Wednesday: Jesus and the Origin and History of the Bible
Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God in the sense that what it says is synonymous with what God says. Its origin is found in God and, therefore, contains ultimate authority for every aspect of life. God worked through history to reveal His will to humanity through the Bible.
Image © Robert McKain at Goodsalt.com
For instance, in Matthew 19:4-5 (NKJV), Jesus refers to a quote written by Moses. But Jesus takes this passage and says, “He who made them at the beginning … said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother’ ”. Instead of saying “Scripture says”, Jesus says, “He who made them at the beginning … said”, attributing to the Creator’s word what the narrator of Genesis wrote. God is, in fact, regarded here as the author of this statement, even though it was written by Moses.
Read the following passages. How did Jesus understand the historical persons and events of the Bible?
Jesus consistently treats Old Testament people, places, and events as historical truth. He refers to Genesis chapters 1 and 2, Abel in Genesis chapter 4, David eating the showbread, and Elisha among other historical figures. He repeatedly speaks of the sufferings of the prophets of old (Matt. 5:12, Matt. 13:57, Matt. 23:34-36, Mark 6:4). In a message of warning, Jesus also describes the days of Noah: “As … they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matt. 24:38-39, NKJV). There is every indication that Jesus was referring to this mighty act of God’s judgment as a historical event.
| Because Jesus Himself refers to these historical people as real, what does it say about the power of Satan’s deceptions that many people today, even professed Christians, often deny their existence? Why must we never fall into that trap? |
(21)
The really interesting thing about Jesus use of scripture was that he continually reinterpreted it. If you read the Gospels you repeatedly come across the expression, "But I say unto you ..." or "Verily, I say unto you...". Typically he went on to present a new interpretation of the Old Testament law that often challenged the hard-nosed condemnation that had crept into the oral tradition, extended the practice of compassion.
Jesus did not replace the Scripture, but rather he challenged the interpretation that had been placed on it. In essence he was saying that here was a different way of thinking about what you have always believed. Usually his "rethink" had to do with compassion but often it has to do with the big picture of interpretation as well.
If you want to do a bit of an exercise, try finding all the expressions "But I say unto you...", or similar, in Matthew and John. It's easy with modern online searchable Bibles. See what you think Jesus is saying in these passages. Does he provide us with a model for interpretation?
Yes Maurice, in Jesus' day, the scholars manipulated the law, while Jesus came to magnify the law. (They mingled the thoughts of men with the word of God, too often the results of a worldly education)
Are not these the only two ways we can regard the law? Either we magnify or manipulate, which will determine how we view God and our neighbor.
Jesus was "rescuing truth from its companionship with error, and presenting it in its original simplicity and clearness, so that men could comprehend it." 7T, 35
The final question in today’s lesson raises the issue of the power of Satan’s deceptions and that we need to beware that we don’t “fall into” them.
The lesson also proposes that the flood was a “mighty act of God’s judgement”. Is this truth or deception?
The typical view has God causing the flood in order to punish the people for their wickedness. But, to borrow from Maurice’s valid point outlined above, might this view need to be reinterpreted in light of the evidence of all scripture?
Here are converging threads of evidence to consider:
1. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). When Adam and Eve ‘fell’ in Genesis 3, they and this world that was under their dominion and guardianship (Genesis 1:28) left lawfulness and entered lawlessness. Lawfulness is the state necessary for the order that underpins life. Lawlessness by its nature fosters chaos which is a destructive ‘force’. While the natural/default state of humanity and the environment prior to Genesis 3 was order and therefore abundant life, this gave way to the natural state of chaos/destruction via lawlessness from Genesis 3 onwards. The former is termed by Paul “the Law (principle/constant) of the Spirit of Life” and the latter “the law (principle/constant) of sin and death” in Romans 8:2. Galatians 6:8 and James 1:14,15 also affirm the operation of the law of sin and death as the mechanism of self-destruction.
As Ellen White has proposed in Desire of Ages p764, “had Satan and his host had been left to reap the full result (natural outcome) of their sin, they would have perished (self destructed due to the ‘forces’ of lawlessness/chaos); but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of their sin”. And if Adam and Eve had been left to reap the full result (natural outcome) of their sin (as per God’s precautionary instruction in Genesis 2:17), then 2 Peter 3:9 would not have been possible. Consequently, God has needed to step in and restrain the natural consequences of sin (see 2 Thessalonians 2:6,7 and Revelation 7:1 for explicit reference to God’s role and activity as Restrainer).
Unfortunately, in our fallen state and under the deceptive exploitation of our vulnerability under this state, we mistakenly ‘believe’ that life and order is/should be the default tendency of us and our world. But the truth is that lawlessness and its resultant chaos is actually the default reality of our world. Were it not for the restraint of these default forces provided by God, ‘all hell would break loose’ and nature would fall apart in total self-destruction.
2. Scientists have relatively recently hypothesised that the earth contains a vast quantity of water (in ionic form) under incredible pressure between the upper and lower mantles. This hypothesis accords with the description in Genesis 7:11 regarding the fountains of the deep breaking forth. This breaking forth is an example of the phenomenon of lawlessness at work.
