Monday: The Event of the Flood
The verb ‘asah, “make,” which refers to Noah’s actions, is also a keyword in the Genesis Creation account (Genesis 1:7, Genesis 1:16, Genesis 1:25-26, Genesis 1:31; Genesis 2:2). Noah’s acts of obedience to God are like God’s acts of creation. What we can take from this link is that the Flood is not just about God punishing humanity, but about God saving us, as well.
Read Genesis 7:1-24. Why does the description of the Flood remind us of the Creation account? What lessons can we learn from the parallels between the two events?
Image © Review & Herald Publishing at Goodsalt.com
An attentive reading of the text covering the Flood reveals the use of many common words and expressions with the Creation story: “seven” (Genesis 7:2-3, , Genesis 7:4, Genesis 7:10; compare with Genesis 2:1-3); “male and female” (Genesis 7:2-3, , Genesis 7:9, Genesis 7:16; compare with Genesis 1:27); “after its kind” (Genesis 7:14, NKJV; compare with Genesis 1:11-12, , Genesis 1:21, Genesis 1:24-25); “beasts,” “birds,” “creeping things” (see Genesis 7:8, Genesis 7:14, Genesis 7:21, Genesis 7:23; compare with Genesis 1:24-25); and “breath of life” (Genesis 7:15, Genesis 7:22; compare with Genesis 2:7).
The Flood story reads, then, somewhat like the Creation story. These echoes of the Creation accounts help reveal that the God who creates is the same as the God who destroys (Deuteronomy 32:39). But these echoes also convey a message of hope: the Flood is designed to be a new creation, out of the waters, which leads to a new existence.
The movement of waters shows that this event of creation is, in fact, reversing the act of Creation in Genesis Chapter 1. In contrast to Genesis Chapter 1, which describes a separation of the waters above from the waters below (Genesis 1:7), the Flood involves their reunification as they explode beyond their borders (Genesis 7:11).
This process conveys a paradoxical message: God has to destroy what is before in order to allow for a new creation afterward. The creation of the new earth requires the destruction of the old one. The event of the Flood prefigures the future salvation of the world at the end of time: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (Revelation 21:1, NKJV; compare with Isaiah 65:17).
| What in us needs to be destroyed in order to be created anew? (See Romans 6:1-6.) |
(25)
Because I have a PhD in computer science, many of my friends and family members think that I can solve issues they have with their personal computers. "My computer has locked up and won't do anything!" is a very common expression within my hearing range.
My usual response is, "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" And if I had charged a dollar for every time that worked, I would be a very rich man.
Restart solves a lot of computer problems. (By the way, I know the technical reasons why that problem occurs and why the solution works, but I will keep that as a trade secret. It helps me feel popular!)
How many of us have done a restart on life's problems as well? How many of us have done a mid-life career change, or moved countries? I was midway through my PhD when circumstances forced a restart - I had to change Universities.
Humanity apparently was on a headlong path to its own destruction when God stepped in with a restart. But, he had a plan that involved using the best of the material at hand. I understand that sort of restart. When I had to change universities to continue my PhD studies, the fundamentals of what I had learned went with me. Likewise, God used Noah for his restart.
I mentioned earlier this week that the theme of renewal runs like a silver thread through the Bible story. The Flood is an example of the renewal process. God could have chosen to replace his creation but he decided instead to renew it.
Amen, may the God restart his creation in our soul a's well
How felt filled with good substance from you, Maurice. Really it's more advantage to be in circle of elders, you can pick good lessons, enlightened issues, broader views as it relates from our lessons. Though am younger, but like to be surrounded of elder that makes me comfortable of their ideas since they're in advance. Looks at Noah's view, God use him at it's best, because he knows God.
Hello Everyone:
Hello, Maurice for such an enlightening post. I always find them interesting and very educational. As for me-whenever, I have questions or had questions brought to me concerning Scripture texts, I always refer back to the O.T.
Why may those ask, because that were the references that were spoken of and the NT had not yet been written. I have studied in Synagogue; it helped me to understand the origin of many of the meanings of the words spoken of by the prophets.
Jesus spoke of this during his earthly ministry. For example, I believe fully that the SDA Church has been speaking Scriptural truth, I also have come to believe they do indeed, have the spirit of prophecy.
The Three Angels Message, of which is spoken will be the greatest event in human history, since HIS first coming.
It will be the culmination of our Lord's Triumph and our spiritual transformation to HIS kingdom.
As for my studies-it is well recorded the ancient Hebrew Scribes were very diligent in keeping the ancient texts without written error.
If there was an error made during the writings, a special event would take place, as G-Ds words were put to paper and were reverent in all ways-how to correct a written error on parchment was a quandary at the time. Not taken lightly.
This brings me to the studies I had concerning The Flood. Many "secular historians" believe the flood was simply a narrative, something Jewish Mothers told their children prior to bedtime.
However this is not the case, nor was this taught in Ancient Synagogue. The Flood was indeed very real, and as destructive as was described in Scripture.
Secular Historians compare The Flood in Scripture to the story of Gilgamesh, however, are they so similar?
"Despite the parallels between the “Epic of Gilgamesh” and the Torah story of Noah, they are strikingly different. In the Babylonian story, the gods arbitrarily decide to destroy the earth as if it were a plaything. Furthermore, the gods choose to save Utnapishtim only because he is a “favorite” of theirs, not because he is worthy of being saved.
In Parshat Noah, however, there is a moral imperative. The world is flooded not because God arbitrarily decides to destroy the world, but because it had become corrupt and destructive. Noah is not arbitrarily saved. He is deserving. He is a “righteous man, perfect in his generation. With God, Noah walked”
"The story of the flood is not at all a myth. It is a narrative replete with endless fascinating insights, as is the entire Torah. All we need do is study and review it, and in it, we shall find the secrets of all human life and human relations."
The above descriptions-brought forth from The Orthodox Union-describes in complete detail, the truth, and accuracy of The Flood. There is a moral lesson there to learn from.
Can you imagine Noah's excitement-yet his hesitancy to depart from the ark? As he looks upon dry land-he must realize the entire earth is now void of human life except for his family?
What does Noah do upon his ark departure? He plants something-something which he wants to bring forth life. However-what happened after the fruit of the plantings grew?
Noah becomes drunk with the flavor of wine, was Noah distraught and needed an escape-was he feeling survivor guilt-was he indeed mixed with both blessing and the loneliness of guilt?
As we read further into the narrative-we learn though that though Noah "walked with God" he was indeed human in all ways.
Noah made mistakes, felt lonely, felt betrayed, he felt sad,and potentially depressed, though he "walked with God".
Does this realization in its own form, edify us though we may "be walking and looking to God" know we are simply human, prone to mistakes, and can feel the hope that Our Saviour Jesus Christ loves us and better yet...knows us?
Many Blessings:
John Mack
Thanks so much, John, for your very thought-provoking comment!
Water is something used quite a bit in the Bible in order to make things clean! At Creation, the Earth was a 'water planet', water means life for plants, Naaman was made clean in the water, Jesus was baptized with water, and so on... The Flood was the way the Creator used to recreate things on Earth! We start a new life after our baptism by water... That is, water means life, and Jesus is the water of life that never makes us thirsty! Water can renew us all, taking away what is not good, and leaving space for new things to grow! Our bodies are basically 70% of water, just as the planet's surface! Let's surrender to God's renewal by being baptized with the water of the Holy Spirit every day!
Baptized every day? The Apostle Paul compares our baptism in Jesus and God's Holy Spirit to the Old Testament "Circumcision" and also said that Jesus' circumcision when His parents had Him circumcised on the eighth day, as applying to us when we get baptized with water in Jesus' Name. But I have trouble accepting to be "Baptized every day" since even in the OT times with circumcision, no one ever got circumcised again after the first time and only men were circumcised too. I can accept being "renewed by the Holy Spirit daily" but not "Baptized Daily."
Pete, it's a hyperbolic . Does not mean you have to be baptized daily, but to live daily it seems you're new baptized in each day. When you're a newly baptized, your eagerness, holiness are so high to walk with the Lord. Your old bad habit are all in trash , how happy it was when you accepts Jesus in the day of your baptism. Live everyday, it seems you're newly baptized can make you feel clean,comfort, and care for others too. That the light of the Lord shines into your life that others see you.
What in us needs to be destroyed in order to be created anew?
