Thursday: The First Fruits of Those Who Have Died
Read 1 Corinthians 15:20 (NRSV) in light of Deuteronomy 26:1-11. In what sense did Paul refer to the risen Christ as “the first fruits of those who have died”?
The offering of “the first fruits” was an ancient Israelite agricultural practice with deep religious significance. It was a sacred recognition of God as the gracious Provider, who had entrusted His stewards with the land where the crops grew and were ready to be harvested (see Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Leviticus 2:11-16, Deuteronomy 26:1-11). The first fruits indicated that the harvest was not only starting but also revealing the quality of its products.
Image © Review & Herald Publishing at Goodsalt.com
According to Wayne Grudem, “in calling Christ ‘the first fruits’ (Gr. aparchē), Paul uses a metaphor from agriculture to indicate that we will be like Christ. Just as the ‘first fruits’ or the first taste of the ripening crop show what the rest of the harvest will be like for that crop, so Christ as the ‘first fruits’ shows what our resurrection bodies will be like when, in God’s final ‘harvest,’ he raises us from the dead and brings us into his presence.” — Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 615.
It is worth remembering that Jesus came out of the grave with a glorified human body, but He was still carrying the marks of His crucifixion (John 20:20, John 20:27). Does this mean that the risen children of God will likewise bear the physical marks of their own sufferings? In the case of the apostle Paul, will he still carry in his glorified body the “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7, NKJV) and “the marks of the Lord Jesus” (Galatians 6:17, NKJV)?
Until his death, Paul “was ever to carry about with him in the body the marks of Christ’s glory, in his eyes, which had been blinded by the heavenly light [see Acts 9:1-9].” — Ellen G. White, The Story of Redemption, p. 275. But this does not mean that he or any other of the glorified redeemed will be raised with the marks of their own sufferings (compare with 1 Corinthians 15:50-54). In the case of Christ, “the marks of this cruelty He will ever bear. Every print of the nails will tell the story of man’s wonderful redemption and the dear price by which it was purchased.” — Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 179. His marks are what guarantees us that all of ours will be forever gone.
| Christ will forever bear the scars of His crucifixion. What does that reveal about God’s love for us and what it cost to save us? How does it show, too, how much the Godhead has invested in saving us? |
(16)
My childhood was spent on a farm in New Zealand where we had a vegetable garden and an orchard. We never bought vegetables or fruit (with the exception of bananas). If we wanted carrots, we went out into the garden and pulled them out of the soil. If we wanted a peach or an apple we went out to the appropriate tree and picked it. True, we could not have peaches and apples all year round, but in those days you ate fruit in season - and it was good.
I know that I am writing this as an old man with fond memories, but I have to tell you that the fresh-picked fruit out of the garden tastes streets ahead of the stuff called fruit that you buy in a supermarket today. There is something about the texture and flavour of fresh-picked fruit that cannot be captured in shrinkwrapped plastic fruit that has been picked green, flown in from another state, and kept in warehouses for a couple of days. We have a grocery chain that advertises itself as the "fresh fruit people"! You have got to be kidding. They would be dumbfounded by the taste of a fresh strawberry if they ever got the chance.
We have been talking a lot about the events of the crucifixion this week and while it is important to understand what happened and why, after 2000 years we need to provide a "first-fruit" experience for others now. I believe that Christianity is relevant now. But sometimes we are dishing up snap-frozen, packaged fruit that is nearing its "best-by" date when we should be offering a "garden fresh" experience.
The Psalmist got it right:
2022.11.10 Sabbath School Thursday The First Fruits of Those Who Have Died
Christ will forever bear the scars of His crucifixion. What does that reveal about God’s love for us and what it cost to save us? How does it show, too, how much the Godhead has invested in saving us?
Christ will forever bear the scars of His crucifixion as a witnessing message for the universe to remember. The scars on His body displays His ultimate love for us and to all creation. Even better, sin will not rise up ever again because of it (Nahum 1:9). Most importantly, Christ died the second death for the Saved! Those who are Saved will not experience the second death because God’s love was revealed to them (Revelation 20:14). How? By accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour. If He’s your Lord then you will obey Him. If He’s your Saviour then your life is secured and predestined for a second chance without sin (Ephesians 1:5). The Godhead shares the same love as Christ because the Plan of Salvation was already in Christ’s hands before creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-6, 1 Peter 1:19-20).