3. According to Genesis 7:21, all living beings “perished” in the flood. The specific Hebrew word used (way·yiḡ·wa‘) is only used 6 times in the Bible and refers to someone dying via the process of expiration - that is, via a naturally occurring consequential process rather than via a destructive slaughtering at the hands of another party. And while Genesis 7:23 has been translated “God destroyed everything living thing” outside the ark, we now know that due to this statement being reflective of the Hebrew ‘causative-permissive’ idiom (as per my post last Friday), the actuality is that it was not God that caused the flood but rather that it was the result of the cause and effect lawlessness and chaos forces of sin that God permitted via giving the inhabitants of the earth their freedom to choose to live under such (as per the diagnosis in Genesis 6:5). Thus, God released the restraint that he was previously undertaking (in the hope that people would choose the way of life) and instead reluctantly yet definitively granting them the freedom to have their hearts desire. Being able to see this also enables us to see more clearly what Jesus said in Matthew 24:39 regarding the flood being the causative thing that “swept them all away” - not God.
4. From a biblical perspective, consistent with what has been outlined briefly above, God’s judgment is a process of revealing of evidence that ‘speaks for itself’ (eg 1 Corinthians 4:5). It is not the executing of sentencing that it is most typically portrayed. The executing of sentencing is actually the causative activity of lawlessness.
5. Jesus concise summary statement in John 10:10 exclusively attributes the fostering of life to the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of God to exclusively fostering life. Conversely, Jesus also exclusively attributes destruction and death to the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of darkness exclusively to destruction and death.
Thus, we have strong converging evidence for the need to reinterpret the typical view of the way in which destructive events such as the flood are a “mighty act of God’s judgment”. Rather than being acts whereby God is the causative source of destruction, they are events that reveal the default (self-) destructive nature of sin/lawlessness. Knowing this, is it therefore surprising that Satan would have us deceptively misbelieve and therefore misperceive that God is actually the source of destruction?
This proposed reinterpretation is not new. Rather, it is a return to what was once known within Adventism, but has become subsequently lost sight of:
What is being illustrated in the above quote is Satan’s conception of ‘justice’ - that justice must involve application of punishment. Having originated with Satan, we can see that the typical notion of ‘justice’ that we impose upon God is in fact reflective of Satan’s portrayal rather than God’s “higher” ways (Isaiah 55:8,9). Yet another area that needs reinterpretation...
God guide us to see beyond the deceptions that Satan has and is misportraying about you that we may come to see the Truth of who you are and what you are all about. We need that more than ever as our world falls more and more apart towards its approaching final self-destruction.
Thank you for your comment, Phil. As you know I share your perspective that sin is self-destructive and that the sinner's eternal death is not an arbitrary judgment on God's part. I also believe that our tri-une God's character is inherently one of self-renouncing love, with not an iota of arbitrariness or self-interest. However, I don't think we need to cast every Bible reference of God "judging" and imposing capital punishment as something God didn't do. 😉 (God's instructions to the Hebrews under the theocracy included many cases of capital punishment. Would God instruct His people to do something that would misrepresent His character?)
You wrote:
It seems to me that you are interpreting this quotation to mean that "Every sin must meet its punishment" is false because Satan said it. But I think we can agree that most of what Satan says - including what he said to Christ in the three temptations - is true. However, he twists it for his own ends. In this case, he twisted the truth to declare that God couldn't save sinners.
In His turn, God did not deny that "every sin must meet its punishment," but He did something inconceivable (to self-centered Satan) in taking the punishment/consequences on Himself. That is the glory of the cross. It is the fundamental Protestant view of the Atonement that is often referred to as "penal substitution." In other words, God in Christ took our punishment/the natural consequence of sin upon Himself.
Since you quoted Ellen White, I'd like you to consider another statement by her:
And this from the Review and Herald, November 28, 1912 (towards the end of Ellen's life):
[Paragraph edited and expanded after publication] As for the Flood: The vast majority of the earth's population had willingly chosen to live independent of their Creator and Lifegiver. Of course, the natural result of separation from the Lifegiver is death. But since they were living on probationary time, God had to close their probation and initiate an event (the Flood) that would allow them to reap the natural consequences of their choice at that time, rather than after the final judgment. It seems to me that the Genesis account is very clear in describing what God said He would do and what he actually did. It does not seem necessary to recast this as a "natural" event without God's active involvement in order to defend His character. (If God had let sin run its course at that time, earth's inhabitants would have continued in violence and crime and eventual self-destruction, with no hope of redemption, because they had rejected God. His act of cleansing the earth of sinners allowed a remnant to repopulate the earth and keep the knowledge of God and His character alive.)
Hi Inge
I can appreciate that you may be 'tired' of me raising this issue. I chose to revisit it on this occasion because the lesson mentioned it as a key point in proposing that "Jesus was referring to this mighty act of God’s judgment as a historical event". While I do not question that this was a historical event, I do question that Jesus was referring to this event as a might act of God's judgment in the way that this term is typically understood. You and I see some things similarly and other things differently - and that may well stay the case. And we will each lay out our evidence and reasoning for our respective viewpoints that we hold - each of us making the case for the hope that we have and doing so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). Readers will read each of our viewpoints and hopefully be inspired to study into what they believe and why. Your counter-points do help me explore various dimensions of the issue and I have grown a lot in my knowledge and associated walk with God as a consequence. So iron is sharpening iron.
I comment on the following points you raised, not in attempt to 'be right', but to outline my corresponding viewpoints and basis for those viewpoints.