Definetely, sin! And since we were born in it, we must die too... but how can this be possible, to die and not to vanish? We must die for self and live through and for Christ. After our public baptism by water, the work of the Holy Spirit in us must continue, and we are suppose to surrender to Him, thus the old man inside of us may die and the new one in Christ may live! This can only happen by a daily relationship with the Father, through His Son!
Do I believe the LORD in Rev 21:4,8 when He promises that there will be no evil - ra - when the New Jerusalem comes down to the new earth?
Yes, I do because He has shown me through the flood that He will destroy them all. But the good news is that He will save those who acknowledge Him as the supreme authority in their lives and allow Him to transform them into His likeness.
I have also discovered that although the LORD has embedded the laws of nature into the fauna and flora He has given humans the choice to accept or reject His moral laws - His Principles of Eternal Life. The consequences are not automatic, He has set a date when He will judge mankind, when He will evaluate each one based on the evidence of their hearts and He will either grant them eternal life or they will cease to exist.
The flood also demonstrates that sometimes for the good of others the LORD destroys groups or individuals in advance of His set judgment date.
Some try and explain away the events in the Word of the LORD that show the LORD destroys but I believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. If the LORD allowed those passages to stay in His Word He wants me to believe them.
Ever wonder when God created water? Genesis seems to start with water already here.
God seems to have created water before the Genesis story regarding this planet begins. But others see God creating the whole planet, including the water on Day 1. I don't see it as an issue either way.
Yes. My thought is that the water was placed as a place holder (God thinking ahead; the shaking of hands of He and his son regarding the plan to create man, etc.) I have often wondered how long it was there just waiting as it were. '...the face of the deep...' is a very intriguing, poetical phrase and why it is included in the account of this part of His creation record.
It was interesting reading the account of the Flood - Gen.8:1-22. I noticed that it only rained 40 days and nights, the receding of the flood took the remaining time. Water started to recede when a strong wind came up 150 days after it had stopped raining. It took another 2 month for the top of the mountains to be exposed. 40 days after that Noah sent out the dove, but it came back. After one additional week, he sent it out again and it did not return.
On Noah’s birthday – 1st month and 1st day, the “face of the ground” was dry, but only on the 2nd month on the 27th day, the ground was firm enough and God commended Noah to leave the Arc.
For 1 year and 10 days God managed the survival of the Arc, Noah, his family and all that were with them. I think this to be an incredibly important aspect of the flood story to recognize; Noah's faith remained strong throughout this ordeal.
If the inhabitants of the earth were corrupt beyond salvation then, how does that corruption compare with the corruption of today? I do not think God ever considered to leave the earth void of life.
The corruption of life of its inhabitants had had to be so severe, that it required a drastic 'reset'. The old world must have contained a type of distortion of Life which could not be dealt with any other way.
Though Noah and his family members were 'sinners' based on their original parents, Noah's faith - one person's faith - was sufficient to prompt God to give it another go with humans.
Considering the number of years the new earth has been the home for humanity and the state it is in now, the last reset will come as surely as the first one. No one knows the time, not even the angels, only the Father!
A reset in the embodiment of mankind leads to reconciliation with God. In the beginning the lust of the eyes/flesh and the pride of life led to man’s sure demise, so conversely subjecting the flesh and submitting to the will of God will lead to restoration……Ephesians 2 v 1
I have a question for any of the bible students out there willing to share their insight.
Genesis 6:11-13 states:
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Question 1 - Did the plan of salvation from the beginning always include a flood? This verse makes it sound as if God was tired of all of the evil on earth and decided to do something about it. Is this a timing thing from God, was it always the plan, or did God decide to execute this when since was too much. When did the plan of the flood come into play.
Genesis 7:21-23 states:
Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Question 2: Why the flood? If all evil was wiped out from the earth, yet evil and sin is still here. I understand that the flood was not :Plan A" and that Jesus coming to die of our sins is not "Plan B" (because "Plan A" did not wipe out evil and sin). So my question is, "why the flood?"
Question 3: A church friend of mine explained that the flood had to occur to clear a path for the lineage of Christ to continue. That evil was so great, which would have interfered with the lineage. Is this a possibility?
Question 4: I was also thinking that the Story of Noah is a demonstration of "grace". It this true? And finally.
Question 5: Is the flood representative of an attack of evil in man and the destruction by fire will be an attack on the devil directly. Was the flood also an attack on the devil.
Thank you for your patience and I'm sorry for so many questions. These thought came to mind and I look forward to answers and correction where I'm straying. Thank you.
Your first question:
I believe that God sees the end from the beginning perfectly. He did not ordain that sin should exist, but He made plans to meet the terrible emergency - and that included the necessity of "starting over" when the "thoughts of men were evil continually."
I know a lot of people have trouble with God's foreknowledge, thinking it takes away freedom of choice. But there's a great deal of difference between fore*seeing* something and fore*ordaining* something. Freedom of choice is of utmost value to God because there can be no love without this freedom. And if this were not so important to God, then He need not have become incarnate to live and die on this planet.
What do *you* think?
You also ask
It is a thoughtful question, and I wish others had responded. I don't like to speculate beyond what God has revealed. It seems evident to me that if God had not intervened, the children of Cain would have wiped out the descendants of Seth through whom the Messiah was to come. I like the way one Sabbath School teacher characterized the Flood and other events in which God intervened in a drastic way. He called it necessary surgery to ensure that the patient would survive - as in cutting off a gangrenous leg, for instance.
As I read my bible, I see that the lifespan of humans was drastically shortened after the Flood. That would have served to put the brakes on the increase of wickedness in any who were disposed to rebel against God. Life was harder after the Flood, and hard work tends to guard against the sins that accompany idleness.
Your thoughts?
It seems to me that I already suggested that in reply to your second question. So, yes, I think that was probably a factor. What about you?
Since you were already thinking, I'm eager to read about your thinking on this. 😊
Hi, Nelson. In a way this was a prophecy, yet a type (with its anti-type to follow later) and yet again at the same time a revealing (a Sabbath School) of what will happen if men of sin are left out of confinement on their own recognizance.
Full Lucifer Story: though Lucifer’s rebellion and his attempt to kill/replace God in Heaven, demanded his life, God in wisdom delayed justice out of carefulness of the 99 who knew Lucifer. When this justice was delayed, the death of the Son of God resulted. Lucifer’s Full Story can be summed: when the evil in Lucifer was left to live (procreate, sort of), death of Lucifer and the death of others result.
Full Cain Story: Cain killed Abel. God chose to adjudicate the case, even though the law of the land (Adam’s jurisdiction) could have sufficiently handled a single murder case; the words of Cain summed up this pretty sure conviction and sentencing: ‘they will kill me’. As far as we know there were no cities of refuge at that time. But God wanted the 99 in heaven, and the righteous and unrighteous on earth as well to see close at hand, in their life time, that when the full story of justice delayed plays out, that the death of the one and many others would result. Mankind did not live through the killing and replacal of God in heaven, though that was history told. This one man’s justice delayed, however, grew to eventually become an ‘active shooter’ in every neighborhood for perhaps a thousand years.
Instead of a plan of salvation, maybe the term ‘A Sabbath School Lesson: The Way Of Cain’ would be a good title for this genesis episode.
I absolutely agree with the lesson's suggestion today that the that the movements of the waters in the flood event is a functional reversal of God's act at creation to install a separation between the waters above and below the earth. However, I question the assumptions that give rise to the lesson's subsequent suggestion that it is God that has to "... destroy what is before in order to allow for a new creation afterward".
Does God have to destroy? Or is God the very One who has been working to restrain against the destruction that is the inherent outcome of sin/lawlessness*? Therefore, does God need to cause the destruction or merely to release that restraint in response to people's choice to embrace the way of lawlessness? Is it God that causes destruction or lawlessness?
If I consider the Creation account, I find that God 'instituted/installed' something between the waters 'above' and 'below' the earth to create both a space between and a boundary for the waters (consistent with what God similarly describes in Job 38:8-11). The basis of this 'something' that God installed is the "constants" (reliable cause-and-effect dynamics) that God has woven into the fabric of nature that functionally creates and maintains the necessary 'order' that keeps things from being in the alternate state of 'chaos'*.
