Sabbath: Final Restoration of Unity
Image © Pacific Press from GoodSalt.com
Read for This Week’s Study: John 14:1-3, Isa. 11:1-10, Rev. 21:1-5, 1 Thess. 4:13-18, Rev. 22:1-5, Isa. 35:4-10.
Memory Text: “Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13, NKJV).
One of the greatest promises of the Bible is Jesus’ promise to come again. Without it, we have nothing, because our hopes center in that promise and what it means for us. When Christ returns in the clouds of heaven, all that is earthly and human-made and thus temporary and at times meaningless will be swept away. After the millennium in heaven, this earth with its wars, famines, diseases, and tragedies will be made new and become the dwelling place of the redeemed, finally reunited with their Lord and with each other.
Hope in the second coming of Christ is a major theme of the New Testament, and for centuries Christians have longed for the fulfillment of this promise. We as Seventh-day Adventists also long for His return. Indeed, our name itself proclaims that hope.
In this final lesson, we look at this promise and what it means for Christian unity. Our oneness in Christ is often challenged by our human limitations and weaknesses. But we will no longer need to seek for solutions to our fragmentation, because there will be no fragmentation. At the Second Advent, we will be one with the Lord, finally reunited and forming one restored family.
Study this week’s lesson to prepare for Sabbath, December 29.
(25)
I just wonder if, when we get to heaven and the new earth, whether we will argue with one another, or will we always agree with everything that everyone says?
As an academic, I used to attend research conferences where we presented papers on our research. The conferences in Australia were really great because we all knew one another and the topics under discussion were all closely related. The discussions we had after the presentation of a paper were always animated, with options and objections being raised. From a presenter's point of view, these discussions were valuable because it gave a key insight into how others perceived your own arguments.
These arguments were among friends, but they were passionate and animated and were very productive.
You see, for me, one of the great drivers of my life has been the search for new ideas in computing. Discovering and developing these ideas has meant that I have had to question old ideas, and propose and develop new ideas.
The notion of discovery and development is important to me in my spiritual journey too. The notion that truth is a set of axioms that have been handed to us by God is foreign to me. Truth is something that we discover through the journey of life; and by extension, that experience will also continue into the new earth.
Will we argue in heaven? I hope so, but I also hope that it will be like the arguments we had at our academic conferences, where we argued to discover, not to show that we had a better understanding of the issues than our colleagues (I am not saying that element was there some of the time - just in case you think I have rose-tinted glasses on).
Unity is not the absence of argument, but if we are united our arguments are for the purpose of discovery.
Maurice, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts - thoughts that make me ponder a bit too.
Your comment reminds me of when I was much younger and didn't really want to go to heaven because it sounded so *boring*! But as I grew up, I learned that heaven and the new earth would provide a continual journey of discovery. That was and is something to be excited about.
And if the idea of a journey of discovery is true, it is reasonable to expect that we will be at different points of our journey and will thus be able to share with each other. The alternative of having nothing to share sounds rather bleak - more like hell, in fact. (Thinking of CS Lewis's The Great Divorce here. ) Ah, yes, when I think about it, you surely must be right.
I've had just a little taste of that kind of dialogue on this blog with a few people who are really into sharing their experience and their understanding. It is a rewarding and blessed experience - the beginning of a journey that will continue into eternity as we discover more and more about our great and loving Creator God.
If we learned to always relate like that, we could make this blog, our families and our churches into a little foretaste of heaven.
I always enjoy and get a blessing from your thoughtful comments. As a mathematician, this one especially caught my attention, not least with your mention of axioms. At mathematics conferences, the discussion is about different approaches to problems and their solutions, different ways that areas of mathematics can impact each other and things outside of "pure" mathematics. There is a lot of learning and exchange of ideas, but not much "heat". One of the reasons for this is that everyone agrees on the basic axioms. Most of the heat generated in the historical discussions and disagreements in mathematics has been about which axioms one should accept. (There is also the human issue of egos.) Once the axioms are in place, a lot of wonderful learning and discovery can take place. Without an agreement of axioms, mostly chaos and heated disagreement occurs.