1) "God's instructions to the Hebrews under the theocracy included many cases of capital punishment. Would God instruct His people to do something that would misrepresent His character?"
I see this issue within the context of a developmental perspective whereby God was trying to 'grow' people in their knowledge, understanding and experience of Him - but was limited in the rate and ways in which He could do so. Because God preserves freedom of choice, there was a risk that if God tried to grow people too quickly, the growth would be too daunting for them and they would reject God and return to pagan worship with which they were more familiar and 'comfortable'. For example, I am looking into the issue of what appears to be God-condoned instances of stoning. It appears that God was not able to 'outlaw' it during Old Testament times due to the embeddedness of the practice within the cultural practices of the people (something I find hard to fathom because I am not embedded within that culture). But what we do see across scripture is a progressive modification of the practice to the point where Jesus was finally able to avert it being carried out in John 8:1-11. While the scribes and Pharisees continued with the practice (eg later stoning of Stephen under Saul's approval), there is no indication that the wider lay people revolted against Jesus failure to carry out this practice.
Consequently, I see a difference between (a) God being able to 'do' what He does within His realm as unhindered higher ways (as per the principle reflected in Isaiah 55:8,9) and (b) the limitations to His being able to do the same when working through people and their developmental limitations (as per the development of a theocracy). I would propose that the recount in Matthew 19:3-12 reflects the issues and dynamics I have outlined above.
Character misrepresentation was an issue that God was having to 'wear' particularly during the Old Testament. It is only through Jesus we see the express image (Hebrews 1:2,3; John 17:4-6) of God's character being accurately reflected - though not always accurately perceived by us as humans. This is why I believe that Jesus is the perceptual filter through which we need to re-view our perception of the Old Testament account. A perception of God as the source of violence and destruction is notably absent from Jesus presentation of God's character during His earthly sojourn.
2) "It seems to me that you are interpreting this quotation to mean that "Every sin must meet its punishment" is false because Satan said it. But I think we can agree that most of what Satan says - including what he said to Christ in the three temptations - is true. However, he twists it for his own ends. In this case, he twisted the truth to declare that God couldn't save sinners."
I am not interpreting the quotation as false merely because Satan said it. Rather, I am interpreting the quotation as Satan being the originator of misportraying the notion of justice as being contingent upon retribution - something that goes much deeper than mere words. Yes, you are correct that the recorded statements of Satan in scripture regarding his quoting of things God had said are close to true with a little twist added or omitted (eg his exchange with Eve in Eden and his exchange with Jesus in the desert). However, there was a layer of activity going on below the words that insinuated God's nature and character in both instances. For example, although the words of Satan in Genesis 3:1 were not that dissimilar to what God had said in Genesis 2:16,17, it was the insinuated character 'trait' underneath these words that contained absolutely no truth whatsoever: God as restrictive and prohibitory in nature rather than sin/lawlessness being the actual thing that is inherently restrictive and prohibitory. Thus, in the Ellen White quote, I read that Satan has insinuated that truth and justice necessarily involves retribution in the way we understand retribution. I believe this is at odds with God's 'higher' reality regarding truth and justice which involves restoration for those who align themselves with the Kingdom of God/abundant life values and ultimately release to inherent outcomes for those who exercise their freedom of choice to try and live according to what seems right/good in their own eyes (Proverbs 14:12; 1 John 2:16,17).
3) The quotes you provided (and the bolded hilights) I now see differently to what I used to see. I see these descriptions through the lens of Jesus as the Second Adam who, because of what had transpired at the hand of the first Adam and its cascade of fall-out across the thousands of years of humanity's history prior to Jesus entry into humanity, had to embrace a high price in the course of his rescue mission. I have looked repeatedly into 2 Corinthians 5:21 and have found that the core concept in this verse parallels Isaiah 53:12; Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 2:17 and Hebrews 12:3). 2 Corinthians 5:21 states that He who personally had no experience of hamartia (missing of the mark) was made to be hamartia - one who had 'missed the mark'. The mark we were created to not miss was the abundant life that Adam and Eve enjoyed prior to Genesis 3. However, humanity entered the missing of the mark death-state in Genesis 3 - a state that Jesus had to enter in order to actually be the Second Adam (as per the other verses I listed above). Thus Jesus entered our death-state humanity in order to rescue us because it was only from within that state that humanity could be rescued. Like an injured player who is unable to continue is sidelined through incapacity while another uninjured player who is a valid member of the same team enters to continue the game to victory, Jesus entered humanity and as the Second Adam did what the first Adam had been unable to do - hold to self-renouncing love even to the point of death on a cross (Philippians 2:8). In so doing, holding harmoniously/'obediently' to self-renouncing love, he reunited humanity as a race back to 'the mark' of abundant life (Romans 5:19).
4) "But since they were living on probationary time, God had to close their probation..." The concept of 'close of probation' is also something I have relooked into. I find that there are strong parallels between the Flood and the Second Coming. In Genesis 6:5 we have a revelation/'judgment' of the heart-condition of all except Noah (and perhaps his immediate family members). What I believe is reflected here is a hardened heart state (drawing on a term applied to Pharaoh's heart) in terms of it had become people's set state of being/desiring. Thus, I believe that God did not act to release restraint of the forces of a nature gone awry until after people had already set their own heart and therefore closed their own probation. I believe the same thing will happen again at the timing of the Second Coming. This is why the interval is, to our way of thinking, so long. God is waiting until everyone who will come to repentance has come to repentance so that none will perish who do not choose to do so (2 Peter 3:9).