If someone does something very good for you, don't you feel kind of obligated to pay it back in the same measure? If God gave me His Best, why shouldn't I do the same for Him? Although His Best is so much more and is quite impossible to compare it to what I can do in return, thinking deeply, if I really understood what God did and is able to do for me, my gratitude will allow me no less than to give Him my best also. What is my or your best? It's the heart! Let's give back to Christ our own hearts, to be transformed as He wishes! And may our treasure be this, hearts that are safe as the best offer of LOVE!
A previous lesson (“He Died for Us”) got me really thinking about the second death. It occurred to me that I would find it very challenging to provide context-based biblical rationale for the theory that Jesus died the second death. Revelation 20:14 and 21:18 define the second death as eternal destruction in the lake of fire at the end of time. This bears a remarkable resemblance to the river of fire in the judgment scene in Daniel 7:9-14, where the beast is consumed eternally in the fire and the kingdom is delivered to the Son of Man and his saints. Jesus obviously did not experience eternal destruction in the lake or river of fire at his death, and so by definition could not have experienced the second death.
The second death occurs at the end of time, not at the time of the cross. Jesus did not die eternally at the end of time—he was resurrected three days after the cross. His life, death and resurrection are the pattern for the Christian. Those who follow him (unite with him) in first death (unless they are alive at his coming, in which case they are changed) are then resurrected to new life at the end of time. Baptism is symbolic of this spiritual reality—a reality that is borne out in our life now and in the kingdom to come; hence, Jesus’ words in Revelation 2:11, “He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.” (NASB1995.) And apparently, Jesus was not hurt by the second death, and in him, neither are we. He willingly laid down his life to save us and vanquish the Devil and death, and then took it up again. (John 10:14-18; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:14-15.)
A good biblical rationale can be made that resurrection only occurs after the first death—either to life or to damnation—but there is no resurrection from the second death because those who die that death perish eternally. Jesus was resurrected—he did not perish eternally. If we die in Christ, we die the first death with him, but then we will live in Christ (the second Adam) as resurrected beings possessing eternal life. If we live and die in the first Adam, then we are damned to perish in the second death. (1 Corinthians 15:12-22; 42-56; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; John 3:14-17; 2 Timothy 2:11-13; Romans 6:3-11.)
Previously, I had thought that Jesus died the second death. But on second thought, there appear to be some significant issues with this theory. Given these issues, how could I make a reasonable case that Jesus experienced the second death?
how could I make a reasonable case that Jesus experienced the second death?
The "cup" that Jesus asked the Father to remove three times in Gethsemene (e.g., Matthew 26:39, 42, 44) is the same "cup" (second death) that the lost will experience after the second resurrection (Revelation 14:9-10; Revelation 16:19).
Indeed, Jesus did die the second death on His cross... not instead of us, but as us.
Hi, Richard.
I appreciate your call for a context-based approach to understanding the connection between different Bible passages, or the lack thereof, rather than using a surface, proof-text approach in order to prove our preconceived ideas.
As I seek to apply this principle to Sieg's comment, and to yours, here is what I find.
The "cup" mentioned in those passages in Revelation is said to be the cup of God's wrath against sin, full strength -- that is, unmixed with mercy. Did Jesus drink from this?
First Peter 2:24 states that:
This certainly supports the theme expressed in so many ways in Isaiah 53. For instance:
How was Jesus affected by this?
and
I can see only two possible ways to interpret this. Either Jesus was afraid of torture and death, or He was the bravest, most unselfish Man who ever lived, but He was drinking the cup of God's wrath, as depicted in Revelation. I think I know which is the right answer.
So, what about James and John? Did they end up drinking from the full-strength cup of God's wrath? No, they didn't. So then, Jesus must have been referring to the cup of martyrdom, when He said they would drink from the same cup as He. Jesus was a martyr, among other things. The Jewish religious leaders were His murderers, after all.
This seems like a reasonable conclusion to me -- far more reasonable than reducing Jesus' suffering, in Gethsemane and on the cross, to anything less than full justice for the sins of the world.
I hope that this helps to clarify things.