I think that disagreements in the church today occur, at least in part, because people are using different sets of axioms. Is the Bible the preeminent source of knowledge of God? Are there other ways of coming to a knowledge of truth? If these sources conflict with the Bible, which one do we accept? How literally do we take the Bible? What parts still apply to us today, and what parts are more a reflection of the culture in which they were written? As you have mentioned several times, we need to listen carefully to one another in love. We need to understand, not only the basis for others arguments, but also of our own.
God made us to learn. Right now, we know very little of God, compared to what there is to know. The great thing about heaven is that we get to spend eternity with Him and with others who love Him, learning more and more about Him. I expect that there will be robust discussions, each of us sharing what we have learned, and its implications for how we live our lives (for we will still live our lives in heaven).
The experiences we have here while being yoked with Jesus, we will enjoy there as well. How we live here while sanctified is not really going to change in the new earth. Only the absence of evil, death, sickness, sorrow, etc. That is why we are told that if we will "sing" the song of Rev 15:3,4 there, we must first learn it here.
I think all here will agree that a song sounds best if all are not singing the very same note. It's called harmony. Isn't unity the same principle? However, it must be in the same key. Yes?
Weren't Lucifer's "reasoned statements" what started the great controvery? Wasn't it his intent to "prove or refute a proposition"? In what respect are controversies and arguments different?
I pray that in the new earth there will be no argument of any sort - no theses to defend, no need for "agreement to disagree", no desire to persuade another.
I understand the value of these methods here on Earth; I argue they are of no value in heaven. Do you think there are arguments happening now in heaven?
I would rather describe Lucifer's comments as selfish rather than reasoned, and remind myself that we all too often abandon reason for selfishness.
I also make the observation that in the area of computer science and transaction theory, I could have arguments with my peers without rancor, defending our theories and learning from one another, and without calling one another stupid, ignorant or a heretic. And when I find myself in a position in a theological/spiritual discussion, thinking those sort of thoughts about the other side, I find I have to take time to remind myself of the lessons I have learned in the secular academic world.
I believe that we will still discover new things in heaven; that there will be new ideas to be tested. Heaven is going to be filled with intellectual challenges for those of us who are so inclined, and we will be saying no to some ideas that do not work.
There are words that have become rather 'contaminated' over time due to their popular usage being linked to one particular dimension of meaning of that word to the virtual exclusion of other dimensions of meaning.
When I was in early primary school, my 'reader' referred to Dick and Dora having a "gay" time. Now the word "gay" is rarely if ever used to describe such experience due to its usage having become pretty much exclusively linked to a rather different phenomenon.
The word "argument" is similar - having become virtually exclusively linked in popular usage to an interchange that is based on "I'm right, you're wrong" platform with the underpinning self-based motivation Maurice has correctly referred to.
Just because a term has become contaminated, doesn't mean its usage is invalid. But it does mean the communication process will take more effort. In instances such as this, we need to first identify what the other person is meaning/conceptualising by the term they are using before assuming they are referring to our typical meaning/conceptualisation.
In heaven will be only TRUTH; Questions will be answered by CHRIST Himself. Question YES. but no argument will exist: because the mind for doubting in order to learn will not exist, for SIN to rise up a second time,like what the mind of EVE caused, The mind of the redeemed will be so perfectly changed, that none of our earthly tainted styles what was used as a means for us to know anything, will be forgotten completely, because of God\'s perfect plan. Sanctified Stratergies Yes, not University styles.
Brother Albert; truth is not a set of facts but rather a journey. I don't see Jesus as a sort of celestial Google machine providing correct answers to every question but rather as a companion who can enjoy sharing the experience of learning with us.
The other day I sat in a discussion on forgiveness and we argued about its definition testing some of our ideas against one another. We shared experiences and discussed what it meant. We sat in stunned silence as a Cambodian man told us what it was like to live forgiveness after losing most his family in the genocide some years ago. I came away blessed and enriched with a better understanding of forgiveness.