5) "The Genesis account is very clear in describing what God said He would do and what he actually did." This is where I believe understanding of Hebrew idiom is so important in Bible interpretation. I have known of the existence and role of Hebrew idiom of God being said to 'cause' that which he permits/allows/releases restraint from against - but I had not seen it validated from within Adventism until I read last Friday's lesson link to the document "Methods of Bible Study" by the GC. And I have never heard of it being referred to from within Adventism to this date despite this document being accepted back in 1986. Thus, I agree that the Genesis account and the Old Testament account is very clear if we interpret through the lens of the widely used Hebrew idiom and we keep the above-mentioned 'human developmental factor' limitations/implications in mind.
Once again, I do not outline my responses to attempt to change your mind. I only do so that others who are reading this may look at views and supporting evidence from both of our perspectives and be motivated study into things for themselves (Romans 14:5b). But we each need to lay out our viewpoints in order for people to be exposed to ideas they may not have had opportunity to yet consider (see Romans 10:11-13) - as has been the case in my growth journey.
What I share is not for the sake of an intellectual exercise or to major in mere semantics for the sake of it. On the basis of what I have re-learned from Scripture, I am able to offer disheartened Christians and non-Christian's alike the opportunity to reconsider God as someone who will allow them to choose either of the two options for life and will respect their choice. I am able to show that it is the choice itself that is the issue - that living out of harmony with the only way that abundant life is possible is the thing that will 'take them out' in the end: not God. This has resulted in people being willing to take a re-look at God in a different light and for those who had closed the door to a God who would be the source of their destruction if they made a choice against Him, they have opened a door to the God who respects their freedom to choose. This is why I share what I share on this forum.
Hello Phil, Revelation 14:7 states that God "made...and, the fountains of waters". This first angel's message reveals who "made" the flood doesn't it? Or do you see it meaning something else?
If God takes ownership of this act, how do you think to say it isn't so?
Also, how do you read Romans 3:5,6?
Hi Robert. Thanks for your clarification questions.
Yes, you are getting to know me somewhat: I do see Revelation 14:7 as meaning something else.
God/Jesus created things in their pre-fallen state - hence the repeated declarations in Genesis 1 that all created things were good/very good and in Genesis 2:8 that His resultant creation was nothing but beneficent for humans. All things created by God are in accordance with law/'lawfulness'. Lawfulness (and more specifically beneficent lawfulness) is the underpinning and all-pervasive state necessary for the order that inherently constitutes and comprises true (abundant) life.
Any state that is associated with destruction is of necessity a state of inherent lawlessness (against the lawfulness that supports/enables/maintains abundant life). Lawlessness is a state that is out of harmony with God (who embodies abundant life) and therefore does not originate with/from God. Paul refers to this state in Romans 8:2 as the law of sin and death (the principle of lawlessness producing death) - a restatement of the same principle expressed in Romans 6:23 with "wages" being a consequential resultant outcome.
So while God created streams/fountains in their non-violent lawful state unto abundant life (something Jesus explicitly referred to in John 4:14), when those streams fell under the domain of lawlessness (as they did in the flood as represented by the Hebrew word for bursting forth), they no longer represent or reflect God's creation because they now have a nature of violence unto destruction. Therefore, no I do not believe the first angel's message reveals who 'made' the flood. However, the second angel's message does when it describes an entity that has corrupted creation and produced a state of "fallen".
With regard to God taking ownership of the Flood, if one ignores the presence and role of Hebrew idiom, then the Old Testament appears to state that God is the causative source of The Flood. However, if one incorporates the presence and role of Hebrew idiom, God permitted the Flood to happen via release of the heretofore applied restraint against total lawlessness but was not the source-cause of the Flood. Lawlessness was. God does take responsibility for releasing restraint - but that is not the same as saying God caused the Flood. Failure to realise that lawlessness is the default state of this post-fall world leads people to mistakenly conclude that we somehow have a right to life even if we do what seems good in our eyes and walk out of harmony with what is necessary to support true life. God is then mistakenly blamed for allegedly taking that right away. But this is a presuppositional error and therefore God is not causatively responsible for releasing that which should be our default state anyway and which He has heretofore been restraining by grace.
How do I read Romans 3:5,6? As Paul says, he is speaking in purely human terms. The accusations Paul is commenting on are reflective of low level reasoning and Paul is meeting these accusations at the same level. Essentially, Paul is being somewhat facetious (as per Romans 3:8).
"God permitted the flood to happen", meaning what, the flood would have happened on it's own? It is interesting to consider what was accomplished by the flood, then try to explain how this would have come about without God's intentions, and through, what means? The results do not suggest a random event without an intelligent purpose and specific intention. Keep in mind that God had made a promise(Gen 3:15) and that without His intervention, it could not have been fulfilled.
Did God create nothing after sin? Is the present condition of earth's continents a random result of nature's power? What about the seasons, polar ice caps, tides, irrigation of lands without rivers, etc. It is my belief that God created the fountains of the deep that brought preservation to the Seed of the woman(Gen 3:15) which if left alone would have been destroyed by the wicked who were held by Satan's power. He used this to create a sustainable environment in a sinful world.