Richard, we may have to recognize that there are limits to human logic and reasoning - limits that mean that we cannot fully understand the issues involving the incarnation, including the death and resurrection of Christ.
But here are some biblical questions to consider: Which "death" constitutes the full wages of sin?
Is it the death Christ calls "sleep" - a death from which all awaken? Or is it the death that is complete separation from God which has eternal consequences?
Secondly, did Jesus experience the full wages of sin, or did He not?
Did Jesus die the death that we deserve so that we might have the life that He deserves? Or did He not?
(It seems to me that even a resurrection is not logical, let alone the incarnation of the Creator of the universe in human flesh and His death and resurrection. Our finite minds cannot encompass the experience of an infinite God.)
Thank you for responding. My objective is to have a biblically-based defensible (from context-based scripture) rational faith that will honour and glorify God by representing the Way, the Truth and the Life in my life. I am trying to work my way through this question of whether or not Jesus died the second death and understand that there are “limits to human logic and reasoning.”
There are many models that are used to explain the reality of God’s work of salvation, and I think all of them have limitations beyond which they may break down. My concern is that a model would not misrepresent the character of God. (See my post https://ssnet.org/blog/sabbath-he-died-for-us/#comment-130746.)
The doctrine of penal substitution and paying penalties was formulated by the Protestant reformer John Calvin (originally, a lawyer by training and profession) and because there are “limits to [his] human logic and reasoning” and rather than accepting without question what I have been told, I am trying to follow the Berean method: evaluating “with all readiness of mind” and searching the scriptures to see if those things were so. (Acts 17:11.)
My starting assumptions are God is Love and that his objective is to have mankind reconciled back to himself. (1 John 4:8; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.)
The questions you pose make sense only in the context of John Calvin’s penal substitution model. It is an imposed legal paradigm in which someone has to pay to redress a wrong done to someone else and to provide relief to a person from the wrongful acts of others. But the apostle Paul is very clear that God’s solution to the reconciliation issue is “apart from the Law,” even though the Law and the Prophets are a witness to it. (Romans 3:21.) He also states clearly that God was in Christ and that it was a propitiation (a gift). (2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 3:25.) Propitiation has no place in the Law because a gift is not a payment, but a gift does have a place in relational love and identity with God.
In Jesus’ Last Supper prayer, the expressed intent is that the Son, the Father and we his children would be one “in” each other. (John 17:20-21.) What was the impact of this unity of God, Christ and us at the death of Jesus? God fully became fully identified with us in the likeness of sinful flesh (became sin for us), “that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21.) God fully identified with us in death that we might fully identify with him and have life. Then he raised his Son from this death. This is God’s promise of our reconciliation and the destruction of the Devil, who has the power of death. (Hebrews 2:14-15; Genesis 3:15; John 3:14-17.) And it is also the promise that practically impacts our reconciliation with God and man in this life. (Romans 6:1-11.)
The New Testament states that Christ “awakened” from his “sleep”, which is consistent with a first death experience. The paradigm of God’s identification with us and us with him in the context of his death and resurrection is the nexus of our reconciliation. The second death plays no part in this. Jesus was not eternally separated from God, which is the eternal consequence of the second death. There is no resurrection from the second death; hence no reconciliation.
You are right that the incarnation and resurrection appear to make no logical sense. But there are so many reliable witnesses to their occurrence and effects that encourage us to obtain a fuller understanding of their impact on our lives. It is in the context of God’s love and reconciliation that the incarnation and resurrection do make sense. The incarnation and resurrection make less sense in the context of penal substitution.
I look forward to your thoughts on the above.
Richard
Hi, Richard.
The aspect of the atonement, that is expressed by the idea that Jesus died in our place, paying the just penalty for the sins of the whole world, seems to be such a common biblical theme that numerous Scripture passages supporting it have already been shared here, and many more doubtless could be.
Yet, in your most recent comment, you suggest that this concept originated with John Calvin, on the basis of his "human logic and reasoning," and that folks today are "imposing" it on the Scripture narrative. In view of what has already been shared here, this assertion on your part puzzles me. I can only think that something other than a lack of evidence is standing in the way of our reaching a mutual understanding.
In exploring this question, I can only start by examining what you state as your starting assumption.