Is this state of 'order' the default reality under any circumstance? Is it the default state even under lawlessness? Given that the overwhelming majority of the earth's inhabitants had chosen lawlessness over lawfulness (as per Genesis 6:5 and consistent with Jesus later explanation in John 3:19), why was their ecosystem not also exhibiting lawlessness? Was it because there is there is no relationship between humans choices and what happens in wider reality of the ecosystem? Or was it because God mercifully was providing temporary restraint of what should be happeneing? Did Adam and Eve not die in the day they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because God was in error - or because God stepped in and 'initiated' a temporary restraint for a particular purpose? So, if God is working to restrain (as a gift of grace) the lawlessness that should have been expressed in the ecosystem from Genesis 3:6 onwards, all God has to do is cease to maintain that restraint and the reality of the rightful state for those who embrace lawlessness (Genesis 6:5) will take over - unleashing ecological chaos as per the description of Genesis 7:11. Then in Genesis 8:2, the former restraint initiated at Creation was reinstated once again.
I invite you to consider this for yourself...
---------
* Sin is functionally described/defined by John as lawlessness (1 John 3:4 'anomia') which means to be apart from law. Consistent with Romans 8:2, this anomia/lawlessness always results in absence of order and therefore presence of chaos. Because chaos displaces the order that is essential for life, chaos can only produce death and destruction. Hence, it is an inherent and therefore consistent 'law' that sin produces death - "the law of sin and death".
** Please note I am not saying this phenomenon is independent of God - but neither is it God working things by magic. God uses 'mechanisms' through which He ongoingly 'governs' reality (Hebrews 1:3).
Phil, it seems to me that sin is is a heart matter - a result of choice by moral beings made in the image of God - a description that does not fit animals or plants or minerals. Sin is a choice to defy the Creator's Law of love.
I do believe that when God stops exercising His power to uphold His creation, it ceases to exist. (You say that "chaos" results when He stops "restraining lawlessness." That makes lawlessness appear as a power/entity in control of matter and opposing God, rather than an absence of love, which the Law of God defines.)
However you want to word it, if God stopped "restraining" the lawlessness of nature, it seems to me that He chose when and how this destructive flood would eliminate all air-breathing creatures on this planet.
If the great flood were a "natural" event happening directly as the result of sin, would not all sinners have died long before the Flood?
Could you explain why you believe it to be more in harmony with the character of God to allow destruction of sinners to happen by "releasing" restraint on natural events than for Him destroy sin and sinners so that there would be some chance for His law of love to prevail? (Keep in mind that the antediluvians rebelled against God while the gates of Eden were still visible on this planet. Thus they actively chose separation from their Creator which would naturally result in death.)
It comes down to whether or not we believe that it is good to eliminate/destroy evil.
(I note that the Bible refers to God's destructive action as "his strange work" and His "strange act." (Isa 28:21) I believe it is because God would rather create than destroy, but destruction is nevertheless characterized as "His work," even if it is "strange.")
Thanks Inge
"If the great flood were a "natural" event happening directly as the result of sin, would not all sinners have died long before the Flood?"
This is where, I propose, that the issue of God's restraint of inherent cause-and-effect events - if this is what you mean by "natural" - results in a risk of misperception of what is actually going on. Just because God restrains a inherent event does not then make it a non-inherent event. It only delays the timing of the manifestation of the inherent event.
Regarding Isaiah 28:21, I find that God's strange work is releasing people to their chosen (self-)destruction as per Hosea 11:8-9 and Matthew 23:37.
I believe that I the overall paradigm/s I am proposing are not inconsistent with the Ellen White quotes I have provided in relation to Shirley's comment below. I only provide these quotes to as evidence that these are not merely my constructs.
But each person must study, reflect and decide for themselves what they believe and the basis for such (Acts 17:11; Romans 14:5b). I am not telling anyone what they should believe.
Really interesting question and discussion.
Regarding the question/answers on the purpose of the flood, I'm not sure the Bible is sufficiently clear on the reasons. The stories (example, Cain/Abel, Noah) following first couple expulsion from the garden is not a full accounting of all major events as they only cover a single major event in each of those persons lives. No mention is made of life and offsprings of all the other sons and daughters of Adam/Eve.
Some readers use this lens to see good/evil only through the life and offsprings of Cain and Abel/Seth, though there were others, and good/evil is not confine to a family gene. This belief leads some to conclude there were only two family lines on the earth: Cain/Seth: Cain the father of evil; and Seth the father of good people. I heard this thought a lot, but I have never seen it in scripture.
It was said earlier that sin is a moral act that animals can't sin.
If the flood's purpose was to destroy sinful man, why did God choose to destroy "innocent" large/small land animals, birds with sinful man (Gen 6:7)?
Like so many other bible stories, we should be aware of edges of the information the author provided to avoid falling off the cliff-of-deduction and generalization.
Let's be content to praise God with the information provided, without going beyond it.
I'm so glad you made these comments, Phil. This is a discussion that I believe is very important, even the main issue in the great controversy; The character of God. If I read your comments correctly, you are saying that God is NOT responsible for causing the flood, am I right? I am of the belief that God did not cause the flood, since He was preventing it from coming with the hopes that the people would repent. However, after His longsuffering and grace was rejected, He no longer could provide the protection that He was giving them from the beginning. It would have been unloving of God to continue to be a fortress for those who reject Him as a fortress.
It is God who upholds all things, but if we reject Him, we reject ALL of Him and His "benefits". God cannot be both a Restorer and Destroyer. He is not both Good and evil. Those who hate Him, love death. The flood is the result of sin, because sin affects more than people, it affects the earth itself. When Adam and Eve sinned, thorns and thistles came. God did not create thorns and thistles, sin corrupted the planet and this is a result of it. Imagine a whole world thinking evil continually, imagine the destruction that would bring upon the earth.
God told Noah to build the ark, because He saw the destruction coming, not because He was going to actively destroy the world Himself. God must let go of those who repeatedly tell Him to depart.
Job 22:15-17: Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?
16 Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:
17 Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them?
Hi Benjamin
Yes, you are reflecting the essence of what I am attempting to convey and substantiate as both a biblically valid and reality-based perspective. Amongst some, it appears that it is mere semantics. Amongst others, it makes the difference between a God that they are drawn to versus a God they are repelled by.
Interesting concept, Benjamin,
On what do you base the idea that God "was preventing [the flood] from coming?
EG White under inspiritation describes what John experienced/understood on Patmos :
Peter also confirms that it is the LORD that brings destruction on the ungodly.
2Peter 2:1-10
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to the abyss, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.
Hi Shirley
I only present the following because the very same author also says:
And also this statement:
I have looked into a lot of Ellen White material and note what appear to be contradictory statements. How do we reconcile these apparent contradictions?
Hi Phil,
If I may interject - I have found that apparent contradictions are most easily resolved by examining context - similar to the way of resolving apparent conflicts in the Bible. If we find that our interpretation of a passage is in direct conflict with another passage, we probably need to do more studying to reconcile the two, and context often holds the key.
Without having had time to check context, here are a couple observations regarding the quotations you have brought forward:
1) In each case, the author clearly identifies Satan as the active agent of evil in the world. Evil is not represented as an impersonal power opposed to God - a power which He constantly restrains. Evil exists in hearts and minds after first being entertained in the heart of Satan.
2) I believe Ellen White is addressing the notion common among many people that God punishes people in this life by disease, accident, death or other calamities. She is saying that that's not how it works - rather it is the removal of God's protection that often brings about evil results. And most of us on this blog recognize that. But then there's also the fact that many times the righteous suffer and evil-doers prosper - as some of the psalms also point out. So this is not a rule that applies to every circumstance.
From the foregoing, we may extrapolate that the bolded portions do not tell the complete story of how evil happens and is dealt with in this world. For instance, I am not aware of the author attributing the events of the flood to Satan. To the contrary, she says in one place that Satan was compelled to remain among the raging elements and feared for his very life. So we either have to conclude that there is a great impersonal power apart from God that even Satan feared, or perhaps it was God who did exactly what He told Noah He would do - and He specifically constrained Satan to experience this judgment by water.
Patriarchs and Prophets 99
I believe that EG White does not contradict the Word of the LORD, thus I find she supports 2Peter 2:1-10 in her book the Great Controversy chapter 41.
GC chapter 41
Paul also supports Peter in Romans 1:18-32, Romans 2:5-12. During this probationary period the LORD allows the wicked to choose how they wish to live however in the day of His Final Judgement they will be destroyed.