How do you explain the dialogue in Genesis 18? How does that fit into the idea of God bringing no judgments, or punishing/removing a people who would overrun the earth if not for God's intervention? Was this "eternal fire"(Jude 7) which those cities, "suffering the vengeance of", from a natural cause, and not from God? (When volcanoes erupt they do not remove all trace of what they destroy, yet there is no indication/evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed. Same with the flood.) Was Abraham misunderstanding the Lord, and left by the Lord to his wrong conclusions?
I understand the principle of cause and effect that comes naturally, as in smoking causing cancer, wrong eating/living causing many conditions that lead to death, etc. I understand that when man creates an imbalance in nature, that this affects our weather adversely. Sin is destructive. God does not send upon men what they bring upon themselves. Yet the flood, the destruction of the cities, the death of the entire Syrian forces surrounding Jerusalem, seem to be deliberate acts by God to preserve those who would otherwise have been destroyed by the wicked, including the Promised Seed.
I do find in the parting of the Red Sea God acting to save, and how the Egyptians were destroyed by their own sinfulness as God put the waters back in place after Israel was safe. Still, it was a deliberate action by God for His people(through which the whole world would be blessed), which consequentially destroyed the foolish Egyptians.
The flood was no different, and all who wished to could have escaped death by the means God provided. God needed to act to preserve the Promised Seed, and the wicked perished by their own choice. God acted to preserve, yet, it was God who acted, not some natural event independent of God, and it is my belief that the word of God would have to read differently than it does to believe otherwise.
I read Rom 3:5-8 just as they are written, and verse 8 does not change the apparent meaning of the question in verse 5 and the answer in verse 6. The parenthetical thought inserted does not affect the question/answer any differently than if it wasn't there. Both the question and answer are clear in their meaning to me. I don't see what you are implying in these verses at all.
Just sharing my honest opinions of the matter in question.
Wishing all a blessed Sabbath Rest.
Thanks Robert for your dialogue - honest opinions appreciated.
I will attempt to clarify further in response to your points. My perspective is the convergence of all of the following:
*) sin by nature is lawlessness. Lawlessness is the state under which things 'fall apart' because the 'natural' laws that hold things together are violated. Atomic, molecular, and so on bonds are 'dissolved/absent'. Consistent with what God outlined in Genesis 2:17, on the day and in the moment that Adam and Eve selected lawlessness over lawfulness, the way of the kingdom of darkness and death over the way of the kingdom of light and life, they should have (self)disintegrated - and so should have nature. The entry of sin/lawlessness into creation did not just impact Adam and Eve - it impacted every aspect of creation. The only reason this didn't happen was that God stepped in (in mercy and grace - and fairness because Adam and Eve had been deceived into sin) and restrained (2 Thessalonians 2:6,7; Revelation 7:1) the 'natural consequences/cascade of inherent outcomes' in order to provide a second chance/opportunity for redemption.
Thus, because lawlessness is embedded within this world since Genesis 3, God is having to constantly enact restraint of the forces of lawlessness to varying degrees in order to keep open the avenue of redemption.
*) In the name of redemption, there are times that God needs to release - to varying degrees - the restraint that He otherwise exercises. This is because in some instances restraint of lawlessness serves to advance provision of the avenue of redemption while at other times it risks survival of the avenue of redemption. The latter is what was happening just prior to the flood. Had God continued to enact restraint of the forces and impacts of lawlessness for one more generation, it would appear that the avenue for redemption would have been cut off by lawlessness.
Thus God undertakes the delicate balancing of restraining and releasing the results of lawlessness in order to (a) preserve the freedom of choice that is inherent to abundant life, (b) manifest/reveal the truth about life under the Kingdom of God vs the kingdom of darkness, and (c) keep open the avenue of redemption until 2 Peter 3:9 has been achieved to the extent that it is possible to be achieved (which has previously occurred back at the point at which the flood was 'unleashed').
I know that many of the points I have outlined above are points you also mentioned in your response. So I am not saying that God was not actively involved in the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah etc. He was - but not in terms of being the causative source of destruction. It is the released forces of lawlessness that are the causative source of the actual destruction. And these released/unleashed forces were the natural/inherent outcome of the choices of the people at the time of the flood who were described in Genesis 6:5 and at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in Ezekiel 16:49,50.
As Ezekiel 16:50 states "...I (God) removed them when I saw it..." Keeping in mind what I have mentioned above plus the role of Hebrew idiom, in order for the understanding of the Hebrew mind at the time to be the same understanding in our modern Western mind of today we would need to view this statement (in our perceptual mindset) as saying I (God) needed to release the restraint I had been providing up to that point because the restraint was unfortunately fostering the people's ability to continue in self-indulgence to a level where the risks were now outweighing the benefits of that restraint) and in releasing that restraint, the consequential unleashed lawlessness resulted in the removal of the people from life to their chosen state of death.
So I am not saying that God is passive and that nature is calling the shots - so to speak. What I am saying is that God is actively involved in orchestrating salvation/redemption but that He does not do so by causing destruction. It is lawlessness that is causing the destruction when it is unleashed. God is having to manage a very complex reality. God is not to blame for the negative/destructive aspects of that reality. And God is not the author of those destructive aspects of reality - sin/lawlessness is.