I'm sure we can all agree on this, but what if we don't all have exactly the same conceptions of what love entails? Someone who has been gravely wronged by a blatantly wicked person, and who is currently suffering under persecution and oppression, might well long for another time and another place where the God of justice will be revealed in all His glory! Someone else in more congenial circumstances, who might possibly be living a more selfish lifestyle, but is trying to do better, may be more inclined to desire salvation from the God of mercy. And, of course, there may be other factors than our personal circumstances and experience that could colour our conceptions of what a God of love might be like, what He might expect from us in terns of cooperation, and what He may or may not need to do in the process of saving us.
My point is this. What if our personal conceptions of God, or of love, are incomplete or inaccurate? Shall we be so sure of ourselves as to cling to our own theories? Or might we do better, as humble penitents, to allow God, through the Scriptures, to reveal Himself as He is? Might it not be better for us to see that we cannot possibly know all there is to know about God -- or about love -- and to simply appreciate and admire what God has seen fit to show us about Himself?
In expounding on the concept of Jesus' suffering under the wrath of God, on account of the sins of the whole world, Seventh-day Adventist pioneer Ellen White penned these words:
Reading these words, in the context of what Jesus was experiencing in the Garden of Gethsemane, I can almost feel the consternation that must have seized His soul, as He saw what it would mean for Him to endure perfect justice on account of every wrong that every sinner had ever committed, or would commit. For me personally, God's character is best revealed in Jesus' determination to thus save me, "at any cost to Himself." (DA page 690)
What if the points that Richard Ferguson is attempting to raise and present have come about precisely because he is in fact doing precisely this?
That's a fair question. But you have taken this fragment out of context. I believe that RG White meant to suggest that our knowledge is limited, and thus we had best not be too sure of views that focus too narrowly on one aspect of the Atonement. He wrote, among other things:
That leads me to wonder just what Richard thinks love entails and what you think love entails. Perhaps you could both elaborate on your views.
The context of
is really worth exploring as well.
I acknowledge up front the inherent limitations to this response due to trying to keep things as brief as reasonably possible in terms of comment length.
I am afraid I do not agree that my comment is merely "out of context" - as the sentiments you have expanded upon, which I was aware of, are reflected within the quotation I reproduced (which I selected for the sake of keeping my comment brief).
Inherent to the sentiments that have been expressed across the above conversation (which I had been following closely) and other past conversations more widely is the assumption that any view that rejects any 'facet/s' is artificially narrow and inevitably so because of personal bias -rather than because of the possibility that the facet may not actually be validly supported.
I acknowledge and agree that we cannot know everything about God and God's ways. However, the assertion that because of this all proposed facets (eg, of atonement) are valid violates this very acknowledgment. Thus the assertion that someone is discounting incorporation of a particular facet or facets because of personal bias could equally be applied to someone who maintains inclusion of a particular facet or facets. For example, I would propose that inclusion of the imposed infliction of punishment (as distinct from the release to inherent consequences/'punishment') is fundamentally underpinned by personal bias whereby such inflicted punishment is seen/felt as fundamentally required for 'justice' to be satisfied - and therefore that 'love' therefore incorporates such imposed infliction.
While I absolutely agree that this is the most prevailing view of 'justice' within this world - and therefore also colours the view of what love entails - I do not agree that this therefore reflects God's justice (and therefore inclusion within His love) which I propose is instead conceptually radically different. In contrast, God's form or justice is in harmony with how God has established life to occur and be maintained via the inherent law of self-renouncing love which is THE (ie, foundational) law* of life on earth and in heaven. Be in harmony with this law and life will result. Be out of harmony with this law and detrimental consequences will inherently result (Galatians 6:7-8; James 1:15; Romans 6:23 along with John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 where "perish" is a 'middle voice' verb and phenomenon).
I appreciate that my above comment stands as assertions that require much more elaboration to substantiate - including addressing challenges to these assertions that arise from differing presuppositions. That is why at the end of the day, each of us must be fully persuaded in our own minds (Romans 14:5b; Acts 17:11; 1 Peter 3:15 principles) as to which presuppositions we believe to be true and why. However, I am willing to engage further conversation in due course if desired.
Please be assured that I spend much time researching and reflecting before I post my comments. This includes my having reviewed the Desire of Ages reference you originally included, the wider context to that reference within the chapter, the even wider context of the 2 other usages of the emphasised phrase by Ellen White in other writings, and the still wider context of Ellen White's writings more broadly that I have been undertaking across time.
