Sabbath: Preamble to Deuteronomy
Image © Pacific Press
Sabbath Afternoon
Read for This Week’s Study: Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:12-17, Genesis 3:1-7, Genesis 12:1-3, Acts 7:20-36, Exodus 19:4-8.
Memory Text: “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8).
The book of Deuteronomy, of course, did not arise in a vacuum. As with everything in life, Deuteronomy exists in a context; and, as with everything in life, that context plays an important role in understanding what the book means and what its purpose is.
A lot of history came before it — a history that explained the circumstances, not only of the book itself but of the world and environment that created its context. Just as it would be hard to understand the purpose and function of a windshield wiper outside the context of a car, it would be hard to understand Deuteronomy, especially in light of our theme (Deuteronomy and present truth), outside the context in which it arose.
Someone had read Russian Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace — about 1,500 pages in just three days. When asked what the book was about, the reader replied: “It’s about Russia.”
To cover in one week’s lesson the thousands of years of history before we come to Deuteronomy is to do somewhat the same thing. But by focusing on the highlights, we can see the context needed to best understand this book, so rich with “present truth.”
Study this week’s lesson to prepare for Sabbath, October 2.
(29)
Picking up on the lesson's point regarding context, there is a key point raised by Ellen White that I believe is valid and vital to keep in mind from the outset as we study Deuteronomy this quarter:
What was the law of God given to Adam after the fall that was then spelled out more specifically in the 10 commandments proclaimed at Sinai (by Jesus) - and then further spelled out even more specifically in Deuteronomy? Jesus answers this question:
This 'law' - love for God and for our neighbor - is the law or functional principle of beneficence. The seeking of the genuinely best interests of others instead of seeking your own self-indulgent interests.
According to Jesus, this principle underpins "ALL the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). Consequently, we need to see all the law and the prophets through the lens of this principle. And, we need to realise that this principle is not a law that was merely a 'made up rule' by God like men make up rules. According to Ellen White, the principle of beneficence (self-giving, other-benefiting Agape love) is the foundational principle - or cause and effect constant (ie law) upon which all of creation operates*.
Failure to keep the above in mind will unfortunately risk misperception and misinterpretation of what you see in Deuteronomy - and consequently risk misperception of what is drawn as 'present truth' application of Deuteronomy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you aren't yet familiar with how the 'law of beneficence' is foundational to all life on earth and in heaven, I invite you to read carefully Ellen White's explanation of this critically important understanding in pages 19-21 of Desire of Ages
Thank you Phil for pointing us to the Desire of Ages, which continues to explain that in order for us to live according to the LORD's Principles of Love, Jesus bore our sins so we might be justified by His righteousness.
In stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of the character of Satan. But He stepped still lower in the path of humiliation. “Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:8. As the high priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of the common priest, so Christ took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim. “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him.” Isaiah 53:5. {DA 25.1}
Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His. “With His stripes we are healed.” {DA 25.2}
By His life and His death, Christ has achieved even more than recovery from the ruin wrought through sin. It was Satan’s purpose to bring about an eternal separation between God and man; but in Christ we become more closely united to God than if we had never fallen. In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. He gave Him not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature.
Desire of Ages 25.2
Thank you for your input to the conversation Shirley.
Yes, "Jesus bore our sins so that we might be justified by His righteousness". But what are we to understand by these words? Perhaps we refer to the Desire of Ages paragraph that states:
But again, how are we to understand the concepts represented by these words - because these concepts can be - and are - interpreted in a range of ways?
The above paragraph is preceded by quite a number of pages - and is followed by a couple more pages in the chapter. What was the author's progression of thought that led up to the above paragraph? And what was the progression of thought that followed this paragraph?
Also, did the author use this paragraph anywhere else in her writings - and if so, what was the progression of thought before and after this paragraph in those writings? As far as I can see, while this paragraph has been used in a handful of compilations constructed by the EGW estate, it only appears to have been used by the author in one or maybe two other writings of her own authorship: Letter 255 published in 1903 (written October 29 1902), and possibly a very brief article in The Revew & Hearld February 25 1915 approximately 5 months prior to her death.
It is an interesting and worthwhile exercise to take a detailed look at the Desire of Ages chapter and Letter 255. I have done this several times over - noting the key point or points being established by each paragraph and the consequential progression of thought of those paragraphs. What I find absent is any mention of the notion of Christ's death as a payment of a death-penalty or of a legal paradigm. Rather, I find the author's meaning of "Christ was treated as we deserve... He was condemned for our sins in which He had no share... He suffered the death which was ours... with His stripes we are healed" quite different to what it is usually assumed to mean.
I would invite anyone to undertake their own detailed analysis of the above chapter and letter* - paragraph by paragraph to see what you find as the authors thought and thought progression that the above paragraph is a culmination of. I will be interested in hearing what you find. This process and associated findings will also have direct relevance to our endeavours to re-look afresh at Deuteronomy this quarter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Desire of Ages chapter can be accessed here.
Letter 255 1903 can be accessed here.
Review & Herald 25 Feb 1915 brief article can be accessed here.