To state this further, you mentioned "Still, it was a deliberate action by God for His people(through which the whole world would be blessed), which consequentially destroyed the foolish Egyptians." Yes, it was a deliberate action of God to release the sea back to it's former state for those who did not want the path of salvation that God offers to all who are willing. But where I would differ is I would say that the Egyptians were consequentially destroyed by the consequence of their choice to embrace lawlessness and thereby preclude themselves from access to the path of salvation the God would have otherwise been able to offer. God was actively involved - but not the cause of the Egyptian's death. Sin/lawlessness was the intermediary factor that caused their death. I would propose that there is a huge difference between these 2 perspectives: God as the causative source of destruction vs God as needing to manage a context in which the 'forces' of both life and death are interplaying and interplayed.
In regards to Romans 3:5-8, perhaps another point I should have mentioned then is that the "wrath" that Paul refers to is the "wrath" that he has already unpacked in Romans 1:18, 24,26,28. Paul has already unpacked/'defined' God's wrath as what I have outlined above - releasing people to their rightful consequential outcomes under and of lawlessness that God had heretofore been restraining in the hope that people would utilise that restraint grace period to come to redemption. But when they will not and the point is reached where the costs of restraint outweigh the benefits, God releases the restraint and the consequences of lawless are unleashed and do their work.
I hope you are able to see what I am attempting to outline...if not, ask further clarification...
Your comment helps me to see how you are thinking Phil, and the reasoning that leads to your conclusions. Thank you for taking the time.
Presently I can find no agreement with or support for your reasoning as you have outlined it, so I don't see any way to dialog this issue any further, which leaves me exiting this discussion.
Keep searching.
Not sure that Revelation 14:7 is referring to the flood. I can see where the phrase, depending upon translation, may lend itself to seeing that as the meaning, but I am not convinced of this. Now, indeed the flood happened, and indeed I believe God acted in which it came about, but I am not sure that this passage in Revelation sustains that notion.
The act of creation is the focus that reflect back to what was said of the One sitting upon the throne in chapter 4 and the basis of that worship. The flood was a "de-creation.' An act reversing the word back to it pre-creative week condition (covered by the waters).
Anyway, just at thought.
If it is a reference to the flood(it really makes no sense otherwise), then what does it do for the message being delivered? Doesn't it make a strong case for "fear God...give glory to Him...and worship Him who" created the earth, and destroyed it as well?
Doesn't this give a greater importance to our need to respond? God sets up and takes down. Gives power to nations and removes them. God wants all to know what is at stake between us and the Great Sovereign over all creation, including this sinful world.
I believe it adds to the urgency of this last warning to the inhabitants of this world who's probation is about to close.
Well, I am not sure it "makes no sense otherwise." Let me explain.
The word and phrase is used five times in the book of Revelation. Three in the positive, two in the negative. None of the other four usages hint at the flood event, but at a voluminous source of water. All address something of God's being Creator and the creation itself. The two negatives are found once in the trumpet judgments and once in the plague judgments. The sources are turned to blood, poisoned as it were.
What it does for the message is the call to turn to the Creator of all things, which forms the basis of true worship of the true God (note chapter 4:11) in contrast to the forced worship of the false God in chapter 13. It is a call to accept an invitation of love by a God for which He has made the judgment in favor of the saints, and turn from the deceptions of the false god of selfishness and destruction, using force to get conformity in service to him.
The two other angels give rise to a call of danger ahead. Babylon is fallen and don't receive the mark. But the idea of flood as a motivator isn't found in the first angels' message, nor in the book of Revelation as a whole, in my opinion, after examining all the evidence contained in the book itself. I have recently seen where some are promoting this idea which is from my POV I find unfortunate as it is misleading I think.
Inge, I appreciate your comment on how Christ's death on the cross underscores the magnitude of God's love for us.
On the cross, Christ not only "bore our sins,"(1 Peter 2:24) He suffered the "lake of fire death" that rightly belongs to us (AKA the second death: Revelation 20:14; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 20:6). He suffered the wrath and vengeance of God in our stead (John 3:36; Ezekiel 25:17; Nahum 1:2-6).
By explaining the second death as a natural event or consequence rather than a punitive act of God's judgment, the price Christ paid for our salvation is greatly diminished. It becomes a mere consequence rather than an amazing sacrifice.
The cup that Jesus drank on the cross, after asking God three times to remove it (Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42), is the very same cup the lost will have to drink full strength (Revelation 14:10). This is our cup of God's wrath that Jesus drank as our substitute that we might spend eternity with Him.
Sieg, my question would be this; what exactly did God do? How did He exercise His wrath upon Jesus? What was the action God took against Jesus that made the "punishment of sin" so great?
Hi Robert. Since Christ suffered the exact same "death" that the lost will experience in the lake of fire, we must depend on the Bible for knowing what that experience is like and what God's role is in it.
I am not in the camp that believes a loving God will torture the lost before their eternal death as this is inconsistent with His everlasting mercy (Psalms 100:5 KJV). As such, the work of the lake of fire is not to torture God's own children but to purge His creation from sin and its dreadful effects.
The suffering that Christ experienced on the cross is the same suffering that will visit the lost when they are cast into the lake of fire. This may not be a physical pain caused by the fire but, instead, the realization that by choice, they have been separated from God for eternity.
The agony will thus not be a physical pain but the realization that God's gifts of full pardon and eternal bliss were rejected. As Max Lucado puts it, "How could a loving God send sinners to hell? He doesn’t. They volunteer."