-------
* This usage and conceptualisation of "law" refers to principle of inherent cause and effect.
Dear Phil,
It seems to me that everyone's comments on this blog have the same "inherent limitations." For that matter, even if we could accurately communicate everything that is in our minds about this subject, we would still only "see through a glass darkly." (1 Cor. 13:12) That is actually a point I am trying to make in this conversation. There is so much we do not know that we had better tread lightly - especially when advocating a new interpretation of a biblical teaching which has led millions to Christ and for which thousands have died - namely that Christ took upon Himself our sin and guilt and died in our place.
Due to the limitations that you acknowledge, I will not here attempt to give a full defense of the teaching that Christ died in our place. (But see God the Son – Adventist Fundamental Belief 4 About Jesus Christ and Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ – Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief 9) I see it taught over and over again in the sacrificial services of the sanctuary, beginning at the gates of Eden, where God killed some animals to clothe Adam and Eve. By putting his hands on the sin offering, the sinner identified himself with the lamb that was to die in his place, typifying the Lamb who was to take away the sins of the world by dying in our place. (John 1:29) (H'mm .. now I wonder how you explain this, since God never kills. Did the animals die of natural causes, and did God just harvest the skins to clothe the guilty pair?)
Just today, a relatively recent convert in our congregation preached a powerful sermon which was the second part of his testimony. Like millions of others, his heart was moved by the understanding that "Jesus died in my place. He died the death that I deserve that I might receive the life that He deserves. He was treated as I deserve that I might be treated as He deserves." Such an understanding has emotive power that is unequaled because it demonstrates the greatest love there is. (John 15:13) And love is the strongest power in the universe. It seems to some of us that your view would take away this powerful inducement to accept Jesus as Savior. (cf John 12:32) Can you understand why those who have been drawn thus to the Savior would react negatively to an interpretation of Scripture that removes this vision?
I fully embrace the understanding that God gives life, but sin inevitably leads to death. Where you and I differ is in whether or not God steps in at certain times to judge sinners and remove them so that they will not further endanger those around them. One prominent Adventist psychiatrist who teaches a view similar to yours terms such instances in the past as "surgical interventions" for the good of humanity. I believe that is a fitting analogy to the way God works with His created beings on this planet, and it applies not only to the past, but also to the present and the future.
As for retributive justice, I would seriously like you to consider Gordon's suggestion:
I know of those who gratefully gave their lives to Christ after recognizing that God would, indeed, punish those who had so frightfully abused them. They had distanced themselves from God for allowing the abuse to happen in the first place but understanding more of how the Bible shows God operating, and how He makes all things right in the end, helped them to both adjust in this life and to look forward to living with God in eternity.
David, the Psalmist, expressed similar thoughts.
Yet you say that God's love does not include the justice that destroys evil.
By contrast, I believe that, just as a father would kill a snake that would harm His child, God actively destroys evil when the situation calls for it. It has happened many times in the past, when God "judged" people when the limits of their probation had been reached. His judgment included orders to destroy such people who were settled in the land of Canaan. At times, He executed individual rebels so that the poison of rebellion would not infect more, and thus result in greater destruction. And at the end of time for this planet, He has promised to actively destroy rebellious sinners and cleanse the world of evil so that only harmonious love may reign.
This is the way Ellen White saw the execution of final justice:
And this will be the glorious result:
Thanks Inge for allowing me to present my viewpoint and for critique inviting further response and clarification. I benefit from the research undertaken in relation to your points of critique - which is why the delay to my response.
By way of succinct response:
1) I find nothing in either Fundamental Belief number 4 or 9 that is contradictory to what I have been outlining. Further, I do not disagree with any of the wording of these beliefs as they are written. However what I believe those words are actually and functionally referring to may differ from what others might believe those words are referring to due to differing presuppositions.
2) I too believe that God 'intervenes' and that the result/s of such intervention is the 'removal' of people at times (past, present and future) so they will not further endanger others. Where you and I differ is how God goes about doing that - which includes how we each view reality as operating and therefore what we each believe God needs to initiate.
