoroughly biblical and is very much appreciated by many Adventists. But my second point is that this perspective is often viewed with alarm or at best treated as a kind of second-class citizen in Adventism. The Johannine or subjective atonement perspective has not been part of the Questions on Doctrine debate. That discussion is mostly between the perfectionist theology of Peter and the substitutionary theology of Paul, to borrow the labels I suggested in chapter 19.
I believe it is time to address the atonement issue honestly and in good faith. My own experience has been immeasurably enriched by my discovery of Jesus as presented in John 14-17. As I have frequently noted, however, I did not “discover” that wonderful news until I was in my second year at seminary. For all kinds of reason, discovering that Jesus was God on earth and continues to be God in the present may always be a late discovery in a Christian’s life. But it is central to Scripture and crucial for Adventist theology.
If the two sides are going to work together, however, we must recognize that not all the Bible writers give the same emphasis. If both sides can recognize the other’s position as being fully Christian and fully Adventist, it would greatly enhance the work of the church. But the demeaning rhetoric will have to stop. It is not appropriate, in my view, to characterize the Johannine perspective as a non-Christian deviation that is destructive of the Gospel. Nor is it appropriate to describe the Pauline perspective view of an immature theology in which God is seen to be demanding a pound of flesh.
But changing our views of the “other side” cannot simply happen by flipping a switch. Our impressions of the “other side” are often deeply rooted and inflamed by inappropriate rhetoric from the “other side.”
I do, however, have two suggestions that I have found helpful personally. If others, on both sides, would be willing to explore them with me, I suspect we could make good progress. I will spell them out rather pointedly.
1. Memorizing Bible passages that the “other side” finds meaningful. Here it is crucial to try and hear Scripture from the other person’s perspective, not simply to underscore our own. That does not happen easily or immediately. In my case I elected to memorize Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 5:14-21. In that connection I should mention that a general “truth” or “rule” about memorization that I had already found applicable elsewhere proved to be true here, too. In brief, because it takes me a long time to memorize a passage of Scripture, about the 97th time through I begin to see truths that I hadn’t seen before and to be blessed by them.
And that has certainly been the case with the “substitutionary” passages in Scripture that I have set out to memorize. My understanding of the cross has been deepened and enriched. I no longer feel that I have to “re-interpret” every passage of Scripture to meet my “favorite” perspective. I can let Paul be Paul, James be James, Peter be Peter. And I think that means that I can also let God be God.
Now, when I go to The Desire of Ages and read the chapter “It Is Finished” (Chapter 78, DA 758-64 [1898]). for example, I can honestly admit that it is almost entirely “substitutionary” in its view of the cross. I am grateful that I don’t have to re-interpret it or avoid it. I am grateful that I can be blessed instead of troubled. My solution won’t work for everyone; indeed, probably no one else will be blessed in just the same way I have been. But by sharing our various perspectives honestly with each other, we can walk together toward the kingdom.
In this connection I note the observation of a colleague, one for whom Paul’s theology is especially precious, a colleague who has helped nurture my appreciation for substitutionary theology. He observed that the trajectory of my experience appeared to be quite different from his. His deepening appreciation for the things of God began with a keen awareness of human sinfulness, his own sinfulness; now he is gaining a deepening appreciation the goodness of God.
By contrast, he observed, my experience seems to have started with a deep appreciation for the goodness of God and I am now gaining a deeper understanding of human sinfulness. I think he is right. Our experiences will never be exactly alike. But it has been an enriching experience for us both as we have joined our minds and hearts together in the search for the good things of God.
2. Recognizing that God did not demand a sacrifice for his benefit, but gave a sacrifice for our benefit. In my case, discovering that Jesus was God in the flesh banished forever the haunting specter of a reluctant deity. If God himself took human flesh and came to earth to save me, he really must want me in his kingdom after all! God wasn’t just letting Jesus sneak me in the side door as some kind of concession. No! My salvation was no concession. God came to earth because he really wanted me in his kingdom.
I decided that one of the mental pictures suggested by certain biblical passages had led me astray. In particular the picture of Jesus pleading his blood to the father had given me the impression that Jesus was my friend, but that the Father still needed to be convinced. Admittedly, protection from a holy deity can be a terrifying necessity. In his early years, for example, Martin Luther was just as frightened of the Son as he was of the Father. For him, the only safe approach to God was through the gentle virgin Mary!
In that connection John 16:26-27 has played a crucial role in my thinking. Not only has that passage enabled me to transform from a threat into a promise that scary Adventist line that we “are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator” (GC 425, 1888, 1911), it has also helped me see that as long as I need a mediator I have one. If the passage is truly a promise, then God is not about the pull the rug out from under us. He cares for our needs.