As the violence of the storm increased, trees, buildings, rocks, and earth were hurled in every direction. The terror of man and beast was beyond description. Above the roar of the tempest was heard the wailing of a people that had despised the authority of God. Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence. He had delighted to control so powerful a race, and desired them to live to practice their abominations and continue their rebellion against the Ruler of heaven. PP 99
Satan in flood
Hi Inge,
In response to your number 1:
The destroyer (satan) is ultimately behind every evil that happens in the world, and God is indeed holding back the results of his work every second. We see a glimpse of this in the fact that “angels are holding back the winds of strife.” However, when we sin, satan’s job is “technically” done, he cannot choose how the consequences will play out. Sin is chaotic by nature, it is an absence of good, order, life, etc. Therefore, once this process has started, satan does not have to be the sole agent of the actual destruction caused, though he can be, see the story of Job. In the garden of Eden, when the ground was cursed, and thorns and thistles came up, it was not satan who literally made thorns, but of sin entering the atmosphere of Eden, which will distort, and deface the good in it, but satan initiated the whole thing.
In response to your number 2:
This quote from Ellen White, I hope helps (notice the last part closely):
Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. When he was suffered to afflict Job, how quickly flocks and herds, servants, houses, children, were swept away, one trouble succeeding another as in a moment. It is God that shields His creatures and hedges them in from the power of the destroyer. But the Christian world have shown contempt for the law of Jehovah, and the Lord will do just what He has declared that He would—He will withdraw His blessings from the earth and remove His protecting care from those who are rebelling against His law and teaching and forcing others to do the same. >>Satan has control of all whom God does not especially guard. He will favor and prosper some, in order to further his own designs; and he will bring trouble upon others and lead men to believe that it is God who is afflicting them.<< (Counsels on Health 460.2).
In response to satan fearing for his own life:
If you recall what I wrote earlier in response to your number 1, we see that satan does not have to be the executioner of evil events, just the initiator. He wants to get us to sin, in order that calamity will come, so he can blame God for it as His way of punishing us. I don’t think there is a problem with satan fearing for his life during the flood, because it was not the work of his hands, it was the work of his tempting men to evil playing out in the world. I don’t think that even satan truly comprehends the full extent of sin, because he is not all-knowing.
On another note, in this long post, I believe the biggest issue in understanding the character of God is Bible/SOP language. We cannot interpret the Bible using our western way of thinking, and contaminated way of seeing justice as it is handled in our society, but it is difficult to be aware of our presuppositions when the surface interpretation agrees with our conditioned way of thinking. Now, I’ve written too much.
The flood was predicted, decided, adjudicated, brought forth, foretold by God with specifics, and for over a hundred years. With memories that were so much more efficient than our own today, mankind got the straight testimony in their inner man like no other group of people. The words of warning came through His Spirit of Prophecy, His bible of that time. They were deeply, unmistakably, and indelibly warned. So when the time came, God administered His sentencing, His foretelling with specific intent to them (as He spoke of their crime sheet: every intent of the heart was to do evil continually; so they received the intent of his justice) but still it must have pained him, ‘for why would they choose to die.’
The fire next time, instead of a flood is predicted for our time. It has been foretold for some 2,000 years. We would do well to listen in our age for the words about the fire coming in our future. We find the warning to us throughout the bible, but in the Book of Revelation it is foretold most poignantly what shall befall mankind. It is ‘fires of many kinds’, and those mentioned will be sent from God and pin-pointedly administered by God. These ‘fire events’ are connected to the sanctuary in Heaven, and yes, to God himself. This is His Strange act spoken about in Isaiah 28:21. In this time period, as during the flood, it is God again who will destroy every idol of mankind.
Thank you, Benjamin. No, you've not written too much because you've commented on topic and made your words count.
I'm familiar with the quotations you cited and am glad you brought them up. Furthermore, I agree with the theme of what you have contributed - that God is good and gracious and that the bad stuff in this world is the result of sin.
But you also appear to suggest that the Flood was not directly caused by God as a therapeutic intervention in the history of this planet, but that it was caused by "sin" or "Satan." If Satan caused the Flood, it would seem that Satan were remarkably cooperative with God to precisely fulfill the prophetic teachings of Noah. (Some religions teach that Satan is a necessary/cooperative opponent to God, but I don't think you mean to suggest that.)
I would like to explore the nature of sin a bit further, since it seems crucial to how your interpretation and mine may differ in detail. You wrote
It seems to me that you are conflating "sin" and the "results of sin." Or am I missing something?
Here's how I see it:
Sin is a heart matter. It is a mind set opposite to the mind of God which is self-sacrificing love. Thus sin in the mind focuses on self and advancing self at the expense of others. By contrast, the mind of God is focused on serving others and uplifting them.
As you can see, my definition fits yours in that you write that sin is the "absence of good," and it *results* in chaos and death.
You also wrote
But now I cannot follow you. If sin is a matter of the heart, what you write doesn't work. But if sin is not a matter of the heart, maybe you can explain what "sin" really is.
For transparency I share my understanding:
I believe that Satan *literally* made thorns and other dangerous features of the natural world. Scientists today can manipulate genes to produce all sorts of variations. It wouldn't have been difficult for Satan to make thorns out of leaves. (We know that most thorns are modified leaves.)
I believe that it was Satan who distorted and defaced the good on this earth. Again, I would like to hear back from you.
As for the Flood:
It does not seem consistent with the great controversy theme of the Bible to reason that Satan cooperated with God to produce the Flood. And a sinful heart cannot produce it. So those who argue that God did not purposely cause the earth to be covered with water to cleanse it of sin (which is bound up in the hearts of people who cling to it) in order to preserve a righteous remnant) must come up with some kind of natural mechanism, independent of God that would do what the Flood did:
Up above you said that God prevented the Flood from coming. I'm still wondering about your basis for saying that God "was preventing the flood from coming" because I don't find such a suggestion anywhere in the Bible.
Hi, Inge
I hope you track back to get to this comment. I believe that the flood was caused by sin and its effects on the planet. Sin has literal effects on the planet and scripture supports this. Here are a few verses:
“The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth …” (Isaiah 24:4-6)
We see in this verse that The “earth is defiled UNDER the inhabitants thereof” The earth is not defiled under satan. Though satan can cause disasters in the earth, men can, too, by their sinful acts/thoughts
And because of the sin of the people, the earth reacts, even violently. Look at this verse.
“And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants…(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when YE DEFILE it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.” (Leviticus 18:25-28).
The earth reflects the nature of man, remember in Genesis that God gave us dominion over the earth, we take the lead and the land follows. This is why we see in scripture that the “creation groaneth and travaileth in pain..” (Rom. 8:22).
I believe sin affects everything, even when it is in the heart of man, because that is where Christ told us sin originates. So, in reality, no one would have to literally “act out” their sin for the earth to suffer or anyone else.
You’re right, I do not believe that satan cooperates with God, I believe God is able to “make ALL things work together for His good” (Rom. 8:28).
The only way satan caused the flood, is by tempting man to sin, and then man makes the choice to sin, and the results of sin are destructive.
You asked me was I conflating sin and its results? I believe they are linked and you cannot have one without the other. Faith without works is dead. And unbelief (which is sin) without its corroborating works of destruction are dead, too.
Yes, I agree that sin is a heart matter, as I have stated, the heart is the birthplace of sin. And this MUST cause destruction. So, even if I’m “conflating” it does not change the fact that sin is the cause of destruction.
You said that you cannot follow me, when I explained that sin caused the thorns in the garden, but I hope by now, you see why I believe that. Sin, by its nature is separation from God, who is Love, order, etc. will inevitably cause malfunctions in humans AND the environment, because these things function from the order/love of God. So, if sin only affected humans, it would not really be sin, because it would be missing the full effect.
But I must now ask you, if you believe Satan himself defaces the good in the earth, then why do you believe that God shares some of the same qualities of destruction as satan? Does God have a “bad” side? Or do you believe that God can do the same thing that satan does, but “for good (therapeutic intervention) reasons? The bible says that He (God) is Light and in Him there is NO darkness… not even grey.
If you believe that a sinful heart cannot produce harmful effects on the planet, then with all due respect, I believe you have grossly underestimated sin. Again, with all due respect.
Yes, every bullet point you listed shows an enormous scale of destruction, and God has told us that He is not in any of those things we he spoke with Elijah in the cave. I believe your bullet points, point out the destructive nature of a world continually doing evil non-stop in actions and heart. This is what God saw coming. “The end of all flesh has come before Me” Gen. 6:13.
You say that you find no suggestion of God preventing the flood from coming?
Gen. 6:3 - My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
God saw what was to come if the people did not turn from their wicked ways. His prevention of the flood was His warning them through Noah, and making an Ark of safety.