3) It is not correct that I say that God's love does not include justice that results in the destruction of evil. It is the form of 'justice' and the associated means by which that form of 'justice' results in the destruction of evil that you and have differences regarding. I also agree with the wording of the Ellen White quotes you provided in relation to 'justice'. As per the example you provided regarding a father stepping in to kill a snake, or a reference to use of surgical intervention, we (understandably) use human examples as the reference point that we then extrapolate to how we assume God must also do things. But God does not suffer from the limitations that we humans do and therefore is not limited to having to do things the way we humans do (affirmed by the Isaiah 55:8-9 principle that is consistent with the context of the entire chapter's content). God has a mindblowingly elaborate 'mechanism' that fosters and 'governs' life that He is both actively involved in sustaining and yet also permits humans the freedom to be out of harmony with. Consequently God does not need to, nor is it His nature and character, cause death/destruction to happen. Death and destruction is what happens to anything that chooses to depart from the only way that life and order can viably exist. When God releases restraint against the inherent consequences of being out of harmony with the only way life is viable, those inherent consequences enact their impact/s (Galatians 6:8; Romans 6:23). I note that it is the devil, not God who holds the power of death (Hebrews 2:14) and it is the devil ('thief') that is the facilitator of death (John 10:10). By contrast, God is both the exclusive source of life and exclusively the source of life (Jeremiah 2:13; John 7:37-38; John 14:6; John 10:10).
4) With briefest of comment in relation to Genesis 3:21, there is much more to what appears to be stated in the text and what has commonly been inferred as a consequence. It is very informative to examine what Hebrew/Jewish commentators see within this verse and its context - including the homographic connection between the words used for light and skin - reflecting awareness of Ancient Hebrew ways of conceptualising and consequently conveying concepts in the text of scripture. Relatedly but additionally, that God who had only a chapter and two earlier spoken the terraformation of the earth and its associated universe into existence "so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" (Hebrews 11:3) now is purportedly limited to providing a covering for Adam and Eve by personally killing an animal (and likely more than one would have been needed) is a point that has not escaped notice of commentators also.
Thank you for your response, Phil. I'm glad to note that our area of agreement is larger than our differences.
I would like to specifically address this portion of your response:
I did not intentionally misrepresent your view and apologize for doing so. Perhaps you can clarify further.
So what is the "form of justice" that is included in God's love and results in the destruction of evil? Since you say you agree with the wording of Ellen White's statement, I would like to know how this "form of justice" fits in with the bolded part of the statement:
Hi Inge
This is how I understand God's form of justice.
1) The principle and 'mechanism' that is God's form of justice is summarised most succinctly in Galatians 6:7-8 and parallels what is expressed in the EGW quote reference to Proverbs 11:28-31. Galatians 7:8 explicitly identifies that the destruction of those who sew to the flesh comes from (is generated by) the flesh and not from the Spirit. Hence the stated contrast of the results of those who sew to the Spirit reaping a result that comes from (is generated by) the activity of the Spirit. This aligns with Romans 8:2 and 6:23. Thus each person justly/rightly receives the consequences inherent to their chosen way of being: those who have and therefore sew in accordance with a heart of beneficence inherently reap life facilitated by the Spirit. Those who have and and therefore sew to a heart of maleficence (Genesis 6:5) inherently reap perishing/destruction.Hence Proverbs 8:36.
How does this form of justice fit with the bolded portion of The Great Controversy p 673 quote? Ellen White quite frequently refers to Galatians 6:7-8 in her writings. The following example quote reflects how Ellen White understood people would be 'punished' (rendered/consequenced) according to their deeds:
2) Why then does it appear that this justice is expressed in some instances and seemingly not in others if it is inherent? This is due to God's work of fostering a space of probation which involves a constant, dynamic exercising of restraint to inherent consequences or release of restraint - including to degrees of restraint and release of restraint in a given instance. This is part of God's 'orchestration-based' governance that involves God utilising the inherent mechanisms He has created the fabric of reality to operate upon and within.
I acknowledge that what I have outlined can appear different to what is typically believed. I therefore submit consideration of the following quote also from The Great Controversy:
Reply to Phil van der Kilt comment
Again, thank you for your response, but I'm having a little difficulty seeing the answers to my questions. I asked first
If I understand your response correctly, God's "form of justice" doesn't actually involve any kind of active judgment. God just lets people reap the consequences of their choices.