That same verse may also be helpful in addressing what I consider to be an erroneous impression that it is God who demands a sacrifice. Is it not possible that the “need” for an atoning sacrifice is driven by perceptions engendered by our twisted minds? As I see it, the belief in a “pound-of-flesh God” is the deadly result of sin. As the effects of sin and guilt gnawed away at the human mind, the “gods” became more and more demanding, more and more violent. The end result of that kind of thinking was the conviction that the gods demanded every first-born among humans. God recognized that devastating logic and commanded Israel to provide an animal substitute (Exodus 13:11-16). “Every firstborn male among your children you shall redeem,” says Scripture. That same psychology is reflected in Micah 6:6-8. Moving up the ladder of potential gifts, the prophet ends with, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
The prophet’s response implies that God is demanding no such thing. Indeed, the Good News Bible makes the “no” explicit at the beginning of the climactic verse 8. But the story of Jesus, indeed the death of Jesus, brings to an end, once and for all, any human thought of earning God’s favor through a sacrifice. Jesus really did pay it all.
With such an approach, one could speak of a “psychological” and “governmental” necessity of the death of Christ. Such language would have distinct advantages over the “absolute” necessity implied by more extreme forms of Calvinist theology. Such an approach would also put to an end any thought that God was “demanding a pound of flesh,” but it would recognize that God gave a “pound of flesh,” so to speak, because diseased human minds thought it was the only way to find peace. We do not serve a vindictive or vengeful God. But we do serve a God who is willing to pay whatever price our twisted minds might demand. And that’s what we see on the cross.
So let’s put our heads and hearts together, seek God’s presence and study his Word so that gift of God can be the kind of good news he intends it to be. By God’s grace, whether we find John or Paul more helpful, we can all rejoice when any of God’s children discovers that God has made it possible for them to be in his kingdom. That should be wonderful news for us all.
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on March 26th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “Jacob’s family was a mess: Who’s fault was it?”
Theme: Jacob’s disastrous family: deception, polygamy, favoritism, reconciliation
Key biblical passage: Genesis 24-50
Generations of deception. Joseph’s coat could be seen as a symbol of a troubled family. Were the problems of deception and favoritism passed down genetically? If you were telling the story of Joseph to your children, what lessons would you draw, especially about the coat of many colors? To see the story in its full biblical context, it is helpful to trace the history of the “problems” that haunted Abraham and his descendants. Note the three major problems and how the three major patriarchs were involved in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
Note: In Genesis, the narratives rarely conclude with explicit “morals” in the style of Uncle Arthur’s Bible stories. But the pain is laid out for all to see. In the story of Jacob, for example, there is no explicit condemnation of polygamy, but the disaster of plural marriage is quite clear. In Genesis 30:8, for example, Rachel exclaims when her handmaid Bilhah gave birth to a son: “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed”’ so she named him Naphtali” (NRSV). In short, she named him “Victory over my sister”!
For all the problems between Joseph and his brothers, the conclusion is a beautiful one: Reconciliation, but with a ragged edge. In Genesis 50:15-21, after the death of Jacob, the story is told of how the brothers came to Joseph with a special appeal. They feared he still might be holding a grudge. Joseph encourages them with reminders of how Providence had worked: “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today” (Gen 50:20, NRSV).
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on March 26th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, when did they realize their sin? Immediately? After conversations with God? After they were expelled from Eden?
Theme: Garments of light, of leaves, of skins: the fate of Adam and Eve
Key biblical passage: Genesis 1-3
The succession of garments worn by our first parents illustrate the tragic effect of sin. Initially they were naked and were not ashamed (Gen 2:25); after sin they became afraid (Gen 3:10). Perhaps the most painful blow came when God killed some of his creatures to make them garments of skin for them (Gen 3:21), replacing the fragile fig leaves which they had made for themselves (Gen 3:7).
By Abraham’s time, it seemed natural for God to demand the death of the first born. In Genesis 22, Abraham does not object to God’s command to sacrifice Isaac. But God used the occasion to show that he himself provides the sacrifice, a truth that comes clearest in Jesus’ death on the cross. The Good News Bible version of Micah 6:6-8 hints at the psychology of sin, a psychology that is put to an end once and for all by the death of Jesus on the cross:
What shall I bring to the LORD, the God of heaven, when I come to worship him? Shall I bring the best calves to burn as offerings to him? (7) Will the LORD be pleased if I bring him thousands of sheep or endless streams of olive oil? Shall I offer him my first-born child to pay for my sins? (8) No, the LORD has told us what is good. What he requires of us is this: to do what is just, to show constant love, and to live in humble fellowship with our God. – Micah 6:6-8, GNB
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on March 26th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “Does the Bible tell us why Lucifer, the highest of created beings, fell from his exalted position?”