God prevents calamities from happening if the people repent. Look at the story of Jonah, Sodom and Gomorrah. God is merciful, and pleads that the wicked turn from the evil ways. Every day, literally, God is preventing something evil. He prevented Adam from dying that day, not just spiritually, but literally.
I concur with your comment fully. I also would underscore that the bolded passages have the context of a time during probation. During probation, one may be left to Satan's forces as they sow. While there also will be judgments given after probation, this will be where God will finally remove from even Satan his spirit of life and all who with Satan have sown, will reap what they have sown. The destruction of all the wicked is obviously a strange act; this final strange act does not seem to be referenced in the bolded passage.
Thank you for your reply, Benjamin. I agree with almost everything you write in your thoughtful reply, but I suspect that we may have different ideas as to *how* sin affects the earth. But right now I just want to focus on a couple points to help us clarify our understanding. You wrote:
I want to focus particularly on the bolded portion. It looks like you believe that Satan and God can have no common qualities. Let's think this through:
Lucifer was created to be the most exalted angel in God's universe - a Light Bearer. He represented the character of God to the rest of the angels. He was created to represent the light and beauty of God and His character. He was highly intelligent. But he chose to focus on himself and his beauty and power and aimed to be "like God" in position. That made him into the Satan we know now.
Does God do some of the same things Satan does? I'd really like to turn the question around to ask, "Does/can Satan do some of the same things God does?" That's because God is primary and Satan's life is dependent on God. God made Lucifer to be much like Himself and gave Him abilities far beyond ones that we possess. So, yes, God and Satan do some of the same things.
Let's consider the essential difference between the Creator God and the fallen angel now known as Satan.
1) Of course, as Creator, God is more powerful than Satan.
2) However, the essential difference is character - God's character of self-renouncing love is in direct contrast to Satan's cultivated character of self-serving selfishness.
Thus God always acts in harmony with His character of self-renouncing love and service.
And Satan acts in harmony with His self-exalting character.
Some of the things God and Satan do may look similar on the surface. For instance, when God disciplines His children. Heb 12:6-8. Sometimes this may look like Satan is persecuting the righteous for his own fiendish ends. In fact, the discipline may be a matter of allowing Satan to do certain things (see the situation of Job), but it is not necessarily always so, because it would require Satan to be fully cooperative with God, which is contrary to the biblical narrative.
Satan may actually "bless" people with wealth, power, prestige, etc. in order to secure their allegiance to him. In some Christian circles this is interpreted as God's blessings. (We call this the "prosperity gospel" - temporal blessings follow the obedient.) The truth is that, as a general rule, blessings do follow obedience, but it is not always so. The righteous often suffer while the wicked prosper. In fact, God sometimes allows His most faithful servants to be killed. We call them martyrs. Paul goes so far as to say that all who live godly lives will suffer persecution. 2 Tim. 3:12
The Bible portrays God with the ability to create and "uncreate"/destroy:
See Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, James 4:12
So, yes, God caused the flood (Gen 6:17) that, to a large extent, undid the process of creation on this planet. He did it out of a heart of love for humanity which was well on the way to total self-destruction. But He did it in sorrow for those who would be destroyed. He takes no pleasure in destruction. But God did it to give humanity a fresh start and more .. Look at it as a physician performing a life-saving surgery.
You suggest that God "prevented the flood from coming" and cite this as evidence:
But that text doesn't say that God prevented the flood from coming. Rather, it gives a warning to say that God's Spirit will "strive" with people for another 120 years, and then judgment will come. (What you suggest is an *interpretation* of the text.)
As a P.S. I'd like you to ponder the significance of the cloud that accompanied the Israelites on their journey: It was light to the Israelites and darkness to the Egyptians. God was in that cloud, and thus, in that situation, He was both light and darkness: Ex. 13:21, Ex. 14:19-20.
In defense of commonalities shared between satan and God, you stated that, “he was created to be most exalted”, “to represent light and beauty” etc. These are all true, but the key word is, “was.” Once Lucifer sinned, he became satan, effectively losing all that made him like God. Satan can only counterfeit what/who God is/has. This is key. Our Father shares nothing with the prince of darkness. The Bible says, “I [Jesus] will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.” John 14:30
You turned the question on me and asked, “Does/can Satan do some of the same things God does?" My answer to this question is a resounding, “No.” And this is because Light and darkness have nothing in common. You would agree that this is basic understanding. The Bible says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” 2 Cor. 6:14. How can one say that Light and darkness can look alike or act alike?
Just because “satan’s life is dependent on God”, and “God made Lucifer to be much like Himself and gave Him abilities far beyond ones that we possess.” Does not mean satan and God shares some of the same things. How do you come to this conclusion from those points?
I gave some scriptures to prove my point concerning satan’s and God’s stark differences without a hint of similarity. What scripture could you supply that shows satan and God have similarities? How can someone who has come to “steal, kill and destroy” share some of the traits of Someone who came to give us life, and life more abundantly?” John 10:10.
In your consideration of God and satan, you said in your number 2, that “the essential difference is character” I wholeheartedly agree, and this is precisely why they cannot share common traits. The foundation of their acts spring up from who they are.
I agree when you say that God allows satan to do certain things as His “discipline”, but when you say that this cannot be how it always is done, because satan would have to be fully cooperative with God. I don’t see how you figure this. Satan is not cooperating with God when God allows him room to attack. That is a result of our sin in cooperation with satan, and God who is love must leave us free to choose such a path. God is not working with satan, nor is satan working with God. God is working with us in spite of the consequences that our actions bring upon ourselves. Could you explain why you believe that if God allows sin to take its course, that this means that satan is cooperating with God? Jesus came to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), not work with the devil, not even partially.
You said, “satan may actually “bless people with wealth, power…” These are not blessings, but curses. Just because many may interpret them as God’s blessings, does not make it so.
Now you said, “blessings do follow obedience, but it is not always so.” See, this is where I believe we are conflating the prosperity gospel that we shun with the true gospel without noticing that we are. Blessings ALWAYS follow obedience to God. The blessing IS the obedience, anything else “good” that comes is not a mandatory result of obedience. The suffering of the righteous is not a curse, but is indeed another BLESSING. The Bible says, “And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience.” Rom. 5:3.
Also, “Great [is] my boldness of speech toward you, great [is] my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.” 2 Cor. 7:4
James 1:2, “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations…”
There are many more verse I could list…
So, I disagree that blessings do not always follow obedience. If trials, suffering, and even persecution is what will shape our character for the kingdom and bless others, our trials are a great blessing.
You list some verses to prove that God creates and uncreates/destroy. I know there are many more you can list, but instead of going through each one (this post is long already), I will say:
The issue here is the Hebrew way of thinking and Bible language. If you accept what these words say on the surface without proper interpretation, you must take all scripture in the same way. Do you believe that God lies? No. But the Bible SAYS on the surface that He “puts lying spirits in people mouths” (1 Kings 22:23), “sends strong delusions” (2 Thess. 2:11), and even “deceives prophets.” (Ezek. 14:9). You would most likely interpret these verses and the meaning would be the total opposite of their surface reading, correct? So, why don’t you do the same thing to this verse?? Is it because of presuppositions?
No, the verse I gave you to prove that God was preventing the flood does not say directly that God was preventing the flood. However, the verses I just listed DOES say that God lies, and deceives, and you would not agree with that, instead you interpret. I believe the text says much underneath the surface and do the same as you would. God strives to save, not to destroy.
If you are proving to me from the Bible that God was both light and darkness, then you would have to say that the bible contradicts itself, because in the NT, it clearly says light and darkness have no communion. What I believe concerning this cloud over the Israelites that was dark to the Egyptians, is a result of sin. This is the same event resulting in two different experiences, based on heart condition. This is not a rare occurrence in the Bible.
John 12:29 says, “The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.”
Do you believe that God was speaking in inaudible thunder or was it an angel? When Christ returns, there will be 2 different responses, some will cry for rocks to fall on them, others will love His appearing. Is Jesus having 2 different faces at His second coming? No. It is the condition of people’s heart that determine what they see, hear and experience. This is the same for Egypt.
Thank you for your reply, Benjamin.
You wrote
It seems to me that would mean that sinners have all lost everything that made them like God. Yet this is not what we experience. We are still able to think, to reason, to create and to choose - to mention only a few characteristics of the Creator. Likewise, while Satan is a fallen angel, he is an angel still and appears to retain much of the power of angels, even while he is restricted from exercising all the powers of his heavenly counterparts. Consider these examples of Satan having more power than humans and doing some of the same things God did:
You wrote
I believe that means that there was nothing in Christ - no sinful desires that Satan could hook into.