Did I read you correctly?
Secondly, since you said you agreed with the Ellen White statement I offered previously, I also asked
I do not find a reply to this question. Instead you offered another quotation which refers to the way God deals with sinners during their lifetime in this world, saying that even the disobedient and unthankful "have great reason for gratitude for God’s mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one." What a great statement!
By contrast, the previous statement, with which you said you agree, refers to the final judgment after the millennium.
This morning I ran into a related statement in the InVerse Young Adult lessons for this week.
(An earlier, even more explicit statement is found in Early Writings, p. 290.)
I confess I have some difficulty reconciling the statement with which you say you agree and similar statements with the idea of there being no time of judgment where punishment is pronounced. But perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by "God's form of justice" in the texts you offered, since you did not explain?
Thanks Inge.
I acknowledge and can appreciate that you may have difficulty seeing that I am answering your questions because there are more dimensions to my answer than I am able to include in a single comment of reasonable length. We are each operating from sufficiently differing foundational presuppositions which, in turn, inherently give rise to differing conceptualisations of the same words/concepts. So, I will address/clarify one point at a time to try and build a progressively more complete picture. This will therefore likely necessitate multiple further interchanges between us.
Keeping in mind what I outlined as how I understand God's principle/s and mechanisms of justice (His 'form of justice') in terms of (a) all reap what they have freely chosen to sow from the entity that they sowed to, flesh or Spirit, and (b) that this is a phenomenon is inherent rather than imposed in its functional nature, I add the following with respect to God's 'form of judgment'. Now, about God's judgment.
Succinctly, I find 'God's judgment' (which is actually undertaken by Jesus: John 5:22) to be an (active) process of 'revelation' rather than 'determination' (1 Corinthians 4:5). Consistent with this, what is referred to as pronouncement of verdict or sentence is instead a 'revelationary-declaration' process (involving broader presentation than merely a verbal statement) regarding what already is in place/at work, rather than determination-based and/or imposition-based declaration. Such judgment is revealing what has been sown that is inherent cause of what is being reaped (as per Galatians 6:7-8). We see this in John 3:18-19. Put another way, God's 'judgment' is diagnosis and prognosis - active processes, but active based upon inherent rather than imposed phenomena. Inherent doesn't automatically mean passive.
So, it is not true that I am conveying God's "form of justice" as something that does not actually involve any kind of active judgment. It just doesn't involve the active kind of judgment that involves imposed phenomena. Therefore, yes, God lets people reap the consequences of their choices. I have removed your use of the word "just" because that word, used as a modifier, often implies that somehow something is insufficient in and of itself. I do not find that God's employment of the very principle and mechanism by which He will also, according to Galatians 6:7-8 "not be mocked" (i.e., will instead be vindicated) is in any way insufficient nor Him merely being passive.
I will await your response as to the next point you would like me to address - which may well be the second point you raised in your preceding comment.
Hello RG,
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post on this.
When I was working on large industrial projects, I was often surprised how the interpretation of specifications, codes and standards was influenced by how people thought. One would think that technical work (determined by the realities of physics and mathematics) would be straightforward, but it was not necessarily so.
Here we have the science of salvation, and no surprise, its interpretation is also influenced by how people think. In situations like this, the idea that Paul expressed in his letter to the Philippians likely applies: he rejoiced in Christ being preached in every way possible because in context it opens dialogues of discovery. (Philippians 1:18.)
It looks that God’s intent was that the cross event jar us out of our complacent thinking that we might know him and Jesus whom he sent to this earth. Why else would a “snake” on a pole be lifted up? I know that my personal conceptions of God’s love are without doubt incomplete and inaccurate. (Philippians 3:12.) That is why I am striving and praying to know him more clearly as I work out my salvation with “fear and trembling” and determine his will for my life.
Frankly, I expected this quarterly to be rather boring because when you die you sleep—what else is there to know?—a rehearsal of the same old truth. Instead, in almost every section, it has uncovered gaps and unproven assumptions in my thinking about what I thought I “knew” about God. It has been an unsettling quarter of study so far. Hence, my posts and questions.
Thank you for your post. It helps in working through my theological thinking and its application to life.
Richard