Sieg, you have mentioned what the wicked will "feel" in the realization of their great loss, but you did not answer the question: "What exactly did God do?". You previously implied that the 2nd death was "a punitive act of God's judgment", so I asked what that was in regard to the death of Jesus. So I was hoping you could address that.
Robert. God will exact judgment on the lost. People will not jump into the lake of fire on their own. They will be "cast into it" (Revelation 20:14 KJV). Even this God will do with mercy as He is only giving the lost what they desire.
I did mention what God would do. He will at last "purge His creation from sin and its dreadful effects."
Sieg, Jesus was not cast into the lake of fire, so how does that explain the exact manner in which Jesus received the wrath of God on the cross in the place of sinners?
Some would suggest Jesus died from the natural result of sin, you said he suffered the wrath and vengeance of God. I'm just trying to understand just how you believe this "wrath and vengeance" was exhibited? Was it an observable action? No one present at that event is shown to have observed any such thing any more than every other crucifixion. The only difference was that Jesus died quickly, where most lingered, sometime for days before dying. So what made Jesus' death on a cross equal to the 2nd death as you understand it?
Robert maybe this will help. https://ssnet.org/blog/the-god-forsaken-god/
William, I was wanting to know if this is what was understood or not. I'm not so sure it was.
William. Thank you for re-posting that wonderful post. I have read it a number of times since it was first posted and it never grows weaker.
Robert: "No one present at that event is shown to have observed any such thing any more than every other crucifixion."
This was no ordinary crucifixion and even his murderers knew that (Mark 15:39; Matthew 27:51-54).
Appreciate the references to Mark 15 and Matt 27 Seig, but how do they demonstrate the wrath of God to those present then or us today? The only evidence we have from the cross is found in Matt 27:46, isn't it? Did those witnessing the scene understand the meaning of this forsaking? The evidence seems to indicate not. No indication from the disciples that they felt Jesus had suffered the wrath of God.
I've witnessed two sides(at least) to this discussion and wonder if there is a common view to be found between them.
While division exists, unity remains elusive. Does God act or not? Is His wrath shown in doing nothing or doing something? This was the focus of my questioning to you above. You said "God will purge". In what way?
I'm asking because some say "by fire", others say "there is no fire". Obviously, no fire at the cross. So how is Jesus' death like the 2nd death?
Psalms often quoted by Jesus was to awaken the mind of the pharisees to the life of the Messiah. The scriptures they claimed to have searched every day seeking eternal life.
Jesus very often repeated the phrase “Have you not read” to remind the people what I am saying is nothing new but the reference of the old testament which has been forgotten because of your traditions. Jesus talks about the story of Jonah referencing himself being buried but be delivered from the grave. By referencing He confirms the story of Jonah.
Jesus quotes the story of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah to show the absolute destruction of the entire land not only to affirm the story of the old testament but as a lesson to teach us the destruction to come upon this earth at the second coming of Christ.
Many want to accept Jesus but reject the old testament; however, Jesus used the Old Testament to establish himself as the Messiah.
Read the book Christ in the Psalms: His Passion for Humanity by Gerald L. Finneman
It is an amazing book describing the life of Jesus described in Psalms.
I really like the gospel of Matthew because it shows that Jesus was the Messiah the Old Testament was talking about. It makes sense since it was written primarily for the Jews. None of the other gospel writers spent that much energy to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
Jesus knew all the Scriptures and never denied its veracity, on the contrary, He cited them all the time and used them with contemporary meanings. That's an example for us! He knew the Scriptures by heart...
When the Holy Ghost is come he will teach you all things Jn 14:26
Jesus of the bible.
Origin of the bible.
History of the bible.
Jesus of the bible.
While the God-Head existed from the beginning, the name Jesus was first mentioned to Joseph by an Angel in a dream. Matthew 1:20-21. According to the text, Jesus means a "Savior from Sin" What is someone name and what shall that person be call or do might be different. For example, Jehovah said his very name is Holy. Some knew him as Jehovah Nissi, and some as Jehovah Jireh, while others Jehovah Shalom.
Exodus 4:14-15 When Moses encountered the Lord, Moses asked him for his name so he can tell the people who sent him to them. The Lord said tell them "I AM that I AM" hath sent you. Jesus speaking to the Jews Jn 8:58 said before Abraham existed, I AM.
Here we see, the Jesus of the bible was always there, he always existed but his name was called by another name according to the circumstance.
Origin of the Bible
We went over this several times before. Given orally, then written by Holy men as they were moved by the spirit of God.
History of the Bible
In Jesus time there was no bible. The book we now call the Bible is a combination of the OT and NT. In Jesus time what is now called the OT was handwritten in Hebrew or Greek on scrolls made from goatskins or sheepskins sewn together to make rolls from ten to thirty feet long. The OT was originally written in Hebrew, by the time Christ came it was translated into Greek, a translation known as the Septuagint. Jesus read from the scrolls, what is now our OT. See Luke 4:16-21.
I personally came to realized we, the Christians cannot win humans to Christ with our theological intellect. Paul on Mars Hill had that encounter with very intellectual men. Certain philosophers of the Epicureans and the Stoics. These men had their own beliefs. It was said the Greeks invented Philosophy. Acts 17:16-31. It was not until Paul presented THE UNKNOWN GOD, whom they ignorantly worship then he was able to have the victory over Satan. We have to present this unknown God to men, tell them what he has done for us, our family and friends. Tell them about his he has done.