God and Satan are polar opposites in their motivations and character. Thus God always acts in harmony with His character of self-renouncing love and service. And Satan acts in harmony with His self-exalting character. It does not mean that they have no common characteristics. My point was and is only that you cannot say, without qualification, that because Satan does or says something that God can not or will not do something similar in a different context. Things are not that simple.
I agree fully with this statement:
"If trials, suffering, and even persecution is what will shape our character for the kingdom and bless others, our trials are a great blessing," as well as your supporting statements.
However, I used "blessings" as the Bible generally does, as in Deuteronomy 28:2. We do not perceive suffering and persecution as a "blessing," and the Bible doesn't portray them as such. Instead, things Satan may intend as harm us, God can use to bless us if we trust Him. By the grace of God, we may even count temptations (which come from Satan) as "joy," as James points out in James 1:2. That doesn't mean that temptations are blessings in themselves.
You used the argument that Satan destroys to make the point that God never destroys because God never does anything that Satan does. I believe that the Bible demonstrates that this premise is not true to life. The teaching that "God never destroys" needs better support than that.
The original question was whether or not Satan directly caused the flood that destroyed "all flesh." It seems to me that if Satan had done this, he would have had to be extraordinarily cooperative with God who had explicitly said the flood would come at a specific time to destroy sinners if they would not repent. Satan would have had to cooperate to destroy *all* his followers while leaving God's followers alive. This makes Satan appear to be necessary to fulfill God's plans, and that belief does not harmonize with Bible teachings. And it doesn't appear to harmonize with the full story of God judging that the thoughts of the pre-flood people were only evil continually and that, therefore, divine intervention was necessary.
Thus I go back to the principle of biblical interpretation that we should read the Bible as it is written, except in places where context indicates that the passages in question are a) symbolical b) prophetic c) allegory or parable. (Please see "Biblical Hermeneutics: The Interpretation of Scripture")
According to that principle of interpretation, I see no reason to re-interpret texts such Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, James 4:12 which portray God with the ability to create and to "uncreate"/destroy. (If you do not agree with the principle of interpretation that I suggested or subscribe to another, it explains our differing interpretations. Thus it would help what principle of interpretation you use.)
Thanks Inge, Shirley and Benjamin each and collectively for your time and effort to provide input. Anyone is welcome to 'interject' at any time. And I personally don't believe you said too much, Benjamin.
I raised the quotes I raised and bolded the aspects I bolded only to illustrate that there appears to be more to the picture regarding The Flood and "the terrors of that awful outpouring of God's wrath".
I agree, Inge, that further study and attention to context where there is apparent contradiction is vital. And I acknowledge that this takes time to do.
I also agree that what we refer to under the terms 'evil' (or 'good' for that matter too) are not merely impersonal powers. However, it also appears they are nevertheless also powers/forces/principles (words also used by Ellen White) that, while they do exist in hearts and minds, also have practical manifestation beyond hearts and minds.
The following is one quote that appears to not rule out such a view:
In regard to Inge's suggestion that "we either have to conclude that there is a great impersonal power apart from God that even Satan feared, or perhaps it was God who did exactly what He told Noah He would do - and He specifically constrained Satan to experience this judgment by water", I too find that their is a third option along the lines of that suggested by Benjamin. That third option is that Satan set in motion something that he subsequently discovered to be even more destructive than he had anticipated. And that it is the nature of this something that inherently constrained Satan to not be able to escape - as opposed to God using some kind of imposed power to force Satan to be confined to that context whereby if God did not exert that imposed power, Satan would otherwise have escaped. My mind goes to Revelation 20:1-3 as I consider this third option where it is unlikely that these verses are talking about literal binding and containment by literal chains and seals.
I believe the above concepts are also not separate from Jesus summary statement in John 10:10 regarding the nature and character (and therefore, I would propose, associated methods/means/'mechanisms') of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Darkness - the only two apparent 'realities'. Was Jesus suggesting that while the Kingdom of Darkness is exclusively about stealing, killing and destroying, the Kingdom of God is about abundant life - but at times will be involved in killing and destroying? I don't say this sarcastically, but raise it as a genuine consideration as it reflects the core issue being raised.
I find merit in Benjamin's suggestion that language and our mental concepts associated with that language are of relevance when trying to understand these realities - and therefore that identification and exploration of our presuppositions and extrapolations is needed in the course of our ongoing conversations.
And, for the sake of readers who may be following this conversation, I believe that such is not merely 'mental gymnastics' for if it were I, and likely others of you, would not devote our time and energies to it if that was what we were doing. Rather, it is because what we believe shapes how we live (2 Corinthians 3:18 principle that is manifest in John 13:35 principle) that we invest our time and effort into growing in our knowledge and understanding of the above 'realities'. I hope others are also thinking and investigating for themselves and welcome their contribution to this conversation too.
Thank you for that quotation, Phil, which agrees with Paul's reminder that our Creator God is also the Sustainer of life and all that is good. (Heb 1:3) The same quotation identifies Satan behind the destructive power of nature that we can see.
There is no third independent power of "evil" to cause a universal flood.
However, it seems to me that crediting Satan with causing the flood casts him in the role of cooperator with God, which flies in the face of all the Bible reveals about God and Satan.
It also seems to me that equating God's interventional judgments with the "killing" and "destroying" of Satan is creating a false narrative that attacks His character. The Bible repeatedly identifies God as Judge who once executed judgment by water and will eventually execute judgment by fire. (See 2 Peter 3:3-13)
The context of God executing judgment (aka punishment) is always righteousness. The Ruler of this universe always does what is just and right, and that includes eliminating the blot of evil that has infected His beautiful creation. As a result all His created beings will forever live in love and harmony, without being continually tempted by Satan or having to see the evil results of His government. As you and I have often referenced, the inevitable results of sin (separation from God) is annihilation. And once all the universe has been weaned from their high regard for the once-revered Lucifer, God will allow him and all who follow him to reap the results of their rebellion. And the Bible repeatedly tells of how that will happen.
Your reference to Revelation 20:1-3 is relevant in that I believe the "binding" there is similar to the constraining of Satan in the flood. The mighty angel that once traveled from galaxy to galaxy without constraint was prevented from leaving the living space of this planet during the flood, just as he will be constrained from leaving this same space during the millennium. (I doubt that anyone reading this blog imagines Satan bound with literal chains during the millennium.)
Thanks Inge
1) Each of the points you raise are predicated on particular presuppositions. Where you and I differ in our views is due to differing foundational presuppositions that we each hold. We actually need to discuss these presuppositions, one at a time to the degree that such is possible, otherwise we just go around in circles. There are too many points and therefore too many associated presuppositions in your response for me to address in a single comment. So I will attempt to start just with your first point for now and its more key associated presupposition/s.
2) I agree with you that there is no third independent power. As per Romans 8:2 in conjunction with Galatians 5:17, there are only two inherently "antagonistic" 'powers'. And neither of these functionally exist independently in and of themselves. They are 'powers/forces' that are inseparably linked to/with 'principles'* (as per Galatians 6:8) that are manifest within either of two Kingdoms - these Kingdoms comprised of beings with 'hearts' and 'minds'. At the same time, these antagonistic powers also functionally manifest within the realm of non-sentient existence (eg, the ecosystem).
3) I will attempt to further explain the above via unpacking it via putting it into context. From all that I can see to this point and at this point, prior to Lucifer's fall the only 'things' in actual, manifest existence were those that were inherently good and beneficent (ie, those which comprise the reality that is the Kingdom of God and all that in encompasses). While God alone is the source and sustainer of all, God does not sustain by 'magic'. Rather, He has implemented intricate constants (inherent cause-and-effect principles) that 'govern' the order that is necessary for life. God perpetually/ongoingly infuses these constants with the 'energy'/'power'/'force'/etc that enables these principles to ongoingly, sustainably and reliably 'foster' what they do. And so long as the 'lawfulness' that fosters and characterises all that is in existence within and under the Kingdom of God is maintained, all is "very good" as per Genesis 1:31.