And all that took place in a university setting!
Ellen White said "we cannot take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light" MR 11:266
Wise words!
And when I think about it and consider observable evidence, it becomes quite clear to me that, contrary to promoting unity, a conviction that "the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light" may be one of the greatest causes of disunity in the church.
For instance, one person studies a passage, believes the Holy Spirit is leading, and comes to an understanding that is "the truth." Someone else studies the same passage and comes to a slightly different understanding. If unity requires that "every text of Scripture in the very same light," both people will feel that the other is wrong, and they will most certainly not be in unity.
If, on the other hand, we recognize that our unity consists in being united on the "basic axioms," as Joe Mashburn suggested, we can share our individual understanding and delight in this little bit of diversity in understanding our loving Creator while being in perfect, loving unity.
In my observations over the last 60 years or so, it seems that insistence on perfect agreement of understanding of every passage of Scripture leads to factions, not unity. We need to allow each other room for differences of understanding. Our church began with a small band of believers uniting on major points of doctrine while having quite varied views on secondary issues. And that little band grew exponentially as they reached out to the world. We would do well to emulate their example.
Ok, I'll ask you both, in what did the early church find "one accord"? Perhaps a more clear meaning of unity will be found in that answer?
I like the thoughts presented here. The word argue though has a negative connotation in most instances. I do believe Heaven will be nothing like we have ever experienced. God has promised that what He has in store for us is inconceivable. We can argue and imagine what Heaven is like, but will never be able to comprehend it with our finite minds.
We will be learning everyday, the more we learn about God and His creation the more awed we’ll be.
We’ll be sharing thoughts and ideas about what we’ve seen and learned.
From my perspective there’ll be no disagreements or arguments as we know it. It will be perfect from the time Christ returns throughout eternity. Something we’ll not understand until we’re changed from mortal to immortal.
Our thoughts will be one, but I believe our personalities will be distinctively unique.
The history of the word argue comes from a French/old English word that means "to make reasoned statements to prove or refute a proposition". That meaning is still relevant today although the alternative meaning "angry disputation" is often thought of in common usage. As an academic, I am used to arguing in the first sense when presenting ideas in research papers and workshops. I think that in heaven we will have the opportunity to argue in the first sense without the rancor that is associated with the second sense.
You are right about heaven being beyond our imagination, however, it is well to remember that we are preparing ourselves for heaven now. That is the bit we do need to understand.
"One of the greatest promises of the Bible is Jesus’ promise to come again. Without it, we have nothing, because our hopes center in that promise and what it means for us." The importance of Christ's second coming is clearly seen in what Christ went through to make it (our restoration) possible. The promises that are fulfilled to us today through obeying Him are a small portion of what He has in store for us. The love of God that we now see darkly through a glass of faith as we go through trials and obstacles, will then be made clear for us when we see Him face-to-face.
The blessings that we get today are meant to prepare us for the greater gift. They help us strengthen our faith in God. They serve as a guarantee, a down payment of the final reward,Ephesians 1:14 NLT. If we allow the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all Truth then on that day we shall be fully restored and united forever without the weakness and limitations of our present lives. Paul said we cannot imagine what God has prepared for us,1 Corinthians. 2:9.
1 Cor 2:9 Paul indeed says we cannot imagine what God has prepared for us but Praise the LORD in 1 Cor 2:10 Paul tells us that God has revealed them to us through His Spirit 1 Cor 2:10 that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
In the land of fade-less-day
It shall never pass away
All the gates of pearl are made
All the streets with gold are laid
And the gates shall never close
There life's crystal river flows
There they need no sunshine bright
For the Lamb is all the night
ALL
In 'that city fore-square"
AND
There is "no night there".
Maurice, I agree. If as Mrs White says, that the cross will be the science and song of eternity, there can not be science without discovery.