Theme: Vulnerability of created beings, illustrated in the fall of Lucifer
Key biblical passages: Isa 14:12-14; Eze 28:12-19; Deu 8:1-18
Just why and how sin could originate in a perfect being will always be a puzzle. But the nature of that first sin is indeed something we can explore. Two Old Testament passages have been interpreted by Christians as highlighting the sin of Lucifer: Isaiah 14:12-14 and Eze 28:12-19. Interestingly enough, in their original context, these passages describe the flaws of earthly monarchs: the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 and the prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. Can we read these passages in such a way as to illumine human sinfulness, not just the sinfulness of supernatural beings? Traditionally, Christians have said that pride was the essence of the original sin. Do the passages in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 confirm that conclusion? Can humans be as deadly with our sins of pride as Lucifer was with his?
One doesn’t even want to be cured of one’s pride because it gives pleasure. But the pleasure of pride is like the pleasure of scratching. If there is an itch, one does want to scratch; but it is much nicer to have neither the itch nor the scratch. As long as we have the itch of self-regard we shall want the pleasure of self-approval; but the happiest moments are those when we forget our precious selves and have neither but have everything else (God, our fellow humans, animals, the garden and the sky) instead…. – C. S. Lewis, Letter to a lady, 18 February 1954′ in Letters, 256
When believers know that they are chosen or saved, how can such knowledge be shared without arrogance or pride? When we have been blessed by the Lord, how is the caution of Deuteronomy 8 still applicable in our modern world? Israel was warned that wealth could make them forget that it was God who had given them their wealth. What steps can believers take to help us remember the one who has given us gifts and talents? Is it also possible to be arrogant in our humility?
The alert student of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 may question whether or not these passages originally applied to Satan since they are described as applying to the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4) and to the prince (Ezekiel 28:2) or king (Ezeliel 28:12) of Tyre. In a sense, for our understanding of the “spiritual” application of these two passages, their “history” is irrelevant since pride looms large whether it is describing human or demonic evil. Still, the question is a legitimate one: Do these passages really describe the fall of Satan? It is worth noting that there is no record of their being applied to Satan until some 200 years into the Christian era. In other words, the Old Testament does not explicitly make that application.
In a strange sort of way, however, their original connection with Satan may have been obscured in their Old Testament context because of the way the Old Testament deals with Satan as a supernatural being opposed to God. To summarize an otherwise longer story, the author of this study guide (Alden Thompson) is convinced that God assumed full responsibility for evil in the Old Testament in order to prevent Israel from worshiping Satan as an evil deity. In polytheistic cultures, the evil deities loomed large in the thinking of the people because they were the gods that could hurt you. Hence magic and incantation were seen as a means of placating these evil deities. Several passages in the Old Testament hint at the ban against magic and incantation. Leviticus 19:31 prohibits mediums or wizards. King Saul apparently tried to be faithful to that command, for the witch of Endor, before she knew she was talking with Saul, refers to the king’s efforts to eliminate all mediums (1 Sam 28:9).
A careful reading of the second command indicates that God prohibited Israel from worshiping others gods, but did not deny their existence. Elsewhere, the OT reveals that God had actually assigned the other gods to the other nations. In Deuteronomy 32:8, for example, reflecting a reading from a Dead Sea Scroll manuscript, the NRSV declares that God “fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods.” The Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, actually reads “according to the angels of God.” The story of Naaman in 2 Kings 5 reflects the same understanding. After he was healed by Israel’s God, Naaman declared, “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel,” and he asked for two mule-loads of earth to take with him back to Syria for he intended to offer burnt offerings and sacrifice only to Yahweh, Israel’s God (2 Kings 5:15-17).
Given the needs of the people of Israel, it is possible that the original application of these stories to the fall of a supernatural opponent of Yahweh, may have been preserved in pagan cultures. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are a first step toward recovering that history. Then, in the Christian era, after the role of Satan was fully established, the application of these passages to Satan could be more confidently made by Christian authors.
Chapter 3 of Alden Thompson’s Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? (“Whatever happened to Satan in the Old Testament?”), includes a brief comment on the probable history of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 18, the two passages that highlight “pride” as the essence of sin. That section is excerpted here (pp. 42-44 in the 2003 Pacesetters edition):
Before moving on to further implications of the disappearance of Satan from the Old Testament, I would like to comment just briefly on those passages in the Old Testament which do not explicitly mention Satan but which have been interpreted within the Christian community as applying to Satan: Genesis 3; Isaiah 14:12-15; and Ezekiel 28:11-19.