That last question of the day is a really good one, or at least I should say it really got me thinking. How has Satan been so successful in leading humans astray? Jesus knew scripture thoroughly because he spent time in it. He had daily communication with his father. Not only did he do those two things, along with that, he was obedient to them. He lived by his convictions. When he was 12 years old, he knew the scripture better than the Jewish leaders, and it made them angry, because it convicted them of something they didn’t want to hear. If we are not obedient to what the Holy Spirit guides us to, then we too will be in danger of dismissing scripture altogether.
To comment and answer the Bible study writer's question:
Yes, there is every indication that 'Jesus was referring to this mighty act of God's judgment as a historical event'!!
Can anyone still doubt that the destruction of the earth through water and other events really happened?
Let's look into the scripture!
Obviously, the doubters and scoffers have more issues regarding 'faith' than just 'not believing' the historical accounts of the Flood event etc.
"Why must we never fall into that trap and deny their (historical events, people) existence?"
Well, for one, the believers would actively undermine their Faith - opening themselves up (providing a foothold for the usurper/adversary of God) for doubt to creep in and establish itself to unsettle the balance of Faith's 'single'-mindedness.
Why would someone do this?
Could it be that this person holds back from fully surrendering its 'own understanding' to God's wisdom?
Could it be that those that are still 'on the fence' are not yet willing to trust the Source of the revealed truth?
When studying, take the time to delight your spirit and read the whole chapter, not just picking out a few short verses. This will better ground your understanding and the Holy Spirit will bring it back for you to remember when called upon.
We do well remembering always God's word from Matthew 24:35.
And what about Job, Chapter 28? Reading it will wonderfully resonate with a glad and great full heart! What a delight to know that the believer's wisdom is a gift from God - verse 28!!
And how about 2nd Timothy Ch.3? Again, read and let the Spirit do its trans-formative work.
Verse 7 points out that those still using their own wisdom are 'Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth'.
Those that know of the scripture but do not really 'know or understand' the wisdom of the words, have yet to embraced the Testament with all their spirit - that is with their heart and soul -.
By not doing so, they will be lead/enticed into endlessly looking for the 'speck in God's eye' to 'prove cause', to justify their doubt, and seek to dispute His word instead of receiving His gift of wisdom.
Verse 5 says: 'Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: FROM SUCH TURN AWAY!'
I really don't understand today's lesson, please assist me, so the whole message of today is that Christ was pointing out that He was in existence even in times past and all scriptures were His words/him? Please try to marry the topic and the Matthew 19:4-5 for me.
Thanks you blessed me
As I prepare to teach this week I’ve struggled with a simple question: “How did Jesus know the Scriptures so well?”
DOA specifically states his mother was his first human teacher and he did not attend the rabbinical school at the local synagogue which would have likely been the only source of these writings of the TaNaK. Luke 2:48 and John 7:15 speak of the amazement of the rabbis and Jews at his understanding.
I understand people then memorized portions of the TaNaK so it was possible he memorized the Torah. Most synagogues didn’t have the “Prophets” or the “Writings” so it was less likely he had access to these.
He quoted from the OT 78 times and the Pentateuch 26. I could find he quoted from 14 OT books.
Since we have been establishing “inspiration” I ask how do you think he learned so much.
It needs to be remembered that the Synagogue was more than just a church/school but the local library as well. You did not have to attend a rabbinical school to gain access to the "library". And it is also worth remembering that Zacharias, Jesus uncle was a priest and may well have had access to scripture in other Synagogues.
One thing we need to keep in mind too is that Jesus family spent some time in Egypt. Clearly, they would have joined the Jewish community there and during that time may well have had access to the Septuagint. The Jewish community in Alexandria was remarkably well educated.
The Jews in Jesus time were not all illiterate. The main sects, the Saducees and the Pharisees were driven by a high level of scholarship.
I think that sometimes we over-emphasize the notion that Jesus family were ignorant peasants. I rather suspect that given family connections they were probably as well educated as other literate Jews of that time.
Thanks for the additional insights.
Dear Phil -
I agree with you about the God you described loving His creation back into His Kingdom.
I can understand your agony about the limitation of 'words' when describing/expounding the Mystery of God.
Words from our mouth are so inadequate to express the Wisdom of the Creator and to explain His 'character' in order to answer the 'why' questions.
Our mind's filter is in the process of being cleaned of the impurities that clog our understanding.
Luke 15:10 - Likewise, I say unto you there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that REPENTETH.
I praise God for giving you insight and understanding.
Thank you again for sharing!
Jesus' existence was defined by Scripture. After all, He is the Word of God, made flesh.
I have been both stimulated and challenged by the foregoing debate in this thread of messages. I resonate with the sentiments expressed by Brigitte "words from our mouths are so inadequate to express the wisdom of the Creator and to explain His character in order to answer the 'why' questions." Perhaps as a reminder and as a caveat l would like to share the following quote from 'Selected Messages' book one, page 21. 'The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible.' I am reminded according to
1 Corinthians 13:12 Now all we can see of God is like a cloudy picture in a mirror. Later we will see him face to face. We don't know everything, but then we will, just as God completely understands us. (Contemporary English version)