Those who will "see the kingdom of heaven", will have found true unity here with God and His people. The present lack of unity is due to the presence of tares among the wheat. (No finger pointing, just saying) I must examine myself(2 Cor 13:5) to know if I am one with Christ, for we must find this unity here with Christ, which will then unite us with all others who have taken His yoke upon them, learning of Him who is meek and lowly of heart. Some call this “self-renouncing love”, “agape”, “keeping the commandments”, etc. Whatever we might call it, we must first find it here if we would enter into the Joy of our Lord there(Rev 22:14).
Repentance and faith will bring us this experience “in this present world”(Titus 2:11,12).
"The present lack of unity is due to the presence of tares among the wheat."
Hi Robert
There is much of what you have said that I potentially agree with. However, so I don't run on mistaken assumptions, I need to understand more specifically what you mean by 'unity' in your above quote. What form/level/etc of unity are you referring to?
Thanks
Hi Phil,
What does wheat have in common with tares? What is the difference? (eg, how many are there who make bread from tares? What happens to the tares in the end compared to the wheat?)
Does this help answer the question?
If I understand Phil's question correctly, it is focused on the "level of unity," not on the difference between wheat and tares, which are merely symbols.
You have not addressed the "level of unity" you expect in order to feel that we are "unified." Could you please do so?
That's a great question, Bob!
First of all, I'd like to suggest an analogy: Let's think of a combined orchestra and choir. When we hear a beautiful symphony, we hear harmony, and I think that would be a useful synonym for unity in Christ. It is what the redeemed will experience in heaven and the new earth. They will not all think exactly the same, but they will be in harmony due to the self-renouncing love from which all their feelings, words and actions arise.
Now back to the orchestra and choir. To the uninitiated, many members of the choir would seem to be singing different tunes, but they are, in fact, singing harmonies. Many of the orchestral instruments sound very different from each other and they appear to be playing different notes, but, again, they are in harmony. They are in harmony because they are all reading from the same score of music and following the same conductor.
In the same way, we will have harmony in the church if we read from the same "score," the Bible, and listening to the same Conductor, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit. We need not worry about what persons beside us are playing/doing as long as we are focused on following our Conductor.
That's also what brought unity at Pentecost. Believer were passionate about Jesus Christ and what He had done for them and what He would do for others. They were focused on the same goal, reading off the same score, and that resulted in harmony, without each person thinking exactly alike.
What would happen if the members of the choir figured everyone should sing exactly the same notes? Wouldn't they have to stop singing while they quarreled?
I'm afraid that has happened far too often in our church. Individuals and groups of individuals have felt burdened t ensure that others are singing exactly the same notes. Not only did that result in quarreling and stopping the music (evangelism), but if they had succeeded, the balance/harmony of the choir/church would have been destroyed.
Thus we need both the "liberal" and "conservatives" and everyone inbetween in the church so we may learn from each other and become balanced. As long as we respect each other and are "subject one to another in love," we will be in harmony. And that is the kind of oneness Christ prayed for in John 16.
When you think of it, is it not spiritually arrogant to assume that everyone else must think/believe/interpret as *I* do in order to be part of the body of Christ? And is it not also arrogant to assume that I am right, and everyone must learn from me rather than me learning from others.
Is it not clear that such spiritual pride needs to be surrendered in order to have unity in the church?
I have a question that has been asked by some in passing. How good is God? That question comes from an article in the Pacific union journal. It is noted that the answer is beyond the ability of mankind to give an accurate answer. We cannot measure it in quality or quantities. We have a saying, God is good all the time. Ps52:1. Still it does not say how good. Mainly because God is too good to measure. We are finite, God is infinite. He cannot be measured, contained or controlled. Romans 2:4 mentions the goodness of God. 1John4:8,9 help give definitions of how good God is. Some of this is deeper to understand than is useful, however perhaps somewhat interesting.
I think we sometimes get a little over-awed with measurement and try to apply measurement where it is inappropriate. How pregnant is pregnant? A woman is either pregnant or not pregnant - it is a state or existence. God is the ultimate definition of goodness and it is not possible to measure that.