In Genesis 3, an unbiased reader will strongly suspect the animosity which exists between the serpent and God, pointing in the direction of a full-fledged Adversary relationship. But the serpent figure is, in fact, an ambiguous one in the Old Testament. The serpent attack recorded in Numbers 21 is successfully warded off by Moses’ raising a brass serpent, the later symbol of the opponent of God! There is even evidence to suggest that the people began to worship this serpent; thus it had to be destroyed (2 Kings 18:4).
The first clear identification of the serpent as Satan in Judeo-Christian writings does not come until Revelation 12:9. There is no doubt; the Dragon, the Serpent, the Devil, and Satan are all one and the same. Considering the strong role that the serpent plays in Christian interpretation, it is perhaps surprising that his identity is never really clarified in the Old Testament. An explanation might lie in the fact that in Egypt, the serpent is both a symbol of a good deity and of an evil one. The biblical writers thus could not really develop the serpent motif without raising the spectre of dualism or something worse.
Turning to Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19, we find two passages which share several similar characteristics. Both passages have been applied to the ‘prehistory’ of Satan and both appear in prophetic oracles or “taunt songs” against heathen kings. Isaiah 14 is directed against the king of Babylon; Ezekiel 28 is directed against the prince or king of Tyre. Modern scholarship has been very much intrigued with the parallels between these passages and similar passages in the literature of other Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Two general conclusions can be drawn from the research done on these passages. First, that the parallels in pagan cultures are striking indeed; second, that the prophets themselves are speaking of the historical enemies of Israel, not of the supernatural realm. The supernatural appears only by way of analogy. In other words, most modern scholars would say that these prophetic oracles would not have been understood by an Old Testament audience as describing Satan. That conclusion seems to be verified by the fact that the first clear application of the Lucifer passage, Isaiah 14:12-15, to Satan, was not made until the time of Tertullian, a church father who died in AD 240.
The history of the interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 is less clear, for the passage has been applied not only to a supernatural being, but to the first man as well (cf. RSV), a problem of interpretation which stems from ambiguity in the original text. In any event, the application to Satan was apparently not made until several centuries into the Christian era.
The question naturally arises: is it legitimate to apply these passages to Satan when such was apparently not the intent of the original author? That is a difficult question to answer, for within the Christian tradition, an interpretation has often been drawn from a biblical passage which was clearly not the one intended by the original writer. A second meaning may have been implied but that is quite a different matter from saying that such a meaning was the one intended by the original writer. Nevertheless, as long as we do not use a second application to obscure our study and understanding of the author’ s original intent, such second meanings can be useful. Certainly if we choose to stand within traditional Christianity we must be willing to admit that such secondary meanings have been very popular within the Christian community, and to a certain extent, we must be resigned to such an approach even if we aren’t very happy with it. But the problem has been that such traditional interpretations have often obscured or even replaced the original meaning. I actually suspect that the vehemence with which traditional Christian positions are sometimes attacked is a direct result of Christian reluctance to admit the first meaning of the text. Thus, one of my concerns as I write this book, is to show that it is possible to stand within a conservative Christian tradition and still be able to read the Old Testament for the purpose of discovering its most likely original meaning.
But after admitting that the original intent of Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 was probably not to outline the pre-history of Satan, I still suspect that Satan is lurking somewhere in those passages. Connected with that suspicion is the probability that the prophets have apparently borrowed from cultures other than their own. We must make it clear, however, that prophets are free to “borrow” whatever they choose and from wherever they might wish. It is the final product that is the result of the divine inspiration, not the bits and pieces. Yet even if that is the case, what right do we have to suspect that pagan religions had bits and pieces of a sort that could be used? That is where I think we ought to take the events of Genesis 3-11 more seriously. Whatever mankind may have originally known about the cosmic struggle would have certainly made its way into pagan cultures and would have come in a distorted fashion to that line of patriarchs which retained the slender thread of the knowledge of the true God. Suddenly, here in prophetic literature, bits and pieces of that cosmic struggle begin to appear, but in a way which does not threaten God’s first concern, the development of faith in him as the one true God. Certainly Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 do define the issues of the cosmic struggle, namely, that selfishness and pride are the supreme distortion of the will of God and lead inevitably towards full opposition to God himself. The personality of the Adversary, however, is certainly well hidden behind the mask of his quite human proteges. Perhaps, then, the primary criticism of the Christian usage of these passages stems from the impression that has often been given, that these passages must have clearly outlined to the Old Testament audience the knowledge of God’s Adversary. Within the context of the approach of this book, I would say that such a knowledge was still too hot for the Old Testament to handle; it had to come later.