4) While the above was what I would propose was in manifest existence, the potential for departure from this (and the inherent consequences of such) was also 'in existence' - but only as a 'non-manifest potential'. Unfortunately, the existence of such would appear to be inherent to true freedom, for in order to have freedom there has to be more than one option to choose from (even if only one option is actually viable). However as long this non-manifest potential stays as a non-manifest potential, it is not a problem**. Did God create this in order for there to be true freedom? If so, then we would be suggesting that God is the creator of the potential or possibility for evil. I find this to be a problematic possibility. Rather, I am left with the only other option that I can see - that evil is what is 'apart from'/'not of' God for freedom requires that there be an option apart from God that could be 'chosen'/'accessed'. This does not mean that there is something that is bigger than God - it just means that there is that which is not of God - though, beyond the inherent confines of The Great Controversy, such only 'exists' as a non-accessed and therefore non-manifest potential.
5) When Lucifer embraced/accessed self-seeking, the core antagonistic principle that is not of God and therefore is has been termed 'evil' (first referenced in Genesis 2:9), the non-manifest potential became manifest. But what was the nature of this manifestation? I propose it is, functionally, the departure from that which was in existence to that point - genuine life within and under the Kingdom of God. Because lawfulness is the fabric that fosters genuine life (though, I emphasises, not independently of God), departure from lawfulness to/via embracing lawlessness inherently produces that which precludes life via the replacement of the order that is inherent to that life with chaos instead.
6) By way of illustration, if an atom ceases to operate in accordance with the 'lawfulness' that its very existence is contingent upon and therefore instead becomes subject to the lawlessness that fosters chaos, will that atom continue to hold together and function as it is designed to? No, it will either implode or explode in self-destruction/annihilation. I propose that this is precisely what happens at all levels of all forms of life under lawlessness - and what God was forewarning in Genesis 2:16,17.
7) Does God produce this lawlessness and its inherent impacts and consequences? Does destruction come via any other means other than that dynamic of lawlessness - the "law of sin (ie, lawlessness: 1 John 3:4) and death"? Romans 8:2 summary concept would suggest not. Can God be the author of destruction via some other means that is in harmony with lawfulness? I would submit not because lawfulness is incapable of producing anything but life (as per the "law of the Spirit of life").
8) This is why I find that destruction, via the lawlessness that alone is capable of producing destruction, is functionally that which is not of God. I find this presupposition to match Jesus summary statement in John 10:10 as well as match the principle in Galatians 6:8 that will result in God not being mocked as one who also causes destruction.
9) How then do we explain the relationship between God and destruction within scripture? That is another presupposition to be unpacked and explored in light of the above one.
--------
10) * By principles I mean inherent cause-and-effect 'mechanisms'/dynamics that constitute the 'fabric' of 'reality' that, in turn, constitutes the good and beneficent 'domains' of existence and experience that we also term the Kingdom of God that is characterised as "abundant life" - or the detrimental and destructive 'domains' of existence and experience that we also term the Kingdom of Darkness that is characterised as that which "steals (robs of), kills and destroys".
11) ** I believe that the existence of the potential for evil will not evaporate even at the conclusion of The Cosmic Conflict - because the freedom that is inherently foundational to beneficence will necessarily remain. However, I believe it will be a potential that will never be embraced ever again - and therefore things will return (be fully restored to) to their pre-fall state once again, as per Revelation 21:1. Thus, while the potential remains in existence, it will never again be accessed and therefore the future of all life will remain eternally secure on an inherent rather than imposed basis. Freedom will trump as freedom via freedom.
Hi Phil,
I really appreciate your laying out your presuppositions clearly so we may come to a better understanding. I have numbered your paragraph to make it easier to reply without copying your already long-enough post and making it longer.
The first two paragraphs require no comment.
I particularly like this in the third paragraph:
In 4) you address the potential for evil in God's creation. I agree that "in order to have freedom there has to be more than one option to choose from." You propose two explanations for the existence of evil:
I agree that the first option is "problematic" and worse. Before discussing the second option let's do a word exercise with the word "sin." Into which of the following lists does the word fit:
What does your choice indicate? Is "sin" a "thing"? (If it is a "thing," then God must have created it. Eph 8:9)
I will stop here to see if we can agree on whether or not "sin" is a "thing." Then we'll continue examining our presuppositions.
Hi Inge
I fully agree with you that pausing to discuss and clarify what 'sin' is will be necessary before we continue further regarding the second option in point 4. Because presuppositions exist within what might be described as an inter-related matrix/web/network, exploration of one key presupposition will often involve also exploring other associated presuppositions.
Your question as to whether 'sin' is a 'thing' represents yet another major field of presupposition/s. I am unlikely to accurately convey my understanding of the answer in a single comment, so it is more likely that we will need to participate in some further ongoing conversation - dealing with one point at a time otherwise things will just get messy and go around in circles without getting anywhere.
By way of an initial starting point, I propose that 'sin' and 'evil' are one-in-the-same, just different terms. From what I find, sin/evil is first and foremost what I would term a 'functional principle'. By this I mean a particular 'way/mode of functioning' (incorporative of being and/or doing) that is inherently reflective of a particular nature and character that, in turn, produces particular inherent impacts and outcomes. That inherent nature and character is, functionally, all of the following:
(a) self-seeking and therefore maleficent/non-beneficent (eg, Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:17; John 10:10)
(b) lawless (eg, 1 John 3:4 'a-nomia' which is out of harmony with, or totally opposite to, law/'nomia'), and therefore
(c) preclusive of life and therefore, where life is in existence, inherently produces self-destructive "perishing"* (John 10:10; Proverbs 14:12; Romans 6:23; Romans 8:2a; Galatians 6:8; James 1:14-15; John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:16-17).
This functioning (being and/or doing) can refer to the functioning of animate or inanimate, sentient or non-sentient 'things' (using the word 'thing' in its broadest application).
I will stop here to see if further clarification is needed.
------
* Sin/evil's inherently self-destructive nature and character is functionally due to its lawlessness that fosters chaos that is preclusive of the 'order' (ie, beneficial reliability) produced by 'law' (the inherent cause-and-effect constants/principles that produce and maintain beneficent harmony) that is essential for life.
Thank you for your clarification. If sin is a "functional principle," then it seems to me that it can not be a "thing" apart from a living being. The "principle" of sin is not actual sin until it is acted upon by a thinking being - just like love is not actually love until it is acted upon by a thinking being. (A father claiming to love his starving child while withholding food and eating a good meal himself does not love his child.) The way I understand it, a principle guides behavior - which may be either sinful or righteous. A principle, in itself, can do nothing. Consequently sin, in itself, can do nothing.
Thus, in the English language, we usually consider sin as something we do - either with your bodies or in our minds.
I agree that sin is
(a) self-seeking and therefore maleficent/non-beneficent (eg, Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:17; John 10:10)
I agree that sin is "lawless," if the law in question is God's law.
I believe that sin is destructive to the sinner because sin is an act of separating from God, the Life Sustainer. An analogy would be an electric light. If it is unplugged from an electric outlet, it goes out. Adam and Even would have instantly perished if God had allowed them to go their independent way, rather than forestalling the results by granting them a probationary life.
You appear to ascribe "destruction" to being directly caused by "sin" as a "law"/force rather than destruction being the inevitable result of separation from the LifeGiver. Am I hearing you correctly?
Now this does not make sense to me:
If sin is a principle of action, how can it refer to inanimate and non-sentient things"? Things do not act on principle or without principle. So how can things "function" to sin, i.e. how can things "sin"?
What I see in the Bible is that the earth is affected by humanity's sin because humans chose another ruler for this world. (Satan) has put all his brilliant mind into twisting what God has created good into something harmful. He knows how to manipulate genes. He knows how to manipulate the weather. He knows how to influence minds to make them love evil. That's why the creation "groans" and waits for deliverance.
Hi Inge
I can appreciate that you see things the way you do because of the differing presuppositions that you and I operate from. I will attempt to further elaborate on two points you raised with respect to how I see things and why.
1) In relation to "You appear to ascribe "destruction" to being directly caused by "sin" as a "law"/force rather than destruction being the inevitable result of separation from the LifeGiver. Am I hearing you correctly?", I provide the following.
Destruction is the inevitable/inherent result of separation from the LifeGiver. And what is the means by which this destruction actually takes place? Being connected with the LifeGiver is not 'magic' - there are a myriad of 'mechanisms' involved that each operate in accordance with the principle of inherent cause and effect. Under the law of the Spirit of life, these 'mechanisms' 'beneficently' facilitate and foster the order and constancy that is necessary for life - at all levels including the order of atoms and molecules through to the wider systems that these atoms and molecules are the building blocks of.