Paul said the same thing: we are justified by Jesus' blood/death and reconciled by His life.
God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God
Rom 4:23-25
23Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham, 24but also for us, to whom righteousness will be credited—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised to life for our justification.
Rom 5:6-11
6For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly... 8But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him! 10For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! 11Not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
2Cor 5:17-21
17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come!
18All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s trespasses against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
20Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God. 21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
Thanks again Shirley for your input. I absolutely agree with every word of all the verses you have supplied. However, the same questions and points raised in relation to interpreting Ellen White's words also apply to interpreting Paul's words - and the entire Bible because it does require interpretation (2 Timothy 2:15).
The Romans 4 passage you quoted progressively leads into Romans 5 that you also quoted - with Romans 5 being Paul's most detailed unpacking of the notion of Jesus as the 2nd Adam. Paul continually contrasts the parallel journey of the 1st Adam with that of the 2nd Adam. In doing so, Paul connects us back to Genesis to recall what actually happened - what got broken that therefore needed to be actually fixed (ie, re-instated).
With reference to 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul does not use the precise phrase in the first part of 2 Corinthians 5:21 anywhere else in scripture. However we do find remarkably parallel phrases in his writings (Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:13; Philippians 2:7; Hebrews 2:17) with the parallelism being the necessity of Jesus becoming a valid human in order to validly acquire salvation for humanity - again, the Romans 5 concept of the necessity of a 2nd Adam.
How did the 2nd Adam bring salvation to humanity? According to Romans 5, the 2nd Adam re-traced the very same path (in principle) as the 1st Adam - but this time successfully. Hence the culminating statement in Romans 5:19 which Paul enlarges upon in Philippians 2:8. The first Adam's "disobedience" - choice to embrace self-seeking and in doing let go of the law of the Spirit of life that he had previously been living in accordance with and instead embrace the law of sin and death (as per Romans 8:2). By contrast, the 2nd Adam faithfully held to "obedience" to walking in harmony with the law of the Spirit of life - rather than instead embrace self-seeking even when faced with death and (temporary but nevertheless extremely agonising in the moment) separation from God. Thus, the 2nd Adam, as a valid member of humanity, brought about justification/atonement for the human species and then offered each individual human the opportunity to share in that inheritance if they were willing (John 3:3-6, 16). Justification validly can be translated as realignment or bringing back into rightness/correctness which parallels it perfectly with the concept of bringing back to at-one-ment.
Is this consistent with a valid interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21? The Greek says that he who knew no (hamartian) missing of the mark (ie had no personal firsthand experience of missing the mark) was made to be/become as one who had missed the mark (hamartian). This is where interpretation is required. Does this mean that Jesus was made our substitute via actually being made to be sin - or was Jesus made our valid substitute via actually becoming a valid member of the human species? And as that valid substitute, did Jesus actually restore humanity back in connection with God and life (atonement) via merely paying a death-penalty or by actually living in obedience to and therefore actually reinstating the law of the Spirit of life back within humanity as the faithful and therefore successful 2nd Adam? While I will not take further space to include the results of such, I will mention that I have looked in detail at numerous passages where Ellen White quotes and unpacks 2 Corinthians 5:21.
Paul's doctrine of the 2nd Adam is not divorced from other depictions of Jesus salvation in scripture - such as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin (collective singular) of the world (John 1:29) via actually repairing/reinstating what got broken by the 1st Adam in Eden: actually restoring the law of the Spirit of life back into humanity as a valid member of humanity.
I am not emphatic that anyone has to believe anything that I am saying. I am only unpacking a perspective that I find to be robustly supported by scripture including how it is supported by scripture. I welcome yourself or anyone else to do the same - provide the detail of how and why they are interpreting the words of a bible passage in the way they do. This is what bible study within community is about so that we can each imitate the Bereans that Paul commended (Acts 17:11).
While this may seem like this conversation is drifting away from the study of Deuteronomy, I would propose that the above principles present the big picture that Deuteronomy is located within and the processes involved in unpacking its truth/s.
Deuteronomy 1:19-27 read in The Message translation. This tells the complete context.
When giving instructions or perhaps while disciplining an erring one, something needing to be emphasized as being very important will often be repeated. Thus we might comprehend Deuteronomy, and why it was even given to Israel. Plan A, if followed, would have never resulted in this book, for it wouldn't have been needed, but Plan B was required, and here we have a book to study which has been instrumental in a great revival, and is reported to be the book of the Old Testament most quoted by Jesus during His earthly sojourn. Perhaps the question today is not; “what can we learn from this book?”, but rather; “will we learn from this book?”.
Hi Brother Robert, I hope we "will learn from this book", and not follow in the example of the Israelites. They could have had it all, but "iniquity" was found in them, and they lost it all. (homework: lookup the word "iniquity", it's not quite the same as the word "sin")
We, like them, are on the edge of the Promised Land, Jesus' second coming. Will we "be watchful"? Or will we repeat the errors of the Israelites, and want what others have instead?
God's blessings to all of you! Have a great week!!