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on March 26th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Leading Question: “The garment of Christ’s righteousness: How much does it cost?”
Theme: Issues in sanctification and righteousness by faith
Key Biblical Passages: Isa 64, Rom 4:1-7; Rom 3:21-31; Rom 6:1-13; Phil 3:3-16
When believers discuss questions of salvation, a recurring and on-going issue involves the problem of “righteousness”: ours or His? This week’s lesson explores that question.
Isaiah 64:6 declares that “all our righteous deeds are a filthy cloth” (NRSV). Does that match the feelings and perception of those who seek to be faithful to God? How does one balance the tension between a sense of our unworthiness and our sense of acceptance? Two well-known passages from Ellen White highlight that tension:
The closer you come to Jesus, the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes; for your vision will be clearer, and your imperfections will be seen in broad and distinct contrast to His perfect nature. This is evidence that Satan’s delusions have lost their [64/65] power; that the vivifying influence of the Spirit of God is arousing you. {SC 64.2}
No deep-seated love for Jesus can dwell in the heart that does not realize its own sinfulness. The soul that is transformed by the grace of Christ will admire His divine character; but if we do not see our own moral deformity, it is unmistakable evidence that we have not had a view of the beauty and excellence of Christ. {SC 65.1}
The less we see to esteem in ourselves, the more we shall see to esteem in the infinite purity and loveliness of our Saviour. A view of our sinfulness drives us to Him who can pardon; and when the soul, realizing its helplessness, reaches out after Christ, He will reveal Himself in power. The more our sense of need drives us to Him and to the word of God, the more exalted views we shall have of His character, and the more fully we shall reflect His image. {SC 65.2}
Perfectly reproducing the character of Christ – When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69.1}
Romans 4:7 declares: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” Does the conviction that we have been forgiven allow us to retain a keen sense of our unworthiness while also enjoying the sense of acceptance by God?
Every association of life calls for the exercise of self-control, forbearance, and sympathy. We differ so widely in disposition, habits, education, that our ways of looking at things vary. We judge differently. Our understanding of truth, our ideas in regard to the conduct of life, are not in all respects the same. There are no two whose experience is alike in every particular. The trials of one are not the trials of another. The duties that one finds light are to another most difficult and perplexing. – MH 483
Both in Philippians 3:3-16 and in 2 Corinthians 11:16-30 Paul slips into a rather spunky narrative of all the trials he had endured and overcome. How can we share with each other both our failures and our victories in ways that are helpful and inspiring rather than in ways that lead to discouragement or envy? Is it possible to avoid an arrogant humility?
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on January 29th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Memory Text: John 15:4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
The lesson lists the following components to spiritual development and mental health: prayer and Bible study, worship, the practice of forgiveness, service to others, hope and trust in God.
Jesus prayed after stressful days.
Worship and church community
Service
Hope and Trust in God
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on January 29th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Memory Text: Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they put forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
What images come when you think of a perfect world that during creation week God pronounced as “very good?”
Many ancient and traditional religions connect their understanding of the supernatural to the natural world.
Country living.
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on January 29th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Memory Text: John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Alcohol
Sex
Gambling
Love of Money
Personal Image
Treatment
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on January 29th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Memory Text: Proverbs 27:4 Anger is cruel and fury overwhelming, but who can stand before jealousy?
Jealousy was the root of Satan’s sin; is it also the root of all other sins?
Are there lessons in the Biblical examples of jealousy that particularly interest you?
What contemporary examples of jealousy do you see?
Is jealousy ever justified? (lesson question: “Can jealousy ever be good, ever be a motive for improving oneself?”)
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on January 29th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Memory Text: 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
How do you distinguish healthy self-esteem from arrogance?
How does prejudice affect self-esteem?
How can we enhance the self-esteem of others?
Posted in Calendar, Sabbath School ~ Adults, Study on January 29th, 2011
(from Good Word Online):?
Memory Text: Psalm 46:1-3: [1] God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. [2] Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, [3] though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.
Examples of those who endured trial and tragedy but maintained hope.
Several Bible texts suggest that bad experiences produce good results. (E.g. Romans 5:3 tribulation produces patience, 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 God comforts us in our trials so we can comfort others, 2 Corinthians 1:8-9 Paul reinterprets challenges as way to learn to trust in God, 2 Timothy 1:11-12 Paul not ashamed to suffer since he knows in whom he believes)
Being content with our circumstances (Philippians 4:11-12)
Questions about stress and our how to cope with it.