But under the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), departure from being in harmony with all that is necessary to produce the order that is necessary for life* gives way to that which promotes non-order/chaos. Therefore things break down in varying ways and degrees (depending on how much God restrains the destruction process) until eventual non-existence. This is how sin functions and manifests via lawlessness (1 John 3:4).
2) In relation to "Things do not act on principle or without principle", I find that I am not the only one that proposes inanimate things also function in accordance with principles. Referring to examples of things functioning in a manner that fosters abundant life because it/they function in accordance with the principle/law of beneficence (self-renouncing love), Ellen White gives the following array of examples.
--------
* This is also what self-seeking functionally results in.
Thank you for your clarification, Phil. I'm glad we agree that "Destruction is the inevitable/inherent result of separation from the LifeGiver."
We are still focusing on the nature of sin, and you go on to write
Interesting that you should mention that. I remember a light bulb turning on in my mind maybe 65 years ago when studying the structure of an atom in elementary science. "Aha," I thought, "so that explains how the power of God sustains all things in this universe." Although our understanding of electrons has changed somewhat, it is still considered true that the nucleus of an atom is relatively insignificant, and the main bulk of atoms is created by the ever-moving orbiting electrons. So what is the source of the energy that keeps all these electrons moving - that makes up the matter of the ground I walk on and the computer keyboard on which I now type? What keeps matter from collapsing into near nothingness? Way back then, I concluded that God supplies the energy and thus sustains all of creation.
Yet it seems to me that that understanding does not conflict with my earlier statement that " sin is destructive to the sinner because sin is an act of separating from God, the Life Sustainer. An analogy would be an electric light. If it is unplugged from an electric outlet, it goes out."
The Bible isn't about physics, though its principles are compatible. It uses simple language accessible to all.
You write further
H'mm .. that would appear to mean that before God organized the matter of this planet into a life-sustaining home for His created beings, it was under the control of sin because it was in a state of chaos. So do you believe that sin on this planet existed before Gen. 1:1? (That's what many variant accounts of origins would have us believe.)
Thank you for bringing up one of my favorite quotations from one of my favorite books:
I understand that God designed all things in His universe in accordance with His character of self-giving love. And, even though traces of sin are evident, it seems that in God's creation plants still give off oxygen which animals consume. Vegetation decays to provide life to new vegetations. Seeds still "die" to produce new life, etc. All that, in spite of sin. But then I don't believe that non-sentient matter - even plants - can sin. I admit that I fail to see how this quotation addresses your apparent point that insentient matter can sin.
It seems we need to go back to review whether or not we agree on the understanding that sin is a matter of choice, as I do. We can choose to trust our Creator God and, by His grace, align our thinking and actions with Him, or we can choose to go our own independent selfish way. We can choose righteousness and we can choose sin.
Thanks Inge
So there are some things we see similarly and other things differently. I have a bit clearer understanding of what you see and why - including at the presupposition level, so that has been helpful. We are each persuaded of what we see in our own mind - as we should be.
I believe sin is a matter of choice when it comes to the initiation of sin - but that once sin is manifest, there are unfortunately impacts that are broader than the initial choice. For example, initiation of sin was a matter of choice on the part of Eve and Adam - but the Earth's ecosystem then also came under the impacts of lawlessness even though the ecosystem didn't make a choice. However, I believe that due to presuppositions that you and I differ on - so I am not expecting that you will share that same view. I am ok with that.
The Way of Cain will also, like the pattern in Genesis 5, give ‘life’ to the image of the beast and after its likeness (Revelation 13). It will force ‘Abels’ and anyone else to use works as the ‘way’ to a selfish salvation, and if they do not comply, they will not be able to buy or sell—and…and they will kill them all, and subscribe to all their worshipers that they may kill as many as they want (Lamech).
This Way of Cain involves bringing to life (begetting) as many idols as one wishes; legislating as many Sabbaths as they can form; taking as many names (blasphemy) of God in vain; taking as many human lives (Lamech again) as they want; robbing their fathers and their mothers; stealing (conscripting bank accounts, poor); adultering and coveting those things of God which He gives no right to them to be heirs.
This study of this missing chapter 5 of Genesis seems to have in it perhaps alot more to do with our generation than one would think; thus, a chapter we would want to not leave out of our thinking, nor to leave out of our ‘proof speak’ to others of how and how far back this pattern of the ‘Sunday Way of Cain’ began.
Thanks again, Phil.
You wrote
Well. that looks like partial agreement, at least. The difference is that I distinguish between sin itself, which is a matter of choice, and the consequences of sin - what you express as "unfortunate impacts." Of course these are broader than the sin itself - just like the ripples in a pond resulting from throwing a stone into it reach farther than the stone itself. But the ripples and the stone are not the same thing. Thus I consider that the "impacts of sin" are not the same as the sin itself. Not distinguishing between the two only serves to confuse.
Since you feel it necessary to assure me that you are "not expecting that you will share that same view. I am ok with that," I'll assure you of the same.😊 I'm okay with your not sharing my view, though I would love it if we could come to agreement. 😊
But there's one point referenced in several previous comments that went unanswered. You seem to teach that sin is equivalent to chaos. For example, you wrote under "Monday: The Genesis Genealogy":
We agree that sin=lawlessness. So we seem to have the equation that sin=lawlessness=chaos. Or sin is chaos. That leads to the seemingly logical conclusion that, before God organized the matter of this planet for life, it was governed by sin, since it was in a state of chaos. But I cannot harmonize this with the biblical narrative. Can you?
In regard to your last question re this planet being in chaos prior to creation, what is the basis upon which you believe it was in a state of functional chaos?
Maybe I should ask on what basis you believe that the matter of this planet was not 'in functional chaos'? For that matter, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "functional chaos." It is not a phrase in common usage, and thus it is difficult to determine your meaning.
Those who believe the Genesis account to be history generally believe that God created the matter of this planet and then organized it into a life-sustaining environment - separating light from darkness, separating water from solid earth, separating waters above the earth from the waters below, the earth, and so forth. Having all these forms of matter mixed would normally be regarded as a state of chaos. But since you do not appear recognize that view as valid, I really have no idea what you mean by "functional chaos."
Thanks
I was unaware that the word chaos is used to describe "the disorder of formless matter and infinite space, supposed to have existed before the ordered universe". Apparently used in this form the word is a proper noun in British usage, but possibly not American. I note that an archaic use of the word chaos used to refer to an abyss. Perhaps this is the origin of how Chaos came to be used to refer to the above.
The other meaning of chaos, which appears may be a relatively more recent and now widespread usage, is "a state of complete disorder and confusion". This is the conceptual meaning I have been talking about when referring to sin/lawlessness as that which can only produce chaos as opposed to order. It is what I am referring to with the term functional chaos - functioning chaotically. Under and and within this 'state' of functioning, the 'laws' that guide and therefore maintain life are violated and therefore there is a breaking down (where modulatory restraint of this process is exercised by God) and ultimately breaking apart (the inherent unmodulated state) of things, rather than a maintaining and building-up. This, I find/believe, is the state of "the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2) - not just that sin produces death, but also the functional means by which it does so.
Thus we have one word used to describe two functionally different 'realities'.
In light of the above, I believe that the use of the word Chaos to refer to the pre-created formless and void state of our "heavens and earth" (Genesis 1:1) is not describing a state of sin as I would not equate this use/definition of the word Chaos with the functional nature of sin/lawlessness.
Thanks for the response, Phil. I'm glad you do not see the pre-creation state of this planet as "sin."
I was using the word chaos with its usual current definition which, in its most common usage, is any state of disorder or confusion - which seems fitting for the pre-creation state of the planet as well. It is interesting that the word chaos was originally meant to describe that pre-creation state. It was sometimes personified for specific purposes, just as death might be personified. (Even Paul did that, in "O, death, where is thy sting?" 1 Cor. 15:55)
So, either way, the word "chaos" appears to aptly describes the state of the planet before God organized it for life. It is interesting that, before modern times, even secular people seemed to accept this concept. You appear to have in mind another meaning of chaos not in common usage.
Thus I can not follow your reasoning of sin = chaos. It seems to me that either that equation should fit all the time, or a different definition would be more enlightening.
To me, the biblical descriptions of sin appear to be more relationship-oriented:
Sin is the transgression of God's law of love (1 John 3:4), and anything that does not arise from faith is sin (Rom. 14:23).